In this paper, we report on a two-year project that sought to explore the opportunities for and experiences of engaging with sustainability education, citizenship education, and character education among Icelandic youth.

The project explores interdisciplinary issues that arise when addressing sustainability and questions of individual and societal well-being. The approach is grounded by the idea, voiced by UNESCO, that addressing issues of sustainability and well-being requires that considerations, principles and methods from both sciences and humanities be brought together.

An adequate response to sustainability challenges cannot be limited to single perspectives, disciplines or ways of knowing. (UNESCO, 2014, p. 177)

In 2015, the UN launched the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 17 universal development challenges for humanity. Education is considered a key instrument to achieve the SDGs, as well as goal four being ‘Quality Education’, which includes the following target:

By 2030 ensure all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including among others through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development. (UNESCO, 2017, p. 8)

UNESCO (2017) emphasises developing learners’ empowerment to act and to participate in socio-political processes; and action-oriented, transformative, problem-oriented, collaborative and inter/transdisciplinary pedagogies. Here sustainability-, citizenship- and values- or character education are brought together.

The project was premised on the idea that the fields of sustainability education, citizenship education and character education must work together, not only to meet contemporary social and environmental challenges but also to further the core elements of each field, both as areas of research and practice. Sustainability-, civic-, and character education all examine questions of personal and societal well-being, and several scholars have argued these fields support each other (Althof & Berkowitz, 2006; Peterson, 2020; Tilbury, 1995), and there are certainly traditions within education where citizenship, character, and sustainability go hand in hand (Kristjánsson, 2013; Öhman, 2016).

However, despite the considerable overlap between the three educational fields, divides and tensions exist. In current education, these three areas are often seen as not only distinct, but as at odds with each other, even in conflict (Jerome & Kisby, 2020; Jordan, 2022; Vare & Scott, 2007; Wals, 2011).  We have found, in our ongoing research, that educators tend to think of character education as primarily individual focused, rather than also society/social participation focused (Wals, 2011; Jordan, 2022). We have also seen that educators concerned with citizneship education, engagement, democracy and pluralism tend to avoid character education (Aðalbjarnardóttir, 2010), commonly on the grounds that they are too paternalistic or hostile to the values of a pluralistic, democratic society (Halstead & Taylor, 2000; Kristjánsson, 2013).

The challenge here is to educate individuals and, at the same time, influence societies and global systems so that people can live a flourishing life that is compatible with cultural diversity and the environmental fragility of the earth. As such the project aimed to explore the experiences of and opportunities for integration of practice in the fields of sustainability-, citizenship-, and character education in the context of Icelandic youth, though with potential implications internationally. 

The project was comprised of three sub-projects – one each at the conceptual/theoretical, individual/student, and institutional/school level. This paper will report on the second (individual/student), which explored the viewpoints of Icelandic students aged 12–18, guided by the research question: How do young people experience their opportunities for engaging with sustainability-, citizenship- and character education within educational and recreational settings?

We gathered mixed method data on young people’s views regarding their experiences within various educational and recreational settings within Iceland: First, we sent a quantitative questionnaire to 14 and 18-year-olds (n = 839) in middle- and high-school asking about their attitudes towards, and actions related to, social responsibility, good citizenship and civic engagement, human rights, justice, sustainability and sustainable lifestyles. They were also asked about Student democratic participation and influence at school, openness of discussion, particularly on social and environmental issues, work with values/virtues and human rights at school and community/volunteer work. Second, six focus group interviews (3–5 students each), two at the high-school level (aged 16-18) and four at lower-school level (aged 13-14) (n = 24), gathered qualitative data on youth views and participation experiences on the same issues as the student questionnaire. Third, individual, in-depth interviews (Braun, Clark, & Grey, 2017) were taken with members of the Icelandic youth council (n = 5), to purposely gather data from civically engaged youth, again exploring their views on the same issues as the student questionnaire and focus group interviews. Interviewees were recruited via school admin/teachers, with the lower-school students offered free cinema tickets for their participation. Interviews and focus groups were conducted online via Teams between March and June 2021, the questionnaire ran during 2021. Open/Inductive coding and theme generaton (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was used to analyse the interviews and focus group data. There were two independent coders, one using Icelandic transcripts, one using translated/English transcripts. The codes and themes generated were then categorized using Lundy’s model of child participation, based on article 12 of the United Nations CRC (Lundy, 2007), which addresses the right to express a view, and the right to have those view given due weight. The four elements of the participation model are; space (provide a safe and inclusive space for children to express their views), voice (provide appropriate information and facilitate the expression of children's views), audience and influence (ensure that children's views are communicated to someone with responsibility to listen, and that their views are taken seriously, and acted on where appropriate).

Analysis is on-going, but some initial findings of the interview and focus group data, framed by the Lundy model of child participation (Lundy, 2007), reveal variable student participation, a lack of inclusive opportunities for students to express their views, and a need for teachers and schools to better facilitate students’ expression of their views (re. space and voice). Student democratic participation was often viewed as ‘tokenism’ (Lundy, 2018), with students having little influence on topics that mattered most to them (re. influence and audience). The data suggests more emphasis needs to be placed on building students’ knowledge and understanding on issues such as citizenship, values, virtues and human rights. Additionally, sustainability, human rights, and ethical issues were almost exclusively addressed within the ‘chatty subjects’ e.g. social studies, or specific courses such as environment studies. Therefore, students taking business or natural science subject tracks had little engagement with these topics. Initial findings from the student questionnaire show a positive correlation (p = <0.001) between a sense of social justice and levels of both civic engagement and pro-environmental behaviour, including climate activism. Thereby indicating a fruitful opportunity for integration between sustainability-, citizenship-, and character education. Climate change was considered the most important issue to tackle for the world’s future. We will further analyse the findings, allowing us to understand better the views, concerns, and opportunities of Icelandic young people, and both the opportunities and barriers created by educational and recreational institutional structures that influence young people’s views.

Aðalbjarnardóttir, S. (2010). Passion and purpose: Teacher professional development and student social and civic growth. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, & N. Clement, (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing (pp. 737-764). Springer. Althof, W., & Berkowitz, M. (2006). Moral education and character education: Their relationship and roles in citizenship education. Journal of Moral Education, 35(4), 495–518. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03057240601012204 Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Gray, D. (eds.). (2017). Collecting Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide to Textual, Media and Virtual Techniques. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781107295094 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Halstead, J. M., & Taylor, M. J. (2000). Learning and teaching about values: A review of recent research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 169–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/713657146 Jerome, L., & Kisby, B. (2020). Lessons in character education: Incorporating neoliberal learning in classroom resources. Critical Studies in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1733037 Jordan, K. (2022). The feasibility of integrating insights from character education and sustainability education - A Delphi study. British Journal of Educational Studies, 70(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2021.1897519 Kristjánsson, K. (2013). Ten myths about character, virtue and virtue education – Plus three well founded misgivings. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2013.778386 Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,British Educational Research Journal, 33(6),927–942 Lundy, L. (2018). In defence of tokenism? Implementing children’s right to participate in collective decision-making. Childhood, 25(3), 340-354. Öhman, J. (2016). New ethical challenges within environmental and sustainability education. Environmental Education Research, 22(6), 765–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1165800 Peterson, A. (2020). Character education, the individual and the political. Journal of Moral Education, 49(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2019.1653270 Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education Research, 1(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462950010206 Vare, P., & Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a change: Exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340820700100209 UNESCO. (2014). Shaping the future we want: UN decade of education for sustainable development (2005-2014): Final report. UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. Wals, A. E. (2011). Learning our way to sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 5(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340821100500208