To wrap up the course Higher Education Didactics for Sustainability (HEDS), which we have written about elsewhere on this blog “Higher Education Didactics for Sustainability” Spring 2026 now open for registration! – Teaching for Sustainability, participants are asked to reflect on their journey. In this post, participant Carolina Rodriguez shares her thoughts.
Reflecting on this course, the most important shift for me has been moving from thinking about sustainability as something we add to education to understanding it as something that fundamentally challenges what education is for. At the beginning, I saw sustainability mainly as a matter of integrating new content or perspectives. Now, I see more clearly that the issue is deeper. Education systems often reproduce the very social and economic patterns that are driving ecological crises. This aligns with arguments that sustainability in higher education can become superficial if it is not critically examined and embedded in meaningful learning processes (Wals & Jickling, 2022).
One of the most important insights for me is that sustainability is not neutral, and neither is education. Sustainability is closely tied to questions of inequality, historical injustice, and lived experience, and this complexity carries over into how we teach it. The way we structure learning, what we prioritize, and which perspectives are included or excluded all shape how students understand the world and their role in it. This has made me more aware of how easily teaching can reinforce dominant narratives, particularly those centered on growth, productivity, and efficiency, without questioning their broader implications.
Another important development in my thinking concerns sustainability competencies. I initially approached these as a useful framework that could be incorporated into curricula. However, I now see them as deeply interdependent and context-sensitive (Redman & Wiek, 2021). This has led me to question more modular approaches to curriculum design. In my own teaching, I recognize a recurring gap, e.g., students are often able to analyze complex systems or imagine future scenarios, but struggle to translate these into concrete actions within institutional and societal constraints. This suggests that we may be placing too much emphasis on analytical capacities while underdeveloping practical, organizational, and reflexive dimensions.
This connects closely to my understanding of didactics for sustainability. I have become more aware that sustainability education is not only about what we teach, but how we teach and the learning environments we create. Approaches that support dialogue, plural perspectives, and engagement with real-world contexts seem particularly important, especially given that sustainability challenges involve uncertainty and conflicting values. This resonates with pluralistic approaches to sustainability education, which emphasize democratic engagement and critical reflection rather than fixed answers (Öhman & Östman, 2019). At the same time, I see a clear tension between these ambitions and the realities of higher education, where time constraints, assessment systems, and performance expectations often limit what is possible. This tension between what is needed and what is feasible has become a central theme in my reflection.
This learning will influence my practice by shifting my focus from simply delivering knowledge to creating space for critical reflection and engagement. I want to move towards teaching that encourages students to question dominant assumptions, work with real-world problems, and engage with complexity rather than seeking simplified solutions. In practical terms, this means integrating more discussion-based learning, connecting course content to societal challenges, and making room for uncertainty and multiple perspectives. I also want to experiment with more participatory formats, where students are not only learning but also contributing to the direction of the course. At the same time, I am increasingly aware that meaningful change requires navigating structural constraints.
Universities are shaped by disciplines, internal structures, and wider social and economic systems that do not always support sustainability goals. Because of this, change often must happen step by step, by working within existing structures and gradually shifting practices. When I think about an ideal university, I imagine one that is more open and connected to society and the environment. It would focus on collective well-being rather than growth, and value collaboration over competition. Its teaching, research, and everyday practices would reflect its stated values. It would also create space for critical thinking, open dialogue, and learning together.
I am very grateful for having participated in this course, which has deepened my understanding of sustainability in higher education as a complex, value-driven, and inherently political field. It has also shifted how I think about change, not as the application of new ideas or tools, but as an ongoing engagement with tensions, contradictions, and constraints. Rather than something to be resolved, I now see these tensions as productive spaces for learning and action.
References
Redman, A., & Wiek, A. (2021). Competencies for advancing transformations towards sustainability. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 785163. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.785163Links to an external site.
Wals, E. J., & Jickling, B. (2022). “Sustainability” in higher education: From doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.
Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2019). Different teaching traditions in environmental and sustainability education. In W. Leal Filho (Ed.), Sustainable Development Teaching (pp. 70–82). Routledge.
Thanks a lot Carolina for sharing! HEDS will soon accept new applications for Spring 2027!
