In 2001, Sterling advocated for a shift from traditional, transmissive teaching to transformative learning that fosters critical, creative, and reflective thinking - essential for addressing global sustainability challenges (Sterling, 2001). He argued that outdated educational paradigms and fragmented thinking hinder the ability to tackle interconnected issues, calling instead for a holistic approach to education. Similarly, UNESCO’s ESD for 2030 refers to a study showing that education for sustainable development is often limited to teaching of scientific knowledge on environment, failing to fully realize its transformative potential (UNESCO, 2020).

Holistic, interdisciplinary, and pluralistic approaches have been widely regarded, by numerous educational researchers, as an ideal for environmental and sustainability education (ESE)(e.g., Drake & Reid, 2020; Öhman, 2008). With this in mind, our study aims to explore the barriers schools face in implementing a holistic, interdisciplinary, and pluralistic approach to ESE to foster transformative learning among students.

In the ESE literature, holistic approaches emphasize the interconnectedness of ecological, economic and social dimensions (Giddings et al., 2002), while also incorporating local, regional and global perspectives, as well as historical and future contexts (Eilam & Trop, 2010). Similarly, interdisciplinary approach to teaching integrates knowledge and methodologies from various disciplines to address sustainability issues, requiring collaboration across subjects (Drake & Reid, 2020). A pluralistic education complements these strategies by engaging students in social discussions and fostering critical thinking through a democratic approach that explores diverse perspectives (Öhman, 2008).

Several empirical studies have investigated holistic, interdisciplinary, and pluralistic approaches to ESE, as well as the challenges associated with their implementation (e.g., Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2015; Borg et al., 2012; Sund, 2022; Van Poeck et al., 2024). For example, Boeve-de Pauw et al. (2015) quantitatively analyzed the prevalence of holism and pluralism in classrooms and their effects on students’ sustainability-related knowledge, attitude, and behaviors. Their findings indicate that neither holism nor pluralism was commonly practiced. However, when these approaches were integrated into teaching, students demonstrated a better understanding of the complexity of sustainable development and displayed more frequent sustainability behaviors. The study also noted challenges in applying holistic and pluralistic approaches and called for further research into these difficulties. Responding to this need, our study explores the obstacles science teachers face in integrating a holistic, interdisciplinary, and pluralistic approach to ESE and examines how these barriers influence teaching practices. 

A previous study by Borg et al. (2012), explored subject teachers’ teaching traditions and the barriers they encountered in implementing ESE in upper secondary schools. Based on a questionnaire completed by 3229 upper secondary teachers, the study revealed that science teachers were predominantly associated with fact-based teaching traditions and reported a lack of time to make necessary changes as a major obstacle to incorporating ESE into their courses. In Sweden, the 2011 curriculum reform increased the focus on science core content, resulting in a shift towards fact-based teaching traditions and reducing opportunities for pluralistic and democratic approaches to ESD (Sund, 2022). Similarly, a case study by Van Poeck et al. (2024) identified six different types of problematic situations observed during ESE implementation. These included difficulties in planning lessons starting from a sustainability challenge and difficulties in fostering effective teacher collaboration – elements particularly relevant to this present study.

To address the aim of this study and contribute to existing knowledge about barriers to implementing ESE, we pose the following research question: What prevents science teachers from implementing a holistic, interdisciplinary, and pluralistic approach to ESE, and what implications might these barriers have?

In Norway, the education system follows a subject-based structure in which the subject natural science covers a range of disciplines, including chemistry, physics, biology, geology, and technology. This study involves 10 science teachers from five different lower secondary schools in a large region of Norway, purposefully selected as information-rich cases due to their schools’ participation in a program supporting ESE implementation (Patton, 2002). Semi-structured interviews, lasting 45-60 minutes, were conducted, audio-recorded, and fully transcribed. The analytical approach follows reflexive thematic analysis (TA) (Braun & Clarke, 2022, p. 8), which emphasizes the theoretical perspectives and researcher subjectivity in shaping the analysis. TA’s flexibility supports an inductive approach, enabling a rich analysis that generates descriptive and interpretative insights by capturing both explicit and implicit meanings from the participants. Based on this, TA was considered appropriate for identifying patterned meanings and developing themes across our dataset. In the subsequent phases of analysis, NVivo 14 was employed to distil the data into codes and to generate initial themes. After identifying potential themes and allowing for a brief pause in the analysis process, we revisited the coding phase. This decision was made to ensure that all relevant data were systematically and thoroughly captured. Another round of coding resulted in revisions of the initial themes. After reviewing the themes against the coded extracts and the full dataset, four final themes were developed and labelled: 1) weak consistency in ESE practice, 2) insufficiently transformative ESE, 3) difficulties with coworker collaboration, and 4) adverse structural or framework factors. The themes were not identified from the experiences of all participants, but rather from a sufficient number to be considered relevant.

The four themes reflect the science teachers’ challenges with implementing holistic, interdisciplinary, and pluralistic approaches to ESE. Key findings show that most of the science teachers associate ESE with project-based work, often characterized by a lack of focus on complex, multifaceted problem. According to Dobson and Tomkinson (2012), a key element of ESE projects is interdisciplinary, problem-based learning that addresses conflicts of interest, cross-disciplinary boundaries, and emphasize skills and problem-solving, rather than focusing solely on theoretical content. However, many of the science teachers in this study approach natural science from a fact-based perspective. Gayford (2002) noted that pluralistic thinking is frequently foreign to many science teachers, which is reinforced by more recent studies showing that pluralistic approaches are rarely used in science classrooms (e.g., Borg et al., 2012; Sund, 2022). Furthermore, several of the science teachers state that natural science is commonly seen as the primary subject responsible for ESE. According to Stables and Scott (2002), only highly motivated teachers are likely to engage with ideas from outside their own discipline. As a result, teachers from disciplines not directly linked to sustainability may be less motivated to participate in such projects. Additionally, some teachers expressed dissatisfaction with the national curriculum, noting a disconnect between its content and the intended practical implementation. While the curriculum promotes interdisciplinary work, the content remains heavily focused on subject-specific competence goals. Our findings align with Borg et al. (2012), who argue that teachers want to engage in interdisciplinary work but lack the time due to the demands of covering the curriculum for their own disciplines. These findings highlight the need for clearer guidance on the intentions behind holistic, interdisciplinary, and pluralistic approaches to ESE. Teacher education and professional development programs should focus on equipping teachers with strategies to effectively implement these approaches in practice.

Boeve-de Pauw, J., Gericke, N., Olsson, D., & Berglund, T. (2015). The Effectiveness of Education for Sustainable Development. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 7(11), 15693-15717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71115693 Borg, C., Gericke, N., Höglund, H. O., & Bergman, E. (2012). The barriers encountered by teachers implementing education for sustainable development: discipline bound differences and teaching traditions. Research in science & technological education, 30(2), 185-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2012.699891 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications. Dobson, H. E., & Tomkinson, C. B. (2012). Creating sustainable development change agents through problem-based learning: Designing appropriate student PBL projects. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2). Drake, S. M., & Reid, J. L. (2020). 21st Century Competencies in Light of the History of Integrated Curriculum. Frontiers Education, 5(122). Eilam, E., & Trop, T. (2010). ESD Pedagogy: A Guide for the Perplexed. Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial environmental issues: a case study for the professional development of science teachers. International journal of science education, 24(11), 1191-1200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134866 Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O'Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10(4), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.199 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Stables, A., & Scott, W. (2002). The Quest for Holism in Education for Sustainable Development. Environmental education research, 8(1). Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable Education: Re-visioning Learning and Change. Green Books. Sund, P. (2022). Curriculum Change and Selective Teaching Traditions: Consequences for Democracy and the Role of Education. In G. Karaarslan-Semiz (Ed.), Education for Sustainable Development in Primary and Secondary Schools. Springer. UNESCO. (2020). Education for Sustainable Development: A roadmap. In: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Van Poeck, K., Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Östman, L. (2024). When teaching habits meet educational innovation: problematic situations in the implementation of sustainability education through 'open schooling'. Environmental education research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2405889 Öhman, J. (2008). Environmental ethics and democratic responsibility: A pluralistic approach to ESD. In J. Öhman (Ed.), Values and Democracy in Education for Sustainable Development: Contributions from Swedish Research (pp. 17-32). Liber.