La La 2

This article was downloaded by: [INFLIBNET India Order]
On: 8 July 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919921146]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Environmental Education Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713416156
Sustainable development, higher education and pedagogy: a study of

lecturers' beliefs and attitudes
D. R. E. Cottona; M. F. Warrena; O. Maiborodaa; I. Baileya
a
University of Plymouth, UK
To cite this Article Cotton, D. R. E. , Warren, M. F. , Maiboroda, O. and Bailey, I.(2007) 'Sustainable development, higher
education and pedagogy: a study of lecturers' beliefs and attitudes', Environmental Education Research, 13: 5, 579 — 597
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13504620701659061
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620701659061
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Environmental Education Research,
Vol. 13, No. 5, November 2007, pp. 579–597
Sustainable development, higher

education and pedagogy: a study of
lecturers’ beliefs and attitudes
D. R. E. Cotton*, M. F. Warren, O. Maiboroda and I. Bailey
University of Plymouth, UK
Environmental
10.1080/13504620701659061
CEER_A_265747.sgm
1350-4622
Original
Taylor
502007
13
dcotton@plymouth.ac.uk
DCotton
00000November
and
&Article
Francis
(print)/1469-5871
Francis
Education
2007 Research
(online)
Downloaded By: [INFLIBNET India Order] At: 08:27 8 July 2010
Education for sustainable development (ESD) is playing an increasing role in the higher education
curriculum. However, little previous research exists on lecturers’ understanding of and attitudes
towards sustainable development. This study used an online questionnaire to investigate lecturers’
views of sustainable development and its contribution to the higher education curriculum. The
questionnaire asks lecturers from a variety of different disciplines about their views on appropriate
pedagogy for ESD, and gives insights into the potential opportunities for and barriers to the
incorporation of ESD into higher education. The findings of this survey reveal a wide range of
understandings of sustainable development within this institution—and a high level of critical
debate about the concept itself. In common with some previous research, there are indications that
many lecturers find the language of ESD inaccessible. Despite this, a fairly high level of support for
sustainable development is expressed across all discipline areas and a range of suggestions about
appropriate pedagogies for ESD are raised. However, the extent to which this enthusiasm can be
translated into practical changes to the higher education curriculum remains less certain.
Introduction
Education for sustainable development (ESD) is becoming increasingly important at
all levels of the educational system including higher education. The UN International
Environmental Education Programme (1975–1995) first introduced the notion of
sustainability in higher education, and the UN is now encouraging all countries to
address ESD by making 2005 to 2014 the Decade for ESD (see ARIES, 2005, for a
review of activities in this area). Tilbury (2004) notes apparently widespread support
from university leaders for a number of major international declarations promoting
ESD, indicating (in principle at least) a commitment to move their institutions towards
*Corresponding author. Educational Development and Learning Technologies (EDaLT),

University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, UK. Email: dcotton@
plymouth.ac.uk
ISSN 1350-4622 (print)/ISSN 1469-5871 (online)/07/050579–19

© 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13504620701659061
580 D. R. E. Cotton et al.
sustainability. A strong advocate for ESD in the curriculum, Moore (2005b, p. 326)
asserts that: ‘given what academics know about the current ecological condition of the
planet, there is an obligation for universities to become leaders in the movement to
prevent global ecological collapse’.
Although rhetorical commitments are easier to achieve than concrete changes to
curricula and campuses, there are signs of an increasing momentum for change in UK
higher education. Notable developments include the Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE) strategic statement and action plan, Sustainable
development in higher education (HEFCE, 2005), and the UK Government report,
Securing the future: delivering the UK sustainable development strategy (HM Government,
2005). Similarly, for 2010, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) has set a target of:
All further and higher education institutions … to have staff fully trained and competent
in sustainable development; and to be providing all students with relevant sustainable
learning opportunities. (DEFRA, 2001, p. 16)
The Higher Education Academy (HEA) has responded to this agenda by commis-
sioning the study, Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Current Practice
and Future Developments (reported in Dawe et al., 2005). This study suggests:
‘substantial work in progress, a range of good practice, but overall a patchy picture
with sustainable development being marginal or non-existent in some key disciplines
but increasingly high profile in others’ (p. 4). Another important recent UK initiative
was the Higher Education Partnerships for Sustainability (HEPS) project. This
project aimed to help higher education institutions deliver and share strategic sustain-
able development objectives through working with 18 partner institutions managed
by Forum for the Future, a leading sustainable development charity. The HEPS
evaluation report concluded that the project has helped to move the sustainable
development agenda forward in the institutions involved, but has had little wider
impact (SQW Limited, 2006).
Issues that have constrained the introduction of sustainable development in higher
education include ongoing confusion over terminology and controversy over whether
sustainable development is a valid part of the curriculum. Although the term is used
widely, there remains huge debate around its definition (see Sauvé, 1996, for a
typology of possible conceptions). In 1994, shortly after the Rio Earth Summit,
Jickling noted that sustainable development ‘has become for many a vague slogan, a
bold platitude, susceptible to manipulation and deception’ (1994, p. 232). More
recently, Gough (2002) commented that attempts to define clearly the terminology
in this field:
… are often associated with acronyms such as EE or ESD, which then tend to trip some-
what uncritically off the tongue, or to become slogans. … On the other hand, one can
argue with equal force that a field incapable of establishing agreed definitions of its most
basic terminology seems unlikely to make any other sort of progress. (Gough, 2002)
That lecturers may hold differing conceptions of sustainable development is illus-

trated by Carew and Mitchell (2006), who identify four distinct metaphors used by
Sustainable development, higher education and pedagogy 581
engineering academics in Australia for understanding and explaining sustainability.

These metaphors embody quite different conceptions of the meaning of sustainabil-
ity, and imply different strategies for incorporating sustainability in the curriculum.
Whilst we were unable to examine in depth lecturers’ conceptions of sustainable
development in this stage of the research, we accept that they will hold differing
conceptions both of the term itself, and of the relationship between sustainable
development and ESD. As far as the authors are concerned, we do not believe that
there is one ‘correct’ conception of sustainable development, or indeed one correct
pedagogic approach.
The relationship between ESD and the broader concept of sustainable develop-
ment is multifaceted and difficult to define, particularly in terms of operationalizing
the many ways in which sustainable development concepts, principles and practice
can be incorporated into teaching and learning. Thus, the relationship is often very
much defined (or at least interpreted) by individual practitioners in terms of its theo-
retical and practical meanings and implications. One way in which the relationship
between ESD and sustainable development can be clarified is by adapting typologies
from environmental education focusing on education about, in and for the environ-
ment, whereby education ‘about’ sustainable development is concerned principally
with transmitting ‘factual’ information about sustainability concepts and processes
with relatively passive information acceptance by its recipients, education ‘in’ sustain-
able development is concerned mainly with creating enhanced understandings and
emotional connections through experiential and interactive learning processes (e.g.,
field visits), and education ‘for’ sustainable development is oriented more strongly
towards encouraging certain values that are more sympathetic to (subjectively
defined) sustainability principles (Palmer & Neil, 1994; Sterling, 2001). However,
although this approach works well in assisting understanding of the different relations
ESD may have with sustainable development, it does not diminish the extent of user
interpretation, and thus diversity in the way these are conceptualized and enacted.
Within higher education, Wals and Jickling (2002) note problems with particular
conceptions of sustainability, such as the tension between ‘educating for sustainability’
and enabling students to engage in autonomous thinking and self-determination.
Although they offer support for the inclusion of sustainability in higher education, they
also note that:
Higher education has first and foremost something to do with creating possibilities, not
defining or prescribing the future for our students. … Viewed as such, sustainability is best
seen as only one of many stepping stones. (Wals & Jickling, 2002, p. 230)
Perhaps because of these difficulties, there is evidence that changes to campus

environment and procurement policies in higher education are more easily achieved
than curriculum change (Martin & Jucker, 2005; SQW Limited, 2006). The HEPS
evaluation report notes that:
Curriculum development is more complex as autonomous universities employ profession-
als who are influenced by their academic disciplines, professional institutions and wider
changes in society. (SQW Limited, 2006, p. ii)
Support from lecturers can by no means be taken for granted: academics are likely
to resist attempts to integrate sustainable development across the institution, partic-
ularly if their views are not taken into account. For this reason, it is important to
undertake research that considers the extent lecturers feel sustainable development is
a worthwhile and appropriate addition to the higher education curriculum.
Several previous studies have identified lecturers’ beliefs and attitudes as barriers
to the implementation of sustainability initiatives in higher education (Dawe et al.,
2005; Velazquez et al., 2005; Lozano, 2006). Specific examples of barriers include:
the discipline-focused nature of many academics’ work (Wals & Jickling, 2002;
Blewit & Cullingford, 2004; Moore, 2005a), the perceived irrelevance of ESD to
some disciplines, and lack of time in the curriculum (Dawe et al., 2005; Velazquez
et al., 2005). However, although these barriers have direct relevance for ESD, the
majority are fairly generic to change initiatives within higher education and few
studies have investigated in detail lecturers’ specific beliefs about and attitudes
towards sustainability in higher education. A notable exception is Reid and Petocz

(2006), who examined academics’ understandings of sustainability across a variety
of disciplines. They concluded that efforts to engage academics in ESD were
hampered by the lack of a shared understanding and language for discussing
sustainability issues, and a lack of enthusiasm for incorporating them into the
curriculum in some cases: ‘sustainability is often seen as a bit of a nuisance, and
possibly as a sop towards political correctness that interrupts the real work’
(p. 120). However, this research says little about lecturers’ beliefs about appropri-
ate pedagogies within ESD, a crucial issue in accommodating sustainable develop-
ment appropriately across diverse disciplines, not all of which have obvious
environmental/sustainable development foci. Our research sought to investigate this
issue in the context of an institution which is attempting to incorporate ESD across
the curriculum.
The current study

The research presented here was undertaken at the University of Plymouth, a univer-
sity of some 30,000 students, distributed across three campuses and a network of
partner colleges in the southwest of England. Plymouth is consistently ranked as one
of the top three ‘new universities’ (those which gained university status since 1992),
and has a particularly strong reputation for teaching and learning, having gained
funding of more than £18.5 million for nine National Teaching Fellowships and four
Centres for Excellence for Teaching and Learning (CETLs)—more than any other
UK university. Within this context, this study aimed to investigate the possibilities
and problems with engaging academics in curriculum change and development
regarding ESD. The research was supported by the HEFCE-funded Centre for
Sustainable Futures (CSF), the institution’s CETL concerned with ESD. The aim of
the CSF is to: ‘transform the University of Plymouth from an institution character-
ized by significant areas of excellence in ESD to an institution modeling university-
wide excellence’ (University of Plymouth, 2004, p. 1).
The main areas of the CSF’s work are the integration of sustainability consider-
ations into the university’s campuses, curriculum, and wider community relations.
Importantly, the majority of people involved in the CSF are part-seconded university
staff directly involved in higher education provision. These CSF ‘fellows’ act as local
sustainability champions within their disciplinary schools, and as interlocutors
between schools and core CSF staff. Development of the institutional sustainability
strategy is still underway at the current time but, clearly, for such a university-wide
approach to be successful, it is imperative that lecturers both understand the concept
of sustainable development and accept it as a valid and important element of the
curriculum.
As researchers we were keen to enable lecturers to express their own conceptions
of sustainable development, admitting the possibility of multiple valid conceptions
rather than seeking to identify the number of lecturers holding ‘correct conceptions’.
We were not tied to pursuing the CSF agenda through our research, but rather took
an interpretive approach with the aim of eliciting the views of as wide a range of
academics as possible. We view ESD as reflecting the policy context within which
changes to both the curriculum content and pedagogy can be made in the light of
sustainable development issues, therefore the focus of the research was primarily on
sustainable development rather than ESD. However, as later sections demonstrate,
one directly influences the other particularly in relation to pedagogies for promoting
greater student engagement with sustainable development issues.
This research aimed to address the following key questions:
● What are lecturers’ current understandings of sustainable development?
● What are their current attitudes towards sustainable development?
● What are their beliefs about incorporating sustainable development into the higher
education curriculum?
The paucity of studies involving higher education lecturers, together with the lack
of cross-disciplinary research on lecturers’ beliefs and attitudes suggest that this
research has the potential to contribute to important pedagogical debates as well as
enhancing the institutional change agenda of this university. While the research is
based on one institution, it is conceived as an ‘instrumental’ case study (Stake,
1995)—i.e., it provides insights that can be interpreted and adapted to inform devel-
opments in ESD beyond this particular university. The case study approach offers a
strong grounding in reality, utility to practitioners, and high resolution data that
enable cross-disciplinary and synoptic analysis of lecturers’ understandings of and
attitudes towards sustainable development. However, a potential drawback is the
limited generalizability of the case study, particularly in relation to attitudes within
academic disciplines in different HEIs. Although statistical generalization of this sort
was never intended, the research seeks to provide insights into the wider lessons for
ESD through ‘theoretical inference’ (Hammersley, 1998), wherein conclusions move
beyond the particular to a more general, theoretical–conceptual level. Data are there-
fore used to theorize about the general possibilities and problems of incorporating
sustainable development into higher education. Any theoretical understanding thus
produced should, however, be considered provisional and would benefit from further
investigation.
Methodology
The research involved a two stage approach:
1. Questionnaire survey of lecturers across the institution

This survey aimed to establish baseline data on support for sustainable development
across the university’s faculties and provide lines of enquiry for further research.
It was developed by the team of researchers, using a mixture of closed and open-
ended questions, and building on previous research in this field. The questionnaire
was conducted online, using Perseus Survey Solutions software, with responses
collated electronically and quantitative data analysed using SPSS. Pearson’s Chi-
Square test was used to test for association between certain variables, with signifi-
cance accepted where p < 0.05. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic
analysis employing the constant comparative method (Silverman, 2005). In order to
guard against the potential threat of anecdotalism, the number of responses on which
the theme is based is noted in parentheses. The aims of the survey were twofold:
firstly, to provide an impression of as large a number of lecturers’ views as possible;
and secondly, to enable participants to be systematically selected for further involve-
ment in the research (in-depth interviews).
Questionnaire design began in the summer of 2005. It was then tested with
colleagues from other academic disciplines and redesigned several times in light of
comments received before being piloted during September with selected lecturers
from a range of disciplines. Qualitative questions were used to complement quantita-
tive data where it was felt useful to elicit more detailed information. Two versions of
the questionnaire were piloted: one using the word ‘sustainability’ throughout, and
the other using ‘sustainable development’. Feedback from selected respondents to the
pilot survey indicated that they had more difficulty understanding the term ‘sustain-
ability’ than ‘sustainable development’, therefore the latter was used for the final
survey. However, this was by no means an unproblematic decision leading some of
the respondents to raise questions about the conjoining of ‘sustainable’ with ‘devel-
opment’, and the possible contradiction within this term and whilst others simply did
not understand what it meant. Given that the purpose of the research was to reach
lecturers from across the disciplines, some of whom will not be familiar with the
terminology, this is perhaps unavoidable.
All academic staff were sent an email (and one reminder), informing them about
the questionnaire and with a link to the online version (see www.geog.plym.ac.uk/
research/esdcetl_survey_final.htm). The web site was available for just over a
month (in October–November 2005) and 328 responses were received, a response
rate of approximately 29%. Whilst less than ideal, this response rate nonetheless
compares favourably with similar online surveys (Braun Hamilton, 2003). Analysis
Table 1. Respondents by faculty
Percentage of respondents Percentage of student

Faculty from faculty population in faculty
Arts 14 9
Education 10 9
Social science & business 16 15
Science 13 14
Technology 7 9
Health & social work 9 13
Medical school 12 2
Partner colleges 18 28
N = 328 N = 21,303 (fte)
of respondents to the survey suggested that they were broadly representative of

university lecturers as a whole in terms of gender, age and contract status (full/part
time). Percentage response rates from each faculty are shown in Table 1. With the
exception of relative over-representation of staff from the Medical School, and
under-representation of staff from the Partner Colleges, differences in responses are
in line with the relative size of the faculties. Caution is clearly needed in interpret-
ing the results, however, given the probability that those who responded had a
better understanding of, or perhaps stronger opinions on, sustainable development
than non-respondents.
2. In-depth, semi-structured interviews

Following the survey a sample of lecturers was invited to take part in semi-structured
interviews to give a deeper insight into their beliefs and practices with respect to ESD.
The questionnaire called for volunteers and from those a group of 20 lecturers was
invited to participate. Stratified random sampling was used to achieve a representa-
tive cross-section of different faculties, though again the potential biases of this
sampling method are acknowledged. Analysis of these data is ongoing: this paper
therefore reports solely on the quantitative and qualitative results from the first phase
of the research.
Findings
1. Understandings of sustainable development
Substantial variation was found in respondents’ ratings of their own understanding of
sustainable development. Few rated their understanding as poor (5%), or very good
(11%); the majority rated their understanding as satisfactory (34%) or good (24%).
There were no significant differences between the understanding of male and female
respondents or between different age groups. Interestingly, there was also no significant
Table 2. Views on key elements of SD (N = 328)
% agree/strongly agree
Sustainable development implies … (n = 328)
1. Developing new technologies to reduce the impact of harmful 84

by-products of production
2. Maintaining biodiversity in the local environment 83
3. Recycling waste products 81
4. A significant degree of local production and consumption 57
5. Helping people to avoid starvation and disease 53
6. Social progress which recognizes the needs of everyone 51
7. Exploiting natural resources for human benefit while 46
maintaining critical natural capital
8. Maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth 23
9. Putting the needs of nature before those of humanity 21
difference between respondents from different disciplines—despite the fact that

sustainable development plays a greater role in some areas of the curriculum than
others. In order to understand the ways respondents interpreted the concept of sustain-
able development, they were asked to indicate their views on a series of propositions
using five-point Likert scales (Table 2).
The statements which received the strongest agreement as a key part of sustainable
development (Items 1, 2 and 3 in Table 2) all arguably reflect a view of sustainable
development which focuses on environmental rather than social or economic
concerns, and on routinized managerial actions to protect essential environmental
resources. Questioning of orthodox worldviews and economic structures commanded
less support. The statements which, perhaps unsurprisingly, received the least
agreement (Items 8 and 9) reflect more extreme and contentious positions on sustain-
able development. These statements also received the highest levels of ‘neutral’
responses, suggesting significant uncertainty about their positioning within sustain-
able development.
A key theme arising from the open-ended responses to this question was the
concept of balance—including the inter-relatedness of humanity and ‘nature’. The
notion of balance also emerged as a major theme from the research on student
teachers by Summers et al. (2004).
This idea was not explicit in the options provided in the questionnaire but was
mentioned by 15 of the 58 respondents who provided additional comments:
There needs to be a proper balance between economic, social and natural which is why
I disagreed with the statement ‘putting the needs of nature before those of humanity’. (ID59)
We are inhabitants of a planet and part of it; everything we do has an impact on other life
forms and the environment. (ID294)
Another major theme in these responses concerned the problematic, contested

nature of sustainable development (21 of the 58 responses reflected on this theme in
some way):
It is a contestable concept and thus it is subject to different interpretations and manipulation.

(ID25)
The debate whether ‘development’ and ‘sustainable’ go together in one phrase is out there.
(ID108)
Some respondents commented on the difficulty of sustainable development termi-

nology: both ‘sustainable development’ itself and ‘critical natural capital’ acted as a
barrier to understanding for some people. Several comments reflected on the possible
different interpretations of the statements offered:
There are complex answers to these questions, making it very hard to put a single answer.
I even agree and disagree at times! (ID191)
This contested nature of sustainable development was also reflected in the wide
range of understandings expressed by survey respondents. As might be expected from
a highly educated group, many were unwilling to be constrained by a simplistic tick-
box definition, and their identification of problems associated with the terms indicates
that many possessed a highly sophisticated understanding of sustainable development.
However, others admitted that they struggled to make sense of the options offered.
This may illustrate differing levels of understanding even amongst this self-selected
group, and/or equally, the necessary oversimplification of the options which could be
provided. Apart from anything else, the experience demonstrated the immense diffi-
culties of designing a questionnaire to examine views on a multifaceted and contested
concept like sustainable development.
2. Attitudes towards sustainable development

Quantitative results from the questionnaire showed fairly strong agreement amongst
respondents in support of sustainable development. 60% selected the statement,
‘I think it’s a good thing’, 20% supported the statement, ‘I am a passionate advocate’,
and only 2% felt that ‘it is a waste of time and effort’. However, 17% agreed with the
statement, ‘I do not know what you mean by sustainable development’ (Figure 1).
The responses to such a general statement are difficult to interpret: were respondents
commenting favourably on the idea of sustainable development per se, or was this
simply a convenient proxy for a range of environmental, social and economic
concerns? The indication from the data available is that strongest support was
reserved for a pro-environmental perspective with perhaps greater uncertainty as to
where to draw boundaries in relation to social, and especially economic, issues.
In order to clarify this issue, a more considered question based on Jordan and
Figure 1. Lecturer’s attitudes towards sustainable development
O’Riordan’s modified typology of worldviews concerning relationships between

economy and environment (Jordan & O’Riordan, 1999; see also Pearce, 1993) was
used to present four statements which broadly characterize a spectrum of technocen-
tric/Promethean to strongly eco-centric/survivalist views (Figure 2).
When asked, ‘Which of the following most nearly represents your personal view?’,
Figure 2. Understanding of the relationship between economy and environment
81% agreed with the second statement, suggesting a reasonable consensus around an
agenda which aims to accommodate economic growth alongside environmental
I don't really know what

you mean by SD
I think it is a waste of time

and effort
I am not really bothered
It's OK if others want to do

it
I think it's a Good Thing
I am a passionate
advocate
0 20 40 60 80
per cent (n=382)
Figure 1. Lecturer’s attitudes towards sustainable development
protection, rather than seeking more radical changes to dominant social priorities.
However, verbatim responses revealed substantial diversity of opinion even within
this group. For example, the two responses below suggest opposing beliefs, with
respondent ID78 advocating zero growth, whilst respondent ID302 suggested that
there were few long-term limits to growth:
I do think we should stop the constant calling for economic growth—I cannot see how
anyone can think this could be possible. (ID78)
In the short-term, this is the position. In the longer term I am optimistic that we can find
technological fixes. (ID302)
Three other respondents emphasized the redistribution of wealth rather than

growth per se:

!
"

#

"

Figure 2. Understanding of the relationship between economy and environment

Depends on how you use that growth—if for example part of the point of growth in
‘developed’ economies is to transfer surplus to ‘developing’ ones in order to facilitate
technology transfer and structural readjustments, then aiming for negative growth is
clearly contradictory. (ID183)
This subgroup therefore embraced people with substantially differing views on the
prospects for economic growth, while others (6 of 29 verbatim responses) indicated
that growth was the only realistic option and that sustainable development in some
way involved a compromise between ideals and reality:
I am torn between the middle two in Q5. The pragmatist in me has gone for the upper,
but part of me feels the zero or even negative growth argument has some merit in some
cases. (ID191)
At the same time, scepticism about the potential for political action to bring about
genuine change was voiced by five respondents in the group. A desire for political
change but feelings of powerlessness to influence politicians emerged in many of these

responses.
3. Beliefs about incorporating sustainable development into the higher education curriculum
Fifty-five per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that sustainable develop-
ment was central to their teaching interests and subject generally. However, 35%
were neutral on both questions, indicating a level of uncertainty or ambivalence
about the links between their teaching and sustainable development. Surprisingly, no
clear subject bias emerged on this issue when it might have been expected that
sustainable development would be viewed as more clearly relevant to some disci-
plines (e.g., geography, environmental science, biology, and ecology) than others
(e.g., occupational therapy, psychology). Those who identified themselves as
‘passionate advocates’ of sustainable development were, however, significantly more
likely to rank sustainable development highly for both their discipline and their own
teaching (both p < 0.001). In addition, respondents with management responsibili-
ties for curriculum design and delivery (programme coordinators, heads of school,
etc) tended to rank sustainable development highly at both levels (p < 0.05 and
p < 0.001 respectively).
Over 50% of respondents predicted including elements of sustainable development
in their teaching in the coming year, though it is important to remember that the
survey canvassed reported rather than observed actions and may include some over-
reporting. Similarly, what constitutes ESD remains a matter of personal interpreta-
tion, and may include changes to either content or process (approaches to teaching
the subject) as clarified below. Respondents from the Faculty of Arts, the University’s
Partner Colleges and Social Science and Business were significantly more likely to
report including sustainable development in their teaching, while staff from Health
and Social Work, Peninsula Medical School and Technology were less likely to
(p < 0.001). Again, ‘passionate advocates’ were more likely to say they would include
sustainable development in their teaching next year (p < 0.001).
However, several respondents also commented that sustainable development was

simply irrelevant to their discipline:
Although I am concerned about the environment, and strive to be ‘green,’ the subject has
no relevance to art or my teaching, (ID149)
Not directly relevant to an already big part of the wider medical curriculum. (ID234)
Others were wary about including issues of a controversial nature in their teaching:
I am wary of imposing my own beliefs on students when they would not see relevance.
(ID46)
There is no reason for any doctrine to be included in our teaching. (ID80)
Nevertheless, 54% of the 328 respondents claimed that teaching about aspects of
sustainable development influenced their learning–teaching methods, suggesting that
a significant proportion identified a distinct pedagogy for teaching about sustainable
development. Of the 62 respondents who expanded on this question, explanations

can be grouped into four main categories:
(a) Modeling good practice (6 responses). In this explanation, the lecturers’ own
actions are key to teaching students about sustainable development issues, either by
providing examples or modeling of good practice:
I try to use electronic resources in place of handouts wherever possible because it ensures
you ‘practice what you preach’. (ID39)
Limiting resource use was the most common exemplar cited, though some respon-
dents provided more general comments about ‘practising what you teach’. Given the
difficulty of initiating genuine curriculum change in some disciplines, it appears that
some respondents have found that modeling good practice is a more accessible and
appropriate way of engaging with ESD than attempting to integrate sustainable devel-
opment into course content.
(b) Sustainable development as a controversial and contested subject (12 responses). The
largest number of explanations provided to this question focused on the complex and
controversial nature of the subject, which they felt demanded non-transmissive teach-
ing methods:
Because it is such a contentious issue, particularly in relation to the priority of actions, their
relative costs and their effectiveness. (ID25)
Because its complexity requires a diversity of theoretical and practical approaches and the
evaluation of evidence from a variety of sources. (ID120)
Encouragingly, respondents were not deterred by these controversies but saw them
as an opportunity for enhanced learning through debate or discussion:
Often there are no, or limited hard facts; people are required to make value judgements
about particular courses of action. Students need to be able to debate objectively on this
area. (ID103)
Of course, what it means to debate a controversial issue objectively (as opposed to

subjectively) is still problematic. Nonetheless, the development of discussion skills
was seen by respondents as an important objective of higher education.
(c) Experiential learning (9 responses). In this explanation, teaching about sustainable

development is linked with the use of an experiential approach:
I believe in experiential learning—students experience then they are likely to remember/
engage. (ID273)
The teaching method needs to be applicable to what is being learnt, and a ‘hands on’ or
first hand experience of the issues aids understanding. (ID11)
Use of practical examples was viewed as essential to aid students’ understanding

and involvement in the subject, and role plays, case studies and problem-based learn-
ing were all suggested as useful teaching methods:

Students are encouraged to confront the issues at first hand (site visits), develop case stud-
ies and argue them through role-playing, so the focus on sustainability determines the
choice and sequence of methods. (ID64)
To achieve deep commitment, I believe that deep experience has to take place, therefore
role play and case studies are used. (ID148)
This group of respondents placed considerable emphasis on student involvement

in, engagement with, and commitment to sustainable development issues via experi-
ential teaching and learning practices.
(d) Empowerment (5 responses). A small number of respondents linked sustainable

development with empowering students to take action (participatory/transformative
education):
I feel that it is important to use education as a means of empowering students, building
their confidence and independence as well as their consciousness and skills. (ID47)
Sustainable development means human participation, so participatory processes and
methods are an integral part of teaching and learning. (ID118)
Other respondents mentioned ‘critical investigations’, ‘thinking independently’

and ‘taking responsibility for actions’, linking ESD to the wider role of higher educa-
tion institutions. Many of these responses focused on political literacy—providing
students with the sense of efficacy and skills to empower them as active agents within
a democratic society—perhaps to counteract the conjectured political antipathy
among young people (Burgess et al., 1998).
However, six respondents explained why they felt that teaching about sustainable
development did not influence their chosen pedagogies:
I choose the best method for helping students to attain the required learning outcomes at
the highest possible level and try to make a powerful but positive impact. (ID93)
Am not at all sure that ‘sustainable development’ per se is an influence on learning styles
in my own case—as opposed to regular and conscious incorporation of sustainability
messages and information in the subject matter. (ID229)
Of the other respondents, three referred to use of ‘different’ or ‘new’ methods of

teaching, three to the integration of research with teaching, and others either stated
that they did not understand the question or the responses were too vague to classify.
Discussion: Possibilities and Problems of Incorporating ESD into the higher

education curriculum
Although tentative in terms of their generalizability beyond the case study, these find-
ings raise a number of issues concerning the integration of ESD into higher educa-
tion. In relation to lecturers’ understandings of sustainable development, the survey
suggested a ‘fair’ level of professed understanding (although clearly this is based on
self-reports rather than more objective measures). The findings also indicated a possi-
ble predisposition towards environmental issues compared with social and economic
issues, replicating earlier research on student teachers in geography and science by
Summers et al. (2004) where environmental factors tended to dominate. Similarly,
disparities in the interpretation and use of SD terms support Reid and Petocz’s
(2006) assertions about the lack of a sustainability lingua franca and the uncertainties
this creates for developing ESD strategies. Whether and how far either issue is resolv-
able, or even should be resolved, is a matter of conjecture, but they are, nonetheless,
legitimate and necessary parts of the wider debate.
In contrast, the apparent interdisciplinary belief among respondents that sustain-
able development is both important and relevant offers encouragement for advocates
of cross-institutional ESD integration, notwithstanding the obvious challenges of
translating principled or rhetorical support into teaching and learning practice.
Indeed, the 80% support in general terms for sustainable development closely mirrors
that found in a survey of senior staff in European universities (Leal Filho, 2000). Now
it may simply be that, as O’Riordan and Voisey (1998, p. 2) note, no one is prepared
to challenge the fundamental precepts of sustainability (if not sustainable develop-
ment) because it is an almost universal and self-evident wish for a viable future for the
planet and its inhabitants. Equally, although agreement on the importance of sustain-
able development was widespread, uncertainties remain as to what respondents were
actually supporting. Stables and Scott (2002) note that sustainable development is a
term ‘rhetorically constructed to appeal simultaneously to apparently opposed inter-
est groups’ (p. 53), and that agreement on the importance of sustainable development
may mask substantial divergence in underlying beliefs.
This was particularly revealed in open-ended responses on the appropriateness and
nature of future economic growth. Perhaps the debate over the feasibility of ‘sustain-
able growth’ (aligned with the Orwellian ‘War is Peace’ by Jickling, 2001) makes
disagreement inevitable on economic issues, but it nevertheless illustrates the prob-
lems of discussing sustainable development when basic understandings and objec-
tives remain contested. It can be argued, however, that this conceptual ambiguity is
necessary given the complex inter-linkages that sustainability attempts to create, and
may positively enhance learning experiences by inspiring creative thinking. For exam-
ple, it precludes pre-judged goals and potentially enables deeper learning outcomes
as students and lecturers grapple together with sustainable development concepts,
exploring possibilities rather than simply seeking to derive ‘correct’ answers. As Ruhl
(1997, p. 163), commenting on similar debates in environmental law, points out, the
framework for moving towards sustainable development needs to reflect and be capa-
ble of adapting to the complex and uncertain systems that sustainability deals with.
This requires loose and inclusive negotiation rather than highly predictable, stable
and rule-habituated systems of education.
The concern of some respondents about the relevance and value-laden nature of
sustainable development echoes previous disquiet about the inclusion of environmen-
tal education into the school curriculum (see Gayford, 1991) and ongoing debates in
the literature about ESD. For example, Wals and Jickling (2002) note that the
prescriptive nature of some conceptions of ESD run counter to higher education’s

aspiration of autonomous and self-determinative learning:
To educate for sustainability is not necessarily educational when sustainability is fixed,

pre- and expert-determined (i.e., academics) and to be reproduced by novices (i.e.,
students). (Wals & Jickling, 2002, p. 224)
However, concerns about including sustainable development in the curriculum

were raised surprisingly infrequently. Whilst this may suggest that lecturers perceive
ESD to be an ‘ongoing learning process … rather than a message or level which must
be achieved’ (ARIES, 2005, p. 2), it may also reflect the skewed nature of the sample
and a higher commitment to sustainable development among respondents compared
with the wider academic population.
Equally, the range of responses concerning appropriate pedagogies for teaching
about sustainable development mirrors debates within the literature about the role and
aims of ESD (and environmental education), exposing both possibilities and pitfalls.
The links with experiential learning in particular follow the tradition of education in
the environment—learning about environmental or sustainability issues by becoming
immersed in them (Palmer & Neal, 1994). Moreover, the proponents of participatory
or transformative approaches to teaching and learning echo the original advocates of
education for the environment or ESD (Huckle & Sterling, 1996), where objectives go
beyond knowledge acquisition and students are encouraged to develop an informed
concern for the environment and develop the skills which allow them to participate
more fully in a discursive and participatory democracy (Fien, 1993). Sterling (2001)
argues that education can contribute to social transformation if it is informed by a
paradigm characterized by reflection, participation, empowerment and self-
organization, and Moore (2005a, p. 552) advocates a shift towards ‘models of collab-
orative and transformative learning’ to engage with sustainability education. Finally,
modeling good practice has an established history in environmental and moral educa-
tion. In the context of racism, Singh argues that young children learn a great deal from
imitation, therefore teachers should provide good examples of ‘desired’ behaviours
(Singh, 1989). Similarly, Caduto (1983) cites evidence from ‘ecology camps’ of the
effectiveness of behaviour modeling in influencing young people’s environmental atti-
tudes. Equally apparent are the perils of contradictory behaviours and rhetoric.
In terms of suggested teaching methods, discussion is frequently advocated as
a productive learning strategy, particularly when teaching controversial issues
(Ratcliffe, 1997). When properly managed, discussion can allow learners to acknowl-
edge contrasting views and reflect upon their own position. However, problems can
also arise with this approach, such as over-easy acceptance of consensus and avoid-
ance of difficult issues. Students themselves often act as a conservative force in
discussions, exhibiting a transactional view of education whereby lecturers are
expected to provide all the answers. Moreover, the ideal of reasoned discussion is
more difficult to achieve than espouse. So-called discussions might entail no more
than dialogues of the deaf, resulting in divisiveness, personal belittlement and limited
tolerance for alternative views, rather than being enlightening and transformative
(Haydon, 1997). Management of discussions is a complex skill and substantial prior

planning is required to ensure desired learning outcomes are achieved. Role-play is
another popular technique for teaching controversial issues, but this again requires
considerable planning, small group sizes and a willingness by both teachers and
students to experiment. In addition, Oulton et al. (2004, p. 418) note that, ‘Given the
frequency with which role-play is recommended, there is surprisingly little evidence
in terms of learning outcomes related to attitudes that support the approach’s effec-
tiveness’. Further observational research would assist in investigating how lecturers
managed group discussions or role-plays, and their impact on student learning.
That not one respondent volunteered lectures as a teaching strategy may be inter-
preted in different ways, either as an expression of the ubiquity and unconscious,
unspoken acceptance of lectures as a modus operandi of higher education, or the need
for a radical rethink of higher education pedagogy to accommodate ESD. Equally,
many of the suggested pedagogies simply mirror current trends of general good prac-
tice in higher education. Bligh (2000, p. 9) notes for example that, ‘with few excep-
tions discussion is consistently more effective than lectures in getting students to
think’ and also acknowledges the benefits of active learning through simulations and
role-plays. Similarly, Biggs (1999) advocates experiential and other active learning
strategies, such as discussion groups, for enhancing student learning. Nonetheless,
these emerged as important and potentially productive pedagogies for ESD, if chal-
lenging in the context of rising student numbers and pressured resources. The second
stage of this research will enable us to explore in more depth the relationship between
lecturers’ conceptions of sustainable development and their approaches to teaching
their subject.
Final thoughts on institutional change

In conclusion, the findings of this research provide some encouragement for the insti-
tutional change agenda of ESD but also highlight a number of key challenges in inte-
grating sustainable development into the higher education mainstream. On a positive
note, this research suggests some solid foundations, at least within this group of
lecturers, both in terms of reported understanding of sustainable development issues
and apparent support for their incorporation into higher education curricula (either
in terms of content or process). How widespread these views are, however, (both
within and beyond our institution) still requires further investigation. In terms of the
potential problems of putting ESD into practice—aside from the perceived peripher-
ality of sustainable development to some subject areas and an understandable desire
by lecturers to avoid becoming engaged in some form of moral crusade—differing
conceptions of sustainable development which remained tolerable during abstract
discussions may resurface more strongly where such curriculum changes become
more of a reality. While the relationship between sustainable development and ESD
is currently under-theorized and not explored fully in this paper, it is an area worthy
of further research. The range of suggested teaching strategies for sustainable devel-
opment hints at the possibility of linking ESD with the educational enhancement
mission of the university. Respondents suggest imaginative and diverse teaching strat-
egies that reflect the contested and exploratory nature of sustainable development,
but these require careful evaluation and planning to ascertain the appropriate level
and form of ESD integration in each part of the multi-disciplinary community of
lecturers in higher education.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank our respondents and the staff of the Centre for
Sustainable Futures, University of Plymouth, for their support for this research. We
also thank the three anonymous reviewers for their challenging comments on earlier
versions of this paper. All remaining errors and (mis)interpretations are our own.
Notes on contributors
Deborah Cotton has a D.Phil. in education from Oxford University, and her research
interests include environmental education, education for sustainable develop-
ment and e-learning. She works as a research advisor at the University of Plymouth
and has a particular interest in developing educational research methodologies.
Martyn Warren is a fellow of the Centre for Sustainable Futures in the University of
Plymouth, and director of the Rural Futures Unit in the School of Geography.
He has 30 years’ experience of teaching and learning in higher education, and
has a particular interest in the use of online social science research techniques.
Olga Maiboroda was research assistant at the Centre for Sustainable Futures in the
University of Plymouth. She is a specialist in environmental education and social
development communications.
Ian Bailey has a Ph.D. in geography from the University of Plymouth, and specializes
in environmental policy, sustainable development, European integration and
personal environmental behaviour. He is currently a senior lecturer in human
geography at the University of Plymouth.
References
ARIES (2005) A national review of environmental education and its contribution to sustainability in
Australia: frameworks for sustainability, volume 1 (Sydney, Australian Government Department
of the Environment and Heritage). Available online at: www.aries.mq.edu.au/project.htm
(accessed 15 February 2007).
Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for quality learning at university (Buckingham, Society for Research in
Higher Education and Open University Press).
Blewit, J. & Cullingford, C. (2004) The sustainability curriculum: the challenge for higher education
(London, Earthscan).
Bligh, D. A. (2000) What’s the use of lectures? (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).
Braun Hamilton, M. (2003) Online survey response rates and times: background and guidance
for industry. Available online at: www.supersurvey.com/papers/supersurvey_white_paper_
response_rates.pdf (accessed 15 February 2007).
Burgess, J., Harrison C. & Filius P. (1998) Environmental communication and the cultural politics
of environmental citizenship, Environment and Planning, A30(8), 1445–1460.
Caduto, M. (1983) A review of environmental values education, Journal of Environmental Education,
14(3), 13–21.
Carew, A. & Mitchell, C. (2006) Metaphors used by some engineering academics in Australia for
understanding and explaining sustainability, Environmental Education Research, 12(2), 217–231.
Dawe, G., Jucker, R. & Martin, S. (2005) Sustainable development in higher education: current prac-
tice and future developments. A report for the Higher Education Academy. Available online at:
www.heacademy.ac.uk/misc/sustdevinHEfinalreport.pdf (accessed 15 February 2007).
DEFRA (2001) Third annual report of the Sustainable Development Education Panel. Available online
at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/sustainable/educpanel/2000ar/index.htm (accessed 15 February
2007).
Fien, J. (1993) Education for the environment: critical curriculum theorising and environmental educa-
tion (Geelong, Deakin University Press).
Gayford, C. (1991) Environmental education: a question of emphasis in the school curriculum,
Cambridge Journal of Education, 21, 73–79.
Gough, S. (2002) Right answers or wrong questions? Towards a theory of change for environmen-
tal learning, Trumpeter, 18(1). Available online at: http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/
trumpet/article/viewArticle/122/132 (accessed 11 June 2007).
Hammersley, M. (1998) Reading ethnographic research: a critical guide (London, Longman).
Haydon, G. (1997) Teaching about values: a new approach (London, Cassell).
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2005) Sustainable development in higher
education: strategic statement and action plan (London, HEFCE).
HM Government (2005) Securing the future: delivering the UK sustainable development strategy
(London, TSO).
Huckle, J. & Sterling, S. (Eds) (1996) Education for sustainability (London, Earthscan).
Jickling, B. (1994) Studying sustainable development: problems and possibilities, Canadian Journal
of Education, 19(3), 231–240.
Jickling, B. (2001) Environmental thought, the language of sustainability, and digital watches,
Environmental Education Research, 7(2), 167–180.
Jordan, A. & O’Riordan, T. (1999). Environmental problems and management, in: P. Cloke, M.
Crang & M. Goodwin (Eds) Introducing human geographies (London, Arnold), 133–140.
Leal Filho, W. (2000) Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability, International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(1), 9–19.
Lozano, R. (2006) Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through
barriers to change, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 787–796.
Martin, S. & Jucker, R. (2005) Educating earth-literate leaders, Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 29(1), 19–29.
Moore, J. (2005a) Barriers and pathways to creating sustainability education programs: policy,
rhetoric and reality, Environmental Education Research, 11(5), 537–555.
Moore, J. (2005b) Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the university
level: A guide for change agents, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
6(4), 326–339.
O’Riordan, T. & Voisey, H. (1998) The Transition to sustainability: the politics of Agenda 21 in Europe
(London, Earthscan).
Oulton, C., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. (2004) Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues,
International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423.
Palmer, J. & Neal, P. (1994) The handbook of environmental education (London, Routledge).
Pearce, D. (1993). Blueprint 3: measuring sustainable development (London, Earthscan).
Ratcliffe, M. (1997) Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curricu-
lum, International Journal of Science Education, 19, 167–182.
Reid, A. & Petocz, P. (2006) University lecturers’ understanding of sustainability, Higher Education,
51, 105–123.
Ruhl, J. (1997) Thinking of environmental law as a complex adaptive system: how to clean up the
environment by making a mess of environmental law, Houston Law Review, 34(4), 101–164.
Sauvé, L. (1996) Environmental education and sustainable development: a further appraisal,

Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 1, 7–35.
Silverman, D. (2005) Doing qualitative research (London, Sage Publications).
Singh, B. R. (1989) Neutrality and commitment in teaching moral and social issues in a multi-
cultural society, Educational Review, 41, 227–242.
SQW Limited (2006) Specialist review and evaluation of the Higher Education Partnership for
Sustainability (HEPS) Programme. Available online at: www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/rdreports/2006
/rd08_06/ (accessed 15 February 2007).
Stables, A. & Scott, W. (2002) The quest for holism in education for sustainable development,
Environmental Education Research, 8(1), 53–60.
Stake, R. E. (1995) The art of case study research (London, Sage Publications).
Sterling, S. (2001) Sustainable education: re-visioning learning and change (Totnes, Green Books).
Summers, M., Corney, G. & Childs, A. (2004) Student teachers’ conceptions of sustainable devel-
opment: the starting-points of geographers and scientists, Educational Research, 46(2), 163–182.
Tilbury, D. (2004) Environmental education for sustainability: a force for change in higher educa-
tion, in: P. Corcoran & A. Wals (Eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability
(Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers), 97–113
University of Plymouth (2004) Education for sustainable development. Stage 2 bid to HEFCE for a
Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (Plymouth, University of Plymouth).
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.
Wals, A. & Jickling, B. (2002) Sustainability in higher education: from doublethink and newspeak
to critical thinking and meaningful learning, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 3(3), 221–232.

La La 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

La La 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [INFLIBNET India Order]

On: 8 July 2010

Environmental Education Research

Sustainable development, higher education and pedagogy: a study of

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Sustainable development, higher

*Corresponding author. Educational Development and Learning Technologies (EDaLT),

ISSN 1350-4622 (print)/ISSN 1469-5871 (online)/07/050579–19

learning opportunities. (DEFRA, 2001, p. 16)

That lecturers may hold differing conceptions of sustainable development is illus-

engineering academics in Australia for understanding and explaining sustainability.

Perhaps because of these difficulties, there is evidence that changes to campus

towards sustainability in higher education. A notable exception is Reid and Petocz

The current study

1. Questionnaire survey of lecturers across the institution

Table 1. Respondents by faculty

Percentage of respondents Percentage of student

of respondents to the survey suggested that they were broadly representative of

2. In-depth, semi-structured interviews

Table 2. Views on key elements of SD (N = 328)

1. Developing new technologies to reduce the impact of harmful 84

difference between respondents from different disciplines—despite the fact that

Another major theme in these responses concerned the problematic, contested

It is a contestable concept and thus it is subject to different interpretations and manipulation.

Some respondents commented on the difficulty of sustainable development termi-

2. Attitudes towards sustainable development

O’Riordan’s modified typology of worldviews concerning relationships between

I don't really know what

I think it is a waste of time

I am not really bothered

It's OK if others want to do

I think it's a Good Thing

Figure 1. Lecturer’s attitudes towards sustainable development

Three other respondents emphasized the redistribution of wealth rather than

Figure 2. Understanding of the relationship between economy and environment

change but feelings of powerlessness to influence politicians emerged in many of these

However, several respondents also commented that sustainable development was

development. Of the 62 respondents who expanded on this question, explanations

Of course, what it means to debate a controversial issue objectively (as opposed to

(c) Experiential learning (9 responses). In this explanation, teaching about sustainable

Use of practical examples was viewed as essential to aid students’ understanding

ing were all suggested as useful teaching methods:

This group of respondents placed considerable emphasis on student involvement

(d) Empowerment (5 responses). A small number of respondents linked sustainable

Other respondents mentioned ‘critical investigations’, ‘thinking independently’

Of the other respondents, three referred to use of ‘different’ or ‘new’ methods of

Discussion: Possibilities and Problems of Incorporating ESD into the higher

prescriptive nature of some conceptions of ESD run counter to higher education’s

To educate for sustainability is not necessarily educational when sustainability is fixed,

However, concerns about including sustainable development in the curriculum

(Haydon, 1997). Management of discussions is a complex skill and substantial prior

Final thoughts on institutional change

Sauvé, L. (1996) Environmental education and sustainable development: a further appraisal,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi