Sustainable education requires cognitive processes in which learners, as constructors of their learning reality, relate implicit ideas of facts to the knowledge of others. Kattmann (2005, p. 60) describes this process as "conceptual reconstruction", which causes changes to previous cognitive concepts through a "reflexive abstraction" (Weinberger, 2017, p.10). In this context, Schneidewind (2018) speaks of the development of a "transformative literacy", to be understood as the development of skills in order to capture the dimensions and context of change dynamics and to implement them in contributions to sustainable development.
The didactic concept of green pedagogy makes it possible to promote the transformation of individual ideas and the further development of the scope of action of learners to be able to deal with uncertainties or unfamiliar, ambivalent situations. It focuses on the connection between essential parameters when designing learning environments in the context of sustainable education (Forstner-Ebhart & Linder, 2020).
Different socialization backgrounds and living environments of the learners lead to a high degree of diversity among the individuals in a school class or learning group. Different interests, skills and perspectives of the learners form the framework for cooperation and collaboration in flexible teaching. Paseka et al. (2018) formulate contingency as a special pedagogical challenge for teachers. If diversity of perspectives, dissent and deviations are used in a way that is effective for learning, the teacher rewards diversity management. Learners are then enabled to learn. Teachers thus show prudence and empathy when adapting a learning environment to the respective situation and group dynamics.

With this theoretical background, teachers are faced with the challenge of dealing with transformations, uncertainties and unmanageable ambiguities in the teaching and learning processes. It requires the development of resilient controllability for challenging and unforeseeable circumstances and the ability to adapt flexibly in order not to counteract unexpected situations with devaluation or rejection. Dealing with ambiguity therefore requires self-reflection as a core skill, which makes it possible to become aware of unpredictable and ambiguous experiences and develop them further.
The construct of ambiguity tolerance was introduced by Frenkel-Brunswik (1949) and derived from Rosenzweig's (1938) construct of frustration tolerance. People with high levels of such tolerance are averse to ambiguous or unexpected stimuli, feel threatened by them and uncomfortable with them. Today, the construct of ambiguity is based on multidimensionality (Radant & Dalbert, 2006). It is interesting to note that when the concept was further developed, people with ambiguity tolerance were defined as those who showed an explicit need for and aspiration towards ambiguity (Reis, 1996, p. 7). Reis developed a scale to measure this construct: The final form then consisted of fiveareas, the evaluation and interpretation of which are described in the manual for the inventory for measuring ambiguity tolerance (IMA): problems that appear unsolvable (PR), social conflict acceptance (SK), parental image (EB), role stereotypes (RS) and openness to new experiences (OE) (Reis, 1996, p. 35f).
Aspects related to ambiguity, such as emotional stability, enjoyment of life, optimism, energy, curiosity, openness to new things and the ability to change perspectives are also included in the resilience concept (Leppert et al., 2008). Resilience is of particular importance as a key competence for the healthy coping with challenging uncertainties, strong changes in short periods of time and unmanageable ambiguities. Therefore, these aspects must be taken up in corresponding concepts of teacher training. The research question therefore is the following: to what extent do student teachers allow ambiguity, accept openness, use divergent thinking, develop creative solutions and are willing to include these aspects in their lesson plans?

The theoretical considerations presented initiated a research project at three teacher-training colleges in Austria (period 2020-2024).The aim of the project is the development of a valid measuring instrument for surveying the personality construct of ambiguity tolerance in student teachers. This is seen as a basic dispositional dimension for teachers of sustainability education. Ambiguity tolerance is understood as a tendency to perceive contradictions, inconsistencies or ambiguous information in all its complexity and to evaluate it positively (e.g. Reis, 1996; Müller-Christ & Weßling, 2007; Radant & Dalbert, 2006). The areas of ambiguity are extracted quantitatively from existing concepts and also collected in more detail in a qualitative process based on a cross-case analysis according to Creswell (2007). Various multidimensional scales can be used to develop an empirical measuring instrument for assessing the degree of ambiguity tolerance. Reis (1996): Inventory for measuring tolerance to ambiguity (IMA), Radant & Dalbert (2006), Schlink & Walther (2007): German short scale for assessing the need for cognitive closure (NCC). A text vignette is used as a qualitative element to capture facets of the respondents' tolerance for ambiguity. This describes a problem situation from everyday school life that is intended to provoke insecurity and stress. When constructing the text, we ensured that the situation is compact, realistic, and concrete, but not too specific, that it can be grasped quickly even by first-year students, that several behavioral variants are permitted, and that the answers formulated can be compared (Paseka & Hinzke, 2014, p. 52). The pretest took place in March 2021 with students from the participating universities of teacher education and the University of Vienna (N = 149). The questionnaire was then factor-analytically evaluated using SPSS and comprised 80 items for the pretest, the statements of which were assessed in six-level answer categories (from “does not apply at all” to “applies very much”). The statement that applies to the test person is to be ticked for each item. Five areas of ambiguity (subscales for certain areas of life) are differentiated. The questionnaire is evaluated in several steps. After repeated analysis, some items were deleted; the final measurement instrument consists of sociodemographic data and five consistent scales for a total of 59 items, with reliabilities being satisfactory. The computer-assisted evaluation of the qualitative data (vignette) using MAXQDA was carried out inductively in the sense of a paraphrasing and summarizing qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz, 2016).

Some results of the pretest are presented below. This was mainly used for scale formation, but there were also some interesting results here as well. The four dimensions of ambiguity can be established very satisfactorily with reference to factor analysis. The validity of the measuring instrument for the construct ambiguity tolerance is given and the scales can be used accordingly in the main test. After the first review of the answers to the vignette, obvious peculiarities, passages that appeared essential and ideas for evaluation were recorded and transformed. After generalization and bundling, four categories were formed across all cases. By evaluating this casevignette, rough distinctions can be made regarding ambiguity. However, the four dimensions of ambiguity, which emerged from the factor analysis of the quantitative survey, cannot be explicitly and sufficiently contrasted. Therefore, for the main test, four specified case vignettes were constructed covering the categories of openness, social security, problem awareness and dealing with routine. These vignettes should be checked deductively on a case-by-case basis. The open questions challenge the respondents to write down hypothetical subsequent actions. Thus, each dimension can be recorded in its form (Paseka & Hinzke, 2014, p. 60). Results will be presented at the conference. The aim of this project is to develop a valid, reliable, and objective measuring instrument for the assessment of the personal characteristic of ambiguity tolerance, which can be used in the training of student teachers as a basis for self-reflection. The results of the main survey (2021/22) are intended to provide a basis for critical awareness-raising and further methodological and didactic considerations beyond green pedagogy. Dealing with ambiguity is an opportunity for teacher education to stimulate personal development and professionalization. Learners can be encouraged to question attitudes and behaviour by self-reflectively examining concepts from divergent perspectives and provoking friction surfaces.

Arnold, R., Schüßler, I. (2003) (Hrsg.). Ermöglichungsdidaktik. Erwachsenenpädagogische Grundlagen und Erfahrungen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider. Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five traditions (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Forstner-Ebhart, A., Linder, W. (2020). Changing the mindset – Anforderungen an Lernsettings für berufsbildende Schulen. (S. 237 – 247). In C. Sippl, E. Rauscher & M. Scheuch (Hrsg.), Das Anthropozän lernen und lehren. Innsbruck: Studienverlag. Forstner-Ebhart, A., Katschnig, T., Poterpin, E. & Schroll, C. (2022). Zur Förderung von Ambiguitätstoleranz in der Nachhaltigkeitsbildung. R&E-Source, Sonderausgabe 22. Verfügbar unter https://doi.org/10.53349/resource.2022.iS22.a1039. [9.8.2023]. Forstner-Ebhart, A., Katschnig, T., Poterpin, E. & Schroll, C. (2024). Zum unerfüllbaren Wunsch nach Eindeutigkeit - Ambiguitätstoleranz in der Lehrer*innenbildung. Zeitschrift Erziehung & Unterricht 1-2/2024 ,18-26. Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of Ambiguity as an Emotional and Perceptual Personality Variable: Interrelationships Between Perception and Personality: a Symposium, Pt. 1. Inst. of Child Welfare. Kuckartz, U. (2016). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (3., überarbeitete Auflage). Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa. Leppert K., Koch B., Brähler E., Strauß B. (2008). Die Resilienzskala (RS) – Überprüfung der Langform RS-25 und einer Kurzform RS-13. In Klinische Diagnostik und Evaluation 2, 226–243. Müller-Christ, G. & Weßling, G. (2007). Widerspruchsbewältigung, Ambivalenz- und Ambiguitätstoleranz. Eine modellhafte Verknüpfung. In: G. Müller-Christ, L. Arndt & Ehnert, I. (Hrsg.), Nachhaltigkeit und Widersprüche. Eine Managementperspektive (S. 179–198). Hamburg: Lit-Verlag. Paseka, A., Hinzke, J-H. (2014). Fallvignetten, Dilemmainterviews und dokumentarische Methode: Chancen und Grenzen für die Erfassung von Lehrerprofessionalität. In Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand 7(1), 46–63. Paseka, A., Keller-Schneider, M., Combe, A. (2018). Ungewissheit als Herausforderung für pädagogisches Handeln. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Radant, M., Dalbert, C. (2006). Dimensionen der Komplexitätstoleranz: Ergebnisse einer Synopse von Persönlichkeitskonstrukten. Vortrag gehalten auf dem 45. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Nürnberg. Reis, J. (1996). Inventar zur Messung der Ambiguitätstoleranz (IMA). Manual. Heidelberg: Asanger. Rosenzweig, S. (1938). Frustration as an experimental problem. VI. General outline of frustration. Character & Personality; A Quarterly for Psychodiagnostic & Allied Studies. , 7, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1938.tb02285.x. Schlink, S., Walther, E. (2007). Kurz und gut: Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit. In Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie (38)3, 153–161. Schneidewind, U, (2018). Die große Transformation. Eine Einführung in die Kunst gesellschaftlichen Wandels. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Schratz, M., Schrittesser, I. (2012). Kompetenzorientierung in der Lehrerbildung. In F. Sauerland, F. Uhl (Hrsg.), Selbständige Schule: Hintergrundwissen und Empfehlungen für die eigenverantwortliche Schule und Lehrerbildung (S. 107–122). Köln: Wolters Kluwer.