Developing Sustainability Competences Through Pedagogical Approaches: Experiences from International Case Studies (Strategies for Sustainability) 3030649644, 9783030649647

Table of contents :
Foreword
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Contents
Contributors
Introduction
References
Literature Review and Methods
Introduction
Sustainability Assessment
Sustainability Competences
Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainability
A Framework Connecting Sustainability Pedagogical Approaches to Competences
Methods Used in Each of the Case Studies
Limitations of the Methods
References
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the University of Gävle
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Reference
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the University of Helsinki
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the University of Parma
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the Universidade da Coruña
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the Universidad de las Américas Puebla
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the European University of Lefke
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the University of Nyíregyháza
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at Griffith University
Introduction
Origins and Structure
Sustainability Commitments
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at Universidade Aberta
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the Central University of Technology (Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment, and Information Technology)
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the Warsaw University of Technology (Faculty of Production Engineering)
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the University of Belgrade-Faculty of Agriculture
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches at the Universidad de Zaragoza (Faculty of Economics and Business)
Introduction
Results
Detailed STAUNCH® Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Reference
Index

Citation preview

Strategies for Sustainability

Rodrigo Lozano Maria Barreiro-Gen  Editors

Developing Sustainability Competences Through Pedagogical Approaches Experiences from International Case Studies

Strategies for Sustainability Series Editors Rodrigo Lozano Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development University of Gävle Gävle, Sweden Angela Carpenter Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development University of Gävle Gävle, Sweden

The series focuses on "implementation strategies and responses" to sustainability problems – at the organizational, local, national, and global levels. Our objective is to encourage policy proposals and prescriptive thinking on topics such as: sustainability management, sustainability strategies, lifestyle changes, regional approaches, organisational changes for sustainability, educational approaches, pollution prevention, clean technologies, multilateral treaty-making, sustainability guidelines and standards, sustainability assessment and reporting, the role of scientific analysis in decision-making, implementation of public-private partnerships for resource management, regulatory enforcement, and approaches to meeting intergenerational obligations regarding the management of common resources. We favour trans-disciplinary perspectives and analyses grounded in careful, comparative studies of practice, demonstrations, or policy reforms. This largely excludes further documentation of problems, and prescriptive pieces that are not grounded in practice, or sustainability studies. Philosophically, we prefer an openminded pragmatism – "show us what works and why" – rather than a bias toward a theory of the liberal state (i.e. "command-and-control") or a theory of markets. We invite contributions that are innovative, creative, and go beyond the ‘business as usual’ approaches. We invite Authors to submit manuscripts that:  –– Document and analyse what has and has not worked in practice; –– Develop implementation strategies and examine the effectiveness of specific sustainability strategies; –– Propose what should be tried next to promote greater sustainability in natural resource management, energy production, housing design and development, industrial reorganization, infrastructure planning, land use, business strategy, and organisational changes;  –– Prescribe how to do better at incorporating concerns about sustainability into organisations, private action, and public policy; –– Focus on trans-disciplinary analyses grounded in careful, comparative studies of practice or policy reform; and –– Provide an approach "…to meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs," and do this in a way that balances the goal of economic development with due consideration for environmental protection, social progress, and individual rights. Themes covered in the series are: Sustainability management Sustainability strategies Lifestyle changes Regional approaches Organisational changes for sustainability Educational approaches Pollution prevention Clean technologies Multilateral treaty-making Sustainability guidelines and standards Sustainability assessment and reporting The role of scientific analysis in decision-making Implementation of public-private partnerships for resource management Governance and regulatory enforcement Approaches to meeting inter-generational obligations regarding the management of common resources

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8584

Rodrigo Lozano  •  Maria Barreiro-Gen Editors

Developing Sustainability Competences Through Pedagogical Approaches Experiences from International Case Studies

Editors Rodrigo Lozano Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development University of Gävle Gävle, Sweden

Maria Barreiro-Gen Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development University of Gävle Gävle, Sweden

ISSN 2212-5450     ISSN 2452-1582 (electronic) Strategies for Sustainability ISBN 978-3-030-64964-7    ISBN 978-3-030-64965-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64965-4 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its accompanying 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were well received by universities globally, many of which rapidly embraced their responsibilities and committed to practical steps. This book is published in a time of unprecedented challenges. The emergence of COVID-19 has brought higher education into uncharted territory: millions of students have had to stay away from their institutions and universities have been forced to work out how to continue providing their education programmes while sustaining quality outcomes. As the global crisis evolves, higher education stakeholders are reflecting on the future of tertiary teaching and learning. The pandemic has been a wake-up call for everyone and has made most universities realise their pivotal role in addressing these goals and, thus, responding to urgent societal needs. We know from previous experience that in times of crisis, opportunities also arise. In the context of higher education, will another understanding of education be possible? Will education now be framed, designed and delivered more systematically with sustainable development in mind? Embedding sustainability in the curriculum is proving to be a challenging task. Higher education institutions do not fully understand the true nature of integrating the SDGs in teaching and learning. Some are struggling to embed education for sustainability so that it cuts across the whole course of study and, indeed, across the whole institution. But the trend has been rather to introduce specialist sustainability knowledge in certain places of the curriculum or to create new sustainable development courses. Although useful for those who wish to pursue a career in this area, teachers, doctors, engineers or lawyers, to mention some, finish their studies with little appreciation of how to connect sustainability thinking and practice with their professional and personal lives. Similarly, universities are at risk of seeing the SDGs as separate boxes and not as a holistic framework for sustainable development. Higher education institutions may think they are on the right track because, as an example, gender issues are covered in some courses in the humanities, or responsible consumption and production is taught in some economics courses, or climate change is dealt with in the natural sciences. As the latest UNESCO framework mentions (ESD for 2030), we need a wholeinstitution approach. This publication comes at the right time, emphasising that this new understanding of education must be guided by sustainable development principles integrated in a holistic and cross-cutting manner. It begins by acknowledging the call for a whole-institution approach, but it then states the need for examining specifically how universities are progressing towards

v

vi

Foreword

integration of competences for sustainable development in their education programmes. Indeed, knowledge will not be enough to tackle the complex problems we are facing. The world today needs graduates with competences to deal with interconnected environmental, social and economic issues. Our graduates must also be able to work in teams, negotiate conflicting values, communicate and work cross-culturally and intergenerationally, think strategically and engage in transformative processes. Supporting the development of these competences implies changes at different levels in higher education institutions’ understanding of their educational mission, an important one being the need to challenge traditional pedagogies focused only on the acquisition of knowledge. This book analyses the efforts of 15 universities from 12 countries aiming at auditing the type of sustainability competences supported in their study programmes. It presents an assessment framework that calls for a holistic approach in embedding sustainable development in higher education, leaving no one behind. What is especially innovative is that the book provides key insights on what pedagogies are more effective in developing certain sustainability competences. After reading the book, the reader will realise that although the showcased case studies come from leading institutions in the area of sustainability, the overall picture is still one of incompleteness: a lot of work remains to be done in this area if we want to ensure that all graduates, regardless of the programme they are taking, have the competences to address today’s challenges. Assessing institutional experiences, sharing experiences and analysing what has worked best in each context is to us the real value of this book, and the approach that we, within the COPERNICUS Alliance, are also supporting in all our activities. At times when rankings and competition are becoming the rule and—to some extent—are dictating the work that we do and imposing a monetized view of higher education institutions, our members believe that collaborative and co-creative approaches are the way forward. It is through talking to and helping each other that we will achieve the impact that we are seeking in our communities. In this book, readers will find practice-based original research reflecting on how sustainability competences and pedagogies are connected; in addition, they will also have an opportunity to learn from other colleagues navigating through similar professional challenges. The learning experience of the reader will start after turning this page.

Ingrid Mulà, Executive Director of the COPERNICUS Alliance, Assistant Professor, University of Girona, Girona, Spain Anne Zimmermann, President of the COPERNICUS Alliance, Head Education for Sustainable Development Cluster, Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

We would like to give our special thanks to all the authors of the chapters, the gatekeepers and in particular to all the teachers from the case studies who spared their precious time in answering the survey. We would like to thank Organisational Sustainability, Ltd. for providing a licence for non-commercial purposes for the STAUNCH®. We would also like to thank COPERNICUS Alliance for awarding a micro-fund between the University of Gävle and Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.

vii

Abbreviations

AISHE Auditing Instrument for Sustainable Higher Education CSR Corporate social responsibility CUT Central University of Technology ESD Education for Sustainable Development GASU The Graphical Assessment for Sustainability in Universities tool HEIs Higher education institutions SD Sustainable development STAUNCH® Sustainability Tool for Assessing UNiversities’ Curricula Holistically UAM: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid U.D.C.A. Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales UAb Universidade Aberta UDC Universidade da Coruña UDLAP Universidad de las Américas Puebla

ix

Contents

Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Rodrigo Lozano and Maria Barreiro-Gen  iterature Review and Methods ��������������������������������������������������������������������    7 L Rodrigo Lozano, Maria Barreiro-Gen, and Melis Temel  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the University of Gävle��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   33 Rodrigo Lozano, Maria Barreiro-Gen, and Gunilla Mårtenson  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the University of Helsinki����������������������������������������������������������������������������   47 Janna Pietikäinen and Dalia D’Amato  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the University of Parma������������������������������������������������������������������������������   63 Claudio Favi  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the Universidade da Coruña ����������������������������������������������������������������������   79 Carmen Gago-Cortés and Manuel Nieto-Mengotti  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the Universidad de las Américas Puebla����������������������������������������������������   97 María Teresa Jiménez-Munguía, D. Xanat Flores-Cervantes, Ricardo Martins, Enrique Palou, Aurelio López-Malo, and Nelly Ramírez-Corona  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the European University of Lefke��������������������������������������������������������������  113 Sevket Bostanci  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales����������������������������  127 Orlando Sáenz xi

xii

Contents

 ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the University of Nyíregyháza��������������������������������������������������������������������  143 Ferenc Mónus  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at Griffith University ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  159 Cheryl Desha, Savindi Caldera, and Rob Hales  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid������������������������������������������������������  177 Javier Benayas  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at Universidade Aberta������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  191 Sandra Caeiro and João Simão  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the Central University of Technology (Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment, and Information Technology)����������������������������������������  207 Bankole Awuzie  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the Warsaw University of Technology (Faculty of Production Engineering)��������������������������������������������������������������  223 Bartłomiej Gładysz and Aldona Kluczek  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the University of Belgrade-Faculty of Agriculture ����������������������������������  239 Ilija Djekic  ustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches S at the Universidad de Zaragoza (Faculty of Economics and Business)������  253 Jose M. Moneva Conclusions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  267 Rodrigo Lozano and Maria Barreiro-Gen Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  275

Contributors

Bankole Awuzie  Department of Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology, Central University of Technology, Bloemfontein, South Africa Maria  Barreiro-Gen  Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden Javier Benayas  Universidad Automona de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Sevket  Bostanci  Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, European University of Lefke, Mersin, Turkey Sandra Caeiro  Universidade Aberta, Lisbon, Portugal CENSE—Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, UNL, Lisbon, Portugal Savindi Caldera  Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia D.  Xanat  Flores  Cervantes  Chemical, Food and Environmental Engineering Department, Universidad de las Américas Puebla, Puebla, Mexico Dalia D’Amato  Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, Department of Forest Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Cheryl Desha  Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia Ilija  Djekic  Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Belgrade-Zemun, Republic of Serbia Claudio Favi  Department of Engineering and Architecture, Università degli studi di Parma, Parma, Italy Carmen  Gago-Cortés  Departamento de Empresa, Facultade de Economía e Empresa, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña, Spain

xiii

xiv

Contributors

Bartłomiej Gładysz  Warsaw University of Technology, Warszawa, Poland Rob Hales  Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia María Teresa Jiménez-Munguía  Chemical, Food and Environmental Engineering Department, Universidad de las Américas Puebla, Puebla, Mexico Aldona Kluczek  Warsaw University of Technology, Warszawa, Poland Aurelio López-Malo  Chemical, Food and Environmental Engineering Department, Universidad de las Américas Puebla, Puebla, Mexico Rodrigo Lozano  Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden Gunilla  Mårtenson  Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden Ricardo  Martins  Chemical, Food and Environmental Engineering Department, Universidad de las Américas Puebla, Puebla, Mexico Jose  Mariano  Moneva  School of Economics and Business, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain Ferenc  Mónus  Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Nyíregyháza, Nyíregyháza, Hungary Manuel  Nieto-Mengotti  Departamento de Economía, Facultade de Economía e Empresa, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña, Spain Enrique  Palou  Chemical, Food and Environmental Engineering Department, Universidad de las Américas Puebla, Puebla, Mexico Janna  Pietikäinen  Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, Department of Forest Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Nelly  Ramírez-Corona  Chemical, Food and Environmental Engineering Department, Universidad de las Américas Puebla, Puebla, Mexico Orlando  Sáenz  Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales, Bogota, Colombia João Simão  Universidade Aberta, Lisbon, Portugal CAPP—Centre for Public Administration and Public Policies, ISCSP/UL, Lisbon, Portugal Melis Temel  Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden

Introduction Rodrigo Lozano

and Maria Barreiro-Gen

Abstract  Higher Education Institutions have been major agents of social change. In this context, they have been major drivers of sustainable development and sustainability. Educators are at the centre of curriculum renewal and making it more sustainability oriented, and they need to ensure that they develop their students’ sustainability competences. Several tools have been developed, or modified, to assess sustainability in universities. One of the few tools focusing specifically on curricula is the “Sustainability Tool for Assessing UNiversities’ Curricula Holistically” (STAUNCH®). In parallel, one of the most recent developments in Higher Education for Sustainable Development discourses has been on developing competences and linking them to the use of pedagogical approaches. In spite of this, there have been limited efforts connecting pedagogical approaches and competences. The book integrates practice-base original research on how sustainability is incorporated in curricula, the  competences being developed, and the pedagogical approaches being used to develop the competences in 15 Higher Education Institutions case studies from 12 countries in 4 continents (Africa, America, Australia, and Europe). The book provides unique insights into sustainability issues being taught, the ranking of competences and pedagogical approaches, and how these two relate to each other.

R. Lozano (*) · M. Barreiro-Gen Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. Lozano, M. Barreiro-Gen (eds.), Developing Sustainability Competences Through Pedagogical Approaches, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64965-4_1

1

2

R. Lozano and M. Barreiro-Gen

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have been major agents of social change (Elton 2003). In this context, they have been major drivers of sustainable development (SD) and sustainability (Barth et al. 2007; Lozano 2006b; Rieckmann 2012), i.e. to improve societies’ quality of life, protecting and improving the natural environmental, and reducing and eliminating negative impacts of this generation and future ones (Hopwood et al. 2005; WCED 1987). During the last three decades, HEIs have been working to integrate sustainability1 into their systems including: operations, education, and research (Friman et al. 2018; Holm et al. 2015); and outreach and collaboration with stakeholders, assessment and reporting, educating-the-educators, and their institutional framework (Lozano et al. 2014). In general, sustainability efforts have been focused on campus operations, research, assessment and reporting, and outreach (Lozano et al. 2014). By comparison, there has been less research on the incorporation of sustainability in universities’ curricula (Capdevila et al. 2002; Lozano and Peattie 2011; Martin et al. 2005; Velazquez et al. 2005). Integrating sustainability into curricula has been recognised to be instrumental in providing students with the skills and insights to help societies become more sustainable (Lozano 2006b; Stough et  al. 2018) and provide companies with graduates who are sustainability literate (WBCSD 2010). Educators are at the centre of curriculum renewal and making it more sustainability oriented (Ceulemans and De Prins 2010; Rieckmann 2018), and they need to ensure that they are pedagogues on sustainability to develop sustainability competences of their students (Kalsoom and Khanam 2017). Several tools have been developed, or modified, to assess sustainability in universities (Lozano 2006a; Lozano et  al. 2013; Roorda 2001; Stough et  al. 2018). Most of these tools focus on improving the sustainability of campus operations (Stough et al. 2018). One of the few tools focusing specifically on curricula is the “Sustainability Tool for Assessing UNiversities’ Curricula Holistically” (STAUNCH®) (Lozano 2010; Lozano and Peattie 2011; Stough et al. 2018). In parallel, one of the most recent developments in Higher Education for Sustainable Development (HESD) discourses has been on developing competences (Barth et al. 2007; Hopkinson and James 2010; Lozano et al. 2017, 2019; Yanarella et al. 2000) and linking them to the use of pedagogical approaches (Lozano et al. 2017, 2019; Lozano and Barreiro-Gen 2019; Sipos et al. 2008) to provide students with the skills and insights to help societies become more sustainable (Lozano 2010) and provide companies with graduates who are sustainability literate (as highlighted by the WBCSD 2010). There has been increasing research on competences for sustainability (e.g., Barth et al. 2007; Lambrechts et al. 2013). Lists of competences relating to education for sustainability and their use have been proposed by several authors in recent years. Wiek et  al. (2011) proposed five overall competence groups. Rieckmann (2012)

1  Throughout this book the term ‘sustainability’ is used, although in some spheres the term ‘sustainable development’ is preferred.

Introduction

3

suggested 12 competences. Lambrechts et  al. (2013) identified 6 competences. Lozano et al. (2017) synthesised previous works to propose 12 competences. During the last decade, there have been some attempts to collect and analyse relevant sustainability pedagogical approaches (Cotton and Winter 2010; Segalàs et al. 2010; Sipos et al. 2008). For example, Ceulemans and De Prins (2010) proposed a range of student-activating methods. Lambrechts et al. (2013) identified a number of pedagogical approaches to develop SD competences. Cotton and Winter (2010) suggested several pedagogical approaches. Lozano et al. (2017) synthesised 12 pedagogical approaches divided in three groups: (1) Universal—broadly applicable pedagogies that have been used in many disciplines and contexts; (2) Community and social justice—pedagogies developed specifically for use in addressing social justice and community-building; and (3) Environmental education—pedagogies emerging from environmental sciences and environmental education practices. In spite of the aforementioned efforts, there has been limited efforts connecting pedagogical approaches and competences (e.g. Ceulemans and De Prins 2010; Fortuin and Bush 2010; Hopkinson and James 2010; Sprain and Timpson 2012; Yanarella et al. 2000). One of the few available frameworks for this is offered by Lozano et al. (2017), which is aimed at proposed a theoretical framework connecting competences to pedagogical approaches at helping educators in creating and updating their courses to provide a more complete, holistic, and systemic sustainability education to future leaders, decision makers, educators, and change agents. This book integrates practice-base original research on how sustainability is incorporated in curricula, which competences are being developed, and which pedagogical approaches are being used to develop the competences in 15 HEIs case studies from 12 countries in 4 continents (Africa, America, Australia, and Europe). The book provides unique insights into sustainability issues being taught, the ranking of competences and pedagogical approaches, and how these two relate to each other.

References Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M., & Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710823582. Capdevila, I., Bruno, J., & Jofre, L. (2002). Curriculum greening and environmental research co-­ ordination at the Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 25–31. Ceulemans, K., & De Prins, M. (2010). Teacher’s manual and method for SD integration in curricula. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 645–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.014. Cotton, D., & Winter, J. (2010). ‘It’s not just bits of paper and light bulbs’: A review of sustainability pedagogies and their potential for use in higher education. In P.  Jones, D.  Selby, & S. R. Sterling (Eds.), Sustainability education: Perspectives and practice across higher education. London: Earthscan.

4

R. Lozano and M. Barreiro-Gen

Elton, L. (2003). Dissemination of innovations in higher education: A change theory approach. Tertiary Education and Management, 9, 199–214. Fortuin, I. K. P. J., & Bush, S. R. (2010). Educating students to cross boundaries between disciplines and cultures and between theory and practice. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371011010020. Friman, M., Schreiber, D., Syrjänen, R., Kokkonen, E., Mutanen, A., & Salminen, J. (2018). Steering sustainable development in higher education—Outcomes from Brazil and Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186, 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.090. Holm, T., Sammalisto, K., Grindsted, T. S., & Vuorisalo, T. (2015). Process framework for identifying sustainability aspects in university curricula and integrating education for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2015.04.059. Hopkinson, P., & James, P. (2010). Practical pedagogy for embedding ESD in science, technology, engineering and mathematics curricula. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(4), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371011077586. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.244. Kalsoom, Q., & Afifa, K. (2017). Inquiry into sustainability issues by preservice teachers: A pedagogy to enhance sustainability consciousness. Journal of Cleaner Production 164, 1301–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.047. Lambrechts, W., Mulà, I., Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I., & Gaeremynck, V. (2013). The integration of competences for sustainable development in higher education: An analysis of bachelor programs in management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2011.12.034. Lozano, R. (2006a). A tool for a Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Universities (GASU). Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11), 963–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2005.11.041. Lozano, R. (2006b). Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: Breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11), 787–796. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010. Lozano, R. (2010). Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: An empirical example from Cardiff University. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 637–644. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.005. Lozano, R., & Barreiro-Gen, M. (2019). Analysing the factors affecting the incorporation of sustainable development into European Higher Education Institutions’ curricula. Sustainable Development, 27(5), sd.1987. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1987. Lozano, R., & Peattie, K. (2011). Assessing Cardiff University’s curricula contribution to sustainable development using the STAUNCH(RTM) system. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 5(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340821000500114. Lozano, R., Llobet, J., & Tideswell, G. (2013). Developing a university sustainability report: Experiences from the University of Leeds. In Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions (pp.  189–203). New  York: Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­02375-­5_11. Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M. d. M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F.  J., Waas, T., Lambrechts, W., Lukman, R., & Hugé, J. (2014). A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: Results from a worldwide survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048. Lozano, R., Merrill, M. Y., Sammalisto, K., Ceulemans, K., & Lozano, F. J. (2017). Connecting competences and pedagogical approaches for sustainable development in higher education: A literature review and framework proposal. Sustainability, 9(11), 1889. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su9101889.

Introduction

5

Lozano, R., Barreiro-Gen, M., Lozano, F. J., & Sammalisto, K. (2019). Teaching sustainability in European Higher Education Institutions: Assessing the connections between competences and pedagogical approaches. Sustainability, 11(6), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061602. Martin, S., Dawe, G., & Jucker, R. (2005). Embedding education for sustainable development in higher education in the UK. In J. Holmberg & B. E. Samuelsson (Eds.), Drivers and barriers for implementing sustainable development in higher education. Paris: UNESCO. Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures, 44(2), 127–135. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.09.005. Rieckmann, M. (2018). Rieckman 2018.pdf. In A. Leicht, J. Heiss, & W. J. Byun (Eds.), Issues and trends in education for sustainable development (pp. 39–59). Paris: UNESCO. Roorda, N. (2001). AISHE: Auditing instrument for sustainable higher education. Amsterdam: Dutch Committee for Sustainable Higher Education. Segalàs, J., Ferrer-Balas, D., & Mulder, K. F. (2010). What do engineering students learn in sustainability courses? The effect of the pedagogical approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.012. Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810842193. Sprain, L., & Timpson, W. M. (2012). Pedagogy for sustainability science: Case-based approaches for interdisciplinary instruction. Environmental Communication, 6(4), 532–550. https://doi. org/10.1080/17524032.2012.714394. Stough, T., Ceulemans, K., Lambrechts, W., & Cappuyns, V. (2018). Assessing sustainability in higher education curricula: A critical reflection on validity issues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4456–4466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.017. Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., & Sanchez, M. (2005). Deterring sustainability in higher education institutions: An appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6(4), 383–391. https://doi. org/10.1108/14676370510623865. WBCSD. (2010). Vision 2050. The new agenda for business. Geneva: WBCSD. WCED. (1987). Our common future (First). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6, 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-­011-­0132-­6. Yanarella, E. J., Levine, R. S., & Dumreicher, H. (2000). The space of flows, the rules of play, and sustainable urban design: The sustainability game as a tool of critical pedagogy in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(1), 48–66.

Literature Review and Methods Rodrigo Lozano

, Maria Barreiro-Gen

, and Melis Temel

Abstract  There has been considerable progress in the incorporation of sustainability into Higher Education Institutions’ curricula. This chapter discusses sustainability in curricula assessment tools, sustainability competences, pedagogical approaches, and the methods used in the book’s the case studies. A number of tools have been developed, or modified, to assess sustainability in universities. One of the tools focusing specifically on curricula assessment is the “Sustainability Tool for Assessing UNiversities’ Curricula Holistically” (STAUNCH®). In parallel, during the last 10 years, there has an increase on sustainability competences research, where lists of competences relating to education for sustainability and their use have been proposed by several authors in recent years. To develop the competences, a combination of different pedagogical approaches is needed. Sustainability competences and pedagogical approaches have, generally, been studied separately, with the exception of the “Framework connecting sustainable development pedagogical approaches to competences”, which is aimed at helping educators in creating and updating their courses to provide a more complete, holistic, and systemic sustainability education to future leaders, decision makers, educators, and change agents. A survey was developed to investigate teaching sustainability competences for the 15 case studies. The responses were analysed using STAUNCH® for the contribution to sustainability part, descriptive statistics, Friedman test to rank the competences and pedagogical approaches, and Spearman correlations.

R. Lozano (*) · M. Barreiro-Gen · M. Temel Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. Lozano, M. Barreiro-Gen (eds.), Developing Sustainability Competences Through Pedagogical Approaches, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64965-4_2

7

8

R. Lozano et al.

Introduction There has been considerable progress in the incorporation of sustainability into HEIs curricula (see Capdevila et  al. 2002; Desha et  al. 2009; Sammalisto et  al. 2016; Velazquez et al. 2006). Integrating sustainability into diverse academic curricula has been recognised to be essential for providing students with the skills and insights to help societies become more sustainable (Kalsoom and Khanam 2017; Lozano 2010; Segalàs et al. 2009). The incorporation of sustainability into curricula requires systems thinking and interdisciplinary approaches (Cortese 2003), as well as pedagogical innovations that provide interactive, experiential, transformative, and real-world learning (Brundiers et al. 2010). Some examples of the incorporation of sustainability into curricula include the assessment of the state of corporate social responsibility (CSR) education in Europe (Matten and Moon 2004); the development of an e-learning introductory course on sustainability (Vann et  al. 2006); courses on CSR and sustainability (Stubbs and Schapper 2011); the use of active learning methods for addressing the legitimacy and practicability of an introductory course on sustainability in business (MacVaugh and Norton 2012); the application of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives to a six-course design (Pappas et al. 2013); an ‘Educate the Educators’ programme (Lozano-García et al. 2008); an alumni survey to explore the corporate sustainability practice experiences of their MBA graduates (Hesselbarth and Schaltegger 2014); the development of a course on organisational change management for sustainability (Lozano et al. 2014); the development of an Engineering for Sustainable Development degree (Lozano and Lozano 2014); and the effect of sustainability courses on students’ sustainability competences. There have been five main approaches to the integration of sustainability into curricula: 1. Some coverage of some environmental issues and material in an existing module or course (Thomas 2004); 2. A specific sustainability course (Abdul-Wahab et al. 2003; Pappas et al. 2013; von Blottnitz 2006); 3. Sustainability intertwined as a concept in regular disciplinary courses, tailored to the nature of each specific course (Abdul-Wahab et  al. 2003; Boks and Diehl 2006; Lozano and Watson 2013); 4. Sustainability as a possibility for specialization within the framework of each faculty (Kamp 2006); and 5. Developing a specific holistic degree, based on sustainability that targets the demands for professionals with this expertise (Lozano and Lozano 2014). Ceulemans and de Prins (2010) proposed two ways to incorporate sustainability concepts into university curricula, vertical and horizontal integration. Vertical integration involves the addition of new sustainability courses into an existing curriculum. Although, incorporating some material or creating a stand-alone introductory sustainability course could appear as a relatively simple starting point for

Literature Review and Methods

9

institutions, such steps tend to result in the students learning and studying for that particular course but not being able to integrate sustainability principles into their professional life (Boks and Diehl 2006; Lourdel et al. 2005; Peet and Mulder 2004). Horizontal integration is where sustainability concepts are incorporated into several courses across a curriculum. The integration of sustainability into existing courses may aid students in viewing sustainability in a systemic and holistic manner by demonstrating how sustainability and technical content can be blended to create sustainable designs (Ceulemans and De Prins 2010; Peet and Mulder 2004). Integrating sustainability into HEIs’ education faces the main challenge that the typical university curriculum is generally organized into highly specialized areas of knowledge represented by individual disciplines (Cortese 2003; Orr 1992; van Weenen 2000), which conflict with the holistic basis of sustainability (Lovelock 2007). Educators, as change agents, are at the centre of curriculum renewal and making it more sustainability oriented (Ceulemans and De Prins 2010; Kalsoom and Khanam 2017; Rieckmann 2018). Educators need to ensure that they are pedagogues on sustainability to develop sustainability competences of their students (Kalsoom and Khanam 2017).

Sustainability Assessment A number of tools have been developed, or modified, to assess sustainability in universities (Lozano 2006; Stough et al. 2018), such as the Auditing Instrument for Sustainable Higher Education (AISHE) (Roorda 2001), the Graphical Assessment for Sustainability in Universities (GASU) tool (Lozano 2006; Lozano et al. 2013), the Environment Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire, and the EMS Self-­ Assessment (Shriberg 2002). Most of these tools focus on improving the sustainability of campus operations (Lozano and Peattie 2011). Curricula assessment can provide an overview on how courses and programmes incorporate sustainability (O’Byrne et  al. 2015; Stough et  al. 2018). Curricula assessment can offer a starting point for change for teachers and directors of learning and teaching, by providing a picture of where the courses and programmes are addressing sustainability issues, and where they could be improved (Abdul-Wahab et al. 2003; Lozano 2010; Lozano and Peattie 2009, 2011). This can help promote synergies between courses, where the combination of courses provides students with a holistic education of sustainability (Lozano 2010). One of the tools focusing specifically on curricula assessment is the “Sustainability Tool for Assessing UNiversities’ Curricula Holistically” (STAUNCH®) (Lozano 2010; Lozano et  al. 2019; Lozano and Barreiro-Gen 2019). STAUNCH® was developed with the aim of assessing holistically and systematically how a university’s curricula (at course, degree, school, department, faculty, and university levels) contribute to sustainability (i.e. sustainability issue coverage, depth and breadth) and to facilitate consistent and comparable assessment efforts between HEIs (Lozano 2010; Lozano and Peattie 2011).

10

R. Lozano et al.

Originally, STAUNCH® relied on explicit published course aims and outlines as a data source, i.e. course descriptors or syllabi (Lozano and Lozano 2014; Lozano 2010; Lozano and Peattie 2011) of HEIs such as Cardiff University (Lozano 2010; Lozano and Peattie 2009, 2011), Tecnológico de Monterrey (Lozano and Lozano 2014), the Georgia Institute of Technology (Watson et al. 2013), and the University of Leeds (Lozano and Young 2013). More recently, STAUNCH® has been used to assess teachers’ perception of sustainability issues in order to understand which criteria they are teaching, and how they could improve their courses by sharing experiences across genders, educational levels, and countries, and thus provide students with better sustainability skills and insights (Lozano et al. 2019; Lozano and Barreiro-Gen 2019). STAUNCH® is based on two combined equilibria for 40 criteria as presented in Table 1: firstly, cross-cutting theme issues (such as Holistic thinking, and sustainability statement), which integrate economic, environmental, and social dimensions; and secondly, the sustainability contribution, which is calculated using formulae that look for the balance among the four dimensions, taking into consideration their strengths. Table 1 STAUNCH® curricula contribution to sustainable development assessment criteria Economic • GNP, productivity • Resource use, exhaustion (materials, energy, water) • Finances and SD • Production, consumption patterns • Developmental economics

Environmental Social • Demography, • Policy/administration population • Products and services (inc. • Employment, transport) unemployment • Pollution/accumulation of toxic • Poverty waste/effluents • Bribery, corruption • Biodiversity • Equity, justice • Resource efficiency and • Health eco-efficiency • Social cohesion • Global warming, emissions, acid • Education rain, climate change • Diversity • Resources (depletion, • Cultural diversity conservation) (materials, energy, (own and others) water) • Desertification, deforestation, land • Labour, human rights use • Ozone depletion • Alternatives Cross-cutting themes • People as part of nature/limits to growth • Systems thinking/application • Responsibility • Governance • Holistic thinking • Long term thinking • Communication/reporting • SD statement • Disciplinarity • Ethics/philosophy

Source: Lozano (2010), Lozano and Peattie (2011)

Literature Review and Methods

11

The analysis was done as a self-evaluation of the teachers who responded the survey against the forty criteria presented in Table 1, using the following scale: 0 . when an issue was not taught in the course; 1. when the issue is mentioned but no explanation is given on how it is addressed; 2. when the issue is mentioned and there is a brief description on how it is addressed; and 3. when there is a comprehensive and extensive explanation on how the issue is addressed. The Disciplinary criterion was graded according to: 0 . when the course was taught only in one degree; 1. when the course was taught in other degrees within the faculty/school; 2. when the course was taught in other degrees in another faculty/school; and 3. when the course was taught in more than one faculty/school or at another HEI. The two key indicators in the assessment are contribution, and strength. The contribution indicator provides information about breadth and depth with respect to sustainability, considering the balance of the economic, environmental, and social dimensions, along with the cross-cutting themes. Table 2 provides the qualitative level. Table 3 presents the module strength qualification.

Sustainability Competences During the last 10 years, there has an increase on sustainability competences research (see Barth et al. 2007; Lambrechts et al. 2013). Competences are a way of describing desired educational outcomes (de Kraker et al. 2007; Hager and Beckett 1995; Rieckmann 2012; Segalàs et  al. 2010; Sturmberg and Hinchy 2010). They comprise different psycho-social components, existing in a context-overlapping manner, and realising themselves context-specifically (Barth et  al. 2007). Competences include cognitive, functional, ethical, and personal dimensions (Commission of the European Communities 2005) and link complex knowledge, Table 2 Updated sustainability contribution and qualitative levels for teacher perception

Level None Very low Low Medium High Very high

Contribution (modified) 0.00 0.01–0.67 0.67–2.13 2.13–6.83 6.83–21.84 >21.84

Source: Lozano and Barreiro-Gen (2019) based on Lozano (2010) and Lozano and Peattie (2011)

12 Table 3  Course strength and its qualitative levels

R. Lozano et al. Hypothetical course LU1001 LU101 LU201 LU301 LU401

Strength 0.00 1.00–1.29 1.30–1.49 1.50–1.99 >2.00

Level None Low Medium High Very high

Source: Lozano and Barreiro-Gen (2019)

skills, and attitudes (Wiek et al. 2011). Competence-based education focuses on the ability of students to develop knowledge, values, aptitudes, and attitudes necessary to address complex issues they will encounter in their future personal lives and professional careers (Lambrechts et al. 2013). Competence-based education is opposite to repetition (Lessard and Amsden 1996; Orr 1992; Rosner 1995) or indoctrination (Barth et al. 2007), since the outcome of these are the inculcation of rote habits and the acquisition of rote skills. Lists of competences relating to education for sustainability and their use have been proposed by several authors in recent years. Wiek et al. (2011) proposed five overall competence groups (Systems-thinking; Anticipatory; Normative; Strategic; and Interpersonal competences). Rieckmann (2012) proposed the following 12 competences: Systemic thinking and handling of complexity; Anticipatory thinking; Critical thinking; Acting fairly and ecologically; Cooperation in (heterogeneous) groups; Participation; Empathy and change of perspective; Interdisciplinary work; Communication and use of media; Planning and realising innovative projects; Evaluation; and Ambiguity and frustration tolerance. Lambrechts et  al. (2013) compared the lists of competences developed by de Haan (2010) and Roorda (2010) and proposed the following ones: Responsibility; Emotional intelligence; System orientation; Future orientation; Personal involvement; and Ability to take action. Cebrián and Junyent (2015) developed a theoretical framework of seven competencies: Developing Future/alternative scenarios visioning; Contextualizing; Working and living with complexity; Thinking critically; Develop Decision-making, participation and acting for change approaches; Clarifying terms; Establishing dialogues between disciplines; and Managing emotions and concerns. Lozano et al. (2017) synthesised the following 12 competences from previous works. These 12 competences are the ones used throughout this book. Systems thinking:  i.e. analysis of complex systems across different scales and domains of inquiry; comprehension, empirical verification, and articulation of a system’s key components, structure, and dynamics; attention to systemic features such as feedback, inertia, stocks and flows, and cascading effects; understanding of complex systems phenomena, including unintended consequences, path dependency, systemic inertia, and intentionality; understanding of connectivity and cause-­ effect relationships; and application of modelling (qualitative or quantitative).

Literature Review and Methods

13

Interdisciplinary work:  i.e. appreciation, evaluation, contextualisation, and use of knowledge and methods of different disciplines; and ability to work on complex problems in interdisciplinary contexts. Anticipatory thinking:  i.e. envisioning, analysis, and evaluation of possible futures, including scenarios with multi-generational timescales; application of precautionary principle; prediction of reactions; and dealing with risks and changes. Justice, responsibility, and ethics:  i.e. application of concepts of ethics, justice, social and ecological integrity, and equity; description, negotiation, and reconciliation of principles, values, aims, and goals for sustainability; responsibility for one’s actions; and ethics and sustainability of personal and professional behaviour. Critical thinking and analysis:  i.e. ability to challenge norms, practices, and opinions; reflection on one’s own values, perceptions, and actions; and understanding of external perspectives. Interpersonal relations and collaboration:  i.e. participatory and collaborative approaches to solving problems or conducting research; skills and understandings in communication, deliberation, negotiation, empathizing, leadership, and collaboration; ability to deal with conflicts; learning from other perspectives; and participation in community processes. Empathy and change of perspective:  i.e. ability to identify own and external perspectives; understanding and sympathy for the needs, perspectives, and actions of others; ability to deal with internal and external value orientation; compassion, empathy, and solidarity with others across differences; accepting and embracing of a diversity of opinions, experiences, or perspectives; and transcultural understanding. Communication and use of media:  i.e. ability to communicate effectively in intercultural contexts; ability to use appropriate information and communication technologies, and critical consideration and evaluation of media. Strategic action:  i.e. ability to design and implement interventions, transitions, and transformations for sustainability; active and responsible engagement in sustainability activities, development and application of ideas and strategies, planning and executing projects, ability to reflect on, and deal with, possible risks, organisation, leading, and controlling processes, projects, interventions, and transitions; identification of scopes of creativity and participation; and taking responsibility for motivating others. Personal involvement:  i.e. participation in creating sustainability initiatives; willingness and ability to take action; willingness to learn and innovate; self-motivation; and initiation of own learning.

14

R. Lozano et al.

Assessment and evaluation:  i.e. develop assessment and evaluation standards and guidelines; and independent evaluations with respect to conflicts of interest and goals, uncertain knowledge, and contradictions. Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty:  i.e. coping with conflicts, competing goals and interests, contradictions, and setbacks.

Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainability A combination of different pedagogical approaches is needed to develop sustainability competences (UNESCO 2006), which allows students to benefit from different learning processes (UNESCO 2012). Pedagogy is defined as “the art or science of teaching” (OED 2007). The choice of pedagogical approach depends on the pedagogical and educational goals and the specifics of the situation (regarding students, teachers, or the learning environment) (de Freitas and Oliver 2005). A variation in pedagogical approaches is important to address the diversity of students (e.g. gender or cultural background) (Ceulemans and De Prins 2010; UNESCO 2006, 2012). Nonetheless, alternative pedagogical approaches to traditional lectures have not yet been not widely utilized in higher education to convey sustainability content (Juárez-Nájera et al. 2006; Seatter and Ceulemans 2017). A number of authors have proposed pedagogical approaches to develop sustainability competences. Ceulemans and De Prins (2010) presented a range of student-­ activating methods (e.g. videos, brainstorming, case studies, team work, jigsaw, assignments, problem-oriented education, oral presentations, and project learning). Lambrechts et  al. (2013) identified a number of pedagogical approaches to develop sustainability competences including the Socratic method, group discussion, role play, group or personal diaries, brainstorming, and peer assessment; internships, solving real community problems, outdoor education, bibliographic research, problem analysis, value clarification, case studies, and concept mapping. Cotton and Winter (2010) proposed the following pedagogical approaches: role-­ plays and simulations; group discussions; stimulus activities (watching a video or looking at photos, poems, or newspaper extracts to initiate reflection or discussion); debates; critical incidents (students are given an example and asked what they would do, what they could do, and what they should do); case studies; reflexive accounts; personal development planning; critical reading and writing; problem-based learning; fieldwork; and modelling good practice. Other pedagogical approaches that have been proposed but not yet fully tested in a sustainability education include action learning (Sipos et al. 2008); backcasting (Murga-Menoyo 2014; Quist et al. 2006; Segalàs et al. 2010); collaborative learning (Brundiers et al. 2010; Moore 2005; Murga-Menoyo 2014; Sipos et al. 2008); gamification (Dicheva et al. 2015; Fletcher 2017; Gugerell and Zuidema 2016); online discussion forums (Dengler 2008); and serious games and systems simulations (Meadows 2007; Senge and Sterman 1992).

Literature Review and Methods

15

Lozano et  al. (2017) synthesised the following 12 pedagogical approaches divided in 3 groups: (1) Universal; (2) Community and social justice; and (3) Environmental Education. These 12 pedagogical approaches are the ones used throughout this book. Universal:  broadly applicable pedagogies that have been used in many disciplines and contexts: • Case studies: Qualitatively rich descriptions of settings, problems, and controversies in sustainable development challenge students to interact with the inherent complexity and uncertainty found in global, regional, and/or local contexts. Case studies invite students to consider real-world examples and examine issues from a diversity of stakeholder perspectives. They can provide a detailed example of opportunities for students to engage in research with complex human-­ environment systems. • Interdisciplinary team teaching: This allow for the possibility of having specialists in different fields help students explore topics from two or more distinctive disciplinary perspectives. • Lecturing: This is a good way to introduce subject material and concepts. Lecturing remains a standard approach to instruction in higher education institutions. • Mind and concept maps: Mind maps, cognitive maps and argument maps are approaches for graphically representing relationships between ideas. Mind maps are a non-linear outline of a major concept or theme, with related concepts radiating out from a central key idea; they may include short phrases or pictures to represent separate points and use colour, size, connecting line style, and placement to communicate other relationships. • Project and/or problem-based learning: Project-based learning and problem-­ based learning emphasise the value of working on complex, real-world problems for students to develop knowledge, skills, and competences, particularly when the problems/projects represent interdisciplinary sustainability challenges. Students typically work in self-directed, collaborative groups (sometimes between institutions and even on multiple continents), and may engage stakeholders in community, organizational, or business partnerships to address problems through inquiry under conditions similar to professional consultation. Community and social justice:  pedagogical approaches developed specifically for use in addressing social justice and community-building • Community service learning: i.e. Students engage in activities intended to directly benefit other people, where the activities are integrated with learning activities in an intentional and integrative way that benefits both the community organization and the educational institution. The settings, experiences, levels of engagement, and learning potential range from mere participation in some typical volunteer work with limited problem solving and community interaction to

16

R. Lozano et al.

prolonged collaboration on a complex project. Community service learning contributes to improvements in students’ responses by considering social problems. • Jigsaw/interlinked teams: i.e. Students are assigned to develop expertise on different sub-topics. Then students with expertise in each sub-topic are assembled to create a new ‘jigsaw’ learning team. In the jigsaw team, each student will be the only expert in each topic and is expected to teach that topic to her jigsaw teammates and learn the other topics from these jigsaw teammates to construct a complete picture of the entire topic. The standard jigsaw approach to cooperative learning improved students’ confidence, interest, and affective engagement self-­ reports in physics, while yielding little difference in exam achievement; students performed better in their assigned area of expertise but worse in areas in which they relied on peer instruction than did students in traditional instructional conditions. • Participatory action research: i.e. Participatory action research is similar to action learning in its communitarian philosophical approach and cyclic, reflexive nature but emphasizes the collaborative nature of the research and the production of knowledge by all participants, especially those non-academic community members who would be considered ‘research subjects’ in more mainstream research approaches. Environmental Education:  Pedagogical approaches emerging from environmental sciences and environmental education practices • Eco-justice and community: i.e. Eco-justice and community involves a deep transformation of mindset shifting from mechanistic and industrial metaphors to metaphors rooted in living ecology and biological systems. This philosophical transformation necessarily includes a significant emphasis on the diversity, relationships, autopoiesis (self-creation), and non-linearities that are characteristic of complex adaptive systems. • Place-based environmental education: i.e. Place-based environmental education is an approach to teaching and learning that provides people with experience and knowledge to care for the environment. It seeks to connect scientific understanding and emotional attachment with a specific geography under investigation, cultivating a richer sense of place in students. It generally focuses on outdoor experiential learning and the specificity of locality and bioregion and is typically multidisciplinary. • Supply chain/Life Cycle Analysis: i.e. Supply Chain Analysis or Life Cycle Assessment activities challenge students to consider sustainability through the lens of a specific product or service by understanding its economic, social, and environmental backgrounds, contexts, and effects. These pedagogical approaches require access and interpretation of data from a variety of sources. • Traditional ecological knowledge: i.e. Traditional ecological knowledge provides opportunities for students to consider the ways that socio-ecological systems are integrated in specific cultures. Long-term knowledge of complex local ecosystems is a powerful tool for conserving biodiversity, often providing valu-

Literature Review and Methods

17

able deep-time information that is inaccessible in the shorter timeframes of western scientific research projects. This can be especially beneficial for students from indigenous communities, who may feel alienated or unrepresented by colonial approaches to knowledge about their local bio-region. It also benefits non-­ indigenous students by opening the possibility to encounter and understand other cultures and worldviews.

 Framework Connecting Sustainability Pedagogical A Approaches to Competences Sustainability competences and pedagogical approaches have, generally, been studied separately, with some exceptions such as the case-based approaches for sustainability science (Sprain and Timpson 2012); the effectiveness of different pedagogical approaches in engineering courses for improving student awareness of sustainability (Segalàs et  al. 2010); and the connections between pedagogical approaches, knowledge domains (declarative, procedural, effectiveness, and social knowledge), and four key competences (systems thinking, foresight, collaboration, and change-­ agent skills) in the context of primary and secondary education (Frisk and Larson 2011). One of the few available frameworks connecting pedagogical approaches and competences was proposed by Lozano et  al. (2017). The framework is aimed at proposed a theoretical framework connecting competences to pedagogical approaches at helping educators in creating and updating their courses to provide a more complete, holistic, and systemic sustainability education to future leaders, decision makers, educators, and change agents. The framework was tested and validated through a survey answered by 390 European educators (Lozano et al. 2019). The survey provided a ranking of sustainability competences (see Fig. 1), with: First quartile: Critical thinking and analysis; inter-disciplinary work; Second quartile: Systems thinking; interpersonal relations and collaboration; assessment and evaluation; Third quartile: Strategic action; anticipatory thinking; personal involvement; and Fourth quartile: Communication and use of media; justice, responsibility, and ethics; empathy and change or perspective; and tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. The survey also provided a ranking of pedagogical approaches used (see Fig. 2), with: First quartile: lecturing; case studies; project- or problem-based learning; Second quartile: inter- disciplinary team teaching; Third quartile: supply chain/life-­ cycle analysis; mind and concept maps; participatory action research; traditional ecological knowledge; and Fourth quartile: jigsaw/interlinked teams; place-based environmental education; community service learning; and eco-justice and community. Finally, the survey also provided a correlation analysis between the competences and the pedagogical approaches, see Fig. 3.

e

t

In

se

Ca

s

ie

ud

st

li

ip

m

ea

Le

yt

na r

isc

er d

ta en

l n ai

ng

hi

ac

te

g

rin

ct u

cle a

M in d a n d co nc e p tm Pr ap o s le ject ar a ni nd ng / o r Pr ob Co le m m m -b un as it ed y Se rv ice iJ g Le sa ar w ni /I ng n t er lin ke d Pa Te r tic am ip s at or y Ac tio n Ec R o es -ju ea st rc i c e h an d co m P m l ac un e ity Ed -Ba uc se a tio d En n vi ro nm

p

Su

Cy di Tr

ch pl y

al An al

/L if

is ys o

lo g ec tio n

lk ica

no w

e le dg

Fig. 1  Updated framework connecting sustainable development pedagogical approaches to competences. The green cells indicate a high likelihood of addressing the competence, the yellow cells indicate that the approach may address it, and the white cells indicate that the approach does not address the competence. (Source: Lozano et al. 2019)

Strategic action Personal involvement Assessment and evaluation Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty

Communication and use of media

Systems thinking Interdiscipinary work Anticipatory thinking Justice, responsibility, and ethics Critical thinking and analysis Interpersonal relations and collaboration Empathy and change of perspective

18 R. Lozano et al.

Literature Review and Methods

19

Fig. 2  Ranking of the sustainability competences covered. (Source: Lozano et al. 2019)

Fig. 3  Ranking of the pedagogical approaches used. (Source: Lozano et al. 2019)

On the pedagogical approaches, the results show the number of cases to be: systems thinking; inter-disciplinary work; anticipatory thinking; justice, responsibility, and ethics; critical thinking and analysis; interpersonal relations and collaboration; empathy and change of perspective; communication and use of media; strategic action; personal involvement; assessment and evaluation; and tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty.

20

R. Lozano et al.

The competences most likely to be developed were: Empathy and change of perspective (by mind and concept maps, community service learning, jigsaw/interlinked teams, and eco-justice and community); inter-disciplinary work (by inter-­ disciplinary team teaching, project- and/or problem-based learning, and eco-justice and community); personal involvement (by community service learning, eco-justice and community, and place-based environmental education); anticipatory thinking (by project- and/or problem-based learning and community service learning); justice, responsibility, and ethics (by eco-justice and community); critical thinking and analysis (by project- and/or problem-based learning); interpersonal relations and collaboration (by project- and/or problem-based learning); strategic action (by community service learning); personal involvement (by community service learning); and tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty (by eco-justice and community). The competences least likely to be developed were: Justice, responsibility and ethics (not developed by case studies, lecturing, and supply chain/life-cycle analysis); interpersonal relations and collaboration (not developed by lecturing, and supply chain/life-cycle analysis); empathy and change of perspective (not developed by lecturing, and supply chain/life-cycle analysis); communication and use of media (not developed by lecturing, and supply chain/life-cycle analysis); tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty (not developed by case studies and lecturing); and critical thinking and analysis (not developed by supply chain/life-cycle analysis). In addition, the following competences were not developed by lecturing: Systems thinking; inter-disciplinary work; anticipatory work; strategic action; personal involvement; and assessment and evaluation. The pedagogical approaches with the most likelihood to develop sustainability competences were: Eco-justice and community (inter-disciplinary work, justice, responsibility and ethics, empathy and change of perspective, personal involvement, and tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty); project- and/or problem-based learning (inter-disciplinary work, anticipatory thinking, critical thinking and analysis, and interpersonal relations and collaboration); community service learning (anticipatory thinking, empathy and change of perspective, strategic action, and personal involvement); inter-disciplinary team learning (inter-disciplinary work); mind and concept maps (empathy and change of perspective); jigsaw/interlinked teams (empathy and change of perspective); and place-based environmental education (personal involvement) According to the responses, the pedagogical approaches with the least likelihood to develop competences were case studies (not considered to develop justice, responsibility and ethics, and tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty); supply chain/life-cycle (not considered to develop justice, responsibility and ethics, critical thinking and analysis, interpersonal relations and collaboration, empathy and change of perspective, and communication and use of media); and lecturing, which was considered to maybe develop critical thinking and analysis.

Literature Review and Methods

21

Methods Used in Each of the Case Studies A survey was developed to investigate teaching sustainability competences for the 15 case studies. The survey consisted of six sections: 1. Background questions about the respondents’ characteristics, and their teaching (in general and sustainability); 2. Self-assessment of sustainability criteria taught, based on the STAUNCH® criteria, and on a four scale (not covered, mentioned, described, and discussed); 3. Pedagogical approaches used, on a five-point scale (never, seldom, from time to time, often, and all the time); 4. Competences covered in the course, on a five-point scale (not at all, mentioned, discussed, complementary to the course, and integral to the course); 5. Types of learning, on a five-point scale (never, seldom, from time to time, often, and all the time); and 6. Open ended questions about the incorporation of sustainability in courses. The survey was translated to the local languages of each of the case studies and double-checked so that the meaning of the questions was not misconstrued, misinterpreted, or misunderstood. In total, the respondents could choose from English, Finnish, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, and Turkish. The survey was applied using the online survey tool Qualtrics (2018). The survey was open for 3 months from September 2019 to January 2020. Three reminders were sent out. The survey was programmed to be on three levels, depending on access and confidentiality: (1) Whole institution with list of faculties, nine HEIs; (2) Whole institution with no distinction between faculties (due to confidentiality issues), two HEIs; and (3) Faculty level, four HEIs. The survey was sent via the gatekeepers (the authors of each chapter) to mailing lists or emails in each of the HEIs (for details refer to Table 4). For Central University of Technology (CUT) and Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), the gatekeepers had to engage in face-to-face contact to obtain results (mainly due to survey overload in these HEIs). In the case of Griffith University and CUT, ethical approvals were obtained at the university level to send the survey. The survey responses were anonymous and all data was kept confidential and GDPR compliant). The respondents were informed that their participation was entirely voluntary and, if they wished, they were free to withdraw from the survey at any time. The competences and pedagogical approaches questions included: (1) development of the 12 competences in their courses, 5 five possible answers (not at all; just mentioned during the course; discussed from time to time; complementary to the course, and integral to the course); and, (2) the use of the 12 pedagogical approaches, with 6 possible answers (not applicable/do not know it, never, seldom, from time to time, often, and all the time). The responses were analysed using STAUNCH® for the contribution to sustainability part (Lozano 2010; Lozano and Peattie 2011), descriptive statistics, Friedman

22

R. Lozano et al.

Table 4  Details of the case study HEIs Name of HEI University of Gävle

Level Whole institution

University of Helsinki

Whole institution

University of Parma

Whole institution

Faculties/Schools/ Departments • Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies • Faculty of ngineering and Sustainable Development • Faculty of Education and Business Studies • Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry • Faculty of Arts • Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences • Faculty of Educational Sciences • Faculty of Law • Faculty of Science • Faculty of Social Sciences • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine • Swedish School of Social Science • Dipartimento di Discipline Umanistiche, Sociali e delle Imprese Culturali • Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Studî Politici e Internazionali • Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Architettura • Dipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia • Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche, della Vita e della Sostenibilità Ambientale • Dipartimento di Scienze degli Alimenti e del Farmaco • Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Aziendali • Dipartimento di Scienze Matematiche, Fisiche e Informatiche • Dipartimento di Scienze Medico-­Veterinarie

Country Sweden

Students FTE 16,000

Educators FTE 400

Finland

31,000

3900

Italy

27,000

1700

(continued)

Literature Review and Methods

23

Table 4 continued Name of HEI Universidade da Coruña (UDC)

Level Whole institution

Faculties/Schools/ Departments Country Spain • Escola Técnica Superior de Arquitectura • Escola Técnica Superior de Enxeñeiros de Camiños, Canais e Portos • Escola Técnica Superior de Náutica e Máquinas • Escola Universitaria de Arquitectura Técnica • Facultade de Ciencias • Facultade de Ciencias da Comunicación • Facultade de Ciencias da Educación • Facultade de Ciencias da Saúde • Facultade de Ciencias do Deporte e a Educación Física • Facultade de Dereito • Facultade de Economía e Empresa • Facultade de Filoloxía • Facultade de Fisioterapia • Facultade de Informática • Facultade de Socioloxía • Escola Politécnica Superior • Escola Universitaria de Deseño Industrial • Escola Universitaria Politécnica • Facultade de Ciencias do Traballo • Facultade de Enfermaría e Podoloxía • Facultade de Humanidades e Documentación • Escola Universitaria de Enfermaría (adscrito) • Escola Universitaria de Relacións Laborais (adscrito) • Escola Universitaria de Turismo (adscrito)

Students FTE 17,000

Educators FTE 1400

(continued)

24

R. Lozano et al.

Table 4 continued Name of HEI European University of Lefke

Level Whole institution

Universidad de Whole institution las Américas Puebla (UDLAP)

Universidad de Whole institution Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales (U.D.C.A.)

Nyíregyháza University

Whole institution

Faculties/Schools/ Departments • Faculty of Engineering • Faculty of Architecture • Faculty of Law • Faculty of Agriculture Sciences and Technologies • Faculty of Health Sciences • Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences • Schools of Arts and Humanities • School of Social Sciences • School of Sciences • School of Engineering • School of Economy and Business • Administración y Negocios • Ciencias • Ciencias Agropecuarias • Ciencias Ambientales e Ingenierías • Ciencias Jurídicas, de la Educación y Sociales • Ciencias de la Salud Applied Human Science (includes psychology and pedagogy) • Economy Science • Environmental Science • Math & Informatics • Technical & Agricultural Science • Language & Literature • Preschool & Primary School Teacher Training • Sport Science • History & Philosophy • Tourism & Geography • Visual Culture (Visual arts) • Music Institute

Students FTE 12,000

Educators FTE 120

9700

317

Colombia 5000

175

Hungary

200

Country North Cyprus

Mexico

4000

(continued)

Literature Review and Methods

25

Table 4 continued Name of HEI Griffith university

Level Whole institution

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Whole institution (with no distinction between faculties)

Faculties/Schools/ Departments Country Australia • Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics • Department of Business Strategy and Innovation • Department of Employment Relations and Human Resources • Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management • Griffith Law School • Queensland College of Art (including Griffith Film School) • Queensland Conservatorium • School of Applied Psychology • School of Criminology and Criminal Justice • School of Dentistry and Oral Health • School of Education and Professional Studies • School of Engineering and Built Environment • School of Government and International Relations • School of Human Services and Social Work • School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science • School of Medicine • School of Nursing and Midwifery • School of Information and Communication Technology Spain

Students FTE 50,000

Educators FTE 4000

33,633

2368

(continued)

26

R. Lozano et al.

Table 4 continued Name of HEI Universidade Aberta (UAb)

Central University of Technology (CUT) Warsaw University of Technology University of Belgrade University of Zaragoza a

Level Whole institution (with no distinction between faculties) Faculty

Faculties/Schools/ Departments

Country Portugal

Students FTE 6000

Educators FTE 340

Built Environment and Information Technology

South Africa

6000a

123a

Faculty

Faculty of Production Engineering

Poland

2400a

150a

Faculty

Faculty of Agriculture

Serbia

1000a

300a

Faculty

Faculty of Economics and Business

Spain

4400a

300a

Numbers are at faculty level

test to rank the competences and pedagogical approaches (at p