Teaching for Sustainability

Grid View

Invitation: “Megagames – Large Scale Social Simulations” with Ola Leifler

As educators, how can we support students in developing skills to facilitate and engage in constructive conversations around social change? Large-scale social simulations (“megagames”) provide space and context needed to train these skills. At this seminar, Ola Leifler from Linköping University will present their leading research on large-scale social simulations, and demonstrate some of the games they use in their teaching.

Following our seminar series on Teaching for Sustainability – Serious Games, we will now take a closer look at megagames – a type of serious games that take the shape of large-scale social simulations. A serious game is any intervention or simulation that integrates educational content, skills development, and learning outcomes into a game-like environment that promotes student engagement, critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration. By combining game mechanics with pedagogical principles, serious games allow students to explore complex real-world issues, experience decision-making scenarios, and apply theoretical concepts in an interactive and inclusive learning environment.

Join our seminar to explore how megagames are being used as a pedagogical approach to advance student understanding of complex sustainability issues and in particular fosters constructive dialogue on social change. Ola Leifler at Linköping University has long experience with serious games and leads a research project on megagames, focused on energy transitions, regional transformation, and sustainable consumption.

During the seminar, we will:

  • Get an introduction to megagames as an educational activity
  • Hear about the latest research on megagames
  • Get a demonstration of megagames used at Linköping University
  • Explore the possible use of megagames in our own teaching

About the Speaker: Ola Leifler

Associate Professor Ola Leifler is lecturer at the Department of Computer and Information Science at Linköping University. His research focusses on creating good conditions for conversations about social change through large-scale social simulations (megagames). As a teacher, Ola has a strong interest in Education for Sustainability. Read more about Ola’s research here: Ola Leifler – Linköping University

The seminar will be held in English.

Registration

Registration is open until Tuesday 18 March. For late registration, contact terese.thoni@cec.lu.se.

Visit the registration page here.

Audience

This seminar is intended for programme directors, course coordinators, educators, and study administrators at Lund University. Others are welcome to register, but priority will be given to those from Lund University with existing educational assignments. You do not need previous experience with serious games to attend the seminar.

Venue, Date & Time

Venue: Department of Physics, Sölvegatan 14C, Lund. Room: H421

Upon entering, signage will be visible directing you to the room location.

Date & Time: Thursday 20 March from 13:00 – 15:00

13/02/2025

This entry was posted in

Events

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Studenter och lärare kräver en omställning av högre utbildning för en hållbar framtid

Publicerad av Aftonbladet 7/2 2025:

163 universitetsanställda ställer sig bakom studenters krav att påskynda förändringen av högre utbildning så att studenterna som medborgare och i sina framtida yrkesliv ska kunna bidra till en samhällsomställning för hållbarhet. Dessa krav har studenterna tidigare uttryckt i ett öppet brev till rektorerna vid samtliga svenska lärosäten och de inkluderar bland annat tvärdisciplinära utbildningar och ökat studentinflytande för att skapa en hållbar samhällsomställning.  

Medan alltmer alarmerande forskningsresultat visar att mänskligheten står inför en existentiell kris på grund av klimatförändringar, förlust av biologisk mångfald och överskridandet av ytterligare planetära gränser så sker mycket arbete vid svenska universitet och högskolor fortfarande som om dessa kriser inte existerade. Det gäller inte minst undervisningen. I ett öppet brev skickar representanter för 13 olika studentkårer en uppmaning till landets rektorer att påskynda processen att göra utbildningen mer relevant, en uppmaning som vi forskare och lärare vid universitetet och högskolor ställer oss helhjärtat bakom.

Brevet är resultatet av en workshop som genomfördes i oktober 2024, där representanter för studentkårerna och Klimatnätverkets arbetsgrupp för lärande för hållbar utveckling diskuterade hur universitetens utbildningar behöver förändras för att bättre förbereda studenterna för att vara en aktiv och kunnig del av den samhällsomställning som krävs för en hållbar och rättvis framtid.

Klimatnätverket är ett nationellt nätverk av universitet och högskolor som bland annat syftar till att stärka samarbetet och utbytet mellan lärosätena inom klimatområdet och underlätta för lärosätena att uppfylla sin del av Parisavtalet. Klimatnätverkets arbete bedrivs i olika fokusgrupper varav en är lärande för hållbar utveckling.

De allvarliga och omfattande brister som studenterna identifierade i dagens utbildningssystem är:

  • att det saknas förståelse och acceptans för att utbildningarna behöver förändras i grunden om de ska kunna utbilda studenter att bidra till en hållbar värld. Därmed saknas också vilja och beslutsamhet till sådan förändring.
  • att akademin, som står som garant för mycket av kunskapen kring klimat- och miljöutmaningarna, inte fullt ut är med och driver samhällsomställningen.
  • att alla utbildningar inte lyfter frågor om hållbarhet och dess komplexitet eller karaktäriseras av lärande för hållbar utveckling, samt att det saknas progression i lärandet för hållbar utveckling.

Studenterna kräver att utbildningarna förändras på följande sätt:

  • att utbildningar designas, både med avseende på innehåll och pedagogik, med utgångspunkt i de hållbarhetsutmaningar som världen står inför, så att studenternas kompetenser därigenom är aktuella och relevanta för samhällets hållbarhetsutmaningar.
  • att utbildningar inkluderar tvärdisciplinära möten och kurser där studenter får arbeta med lösningar till verkliga uppdragsgivare och deras samhällsutmaningar. 
  • att alla lärare och personer i ledande roller på våra lärosäten får kompetens om lärande för hållbar utveckling och om lärosätenas ansvar och möjligheter att bidra till samhällsomställning genom lärande för hållbar utveckling.

Studenterna anser att de har en central roll i det förändringsarbetet och att deras initiativ och engagemang måste tas på allvar. De uttrycker i brevet att deras röster ibland inte får gehör. De uttrycker att det är avgörande att:

  • lärosätena i större grad efterfrågar och tar tillvara studenternas kompetens i utformningen och genomförandet av de förändringar av kurser och utbildningsprogram som behövs,
  • studenternas röster tas på allvar i informella och formella sammanhang och att studentinflytande meriteras som en del av utbildningarna,
  • Sveriges lärosäten gemensamt etablerar ett Forum för transformation av högre utbildning för ett större ansvarstagande för framtiden där både studenter, lärare, utbildningsforskare och universitetsledningar finns representerade.

Vi håller med studenterna och tycker att det är viktigt att tillmötesgå deras krav. Vi uppmanar er som rektorer att påskynda denna förändringsprocess, så att de kunskaper och färdigheter som studenterna får med sig från våra lärosäten förbereder dem väl för deras framtida yrkesroller, inklusive att ge dem verktyg och möjlighet att aktivt bidra till en hållbar samhällsomställning. Ett nära samarbete mellan alla svenska högskolor och universitet, studenter och relevanta samhällsaktörer är avgörande för att lyckas med denna omställning. Vi som undertecknar denna text är beredda att bidra till denna förändring men behöver också ett helhjärtat stöd från ledningarna vid de högskolor och universitet där vi är verksamma för att lyckas.

Jeannette Eggers, forskare i skoglig planering, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Glenn Bark, universitetslektor i malmgeologi, Luleå tekniska universitet

Esther Hauer, universitetslektor i pedagogik i arbetslivet, Uppsala universitet

Karin Gerhardt, forskare i biologisk mångfald, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Anne-Kathrin Peters, docent i teknikvetenskapens lärande, KTH

Ben Kenward, universitetslektor i psykologi, Uppsala universitet

Isabelle Letellier, universitetslektor i barn och ungdomsvetenskap, Stockholm universitet

Sverker Molander, professor i miljösystem och risk, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola

Maria Hylberg, doktorand, Barn- och ungdomsvetenskapliga institutionen, Stockholms universitet

Cecilia Enberg, universitetslektor, Linköpings universitet

Malin Östman, kurssamordnare, CEMUS, Uppsala universitet  

Ulrika Persson-Fischier, PhD, Excellent lärare, adjunkt, Uppsala universitet

Johanna Nygren Spanne, civ.ing, adjunkt, programansvarig för Miljövetarprogrammet – Människa, Miljö, Samhälle, Malmö universitet

Fredrika Mårtensson, Människa och samhälle, universitetslektor, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Hannu Larsson, universitetslektor i informatik, Örebro universitet

Diana Holmqvist, universitetslektor i pedagogik och vuxnas lärande, Linköpings universitet

Johanna Björklund, universitetslektor i miljövetenskap, Örebro universitet

Ewa Livmar, Kurssamordnare, CEMUS, Uppsala universitet 

Helena Fornstedt, postdoktor med undervisningsansvar, Uppsala universitet

Carin Cuadra, professor i socialt arbete, Malmö universitet

Mirjam Glessmer, universitetslektor och pedagogisk utvecklare, Lunds Universitet

Felix-Sebastian Koch, docent, Linköpings Universitet

Emilia Åkesson, fil. dr pedagogik, postdoktor i genusvetenskap, Umeå Universitet

Max Koch, professor i socialpolitik och hållbarhet, Lunds universitet

Jayeon Lee, universitetslektor i socialt arbete, Göteborgs universitet

Naghmeh Nasiritousi, docent, Linköpings universitet

Lena Sawyer, docent i socialt arbete, Göteborgs universitet

Stephanie Rost, doktorand, Göteborgs universitet

Klara Bolander Laksov, professor, Stockholms universitet

Anders Rosén, universitetslektor i ingenjörsutbildning, KTH

Per Andersson, professor i pedagogik, Linköpings universitet

Cecilia Josefsson, doktorand och universitetslärare, Uppsala universitet 

Marie Kvarnström, konsulent, SLU Centrum för biologisk mångfald

Charlotte Ponzelar, doktorand i didaktik, Uppsala universitet

Natalie Jellinek, pedagogisk utvecklare, Undervisning och Lärande, Karolinska Institutet

Rhiannon Pugh, universitetslektor i innovation, Lunds universitet 

Matilda Karlsson, doktorand i socialt arbete, Göteborgs universitet

Christoffer S. Kanarp, forskare i miljökommunikation, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Anna-Lena Sahlberg, universitetslektor i fysik, Lunds universitet

Cecilia Lalander, docent i teknologi, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Charlotta Delin, pedagogisk utvecklare, KTH

Johanna Spångberg, forskare hållbar livsmedelsproduktion, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Martina Angela Caretta, universitetslektor och docent inom kulturgeografi, Lunds universitet

Iann Lundegård universitetslektor och docent i nv-ämnenas didaktik Stockholms universitet 

Fredrik Björk, adjunkt i miljövetenskap och doktorand i miljöhistoria, Malmö universitet

Manuel Fernández Santana, doktorand, Linköpings universitet

Susanna Sternberg Lewerin, professor i epizootologi & smittskydd, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Kajsa Emilsson, forskare i socialpolitik och hållbarhet, Lunds universitet

Sara Gabrielsson, universitetslektor i hållbarhetsvetenskap, Lunds universitet

Helena Röcklinsberg, docent i etik, universitetslektor i djuretik, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Jana Weiss, docent i miljökemi, Stockholms universitet

Brita Sundelin, docent i miljövetenskap, Stockholms universitet

Nike Lindhe, doktorand i klinisk psykologi, Linköpings universitet

Hulda Karlsson-Larsson, doktorand i psykologi, Linköpings universitet

Ola Uhrqvist, universitetslektor, Linköpings universitet

Carole Chappuis, doktorand i naturvetenskapernas didaktik, Linköpings universitet 

Joëlle Rüegg, professor i miljötoxikologi, Uppsala universitet

Johanna Lundström, forskare i skoglig planering, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Arthur Rohaert, doktorand i brandteknik, Lunds universitet

Susanne Antell, universitetsadjunkt i naturvetenskap, Högskolan Dalarna

Ingrid Strid, forskare och lärare vid Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala

Tullia Jack, biträdande lektor, docent, Tjänstevetenskap, Lunds Universitet

Felicia Garcia, pedagogisk utvecklare, Högskolepedagogiskt centrum, Örebro universitet

Muriel Côte, universitetslektor och docent inom kulturgeografi, Lunds universitet

Katarina Andreasen, docent i biologi, Uppsala universitet

Agnes Hamberger, doktorand i utbildningssociologi, Uppsala universitet

Elenor Kaminsky, universitetslektor, docent i Folkhälsa vid Uppsala universitet

Eva Friman, forskare & programchef, Centrum för hälsa och hållbarhet, Uppsala universitet

Jessika Richter, biträdande universitetslektor i hållbar konsumtion, Lunds universitet

Yulia Vakulenko, universitetsadjunkt i förpackningslogistik, Lunds universitet

Åke Hestner, universitetsadjunkt i Matematikdidaktik, Högskolan Dalarna

Karin Steen, universitetslektor, Centrum för studier av uthållig samhällsutveckling/LUCSUS och pedagogisk utvecklare, Avdelningen för högskolepedagogisk utveckling, Lunds Universitet

Anton Grenholm, samordnare för miljö- och hållbarhetsfrågor, Högskolan Dalarna

Thomas Hickmann, biträdande universitetslektor i statsvetenskap, Lunds universitet 

Rolf Larsson, professor i tillämpad matematik och statistik, Uppsala Universitet

Björn Victor, professor i datalogi, Uppsala universitet

Ronny Alexandersson, doktor i biologi, Uppsala universitet

Frederik Aagaard Hagemann, doktorand inom urban landskapsplanering, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Kathrin Zeller, docent och universitetslektor i immunteknologi, Lunds Universitet

Ida Wallin, forskare och lärare, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Kevin Noone, professor emeritus i kemisk meteorologi, Stockholms universitet

Magdalena Malm, forskare inom proteinvetenskap, KTH

Anna Malmquist, docent i psykologi, Linköpings universitet

Kristina Boréus, professor i statskunskap, Uppsala universitet

Romina Martin, forskare och lärare i hållbarhet, Stockholm Universitet

Stephanie Carleklev, universitetslektor i design, Linnéuniversitetet

Caroline Greiser, forskare och lärare i landskapsekologi, Stockholm universitet

Patrik Andersson, professor i miljökemi, Umeå universitet

Eva-Maria Nordström, universitetslektor i skoglig planering, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Veronica Flodin, universitetslektor i naturvetenskapernas didaktik, Stockholms universitet

Martin Hultman, docent i vetenskaps-, teknik och miljöstudier, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola 

Sachiko Ishihara, doktorand i kulturgeografi, Uppsala universitet 

Patrik Oskarsson, docent i landsbygdsutveckling, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala

Johanna Lönngren, docent i teknikdidaktik, Umeå universitet

Per Adman, docent och universitetslektor, Uppsala universitet

Tomas Persson, docent i matematik, Lunds tekniska högskola, Lunds universitet

Marie Bengtsson, professor i kemi med inriktning mot kemisk ekologi, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Ebba Malmqvist, docent i miljömedicin, Lunds universitet

Anna Scaini, forskare och lärare i vattenresurser, Stockholms universitet

Cecilia Sundberg, universitetslektor i bioenergisystem, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Juan Samper, doktorand i hållbarhetsvetenskap, Lunds universitet

Stefano Manzoni, professor i ekohydrologi, Stockholms universitet

Göran Finnveden, professor i miljöstrategisk analys, KTH

Hanna Grauers Wiktorin, postdoktor, Uppsala Universitet

Göran Bolin, professor i medie- och kommunikationsvetenskap, Södertörns högskola

Michael Gilek, professor i miljövetenskap, Södertörns högskola

Kristina Riegert, professor i journalistik, Södertörns högskola

Maria Wolrath Söderberg, docent i retorik, Södertörns högskola

Daniel Pargman, docent i medieteknik med inriktning mot hållbarhet, KTH

Jonas Andersson, docent i medie- och kommunikationsvetenskap, Södertörns högskola

Maria Niemi, docent i folkhälsovetenskap, Karolinska Institutet 

Isabel Löfgren, lektor i medie- och kommunikationsvetenskap, Södertörns högskola

Klas Ytterbrink Nordenskiöld, doktorand i medicin, Karolinska Institutet 

Stina Bengtsson, professor i medie- och kommunikationsvetenskap, Södertörns högskola

Rikard Hjorth Warlenius, docent i samhällsvetenskapliga miljöstudier, Södertörns högskola

Peter Dobers, professor i företagsekonomi, dekan för fakultetsnämnden 2016-2022, Södertörns högskola

Tommy Jensen, professor i företagsekonomi, Stockholms Universitet 

Birgitta Schwartz, professor i företagsekonomi, Stockholms Universitet

Marita Cronqvist, docent i pedagogiskt arbete, Högskolan i Borås

Ulf Bergström, docent i marin ekologi, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Hervé Corvellec, professor i företagsekonomi, Lunds Universitet

Erik Månsson, universitetslektor, Handelshögskolan vid Karlstads Universitet

Henrik Loodin, fil. dr. sociologi, Lunds universitet

Sara Persson, postdoc i företagsekonomi, Södertörns högskola

Matilda Dahl, docent i företagsekonomi Uppsala universitet

Matilda S. Watz, biträdande universitetslektor i strategisk hållbar utveckling, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola 

Åsa Cajander, professor i människa-datorinteraktion, Uppsala universitet

Herman Stål, docent företagsekonomi, Handelshögskolan vid Umeå universitet

Kristin Caravelli-Svärd, doktorand i företagsekonomi, Karlstads Universitet

Helén Williams, docent i miljö- och energisystem, Karlstads universitet

Henrietta Palmer, arkitekt och forskare, Göteborgs Universitet

Göran Broman, professor i maskinteknik, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola

Fredrik Wikström, professor i Miljö- och energisystem, Karlstads universitet

Maria Berge, universitetslektor vid Institutionen för naturvetenskapernas och matematikens didaktik, Umeå universitet

Annette Risberg, gästprofessor i organisation, Malmö Universitet

Markus Schneider, universitetspedagogiska enheten, Karlstads universitet 

Michael Håkansson, Lektor i didaktik, Stockholms universitet

Alexis Engström, pedagogisk utvecklare, Mittuniversitetet

Cecilia Åsberg, professor i genus, natur, kultur, The Posthumanities Hub, Linköpings universitet

Sven Borén, Lektor i Strategisk Hållbar Utveckling, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola

Michael Johansson, Forskare Tjänstevetenskap, Lunds universitet

Per Knutsson, lektor i humanekologi, Göteborgs Universitet

Anette Strömberg, universitetslektor innovationsteknik, Mälardalens universitet

Kjell Vowles, postdoktor, Göteborgs universitet.

Cecilia Bratt, lektor i strategisk hållbar utveckling, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola

Annika Olofsdotter Bergström, Lektor Medieteknik, Södertörns Högskola

Nina Wormbs, professor i teknikhistoria, KTH

Adam Wickberg, docent i historiska studier av teknik, vetenskap och miljö, KTH

Alexandra D’Urso, pedagogisk utvecklare på Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet och forskare i pedagogik

Merlina Missimer, docent i Strategisk Hållbar Utveckling, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola

Jenny Helin, docent i företagsekonomi, Rektorsråd för Uppsala universitet Campus Gotland

Annie Gregory, doktorand, Uppsala Universitet

Pernilla Ouis, fil. dr. i humanekologi och professor i socialt arbete vid Högskolan i Halmstad

Lars Hedegård, universitetslektor i företagsekonomi, Högskolan i Borås

Hampus Holmström, analytiker, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

Dana Bergman, universitetsadjunkt på institutionen för strategisk hållbar utveckling på Blekinge Tekniska Högskola

Birgit Penzenstadler, Associate Professor for Software Engineering, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola and University of Gothenburg

Carl-Gustaf Bornehag, professor i folkhälsovetenskap, Karlstads universitet, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, NY, USA

Malin Knutz, PhD folkhälsovetenskap, Karlstads universitet, programledare för “Hälsa, miljö och samhälle” samt Masterprogrammet i folkhälsovetenskap.

Helena Pedersen, docent i pedagogik, programledare för Masterprogrammet i Education for Sustainable Development, Göteborgs universitet

Carolina Jernbro, docent i folkhälsovetenskap, Karlstads universitet

Åsa Bringsén, lektor i folkhälsovetenskap och programområdesansvarig för Folkhälsovetenskapligt program med inriktning beteendevetenskap, Högskolan Kristianstad.

Ingemar Jönsson, professor i ekologi, Högskolan Kristianstad.

Samuel Petros Sebhatu, universitetslektor, Handelshögskolan vid Karlstads Universitet

Petra Nilsson Lindström, biträdande professor i hälsovetenskap, Högskolan Kristianstad

Lena Gumaelius, docent i teknikvetenskapens lärande, KTH

07/02/2025

This entry was posted in

Uncategorized

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Grand Seminar “Exploring the complexities and potentials of environmental communication”

Did you attend the Grand Seminar on “Exploring the complexities and potentials of environmental communication”, organised by LU Sustainability Forum, BECC and MERGE? If not, you definitely missed out on a lot of interesting input and a great opportunity to connect with passionate people that want to explore environmental communication!

All presentations were very interesting in their own right, but to give you a taste of what you missed, I am only writing about my personal highlight: Nina Wormbs speaking on

“Legitimising non-action”.

There are so many decisions we make every single day, regarding our carbon footprint, but also healthy eating habits, screen time, and many more, where we know the right thing to do, yet we manage to find ways to do something else that seem justified to us, so we can do things we know to be bad without feeling bad about them. So how does that work? That is where Nina Wormbs research comes in: She is investigating the different ways people argue for why they act against their own better judgement on questions of sustainability.

But let’s take a step back. Looking at all the examples mentioned above and many more (smoking? Social media? Exercising?), knowing better does not mean doing better. A lot of effort in science communication goes into trying to make people “listen to science”, but in that context “science” most often means STEM, and just telling people is clearly ineffective — the information deficit is not the problem. There are many reasons for non-acting, both in the biology of the brain AND in how people function as social beings in a culture. If we want people to change how people act, we, the researchers and communicators, need to ourselves listen to other disciplines. STEM might tell us that we need to act, but not how. And the how very easily becomes ideological and political. There are, of course, climate / science deniers, but while we need to understand what is going on with them, they are not the majority. The majority of people do accept science, want to act, but find themselves acting against their knowledge and intentions.

Wormbs presents a study where people self-report in survey, responding to the prompt “Describe an experience of doing what you know you shouldn’t do. How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance? How did you legitimise it in your head to make it “ok”?” They had about 400 respondents, and many respondents gave more than one reason. The most common reasons were

  • Account thinking. In this line of argumentation, people balance what they do against what they don’t do, for example “I want to fly. I know I should not, but I bike to work and don’t eat meat, so overall flying is ok”. The problem with that is that there cannot be a balance, since there isn’t a budget that is “ok” to use; everything we do emits CO2 that shouldn’t get into the atmosphere, so balancing isn’t a valid approach. Also, most often the proportions are off between actions that people are trying to balance, between the “good” and “less-good” deeds. If people put more effort into something, it tends to counts more in their imagined balance, even if the actual effect is minimal.
  • Comparison. There are always people who do worse than us and in comparison to them, what we do is really not so bad or maybe even pretty good; or if we are comparing with ourselves, we are at least doing a bit better than we did years ago. There is a lot of “what-about-ism” happening.
  • Limitations. People argue for example that they need to take the car to work, even thought the wouldn’t want to, there is no other possibility. There are a lot of goal conflicts in these kinds of arguments. For example, if we want women to be able to be bosses, maybe they need to dive a car to bring their kids to daycare and pick them up again (was the example she mentioned). Or if you live far away from your family, seeing them is valued very highly and emitting seems justified.
  • “I am only human”. Here, people say things like “I cannot save the planet by myself” or “I had a tough week, I needed and deserved to do this”.
  • “Tiny me”. This is when people argue that their contribution is so tiny, it shouldn’t count in comparison to Amazon or China. However, in democracy, we don’t argue that way, we argue that every vote counts.
  • Technology is going to solve it! This is a very common line of arguments in politics, but surprisingly only surfaced a handful of times from the 400 people!

In this survey, people were asked how they justify things to themselves. But there is always an audience, even for internal arguments, since we are social beings. Our arguments need to not only “work” on us, but they also need to work on people that matter to us (even if only in the conversations that we have about it in our own head). If someone who matters to us questions our arguments, we might rethink it and either find better arguments or potentially realize that the argument does not hold, and in order to find approval with the people who matter to us, change behaviour.

In a second study, Wormbs investigated how people argue that DO change stuff, e.g. stop flying. Typically they’ve known for a long time that they should change, but then suddenly had a realisation that they need to act, that they cannot escape. Typical triggers for this realisation are reported as

  • Fear! For example, all of Fridays for Future is built on fear. Fear can convert knowledge into action!
  • Having children or grandchildren or some other important child in their life. A child adds another 30 years or so of relevant timeline beyond our own projected lifetime, so suddenly the longer-term future matters more.
  • Children bring knowledge home from school, and take action like not eating meat any more. Parents or other carers need to relate to that, often leading to a change in behavior for them, too (even just because it is easier to just cook vegetarian for everybody than preparing two parallel meals)
  • Comparison (remember above? There is always someone who behaves worse than us) changes and now is not with a neighbour with a bigger house and more cars and frequent flying any more, but with other places in the world where emissions are much lower but the standard of living needs to be built up
  • Responsibility. Here, people think “If not me, then who?” They develop the will to act in accordance with convictions. “If it all goes down the drain, I want to be able to look my kid in the eye and say I did all I could”

But now the question remains: How do we reach people who want to change? How can we have the meaningful conversations? What we all have to go through is an emotional, painful change and potentially an existential crisis. How do we do it well?

In the discussion following the presentation, the point was brought up on whether we aren’t putting too much responsibility on the individual. What about the system? And here, Wormbs pointed out that there are not just those two levels. Individuals can affect a group (their family, a sports club, their neighbours), a municipality, an enterprise, …, all the way up to national and international governance. And I find that a very hopeful framing! We are going to disagree talking about sustainability, even with people who are generally on the same page as us, but we need to have the discussions. We need more, and better, conversations. As I wrote recently: The process is the point.

If you are interested in discussing Teaching for Sustainability, you are very welcome to get in touch with us!

P.S.: If you are interested, you can read my summary of some of the other presentations on my personal blog.

27/01/2025

This entry was posted in

Event summaries

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Assessing Key Competencies for Sustainability

Before we get into the how of assessing key competencies for sustainability, let’s first look at the why (other than that is part of what we get paid to do, and that students need to somehow get certified for courses we teach in order to complete their studies). Assessment always also serves a double purpose with regard to improving both learning and teaching: It gives students an idea of how they are doing in relation to teacher expectations, and it gives the teacher feedback on how well their teaching is working.

Of course, these last two points are really difficult in practice. Is what we measure really aligned with what we are hoping students will have learned? And can we even measure what we have hoped they have learned? If we think about Teaching for Sustainability as mainly teaching key competencies, i.e. embedded performances or internal cognitive processes, rather than disciplinary content (often factual), we face a task that is both exciting and challenging. How are we going to teach and assess competencies like whether someone can think in systems or envision different futures in ways that actually capture that competence fully? I don’t have all the answers, but here are some thoughts.

First, let us start backwards and “constructively align” our instruction by thinking about the Intended Learning Outcomes, how we would know if students meet them (i.e. the assessment), and then lastly how we might actually go about organising teaching and learning so students have the chance to show us in the assessment that they have met the learning outcomes (i.e. the learning activities).

Intended Learning Outcomes: Key Competencies for Sustainability

Let’s say our learning outcomes are key competencies for sustainability. There are several frameworks in the literature that have converged so much over time that it does not really make a difference which one we pick, so let us just go for the one by Redman & Wiek (2021).

Redrawn after Redman & Wiek (2021)

One thing is always important to mention about this framework: Areas in the figure are obviously neither proportional to importance of competencies, nor the time that should be spent on each!

With that out of the way, the framework in a nutshell: Students always learn a lot of disciplinary competencies that range from fairly generic to highly specialised. But they also need content-independent general and professional competencies, like for example critical thinking (an all-time favourite!) or good communication skills. They also need to develop and practice inter-personal and intra-personal competencies, and that is where we come into the realm of key competencies for sustainability: Together with planning competencies and implementation competencies, they can become integrated competencies. The key here is that while competencies can be practised each on their own to some extent, they need to also be practised together. Btw, note how all these competencies seem to make a lot of sense to master to be prepared for what the future might bring, regardless of whether we want to tackle sustainability challenges (There is an almost complete overlap with the requirements of the 1993 law that sets the requirements for a Swedish Master of Science in Engineering!). So it’s basically the common-sense understanding of preparedness for the future put into a framework that shows how the competences build on and relate to each other and to disciplinary content.

But what do those competencies entail in detail? Some of them were operationalised for higher education in Wiek et al. (2015), which is very helpful (and also a little scary because there is so much that we should be able to do!) Below, I am sharing one slide on collaboration (or interpersonal competence) because it feels like the one competence that we might be most familiar with, both when it comes to our own skills and teaching it. I share similar slides for the other competencies here.

In the levels of “novices”, “intermediates” and “advanced learners can …” is some kind of progression indicated, maybe with novice being incoming students and advanced what students will have mastered over the 5 years of a program. And of course we can also consider whether all these competencies need to be mastered by everybody, or whether we should rather count on working in teams with distributed expertise, as Wiek et al. (2011) suggest (and to be fair, the article is specifically about sustainability programs). In any case, the Wiek et al. (2015) article provides a very detailed account of how each of the key competencies can be operationalised, and that is a great start that then every teacher, every program needs to adapt to their own context to formulate their Intended Learning Outcomes on module, course, program level. But keep in mind that practising elements in isolation is not enough, they need to also be practised in an integrated way. So there needs to be some progression over time.

Now, let’s assume we have formulated the Intended Learning Outcomes. How would we be able to know if students every achieve them?

Assessment Tools

This is actually a really difficult question. Redman et al. (2021) gives an overview over common assessment tools, which I summarise in the slide below. But note that this is study about what is most common, and then discussing pros and cons, it is not a necessarily a list of what is most desirable!

So far, so good! But now we need to combine the assessment tool with some form of assessment criteria. I recently wrote a longer blog post on the topic where I show different rubrics from the literature (and I found it really interesting, so you might want to check it out), but what I think is most important to consider is what indicators can we observe that someone has learnt “enough”, and how we set the relative importance of showing one indicator vs not showing another one.

One distinction that I find helpful when thinking about this is whether we want to measure or judge a student performance (you might want to read Hagen & Butler (1996) on this). In a measurement mindset, we assume that we can actually find objective measures of performance, whereas in a judging model we rely on holistic assessment by experts. But to ensure fairness, even those experts need to communicate about their criteria and indicators, and make sure they are more or less on the same page. So developing a rubric might still a good idea (and this might of course include negotiation with students both to give them ownership and to ensure that they know what is expected of them).

I am not sure if I want to open this can of worms here and now, but the thought of student ownership of assessment leads me to a thing called “sustainable assessment“. In a nutshell, it means an assessment that is useful to learning beyond the frame of the course it is related to, not just in terms of retaining the learnt information and skills for longer, but to support future learning. Of the assessment tools in the figure above, “reflective writing” might be the most obvious candidate for sustainable assessment, because it includes learning to identify where someone is at, where they want to get to (whether that is to reach our Intended Learning Outcomes or maybe explicitly and purposefully something else), some thoughts about how to get there, and thoughts looking back evaluating how things went, and then using this to plan future steps. The skills learnt in that process can obviously be useful beyond just the one course where reflective writing is used as assessment tool.

And of course, a summative assessment situation should never be the first time that students are faced with a specific type of task, so the assessment should be tied in, and practised with, the learning activities.

Learning Activities

This is probably where the overwhelming majority of literature has their focus, but usually without explicitly connecting them to either ILOs or assessment.

I like to use the figure below, which I re-imagined after Brundiers et al. (2021) (now that I know I didn’t invent it myself…), to show where, in a typical project, each sustainability competency can be practised, and how some of them necessarily have to go together.

For example, to understand a complex, current problem and how it came to be, we do need systems thinking, but we also need interpersonal competence to be able to talk to, and empathise with, people who maybe were part of creating the problem (or just people on our team who also want to understand the problem!), and normative competence so we understand what values led to the status quo. Similarly, to envision both intervention and non-intervention futures, we need to have anticipatory competences. Developing strategies requires obviously some strategic competence, and at all stages we need to be able to understand and work with other people, and also ourselves. And this is obviously the most simplified way of talking about those competencies, I would like to remind you of their operationalisations I mentioned above…

And in the end, in most learning activities, we go from some input through some process to some output. And in those steps, we can always practice all those competencies if we open up for it, for example by including opportunities to communicate with peers or people that we might not typically communicate with, or to relate things to our own values or understanding of the world. However, some pedagogical approaches are more likely to be connected with learning of sustainability competencies than others (see Lozano & Barreiro-Gen, 2022, or my summary). For example working with case studies means that we can simultaneously get insights into specific cases (ha!) from industry or anywhere else and practice disciplinary skills and acquire disciplinary knowledge as well as sustainability competencies, whereas “just” calculating a solution might practice relevant disciplinary skills, but is a missed opportunity in terms of practising sustainability competencies.

A suggested approach

Steven Curtis shared his suggested general approach to assessment in the ISCC course:

  • Identify relevant competence(s) clearly expressed in ILOs
  • Select assessment methods that align with chosen competence
  • Ground assessment tasks in real-world contexts
  • Create rubrics with transparent criteria for each competency level (e.g. novice, intermediate, advanced)
  • Include opportunities for reflection and peer feedback
  • Collect and analyse student performance to refine and improve teaching
  • Use iterative assessments to support ongoing competency development

With this — good luck, and please don’t hesitate to be in touch if you have questions or comments, or just want to discuss!

Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., … & Zint, M. (2021). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustainability Science, 16, 13-29.

Lozano, R., & Barreiro-Gen, M. (2022). Connections between sustainable development competences and pedagogical approaches. In Competences in Education for Sustainable Development: Critical Perspectives (pp. 139-144). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Redman, A., & Wiek, A. (2021, November). Competencies for advancing transformations towards sustainability. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p. 785163). Frontiers Media SA. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.785163

Redman, A., Wiek, A., & Barth, M. (2021). Current practice of assessing students’ sustainability competencies – a review of tools. Sustainability Science, vol. 16, pp. 117-135.

Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability science, 6, 203-218.

Wiek, A., Bernstein, M. J., Foley, R. W., Cohen, M., Forrest, N., Kuzdas, C., … & Keeler, L. W. (2015). Operationalising competencies in higher education for sustainable development. In Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development (pp. 241-260). Routledge.

16/01/2025

This entry was posted in

Concepts Literature

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Different Ways Students are Thinking About Wicked Sustainability Problems

When teaching for sustainability, we need to give students the chance to practice working with Wicked Problems (as many of us are already doing, see for example what LTH teachers are doing in air pollution courses, or a more general suggestion for introductory courses by other LTH teachers), and we as teachers need to figure out where they are at in terms of thinking about the problem itself, possible solutions, and the way there. Lönngren, Ingerman & Svanström (2017) investigate this in the context of water availability in Jordan and find four typical ways students reason.

But first, a bit more about wicked problems. When it comes to sustainability wicked problems, they are typically

  1. difficult, if not impossible, to clearly and unambiguously to describe.
  2. addressable in different ways that can be conflicting
  3. changing and evolving over time, there will be not ever be an “end” when everything is solved satisfactory
  4. unique and therefore solutions cannot be reused or even generalized
  5. tangled up in different value systems, so that approaches are often evaluated very differently by different people

So, in short, they are a mess (but one nice approach in higher education quality management summarised here). If we want to teach approaching wicked sustainability problems, we first need to understand how students think about them. Lönngren et al. (2017) do that based on 10 in-depth interview, and in that context find 4 different ways students discuss the problems (but sometimes switching between different ways within the same interview and topic).

I redrew their figure (see above), and in a nutshell, the four ways they find are

A: Simplify and avoid. Students see the problem as “problematic” and cannot describe it a lot more concretely than that, and they are not sure what a solution would look like or how to get there, but they expect one solution.

B Divide & control. Students describe a big problem that can be taken apart into smaller, independent components that they then address individually and put together as one big solution.

C. Isolate & succumb. Students see the problem as a system of interconnected parts, which they then address as if they were independently, but they realise that putting the solutions together does not actually solve the problem.

D. Integrate & balance. The problem is a system of interconnected parts, and it is approached as an interconnected systems of parts of both problems and solutions.

I find it really helpful to see these four ways (even though, of course, they are only based on how 10 students responded to a specific topic in an interview situation, so they are probably not generalisable). Nevertheless, it is useful to think about how students generally approach problems we confront them with, because this then helps us to scaffold instruction. It is not clear from just knowing how students talk about a problem what that would mean in terms of scaffolding, but maybe a first step would be to spend more time and discussions on the actual problem descriptions so all students understand and appreciate the “lots of smaller, interconnected problems” part. For example, letting students describe it themselves and prompting difficulties of “but when will the problem be solved?”, “how do you think about the neighbouring country and the effect it is going to have on them?”, etc, depending on what facets of the problem we might want to highlight, and only moving on from that step once the complexity of the problem seems to be appreciated. Of course, how that plays out depends completely on the context. But being aware of different ways students might potentially use might help us recognise where they need more time, reflection, support.

Lönngren, J., Ingerman, Å., & Svanström, M. (2017). Avoid, control, succumb, or balance: Engineering students’ approaches to a wicked sustainability problem. Research in Science Education, 47, 805-831.

01/12/2024

This entry was posted in

Literature

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Looking Back – Looking Ahead: Final Task Force Meeting of 2024

Task Force sits around conference table. Picture.

Throughout our lives, transitions between old and new mark the passage of time, reminding us of the inevitability of change and the opportunities they bring. Too little do we spend the time to pause and reflect during this time of transition, like the changing of a calendar year… or something even more profound. It was this sentiment that guided our agenda at our final Task Force meeting of 2024.

[Edit 21.8.2025: Please note that we have renamed the “Task Force” to “Roundtable”]

On 18 November 2024, the Task Force gathered for its seventh meeting since its inception. The Task Force meets during each semester to receive information and provide input that guides the work of the Teaching for Sustainability initiative. A representative from every Faculty is invited to join the Task Force. Held in the “Stora konferensrummet” at the Ecology Building, this meeting reflected on our collective achievements while setting our sights on priorities for 2025. From sharing updates across faculties to discussing strategies for embedding sustainability into higher education, the session was both reflective and forward-looking.

Updates & Achievements

Our meeting began with participants sharing updates from their respective departments and faculties. Some highlights included:

  • At the Faculty of Social Sciences, the Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS) is celebrating the launch of its new master’s programme, Climate Change and Society, while also wrapping up its online course Agenda 2030: Knowing, Measuring, Leading. There’s hope to transform this course into a MOOC, ensuring continued access to its materials.
  • At the Faculty of Law, efforts are underway to integrate sustainability throughout the master’s programme European Business Law, exemplifying cross-disciplinary integration.
  • At the Joint Faculty of Humanities and Theology, the Department of Communication and Media shared plans to create a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on social sustainability with funding provided by EduLab.

Prioritising Community and Communication

A recurring theme in our discussion was the importance of clear and effective communication as a means to build a community of support. While some find email the best method for communication, others rely on platforms like Microsoft Teams, LinkedIn, or newsletters. Moving forward, we aim to harness a mix of these approaches, expanding our current reach among teaching staff at Lund University. Moreover, we propose more social events for community-building, engagement, and support.

We also brainstormed creative ways to engage students, such as leveraging Lund University’s Instagram accounts to feature student interviews on their sustainability learning journeys. We recognise that students’ experiences and expectations can be a significant motivating factor if this information reaches decision-makers, who are currently underrepresented in our community.

Challenges and Commitments for 2025

Looking ahead to 2025, the Task Force is committed to addressing both persistent challenges and emerging opportunities for advancing education for sustainability at Lund University.

A critical priority is securing resources to sustain and expand our efforts. This includes advocating collaboratively for institutional support from university leadership and emphasising the importance of both financial backing and recognition for sustainability-related teaching initiatives. To this end, an open letter is being drafted to bring these needs to management, highlighting the value of education for sustainability in attracting students, enhancing Lund University’s global standing, and addressing the concerns raised by teaching staff as well as students in their open letter to rectors at Swedish universities and colleges.

Read the students’ open letter – slu.se (In Swedish)

Another focus area is fostering stronger cross-departmental and faculty-wide collaboration. Many of our faculties still operate in silos, and we aim to strengthen communication channels to connect educators meaningfully across disciplines. Strategies include hosting lunch seminars at departments, developing accessible communication materials, and organising events that bring students and staff together to discuss sustainability challenges and solutions.

Embedding sustainability into course syllabi remains a key challenge, particularly ensuring that these efforts result in meaningful changes. To address this, we plan to engage more actively with deans and heads of departments through direct conversations and tailored workshops. Establishing long-term partnerships with pedagogical developers and expanding the Task Force membership to include other strategic groups will be important.

Lastly, we aspire to nurture the constructive and inspiring atmosphere within the Task Force. We will prioritise sharing good practices, structuring meetings around thematic and strategic discussions, and leveraging cross-university initiatives like the implementation of the LU Pedagogical Recognition Programme, Agenda 2030 Graduate School, as well as partnerships with EUGLOH and U21.

Looking Ahead

With the changing of a calendar year, we invite a moment of reflection. I often recall the wise words of Dougald Hine, who writes and speaks eloquently on living during the end of the world as we know it. He advocates for choices that 1) salvage the good things; 2) mourn what we cannot take with us; 3) notice the things that never were good; and 4) look for dropped threads from the past that still work. So, looking ahead, what good things do we want to take forward with us? What practices do we wish to leave behind? And, what new approaches do we wish to adopt in the future?

Answering these questions may feel deeply personal, though, I find it also feels deeply empowering, especially when shared with friends and colleagues. With this in mind, we always want the initiative to be a welcoming and supportive place. Thus, we welcome ideas and collaborations. If you’re interested in joining our efforts, contact Terese Thoni (terese.thoni@cec.lu.se) at the Sustainability Forum

By focusing on these areas in 2025, we aim to strengthen our collective efforts, knowing that meaningful change takes time, persistence, and collaboration. Together, we’ll continue building a community of teachers who support and inspire one another in navigating the complexities of sustainability in higher education. Thanks to all that have participated in making this community what it is, including those in attendance at the final Task Force meeting of 2024! Cheers to a new year!

Those Present:

  • Ann Åkerman, Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS)/Sustainability Forum
  • Carina Fasth, Department of Physics
  • Ebba Malmqvist, Planetary Health, Department of Laboratory Medicine
  • Marja-Liisa Öberg, Faculty of Law
  • Markus Gunneflo, Faculty of Law
  • Michael Bossetta, Department of Communication
  • Mirjam Glessmer, Centre för Engineering Education
  • Rhiannon Pugh, Department of Design Sciences
  • Sara Andersson, Division for Higher Education Development (AHU)
  • Steven Curtis, Division for Higher Education Development (AHU) – meeting facilitator
  • Susanne Brokop, Department of Health Sciences
  • Terese Thoni, Sustainability Forum – meeting minutes
  • Thomas Hickmann, Department of Political Science
20/11/2024

This entry was posted in

Task Force

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Introducing Sustainability Competencies: Workshop with the Department of Political Science

Steven & Terese presenting during the workshop. Photo.
Photo provided by Ian Manners.

As teachers within a large research university, we face challenges considering sustainability in our own teaching practice. This includes both content and our own personal example. How must we prioritise more intentional teaching, when we race from teaching to deadlines to meetings to research?

Perhaps one such way is to ask for support, which is exactly what Jakob Skovgaard of the Department of Political Science did on 22 October 2024. Joined by Terese Thoni – Educational Coordinator at the Sustainability Forum – we prepared a workshop for colleagues at the department, which introduced the sustainability competencies framework as one such approach to integrate sustainability in curriculum. Instead of focusing on sustainability content, this framework emphasises competencies that build on existing curriculum regardless of discipline in order to support students’ abilities to understand, address, and cope with our sustainability challenges.

See Redman & Wiek (2021) for an overview of the sustainability competencies framework – frontiersin.org

The participatory workshop engaged those present on topics spanning from student emotional well-being, relevant national and organisational policy, and pedagogical approaches that promote transformative learning. Such approaches advance education for sustainability, which empowers learners with knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes to take informed decisions and make responsible actions for environmental integrity, economic viability, and a just society.

When asked what participants expected to gain from the workshop, they hoped to:

  • Exchange ideas and experiences
  • Learn how to deal with difficult or uncomfortable topics
  • Understand sustainability within their own teaching practice

When dealing with difficult or uncomfortable topics, we suggested creating space for students to navigate emotional effects from their learning. Participants exchanged experiences inviting students to practice breathing exercises to stimulate the parasympathetic nervous system, thus, reducing stress and anxiety. This is an example of embodying emotions, which is part of our efforts to create space, validate, and find actions to address emotional effects from learning.

Those present expressed challenges integrating sustainability for a variety of reasons. To address these challenges, we discussed dealing with complexity, for example, focusing on what you can control (e.g. ambition, approach, timeline); breaking tasks into more manageable chunks; and finding islands of simplicity or behaviours that reflect your values, which may reduce complexity over time.

In reaching more teachers within your department, we suggested harnessing windows of opportunity – those moments where conversations about sustainability can piggyback on existing dialogues. We brainstormed some relevant examples, such as educational quality reviews, course or programme revisions, development talks, pedagogical seminars, or staff retreats.

While we finished the provided content on time, we remained discussing with several engaged participants, demonstrating the passion and excitement evoked by this topic! Terese and I appreciated our time spent at the Department of Political Science. Thanks to Jakob for arranging and all those that were able to attend!

We’re happy to provide similar workshops for your colleagues at Lund University, tailored to your specific needs or requests.

Contact Terese Thoni at the Sustainability Forum – sustainability.lu.se

24/10/2024

This entry was posted in

Uncategorized

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

“What Does the Future Sustainable University Look Like, and How Do We Get There? A Traveler’s Tale of the Wonderous One Day Workshop” by Lydia Carling

If you are interested in Teaching for Sustainability, this blog post is for you. Last week I had the honor to go as a student representative to a workshop which discussed the critical question: what is the future sustainable university look like, and how do we reach it? What is the role of the university, and what is the role of the students? After an intense and inspiring day of workshopping, students and teachers alike wrote an to the headmasters of the universities in Sweden which declared what change we want to see in order for the universities to show their devotion to the sustainability goals and how to teach for the sustainable future.

Last Tuesday I was lucky to (on a late call) be invited to a workshop on the future of sustainability teaching at the university, hosted by the Lärosätenas klimatnätverk. This network is a project group, led by a taskforce at Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Sveriges lantbruksuniversitetet, SLU). Being an engaged student representative on the matter at hand, I quickly made the decision to join the workshop.

Who am I? I am a last year student at the Environmental Engineering program at LTH, and I have been engaged as a student representative in our study council for the last three years. Last year I also worked part time at the Centre for Engineering Education at LTH with a focus project on the sustainability education at LTH. If you are more interested you can read a post about my research here. With this background and interested in the topic I was quick to jump on a night train to Örebro to participate in the workshop.

The purpose of the workshop was to learn about the student’s perspective on the question of the sustainability teaching at the universities. An invitation had been sent to all the student unions in Sweden and a handful were represented, with Umeå being the furthest north, and me from Lund the furthest south. In west we had Gothenburg and in east we had Stockholm. So although not student Union was able to participate, we had student coming in from all corners of the land.

The day started with a wonderful check in exercise led by Annika Göran Rodell from Örebro University, where we closed our eyes as a group of 30 strangers and after being led through a meditation process, where we connected to our bodies and this present moment, we opened our eyes again as 30 individuals curious about each other and what they day could bring. Although this day contained many valuable conversations, I especially valued this check in, seeming as the feeling in the room really changed to a wonderful climate for creative discussion. After a short presentation on the purpose of the day, we dug into a vegan lunch.

In the first exercise, we did a conversation — three by three — where we rotated the roles as speaker, active listener (who could ask clarifying questions), and observer (who observed without intervening). In these groups of three, we reflected on the question “What does the future, sustainable university look like” for 10 minutes each, after which both the listener and observer summarized what the speaker had said. This was a great way to gain perspective on others’ thoughts but also on your own, by having them summarized by two other persons. After everyone had spoken, we drew a picture on a white board that’s symbolized our views on the future sustainable university.

Takeaways from this exercise was that the room held a lot of ideas but also frustration and yearning for action from the universities. Some mentioned what the campus should look like, others mentioned leadership and cooperation as important factors, and others mentioned cooperation between of different educational programs (Tvärvetenskaplighet in Swedish).

The largest part of the workshop was devoted to an exercise called World Café. This exercise consists of parallel group discussions around tables, where every 10 or 15 minutes the participants rotate and changed between the tables but with a moderator staying at the table. The moderator then summarizes what the earlier groups discussed when new people arrive at the table for the next round. In this way the conversations are built on each other and a pool of knowledge or ideas is assembled. The questions discussed at the four tables were:

  • In what way does the universities need to change (including education)?
  • What is the universities’ role in the societal transition?
  • What is the students’ role in the transition?
  • What is the role of non-students?

The discussions from the World Cafe we’re summarized in full group into an open letter which is meant to be sent to the head masters of all universities in Sweden. The letter contained our joint perspective on how the university should act in order to educate for the sustainable future and an emphasis of the urgence of this matter.

Learningoutcome and take-home message

After this day of workshopping, I was filled with energy and inspiration. Finally, something was happening at this frontier! Having presented this topic at the past pedagogical inspirational conference at LTH I knew that there were teachers who are engaged in this question. But meeting this network and all of these students I understood once again I am not alone in this fight – We are not alone. There are a lot of teachers and students out there who want to see a change in the university and in the education and the workshops such as this can make it all one step closer.

My call to action from you is to talk with your colleagues, and with your students, and with anyone in your context about these questions – what is the future university, a sustainable university, supposed to look like? What has to change to for us to reach it? What can I do? Who can I inspire? And finally, if you are willing to become more engaged in this question, I warmly recommend you contact the network and to see how you can help or to just become one of the allies in this project.

What I hope to see from LTH and Lund University are more contexts where we can come together and discuss this question. More workshops, more meetings, more networks. This is an urgent question and we need to unite and work together to build the university to sustainable university we see in our future. The future is close and every decision we take now effects when, how and how soon we reach our common sustainability goals.

07/10/2024

This entry was posted in

Event summaries

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

“CLIMATE CLASH: Bridging the Knowledge-to-Action Gap: Rethinking Climate-Focused Study Abroad for a Sustainable Future” by Julia Roellke

What clash? Carbon emissions must not exceed 2 tons carbon per capita by 2030 to stay within 1.5 degrees of warming, which is at odds with study abroad. One transatlantic flight emits about 1.6 tons of carbon. Yikes. Therefore, climate-focused study abroad relying on high-emitting travel poses a dilemma between study abroad and emission reductions. I investigated this dilemma as part of my MSc thesis for LUMES (Lund’s International Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science) looking at 156 climate-focused study abroad syllabi, surveying international climate educators, and interviewing affiliates of the Climate Action Network for International Educators. I considered whether studying climate change abroad is compatible with sustainability transformations for low carbon futures. The proceeding blog post is a summary of the study as it pertains to education for emission reductions.

Personal Clash

Originally from New York, I am an international educator—teaching International Baccalaureate students Environmental Systems and Societies, a course which prepares students with a “perspective of the interrelationships between environmental systems and societies,”  and enables students “to adopt an informed personal response to the wide range of pressing environmental issues that they will inevitably come to face.” Further, I am also a graduate of the international Sustainability Science program LUMES. On the one hand, studying abroad is praised for equipping students with global perspectives, global citizenship, and intercultural exchange opportunities…on the other hand, it comes at a high carbon cost. The carbon cost of student mobility at large is up to 14 megatons of carbon/year. That’s equivalent to the emissions of entire countries like Jamaica! I am professionally and personally deeply embedded in the paradox of climate-focused international education which inspired my curiosity for this master’s thesis.

Education for Transformation

Education can be a key enabler of systematic behavioral change through knowledge dissemination, innovation, and social justice (Frick et al., 2021; Hale, 2019; Hindley, 2022). The institution of higher education plays an important role in promoting societal transformation by equipping the next generation of leaders and citizens for climate action (Leichenko & O’Brien, 2019; Leichenko & O’Brien, 2020; Shields, 2019; Stephens et al., 2018). However, educational research suggests climate change education falls short of teaching high-impact climate actions such as flying less to reduce personal carbon emissions (Kranz et al., 2022; R. Leichenko et al., 2022). The dilemma between study abroad programs and climate change has been studied in recent years (Campbell et al., 2022.; Feldbacher et al., 2023; Shields, 2019; Zhang & Gibson, 2021). However, less is understood about the potential of climate-focused study abroad for equipping students with the knowledge and skills for reducing carbon emissions.

Facts, Feelings, and Action for System Change

Climate scientists and educators alike advocate for the alignment of facts, feelings, and actions for effective learning and transformative change (Islam et al., 2022; Landon et al., 2019; Leichenko & O’Brien, 2019; Nicholas 2021; Tan et al., 2021). Research shows that further knowledge about climate change does not necessarily mean people act in alignment with the climate (Knutti, 2019; Leichenko & O’Brien, 2019; Wolrath Söderberg & Wormbs, 2022). To overcome this, environmental behavioral research shows that overcoming barriers of inaction requires integrating facts and feelings for climate action (Fraude et al., 2021; Woiwode et al., 2021; Wolrath Söderberg & Wormbs 2019). Thus, tapping into feelings and personal beliefs is essential for understanding individual and collective agency for sustainability transformations (Leichenko & O’Brien, 2019).

Knowledge and Skills in Climate Education

While education is key for transformation, we inadequately teach students the knowledge and skills for low-carbon futures. Study abroad courses related to climate change include themes of collaboration & communication, cross-cultural/global perspective, interdisciplinarity, place-based learning, risk assessment and management, solution-oriented learning, and systems thinking which mirrors the language of sustainability science but neglects concrete climate-action knowledge. Study abroad courses related to climate change teach factual knowledge e.g. “fossil fuels contribute to climate change”. Very few courses talk about feelings or approaches to climate action (e.g. eating a plant-based diet, flying less).

Findings on what knowledge types were found in climate-focused study abroad program syllabi (Figure 10 in full thesis).

 

Knowledge & SkillsInductively defined within the coded knowledge types and pedagogical approachesExample Excerpt in SyllabusSyllabus reference
1collaboration & communicationmention of collab* or communica*“Integrates the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to learn interpersonal communication techniques.”S13
2cross-cultural and/or global perspectiveIncluding internationally minded, multicultural, global understanding, exchanging information from different cultures, cross cultural“Understand international environmental politics at local, regional and global scales.”S60
3interdisciplinarityintegration of multiple disciplines either content or methodological approaches“Ability to encourage the knowledge of ecology with the integration of other social and biological sciences”S17
4place-based learninglearning topics related to the location of study and in the place of study“By undertaking field trips to various conservation project sites, students gain first-hand information about different conservation challenges and approaches from diverse stakeholders such as decision-makers”S162
5risk assessment & managementassessing risks/management of climate impacts (e.g. extreme weather events, sea level rise, food)“and the role of risk assessments in risk-reduction strategies.”S193
6solution-oriented learningmention of solutions to climate change, problem solving, and critical thinking“Identify challenges and seek system-based solutions through dialogue and collaboration, establishing and respecting commitments”S26
7systems-thinkingexplicit mention of a “systems*” thinking OR approach“applies a systems thinking and understanding”S23

Thematic findings on the knowledge and skills identified in the syllabi (Table 5 in full thesis)

Pedagogy for Transformation

Deductively coding syllabi (n=156) for pedagogy showed mixed approaches for how declarative, affective, and procedural knowledges are taught. I found there is a greater opportunity for more intentional place-based learning or service learning that can support host communities with climate adaptation and mitigation practices in support of emission reductions. The deductively coded pedagogical findings varied across the syllabi and less than 50% of the syllabi included information on the pedagogical approaches for the three knowledge types. Further, less than 30% of syllabi linked learning outcomes with the pedagogical approaches. Of the n=49 syllabi that included pedagogy, the most common pedagogical approaches for declarative knowledge were lecture, essay/paper, quiz/test/exam. The most common pedagogical approach for affective knowledge was through reflection/reflexive exercises. Lastly, the most common pedagogical approach for procedural knowledge was through place-based learning or service learning.

 

Knowledge TypePedagogical ApproachExamples in SyllabiReferenced Syllabus
declarative (factual) pedagogy“This seminar focuses on the analysis and use of climate models in understanding and projecting climate change in the future.”S187
“The course will integrate course lectures and readings with group discussions and interactive excursions outside the classroom in order to thoroughly interrogate course topics”S219
affective
(feelings)
pedagogy		“Promote empathy, self-reflection, and critical thinking as complementary and mutually reinforcing learning skills”S198
“The purpose is to ask the students to reflect on their own positionality and make them aware of the ways positionality shapes the research question, relation with the research participants, approach in data collection, data processing, and the representation of research participants in the final project.”S189
procedural
(actions) pedagogy		“Students will analyze carbon footprints at three scales, create carbon scenarios for all scales, and determine the most efficient level of implementation.”S187
“Aboriginal culture was a spoken culture of stories, and so students’ learning is based on the principles of close observation, discussions, and firsthand experience, in order to acquire a better understanding of the First Australians’ intimate understanding of ecology, environmental management, and Aboriginal cultural conservation and restoration.”S176

Example excerpts of syllabi deductively coded for pedagogical approaches (Table 6 in full thesis)

 

Educational reform should emphasize climate literacy that centers on personal responsibility for climate action and effectively teach feelings knowledge and action knowledge—for how to reduce carbon emissions.

International Climate Educators Perspective

Climate educators believe courses should include holistic approaches to teaching climate education, but there is a mismatch between what international climate educators believe should be taught and what is taught in practice. Educators agree with “account budget thinking” “I do climate action in other aspects of my life to account for the travel emissions of students taking X course” and through “habituation” “I feel travel is so deeply ingrained in the practice of the program and therefore hard to change” (Wolrath Söderberg & Wormbs 2019).  Further, international climate educators favor collective action over individual action for emission reductions.

Findings on knowledge-to-action gap rationales. (Figure 11 in full thesis).

Overcoming this knowledge-to-action gap requires new ways of understanding the dilemma and disrupting business-as-usual behaviors and norms.

The Climate Action Network for International Educators leverages transformation through knowledge dissemination on climate action, providing study-abroad affiliates with practical emission reduction pathways. Namely through, the CANIE accord—a roadmap of 70 climate actions international education programs and affiliates can take.

CANIE pursues deep leverage points for transformation (Figure 14 in full thesis). 

Future Directions

My study supports research in sustainability transitions and climate education. Further research could dig into the numbers of how CANIE influences emission reductions and if and how students reduce emissions after taking international climate education courses. Including students in this conversation would help provide a more holistic perspective on international education for systems change in alignment with sustainable futures.

Please reach out if you have additional insights or questions: Julia Roellke  jroellke@gmail.com or are interested in getting involved with the Climate Action Network for International Educators. This is a brief overview of high-level takeaways from my thesis and you can find a link to my full study here.

References

Campbell, A. C., Nguyen, T., & Stewart, M. (2023). Promoting International Student Mobility for Sustainability? Navigating Conflicting Realities and Emotions of International Educators. Journal of Studies in International Education, 27(4), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153221121386

Feldbacher, E., Waberer, M., Campostrini, L., & Weigelhofer, G. (2023). Identifying gaps in climate change education—A case study in Austrian schools. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2023.2214042

Fraude, C., Bruhn, T., Stasiak, D., Wamsler, C., Mar, K., Schäpke, N., Schroeder, H., & Lawrence, M. (2021). Creating space for reflection and dialogue: Examples of new modes of communication for empowering climate action. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 30(3), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.30.3.9

Frick, M., Neu, L., Liebhaber, N., Sperner-Unterweger, B., Stötter, J., Keller, L., & Hüfner, K. (2021). Why Do We Harm the Environment or Our Personal Health despite Better Knowledge? The Knowledge Action Gap in Healthy and Climate-Friendly Behavior. Sustainability, 13(23), Article 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313361

Hale, B. W. (2019). Wisdom for Traveling Far: Making Educational Travel Sustainable. Sustainability, 11(11), 3048. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113048

Hindley, A. (2022). Understanding the Gap between University Ambitions to Teach and Deliver Climate Change Education. Sustainability, 14(21), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113823

Islam, Md. A., Haji Mat Said, S. B., Umarlebbe, J. H., Sobhani, F. A., & Afrin, S. (2022). Conceptualization of head-heart-hands model for developing an effective 21st century teacher. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 968723. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.968723

Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J. J., Schellnhuber, H. J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N. M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G. C., Grübler, A., Huntley, B., Jäger, J., Jodha, N. S., Kasperson, R. E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., … Svedin, U. (2001). Sustainability Science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.

Knutti, R. (2019). Closing the Knowledge-Action Gap in Climate Change. One Earth, 1(1), 21–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.09.001

Kranz, J., Schwichow, M., Breitenmoser, P., & Niebert, K. (2022). The (Un)political Perspective on Climate Change in Education—A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 14(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074194

Landon, A. C., Woosnam, K. M., Keith, S. J., Tarrant, M. A., Rubin, D. M., & Ling, S. T. (2019). Understanding and modifying beliefs about climate change through educational travel. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(3), 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1560452

Leichenko, R., Gram-Hanssen, I., & O’Brien, K. (2022). Teaching the “how” of transformation. Sustainability Science, 17(2), 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00964-5

Leichenko, R., & O’Brien, K. (2020). Teaching climate change in the Anthropocene: An integrative approach. Anthropocene, 30, 100241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2020.100241

Nicholas, K. (2021). Under the sky we make: How to be human in a warming world. G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Shields, R. (2019). The sustainability of international higher education: Student mobility and global climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 594–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.291

Stephens, J. C., Frumhoff, P. C., & Yona, L. (2018). The role of college and university faculty in the fossil fuel divestment movement. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 6, 41. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.297

Tan, D. Y., Tay, E. G., Teo, K. M., & Shutler, P. M. E. (2021). Hands, Head and Heart (3H) framework for curriculum review: Emergence and nesting phenomena. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 106(2), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10003-2

Woiwode, C., Schäpke, N., Bina, O., Veciana, S., Kunze, I., Parodi, O., Schweizer-Ries, P., & Wamsler, C. (2021). Inner transformation to sustainability as a deep leverage point: Fostering new avenues for change through dialogue and reflection. Sustainability Science, 16(3), 841–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00882-y

Wolrath Söderberg, M., & Wormbs, N. (2022). Internal Deliberation Defending Climate-Harmful Behavior. Argumentation, 36(2), 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09562-2

Zhang, H., & Gibson, H. J. (2021). Long-Term Impact of Study Abroad on Sustainability-Related Attitudes and Behaviors. Sustainability, 13(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041953

03/10/2024

This entry was posted in

Literature

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Report from the Latest Task Force-Meeting

Meet the Task Force on Education for Sustainability and read about the most pressing issues and upcoming events that we discussed at our most recent meeting! If you are interested in engaging with us, our next meeting will take place on November 18. 

[Edit 21.8.2025: Please note that we have renamed the “Task Force” to “Roundtable”, and the “Working Group” to “Coordination Team”]

On September 16, the Task Force on Education for Sustainability met for updates, feedback and general discussions. We talked about, among other topics, 

Upcoming events: 

  • LUTL24: The Lund University Teaching and Learning conference 2024 with the overarching theme of “connecting teachers — changing from within”. The Teaching for Sustainability-working group is contributing with a presentation about the initiative. The initiative is also organizing a workshop about serious games. In addition, the IIIEE organizes events on groupwork and online learning. Read more about the conference here: https://www.ahu.lu.se/en/educational-development/lutl-2024/ 
  • National networks and their activities:  
  • The Swedish Council for Higher Education hosts online breakfast seminars (pedagogiska temacaféer). Four seminars on Education for Sustainability have been planned and Lund University is one of the organisers. See below for dates and titles. Read more about the seminars here: Temacaféer | hpu.uhr.se.

Courses:

  • The online course and global network Higher Education Didactics for Sustainability (HEDS) HEDS241 (kau.se) ran this year for the first time with LU as one of several host universities. The course is free of charge for participants, but each host contributes with working hours to facilitate the course. The next opportunity to take the course is 2025, but LU needs new facilitators. If you are looking for teaching opportunities and want more information, please contact Terese. Compensation for your time is available. 

 

We also received updates from participating units/institutions/faculties, including from: 

  • LTH on their planning a specialized course for teachers affiliated with the Circular Building-profile area, 
  • The Faculty of Science on their plans to remake the introductory course for PhD students, 
  • The IIIEE on their collegial project course on teamwork as well as life-long learning courses on sustainability,  
  • The Faculty of Medicine on their plans for a tailor-made workshop for teachers on 15 October as well as a recent U21 conference in Amsterdam,  
  • The Faculty of Social Sciences and the Department of Political Science on their Sustainable Development-working group, cooperation with the University of Copenhagen, as well as their course on planetary politics, 
  • And the Faculty of Law and their current focus on the sustainability plan. 

 

On the topic of the sustainability plan, Lund University’s central sustainability plan is up for its second and final revision this autumn. The deadline to suggest new activities is the 1 November. Contact Terese for more information on the process and possibilities to engage! See also: Hållbarhetsstrategi och hållbarhetsplan | Hållbarhetsforum (lu.se) for the current strategy and plan.
 

As always: If you would like to get in touch, we would love for you to contact us and join our activities! 🙂 You are also welcome to contact us with suggestions on activities and resources that you think would make a difference to educators for sustainability. If you are interested in a tailor-made presentation or workshop about Education for Sustainability for your unit, team of educators, or other interested participants, please contact terese.thoni@cec.lu.se for more information and time-booking.  

 

About the initiative: 

The Teaching for Sustainability-initiative, coordinated by the Sustainability Forum in close collaboration with colleagues the Centre for Engineering Education (CEE) and the Division of Higher Education Development (AHU) can be loosely described as a three-step effort organized as follows:  

  • Working Group: Engages in operational planning and implementation of activities and resources. This is the group that engages in operational planning, with meetings at least every month (currently, Terese, Steven, Karin, and Mirjam - we welcome everyone who would like to get engaged!). 
  • Task Force: Receives information and provides input that guides the work of the working group, with meetings twice per semester. The aspiration is to have at least one member per faculty to make sure that the working group receives input from all faculties. 
  • Community of Practice: Our community engages and empowers members to explore real approaches to integrate sustainability into their teaching practice. We welcome everyone interested in education for sustainability – welcome to join our Teams-group for inspiration and to engage in discussions: Community of Practice | Division for Higher Education Development (lu.se) 

 

As the initiative continues to grow, we invite members of our community to contribute their time, effort, skills, and passions to the operationalisation and implementation of our work. Currently, we are seeking additional members to join the Working Group or Task Force. If interested, we welcome you to join any of our meetings to observe how we work. Working group-member Steven Curtis writes more about what engaging in the initiative entails in this blog post: Contributing to Our Community: How You Can Support “Teaching for Sustainability” – Teaching for Sustainability (lu.se) 

 

Summary, upcoming events and activities: 

  • 27 September 13:15-15:00 webinar Lärosätenas klimatnätverk* on online platforms for exchange of knowledge and experiences in education for sustainability 
  • 18 October, writing day for Early Career Researchers 
  • 21 October, 13:15-15:00 webinar Lärosätenas klimatnätverk* on pedagogic development – inventory and exchange of experiences 
  • 29 October, 9:00-10:00 – breakfast webinar 1 on education for sustainability** –”SDGs och deras pedagogiska implikationer  
  • 12 November, 9-10: breakfast webinar 2 on education for sustainability** –”Pedagogiska exempel” 
  • 18 November – next task Force on Education for Sustainability-meeting – welcome to join! 
  • 26 November, 9-10: breakfast webinar 3 on education for sustainability** –“Hur påverkas undervisningen men kanske också hela lärosätet?” 
  • 21 January, 9-10: breakfast webinar 4 on education for sustainability** – ”Inner Development Goals (IDG) och pedagogiken” 

* contact terese.thoni@cec.lu.se for more information and login-details. 

**all webinars will be available to watch at any time Temacaféer | hpu.uhr.se, see also: Evenemang från september 16 – januari 21, 2025 – Högskolepedagogik.se (xn--hgskolepedagogik-mwb.se) 

 

25/09/2024

This entry was posted in

Task Force

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

“2-Hour Seminar – Sustainability Aspects in Structural Engineering” by Ivar Björnsson and Jonas Niklewski

Our previous experiences with teaching for, or even about sustainability, is very limited. It has often been something on the periphery, something we knew was important but lacked insights to implement in a meaningful way. The topic of sustainability is something that has come more recently, in a field of education fraught with tradition. We teach courses in structural engineering, a discipline which has experienced few disruptive breakthroughs in recent decades. This has meant that we have become quite comfortable teaching what we learned ourselves when we were students. Meanwhile, the construction sector, accounting for about 21% of the global greenhouse gas emissions [1], is trying to navigate through a green transition. Thus, we don’t know exactly what the construction sector will look like in 10-20 years. One thing is for sure, the sector must become more sustainable. So, while structural engineering as a subject remains unchanged, the boundary conditions for structural engineers are changing in real time. We feel it our duty to equip students for this uncertain future – however, how can we effectively teach sustainability when we ourselves have not been formally educated in this area?

The courses we give at the division of structural engineering all revolve in some way on structures; how they stand, how they fail, how we build them, and how we maintain them. Typical decisions faced by structural engineers include determining the appropriate materials and proper dimensions for a structure such as a building or bridge. These decisions are made considering risk and uncertainty but carry with them potentially high consequences in terms of economic, environmental, as well as social impacts. Historically, these decisions have been made with the ideology of design conservatism. The implicit assumption is that we could increase material consumption (and by extension carbon footprints) as long as our design decisions were on the safe side. This philosophy, however, clashes with the environmentally oriented sustainability goals.

This brief report describes one of our efforts to incorporate sustainability aspects more explicitly into our teaching. As we have limited prior experience with this subject, and given our background as engineers, we have adopted a more careful but practical approach. Thus, although we admit that grander action is required (and especially at curriculum level), we have chosen to focus on one of our courses – a basic course on structural engineering in the second year of the Civil Engineering program (V). Our focus was on incorporating a dedicated two-hour seminar on aspects of sustainability. The aim of the seminar is to actively engage our students, as well as ourselves, in thinking about how the decisions made by structural engineers can affect sustainability and to challenge the traditional ideology of design conservatism. The next section describes in more detail the methodology we used for developing the seminar.

Methodology

To help us in planning the seminar, we utilized three primary methods:

  • Short literature review
  • Inspirational discussions with more experienced colleagues
  • Internal brainstorming sessions

To start, we scoped the literature and read a few review articles on the topic of sustainability. To reduce the number of results, the scoping study revolved around the keywords sustainability, education, and engineering. The search was also limited to journal articles which were in English. The second screening was then based on our own subjective screening of article titles and abstracts – this left us with nine articles we thought would be the most relevant for us; see Table 1. The articles gave us a basis for research on the topic of sustainability education (as well as its other variations education for sustainability and education for sustainable development). Included in this research were some key learning outcomes and educational approaches which supported teaching for sustainability. However, the articles usually stopped short of providing concrete support of precisely how we could implement our seminar. This is where the latter two methods compensated.

We were not able to perform an exhaustive systematic review of each of the nine articles. However, based on our preliminary and unstructured review, we have identified the following key insights:

  • Education for sustainability is essentially good teaching, i.e., not something ad-hoc or external to our courses. This makes it quite relevant for all our courses.
  • Some general frameworks or guidelines for implementation seem to exist, which can highlight some useful practices, teaching approaches and learning outcomes. However, it is not always clear for us (the teaching laymen) what this means specifically for our courses.
  • There are many people out there doing this kind of teaching with some good results. However, it is often difficult to grasp the specifics as the articles may be on a higher level and when cases are presented, we may not easily see how our specific courses could benefit from what was described.
  • When concrete cases are provided, these can be very revealing (peeling away the abstract to reveal something tangible and concrete). It can provide inspiration for what to do with some added confidence that comes with seeing the results it provided. Now, we should be careful to generalize, but our own experience is that we as teachers need to braver in applying new things in our courses.
  • As teachers our focus is often on our own courses, but the issue also needs to be addressed at higher levels (e.g., integration into program curricula). Perhaps this is a calling for us to try and influence the administration in these questions. In any case, we think a bottom-up and top-down approach should occur simultaneously (and ideally somewhere in there are the wishes of the students).
  • At the face of it, sustainability as a concept appears complex with multiple components (pillars, etc). On the other hand, it is perhaps not necessary to try and incorporate all of these into all our courses. Choose those aspects which you find most relevant or exciting.
Table 1: Nine relevant articles we identified during our scoping of the academic literature

We also sought inspiration from colleagues who had more experience with sustainability in their courses. In total, we discussed and took notes with three other teachers, for about an hour each. We both took notes during the sessions and cross checked afterwards to summarize whether we came to the same conclusions. The discussions provided us with some inspiration as to how teaching for sustainability could be achieved and helped shape our perspectives towards the task at hand. We also came up with some concrete examples, or case studies, that could be included in our seminar. Now that we had a firmer basis for proceeding, we started to focus more specifically on how we should plan our own seminar.

As a third method we utilized internal brainstorming sessions to come up with a concrete plan for how the seminar could be implemented. These sessions took place at the end as we then had a better understanding of the concept of teaching for sustainability as well as to identify possible case studies. Thus, we started by asking ourselves what it is we want our students to experience and learn during the seminar. As this was to the steppingstone for future developments, and as we wanted to facilitate a shared learning experience (teachers & students), we also concluded that it would be important to document how the seminar went and to disseminate lessons for the next course iteration. This final aspect is critical as we have the possibility to adjust more in the course than simply one seminar the following year. The outcome was a concrete plan for the seminar which would include two external observers helping us with post-seminar reflections. The students would also be required to provide reflections – which is another promising source of further development.

Seminar plan

Our objective is to design and implement a 2-hour active learning seminar integrating sustainability as a key complementary aspect to consider in the design of structures, specifically structural engineering design. We want to provide the students with some basic building blocks to enable them to reflect about how their design choices affect sustainability, and how structural safety can be achieved without excess material use. In this way we hope to also help normalize the discussion about sustainability and hopefully also provide some inspiration for doing the same in other courses. As we intend to implement this in an ongoing course (this semester) we also hope to learn some valuable lessons along the way. The seminar is intended to support the following learning outcomes:

  • The students shall have a broad understanding for sustainability as a concept.
  • The students shall be able to identify how structural engineering design and verification decisions in terms of their sustainability impacts.
  • The students should be able to discuss these issues with their peers, in groups, and with the teachers in the course.

In planning the seminar, we have relied on previous experiences with (1) active learning methods, and (2) the use of the case method in teaching. The former is rooted in the concept of experiential learning (originally formulated by Kolb), is well-known for improving engagement, and can improve student learning2 [11]. Active learning can be briefly defined as instructional activities involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing [12]. The latter is, as the name suggests, about a ‘case’. Cases help facilitate learning problem-solving; the characteristics of the cases used are thus inherently connected with the types of problems to be solved and ultimately the intended learning objectives [13]. The case method is usually conducted in seminars and the teachers’ active participation is central to guide the students and to support learning [14].

An overview of the seminar is provided in Table 2. Three cases were included, chosen to support the learning outcomes. The student activities included think-pair-share in groups of two to three, followed by larger group discussions at each table. We, the teachers, then positioned ourselves in a larger discussion based on input from some of the groups. To facilitate participation, we sometimes collected responses using the interactive presentation tool Mentimeter (mentimeter.com). During the seminar, we also allow students to ask questions through the Q&A function to ensure any unanswered queries are communicated and addressed. As teachers we adopted the attitude of co-learners with the students and try to communicate this early on and throughout. Although we still need to moderate the class, we highlight for the students that their answers may be just as relevant and perhaps even more so than our own – we are in it together, navigating a wicked problem that has no single right answer. The cases are also chosen to provide some personal connection to the teachers – who are either directly involved in the research or got the information from very close colleagues

Table 1: Overview of 2-hour seminar with planned activities

After the seminar, the teachers and observers have a quick discussion to summarize their findings and identify important lessons for improving the concept and for making broader changes to the course (and perhaps even other courses).

Results & lessons

This section summarizes our own reflections from the seminar as well as input from the observers.

There was a low number of participants in the seminar in relation to the total number of students in the course. We were able to put together three groups of students, each having about four students. The low number of participants was not surprising as the seminar was voluntary, was placed at the end of the course near the exam and the topic was not included in the course syllabus (kursplan). This can be improved for next years by including the topic in the course syllabus.

The student engagement for the topic was positive and the observers commented that the teachers were approachable. It was also mentioned that having two teachers was good as it demonstrated for the students that it was acceptable to participate and even disrupt if they had something they wanted to say (as this was the dynamic we had with each other as teachers). As a result, we did not observe much of an issue in discussing this challenging topic and in that way thought it helped normalize the discussion. It should be noted that the low number of participants may have had a positive impact on this aspect, as it may be easier for students to voice their ideas in a smaller group.

The seminar revealed for the teachers that the students had some prior knowledge on the topic, and this was a way to reinforce the importance of this topic in later courses in the program. This made us realize that we need to learn more about the exact background they have in the subject based on the previous course they took. For future development, we see potential in making more explicit connections between our examples and knowledge from previous courses, thus reinforcing the idea of course alignment.

The primary focus was on environmental or ecological sustainability while the other pillars were less prominent. This is most likely as our examples were quite focused on this – we could do better in the future. In the discussion with the observers, it was also highlighted that it would be better to talk about the subject in more specific terms rather than the overall subject of sustainability. For example, we can say ecological sustainability directly, and then possibly include discussion topics connected to the other pillars of sustainability (social and economic).

Some specific ideas for how we could improve this next year:

  • Change the course plan for the course to include sustainability in some way (most likely the focus will be on environmental sustainability as this is very relevant for the topic of study)
  • Make smaller changes to the lecture material to have some connections to sustainability throughout (e.g., by referring to SDGs)
  • Include sustainability considerations and incorporate relevant tasks in the project work (while trying not to have it as something ad-hoc or supplementary).
  • Further develop the seminar concept and include other pillars of sustainability (e.g., indoor climate issues can lead to health issues for users)

As a final note, it should be emphasized that these reflections focus primarily on a particular seminar format, and how this can be improved for next years. In parallel, we have discussed other ways to integrate sustainability in the course. For example, it may be favorable to integrate sustainability aspects in other lectures and seminars instead of having a dedicated session. After all, sustainability is a multifaceted concept that intersects with most topics in structural engineering

References

[1] United Nations Environment Programme (2024). Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Beyond foundations: Mainstreaming sustainable solutions to cut emissions from the buildings sector. Nairobi. https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/45095.

[2] Holdsworth & Sandri (2021). Investigating undergraduate student learning experiences using the good practice learning and teaching for sustainability education (GPLTSE) framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 311, 127532.

[3] Gutierrez-Bucheli, Kidman & Reid (2022). Sustainability in Engineering Education: A Review of Learning Outcomes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 330, 129734.

[4] Oswald Beiler MR & Evans JC (2015). Teaching sustainability topics to attract and inspire the next generation of civil engineers. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 141(2), C5014001.

[5] Tejedor G et al (2019). Didactic strategies to promote competencies in sustainability. Sustainability, 11(7), 2086.

[6] Hensley N (2020). Educating for sustainable development: Cultivating creativity through mindfulness. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 118542.

[7] Kevern JT (2011). Green building and sustainable infrastructure: Sustainability education for civil engineers. Journal of Professional issues in engineering education and practice, 137(2), 107-112.

[8] Riley DR, Grommes AV & Thatcher CE (2007). Teaching sustainability in building design and engineering. Journal of Green Building, 2(1), 175-195.

[9] Viegas CV et al. (2016). Critical attributes of Sustainability in Higher Education: A categorisation from literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 260-276.

[10] Barth M & Rieckmann M (2012). Academic staff development as a catalyst for curriculum change towards education for sustainable development: an output perspective. Journal of Cleaner production, 26, 28-36.

[11] Freeman S et al. (2013) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410-8415

[12] Bonwell CC & Eison JA (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports.

[13] Jonassen DH (2011) Learning to Solve Problems – A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving Learning Environments. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, New York.

[14] Maufette-Leenders LM, Erskine JA & Leenders MR (1997) Learning with Cases, 2 ed. Ivey Publishing, London, Ontario.

[15] Björnsson I et al. (2024 – submitted) Resource expenditure for bridges in Sweden – do we build greener bridge now compared to 50 years ago? IABSE Congress San Jose 2024 – Beyond Structural Engineering in a Changing World.

[16] Boykova E (2023). Forward charge. Bridge Design & Engineering, 111, 72-73.

[17] Björnsson I, Thöns S, Celati S & Hergart B (2024). Towards a service life extension of the Øresund Fixed Link. IABMAS 2024, 24-28 June, Copenhagen, Denmark.

09/09/2024

This entry was posted in

Experiences from the field

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

“Sustainable Development Goals in Higher Education Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review” by Rhiannon Pugh, Yulia Vakulenko, and Hossein Hashemi

Figure 3- Level of education in the considered literature.

The rising concerns around sustainability have led to the urgent need to update higher education curricula with sustainability-related knowledge and skills. Among the various tools, frameworks, and approaches available to educators are the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) developed by the UN for the Agenda 2030. The SDGs act as a multifunctional tool, not only steering sustainability-focused curricula but also weaving environmental and social perspectives into subjects that traditionally are not focused on sustainability. Although the SDG framework, with its 17 goals, is widely applied, its use in higher education remains fragmented and is perceived as underutilized in connecting courses and programs to the three pillars of sustainability, especially in non-sustainability focused curricula. Nevertheless, integrating the SDGs into the functioning and activities of universities has been a rapidly increasing trend globally noted by researchers (Albareda-Tiana et al., 2018; Leal Filho et al., 2021; Purcell et al., 2019).

There are different ways in which the SDGs have been incorporated into the work and activities of the university, via its missions of teaching, research, and engagement which means working with organizations and actors outside the university including businesses, government, and civil society. For example, Borrero and Yousafzai (2024) explain how the university works with the sustainability mission via the “quintuple helix” with other stakeholders (business, government, third sector, communities) to drive forwards the development of the circular economy. There is a wealth of research about how universities work with SDGs in various ways, but here we are not focusing on this wider engagement work with businesses and other actors, nor are we focusing on sustainability research per se, of which of course there is a huge amount currently taking place across all disciplines (see, for example: Nordström et al., 2020; Bergmann et al., 2021; Walsh et al., 2021). Instead, we shine a light on developments in teaching sustainability in higher education. Our starting point was a large framing research question, as follows:

RQ: How SDGs are used in teaching in higher education?

We already know from our previous explorations into the sphere of teaching for sustainability that there are a number of important insights available from already published research. For example, particular disciplinary approaches to sustainability education using subject-specific frameworks and methods have been proposed by scholars in different fields ranging from engineering (Hadgraft et al., 2020), entrepreneurship (Hermann & Bossle, 2020), AI (Chiu & Chai, 2020), and religious education (Altmeyer, 2021). There have also been cases published on a locational basis, with scholars examining sustainability education in Sweden (Argento et al., 2020), Qatar, Singapore, and New Zealand (Zguir et al., 2021), to name but a few examples.

It is clear that research and publications relating to teaching SDGs in higher education are rapidly expanding at the current time. But how do we get an overview of this bustling field, and how can we succinctly gather state-of-the-art knowledge about this area for our own use in our teaching practice and also to share with our colleagues how to embed SDGs in their teaching? To address this puzzle, we have devised a systematic literature review methodology to help us get an overview of this emerging field of research and figure out what knowledge is out there and how we can access it. Specifically, we need an efficient way to identify the most effective and promising tools and approaches that we ourselves can incorporate into our teaching across different courses and disciplines to ensure we are fulfilling our commitment both as academics and global citizens to be teaching to the latest state of the art regarding the SDGs, and ensuring our students gain the best education possible within the confines of our working lives.

Methodology

This study employs a systematic literature review methodology to explore the integration of the SDG framework in higher education across various disciplines and educational formats. It follows the protocols established by Cook et al. (1997) in the medical field and adapted for the management field by Tranfield et al. (2003).

EBSCOHost and Scopus search engines were used to identify an initial pool of articles with the Boolean operators and the core terms with search string – TI sustainable development goals AND TI teach* OR TI sustainable development goals AND TI learn* OR TI sustainable development goals AND TI educat* in article titles. Specifically, the search focused on scientific articles and conference proceedings with titles that included “sustainable development goals” and terms related to teaching and education (i.e., teach*, learn*, educat*). Besides the publication type (i.e., peer-reviewed article and conference proceedings), the inclusion criteria for the search included English as the language of publication, and a chronological frame (i.e., only materials published in 2015 and onwards were included to assure the focus on the current format of SDGs). The search result led to the finding of 2.146 (Ebscohost) and 284 (Scopus) potentially relevant articles. From there, the material summary was downloaded, and duplicates were excluded. This step narrowed down the material pool to 706 potentially relevant articles. In the next step, titles and abstracts were scanned to assess the articles’ relevance. During this step, the following inclusion criteria were applied: articles that focused on teaching in higher education courses and programs and articles that looked into incorporating SDGs into education. This yielded 39 articles, which were accepted for the analysis. During the analysis, the content of the selected materials was carefully studied by the authors in order to identify existing practices and approaches for incorporating SDGs into higher education teaching. Our approach to analyzing the shortlisted articles was to first devise an analytical framework, which consisted of a shared spreadsheet with different columns for the themes we were searching for in the papers. We pre-decided amongst the research group the sub-questions we should ask of each paper in order to answer our overall question, and settled on the following sub-questions:

  • Where is the research conducted (country)?
  • Which level of education is addressed (undergraduate, postgraduate, PhD, or mixed)?
  • What is the level of application (department, course, whole university etc.,)?
  • Which teaching techniques or methods are featured in the paper?

From these questions we were able to analyze the papers more systematically and fill in the gaps in our knowledge about how SDGs are used in teaching.

Results and Discussion

In this section we will highlight the main results we found when we conducted the systematic literature review as per the methodology described above. The results are grouped into categories according to the analysis we conducted following the four main themes we were interested in exploring. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the double trend of the rise in concern about sustainability and climate crisis, and general trends of increased scientific publication across all fields, we saw a rapid rise in publications on the topic in recent years. The speed of growth in the last two years was even more than we expected from general academic trends, suggesting that the use of SDGs in teaching is becoming rapidly a hot topic (Fig. 1).

Figure 1- Number of publications per year relating to SDGs in higher education teaching.

1. Where are SDGs used?

We were interested to see the geographic location of the studies present in the published literature about using SDGs in teaching. We also wondered if there were going to be geographically differentiated trends in how they are used (though we did not find this in the analysis). What we did find was that the map of the globe was surprisingly patchy when it comes to where the publications and cases are emanating from (Fig. 2).

Figure 2- Country location of identified studies.

What is perhaps surprising is that large countries such as China and India are missing from the identified papers. It is difficult to explain this apart from reflecting on the possibility that the SLR methodology does not capture the cases being published because they are not in journals featured on the EBSCOHost and Scopus search engines. This is a more likely explanation for the possibility that SDG teaching is not being conducted or that research on this is lacking (which could also be the case) in those countries. Also interesting is Spain’s strong presence.

2. Level and field of education in SDG teaching

Figure 3 shows the percentage of the education level where SDGs are integrated into teaching. This analysis was fairly inconclusive. We found a mixture of levels being profiled, with 12 cases profiling undergraduate teaching, 6 for postgraduate, 2 mixing both levels and another 10 covering higher education in general or with unclear indication. From this spread, it seems SDG teaching is present at all levels of university education. What was not featured, but which would

be an interesting question to explore further, is to what degree SDGs are being used to “teach the teachers” in the manner of the course in teaching sustainability that we are currently taking and for which this report is an element. We did not find any papers covering such courses.

As Appendix C shows, the fields of education were also quite mixed, with a spread across different disciplines. The most high-frequency featured disciplines are business/ management/ economics and engineering/ technology. What is perhaps interesting, given the size and scale of education in medicine and health that it features so little. This could be explained by the motivation or necessity to publish in different outlets and the fact that medical or health researchers might be less inclined to make sustainability-themed outputs. We would need to conduct interviews with researchers to test this hypothesis. An interesting question is to dig more into the apparent success in the business and engineering educations in implementing SDGs (and publishing results from these studies). Again, we should consider the size of disciplines, as these are often the largest faculties in many universities.

Figure 3- Level of education in the considered literature.

Discussion and Conclusions

We presented in this report an exploratory approach to find out how SDGs are used to date in higher education teaching. We followed the systematic literature review (SLR) methodology, which is outlined above. After identifying a shortlist of relevant articles according to the established approach, we undertook a qualitative analysis of the papers. The initial scoping assessed various aspects – research methodologies of the selected articles, their chronological and geographic distributions, subject areas, levels of education, sample sizes in empirical studies, and the typologies of SDG application techniques. Subsequent meta-analysis provided insights into different methods of using the SDG framework for various purposes. These included strategies for aligning traditional non-sustainability-focused syllabi and curricula with the SDG goals, methods for teaching the SDGs, and approaches for instructing sustainability-focused courses and programs with SDGs. These are fully presented in Appendix B.

Key findings reveal a trend towards interdisciplinary approaches and the necessity for more cohesive incorporation of SDGs into academic programs. We find overall a rapid development in efforts to implement SDGs in universities, across their various activities and including in teaching. The study highlights successful practices that have been implemented by educators worldwide, and give us a comprehensive list of approaches that have been found to work elsewhere, that we might be able to draw on to influence our own efforts towards integrating SDGs into our teaching. The shortlisted articles from the SLR methodology also provide us with an easy to access list of inspiration.

An important issue to note, from our reading of these texts, is the degree of effort or work needed to integrate SDGs into education in different manners. It is highlighted by some of the studies that work with curriculum development and adding new SDG inspired courses, that whilst this could be very important for improving sustainability education overall, this could be a much more consuming undertaking for teachers versus, for example integrating a workshop on SDGs into an existing course.

Our analysis also threw up a knowledge gap that we cannot address at this point. A substantial research stream is dedicated to the exploration of the connection between various disciplines and higher education programs to the achievement of SGGs, which in itself is a very relevant topic but is out of the scope of this study. If this knowledge gap is filled in further research, holistic knowledge can be synthesized on (1) understanding and communicating how certain disciplines, courses, and programs are connected to the achievement of SDGs, which is then to be complemented by (2) practical approaches and strategies on how to incorporate SDG framework into education. Notably, this project only looked into the second part/point. We did not explore the underlying rationales or science behind the SDGs themselves and how they connect to different disciplines. Another point the project threw up for us, which we don’t have an answer to currently but could research further in the future, is the issue of teaching SDGs to the teachers

and to what extent this is happening across universities worldwide. Thirdly, our approach, which identified a number of different cases and examples from universities around the world, cannot answer to what extent these efforts are overlapping. So, are students receiving different educations around SDGs which overlap, or not? And what is the coordination process across universities, departments, and faculties around this.

References

Albareda-Tiana, S., Vidal-Raméntol, S., & Fernández-Morilla, M. (2018). Implementing the sustainable development goals at University level. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(3), 473-497.

Altmeyer, S. (2021). Religious education for ecological sustainability: an initial reality check using the example of everyday decision-making. Journal of Religious Education, 69(1), 57-74.

Argento, D., Einarson, D., Mårtensson, L., Persson, C., Wendin, K., & Westergren, A. (2020). Integrating sustainability in higher education: a Swedish case. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(6), 1131-1150.

Bergmann, M., Schäpke, N., Marg, O., Stelzer, F., Lang, D. J., Bossert, M., … & Sußmann, N. (2021). Transdisciplinary sustainability research in real-world labs: success factors and methods for change. Sustainability Science, 16, 541-564.

Borrero, J.D. and Yousafzai, S. (2024), “Circular entrepreneurial ecosystems: a Quintuple Helix Model approach”, Management Decision, Vol. 62 No. 13, pp. 141-177. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2023-1361

Chiu, T. K., & Chai, C. S. (2020). Sustainable curriculum planning for artificial intelligence education: A self-determination theory perspective. Sustainability, 12(14), 5568.

Cook, D.J., Greengold, N.L., Ellrodt, A.G., and Weingarten, S.R. (1997), The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines, Annals of internal medicine, Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 210- 216.

Hadgraft, R. G., & Kolmos, A. (2020). Emerging learning environments in engineering education. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 3-16.

Hermann, R. R., & Bossle, M. B. (2020). Bringing an entrepreneurial focus to sustainability education: A teaching framework based on content analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 119038.

Leal Filho, W., Frankenberger, F., Salvia, A. L., Azeiteiro, U., Alves, F., Castro, P., … & Avila, L. V. (2021). A framework for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals in university programmes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 299, 126915.

Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., … & Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature sustainability, 3(3), 182-190.

Purcell, W. M., Henriksen, H., & Spengler, J. D. (2019). Universities as the engine of transformational sustainability toward delivering the sustainable development goals:“Living labs” for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(8), 1343- 1357.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., and Smart, P. (2003), Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, British journal of management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.

Walsh, Z., Böhme, J., & Wamsler, C. (2021). Towards a relational paradigm in sustainability research, practice, and education. Ambio, 50, 74-84.

Zguir, M. F., Dubis, S., & Koç, M. (2021). Embedding Education for Sustainable Development

(ESD) and SDGs values in curriculum: A comparative review on Qatar, Singapore and New

Zealand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 319, 128534.

APPENDIX A: Analyzed Articles

1. García-Rico, L., Martínez-Muñoz, L.F., Santos-Pastor, M.L., et al. 2021. “Service-Learning in Physical Education Teacher Education: A Pedagogical Model towards Sustainable Development Goals.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-09-2020-0325.

2. Mitarlis, A., Utiya, Y., Bertha. 2023. “The Integration of Green Chemistry Principles in Basic Chemistry Learning to Support Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through Education.” Journal of Technology and Science Education. N/A.

3. Fang, J., O’Toole, J. 2019. “Embedding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in an Undergraduate Business Capstone Subject Using an Experiential Learning Approach: A Qualitative Analysis.” The International Journal of Management Education. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100749.

4. Ehnberg, J. 2020. “Teaching the Sustainable Development Goals based on Smart Grids and Vice Versa.” Proceedings of the 2022 31st Annual Conference of the European Association for Education in Electrical and Information Engineering, EAEEIE 2022. doi:10.1109/EAEEIE54893.2022.9820505.

5. Mikhailova, E.A., Post, C.J., Nelson, D.G. 2024. “Integrating United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in Soil Science Education.” Soil Systems. doi:10.3390/soilsystems8010029.

6. Andreoni, V., Richard, A. 2020. “Exploring the Interconnected Nature of the Sustainable Development Goals: The 2030 SDGs Game as a Pedagogical Tool for Interdisciplinary Education.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-11- 2022-0378.

7. Annan-Diab, F., Molinari, C. 2023. “Interdisciplinarity: Practical Approach to Advancing Education for Sustainability and for the Sustainable Development Goals.” International Journal of Management Education. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.006.

8. Nabila, N., Tapilouw, M.C., Sucahyo, S. 2024. “Biology Learning Innovation in the Water Pollution Sub Material Based on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Using the Problem- Based Learning.” Bio-Inoved: Jurnal Biologi-Inovasi Pendidikan. doi:10.20527/bino.v5i3.16718.

9. Avelar, A.B.A., Farina, M.C., da Silva Oliveira, K.D. 2024. “The Integration of the Sustainable Development Goals into Curricula, Research and Partnerships in Higher Education.” International Review of Education.

10. Ohta, R., Yata, A., Sano, C. 2023. “Students’ Learning on Sustainable Development Goals through Interactive Lectures and Fieldwork in Rural Communities: Grounded Theory Approach.” Sustainability. doi:10.3390/su14148678.

11. Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A., Morales-Menendez, R., Melchor-Martinez, E.M., et al. 2022. “Incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals in Engineering Education.” International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM). doi:10.1007/s12008-020-00661-0.

12. Sanchez-Carracedo, F., Segalas, J., Bueno, G., et al. 2023. “Tools for Embedding and Assessing Sustainable Development Goals in Engineering Education.” Sustainability.

13. Sprenger, S., Peter, C. 2022. “An Analysis of the Representation of Sustainable Development Goals in Textbook Maps and Atlases in Educational Contexts.” International Journal of Cartography. doi:10.1080/23729333.2019.1613615.

14. Saitua-Iribar, A., Corral-Lage, J., Pena-Miguel, N. 2022. “Improving Knowledge about the Sustainable Development Goals through a Collaborative Learning Methodology and Serious Game.” Sustainability.

15. Crespo, B., Míguez-Álvarez, C., Arce, M.E., et al. 2022. “The Sustainable Development Goals: An Experience on Higher Education.” Sustainability. doi:10.3390/su9081353.

16. Pan, A.-J., Cheng, B.-Y., Chou, P.-N., et al. 2023. “Using Augmented Reality Games to Support Sustainable Development Goal Learning among Young Students: A True-Experimental Study.” Library Hi Tech.

17. García-Puchades, W., Martos-García, D. 2023. “Politicizing the Learning of Sustainable Development Goals through Drama Performances and Agonistic Debates: A Teacher Training Experience from the Perspective of Radical Democracy.” Environmental Education Research. doi:10.1080/13504622.2022.2085248.

18. Cottafava, D., Cavaglià, G., Corazza, L. 2023. “Education of Sustainable Development Goals through Students’ Active Engagement: A Transformative Learning Experience.” Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2018-0152.

19. Dean, B.A., Gibbons, B., Perkiss, S. 2020. “An Experiential Learning Activity for Integrating the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals into Business Education.” Social Business. doi:10.1362/204440818X15445231830058.

20. Llopis-Albert, C., Rubio, F., Mata-Amela, V., et al. 2023. “Project-Based Learning Methodology (PBL) for the Acquisition of Transversal Competences (TCs) and Integration of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Mechanical Engineering Subjects.” Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences. doi:10.4995/muse.2024.21101.

21. Klemow, K.M., Cid, C.R., Jablonski, L.M., et al. 2018. “How a Multidimensional Ecology Education Approach Can Enhance College Curricula to Implement the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” Sustainable Earth Reviews. doi:10.1186/s42055-024-00082-x.

22. Addo, R., Koers, G., Timpson, W.M. 2024. “Teaching Sustainable Development Goals and Social Development: A Case Study Teaching Method.” Social Work Education. doi:10.1080/02615479.2022.2112168.

23. Collier, E., Odell, K.E., Rosenbloom, A. 2023. “Teaching Sustainable Development: An Approach to Rapidly Introducing the UN Sustainable Development Goals into an Undergraduate Business Curriculum.” Journal of Global Responsibility. doi:10.1108/JGR-11-2021-0100.

24. Ghazali, M., Musa, M., Yakob, N., et al. 2023. “Promoting Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in an Undergraduate Preservice Teachers’ Mathematics Course Using DeCoRe+ Methodology and Assessing Students’ SDG Understanding through Concept Mapping.” Asian Journal for Mathematics Education. doi:10.1177/27527263241231997.

25. Chen, P.-H. 2023. “Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into Project-Based Learning and Design Thinking for the Instructional Design of a Virtual Reality Course.” Engineering Proceedings. doi:10.3390/engproc2023055078.

26. Hübscher, C., Hensel-Börner, S., Henseler, J. 2017. “Social Marketing and Higher Education: Partnering to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals.” Journal of Social Marketing. doi:10.1108/JSOCM-10-2020-0214.

27. Weber, J.M., Lindenmeyer, C.P., Liò, P., et al. 2022. “Teaching Sustainability as Complex Systems Approach: A Sustainable Development Goals Workshop.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-06-2020-0209.

28. Weybrecht, G. 2023. “How Management Education is Engaging Students in the Sustainable Development Goals.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-10-2020-0419.

29. Kioupi, V., Voulvoulis, N. 2023. “Education for Sustainable Development as the Catalyst for Local Transitions Toward the Sustainable Development Goals.” Frontiers in Sustainability. doi:10.3389/frsus.2022.889904.

30. Mitchell, S., Swayne, H., Fulton, K.A., et al. 2022. “Infusing the UN Sustainable Development Goals into a Global Learning Initiative.” International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning. doi:10.14324/IJDEGL.12.2.02.

31. Larrondo Ureta, A., Meso Ayerdi, K., Peña Fernández, S., et al. 2021. “University Teaching Experiences with Sustainable Development Goals (SDG): Promoting Transversal Competencies in Online Journalism.” Applied Environmental Education and Communication. doi:10.1080/1533015

32. Vasconcelos, C., Silva, J., Calheiros, C.S.C., et al. 2023. “Teaching Sustainable Development Goals to University Students: A Cross-Country Case-Based Study.” Sustainability. doi:10.3390/su14031593.

33. Alvarez, I., Etxeberria, P., Alberdi, E., et al. 2019. “Sustainable Civil Engineering: Incorporating Sustainable Development Goals in Higher Education Curricula.” Sustainability. doi:10.3390/su13168967.

34. Manolis, E.N., Manoli, E.N. 2022. “Raising Awareness of the Sustainable Development Goals through Ecological Projects in Higher Education.” Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123614.

35. Michalopoulou, E., Shallcross, D.E., Atkins, T., et al. 2019. “The End of Simple Problems: Repositioning Chemistry in Higher Education and Society Using a Systems Thinking Approach and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals as a Framework.” Journal of Chemical Education. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00270.

36. Kopnina, H. 2024. “Teaching Sustainable Development Goals in The Netherlands: A Critical Approach.” Environmental Education Research. doi:10.1080/13504622.2017.1303819.

37. McLean, M., Phelps, C., Smith, J., et al. 2023. “An Authentic Learner-Centered Planetary Health Assignment: A Five-Year Evaluation of Student Choices to Address Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action).” Frontiers in Public Health. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1049932.

38. Mammadova, A. 2022. “Sustainable Development Goals as Educational Tools to Raise Students’ Awareness of the Rural Development of Biosphere Reserves: A Case Study of Mount Hakusan Biosphere Reserve.” Business Strategy & Development. doi:10.1002/bsd2.88.

39. Voola, R., Carlson, J., Wyllie, J. 2022. “Transformational Learning Approach to Embedding UN Sustainable Development Goal 1: No Poverty, in Business Curricula.” Social Business. doi:10.1362/204440818X15445231830049.

Appendix B: Thematically Clustered Teaching Techniques for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Project-Based Learning (PBL) Methodology:

  • Combining PBL with industry collaboration to understand SDGs in a business context (3)
  • Implementing PBL methodology to integrate SDGs and transversal competences in mechanical engineering (20)
  • Integrating PBL and design thinking using VR for SDG education (25)
  • Integrating SDGs into real-world civil engineering projects (33)
  • Creating web-only reports linked to SDGs through PBL (31)
  • Students working on sustainability projects and presenting to the community (34)

Interdisciplinary Learning:

  • Using the SDGs Game for interdisciplinary sustainability education (6)
  • Combining different perspectives of sustainability in education (7)
  • Employing collaborative learning methodologies for SDG education (14)
  • Engaging students across departments in global citizenship through SDG workshops (30)
  • Adopting an interdisciplinary approach to education for sustainable development (7)
  • Assessing master’s programs with an interdisciplinary case study approach for SDG integration (29)

Collaborative Learning and Critical Reflection:

  • Employing critical reflection for transformational learning on SDGs (39)
  • Utilizing artistic performances and debates to teach SDGs (17)
  • Engaging students in cooperative learning through web-based reports (31)
  • Analyzing student attitudes and career choices post SDG course (10)

Innovative Learning Tools:

  • Improving learning outcomes with 360° video learning media and water purification tools (8)
  • Comparing augmented reality and traditional board games for SDG learning (16)
  • Developing transversal competences through multimedia journalism projects (40)
  • Creating a free online course (MOOC) for teaching sustainability (35)
  • Using interactive learning platforms like Kahoot! and PollEverywhere for workshops (30)

Integrating SDGs into Curricula:

  • Incorporating SDGs into soil science curriculum (5)
  • Embedding and assessing SDGs in engineering education (11, 12)
  • Developing SDG-focused mathematics modules using DeCoRe+ methodology (24)
  • Reviewing and mapping curricula to align with SDGs (29)
  • Creative and integrated approaches to curriculum development for sustainability (35)
  • Analyzing the global integration of SDGs in higher education (9)
  • Meta-review of university reports on SDG activities (28)

Real-World Case Studies:

  • Using case studies to teach SDGs in social development education (22)
  • Case-based teaching to enhance SDG knowledge (32)
  • Focusing on real-world civil engineering problems from the SDG perspective (33)

Practical and Field-Based Learning:

  • Developing sustainability-oriented products as final projects (37)
  • Conducting field practice and coursework in rural universities (26)
  • Field trips featuring sustainability-oriented community service activities (38)
  • Employing project-based learning for web-based reports linked to SDGs (31)
  • Experiential learning on CSR practices and SDGs through real-world organizations (19)
  • Conducting workshops for sustainable development leadership training (18)

Traditional Classroom Teaching Methods:

  • Lectures and in-class discussions to critically evaluate SDGs (36)
  • Combining business cases, literature, and data analysis for SDG education (23)
  • Reflecting on student attitudes and career choices post SDG course (10)
  • Combining 4DEE framework and SDGs in ecological education (21)

Appendix C: Academic Fields of the studies

Fields (Frequency): Education (5) / Chemistry (3) / Business/Management/Economics (6) / Engineering, Technology (8) / Geography, Soil Science (2) / Arts/Journalism/Communication (2) / Medicine/Health Sciences (1) / Humanities/Social Sciences (1) / Mixed and Interdisciplinary Education (5)

09/09/2024

This entry was posted in

Experiences from the field Literature

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment
Newer Posts Older Posts