ABSTRACT
To ensure that Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is present in the classroom of every university student, research is required to understand how those responsible for teaching value, understand and practice ESD (Reid and Petocz 2006). Given the relative academic freedom university teachers enjoy, the decision of what and how to teach lies largely with the individual academic (Åkerlind and Kayrooz 2003; Shephard and Furnari 2013). An academic’s own perception of sustainability will influence if and how they teach it, and in turn influence the quality of their own students’ understanding and potential practice of the concept (Cotton et al. 2007; Prosser and Trigwell 1997; Reid and Petocz 2006). Indeed, previous studies have noted that academics’ perceptions of sustainability have been a major inhibitor to ESD curricula inclusion, with many believing that ESD is not relevant to their discipline (Cotton and Winter 2010; Dawe et al. 2005; Velazquez et al. 2005). Furthermore, the subjective, controversial, ill-defined and contextual nature of the concept
of ESD adds complication to gaining teaching academics’ support for ESD (Scott and Gough 2004; Stevenson et al. 2013; Thomas and Nicita 2002;Wals and Blewitt 2010). ESD aligns with postpositivist epistemology, where knowledge is understood as fluid and as formed and shaped by interactions with a constantly evolving world (Littledyke and Manolas 2010). As such, there are many commentaries on the need for constructivist (where knowledge is understood as created from experience), learner-centred, approaches to teach sustainability (Christie et al. 2013; Littledyke 2008; Sipos et al. 2008). Such methods include the use of active, participatory, interdisciplinary, holistic and experiential learning approaches, where the teacher acts as a facilitator of learning, rather than a director or ‘sage on the stage’ transmitting information to their students (Cotton andWinter 2010; Dawe et al. 2005; Littledyke and Manolas 2010; Sipos et al. 2008; Thomas 2009; Tilbury and Cooke 2005). Teaching methods like critical and holistic thinking, place-based education, role plays, stim-
ulus activities, critical reading and writing, reflective accounts, group discussions and debates, field work, problem-based learning and case studies are therefore often advocated for teaching
ESD as they align with the epistemologies, ideologies and pedagogies that support postpositivist approaches to education (for a more detailed description of these teaching methods and their associated philosophies, see Christie et al. 2013). Of particular importance to ESD, is the use of critical thinking within the classroom.While
the definitions of critical thinking are varied (see for example Dewey 1933; Facione 1990; Lipman 1988; King and Kitchener 1994), the process is often described as when an individual reorientates their thinking; to knowledge being objective and observable, to the new understanding that knowledge is ever changing, uncertain and contextual (King and Kitchener 1994). As such, critical thinking is often widely promoted as essential to the understanding, evaluation and practice of sustainable development – as well as being a skill commonly iterated in university graduate attributes (Cotton andWinter 2010; Commonwealth of Australia 2007; Jickling 1992; McKeown and Hopkins 2003; Oulton et al. 2004; Rieckmann 2012; Seatter 2011; Thomas 2009;Wals and Jickling 2002;Wright and Horst 2013). Conversely, teaching methods such as lectures, tutorials and rote learning are not often
promoted for ESD, as they are viewed as passive forms of education which align with positivist epistemology – thereby emphasising the acquisition and clarification of what is seen as objective and factual information (Exley and Dennick 2009; Littledyke and Manolas 2010). This is not to say that lectures, tutorials, rote learning and the like cannot be used to engage students in postpositivist learning, rather that the literature and history of use of these teaching methods suggests that they are not often associated with constructivist learner-centred approaches (Christie et al. 2013). Although there is some evidence that constructivist approaches to teaching and learning are
gaining popularity in university classrooms (Biggs and Tang 2007; Kerka 1997), there is little research exploring to what extent these methods are already used, or valued, by teaching academics across disciplines, and if and how this is associated with ESD. Additionally, there is a common perception among academics and the general public, that ESD is the domain of the life sciences, geography and biology (Cotton et al. 2007). This perception has influenced the uptake of sustainability in different disciplines (Reid and Petocz 2006; Sherren 2006; Thomas and Nicita 2002). However, research regarding teaching academics’ self-reported opinions and practice of ESD has failed to detect these differences (e.g. Cotton et al. 2007; Shephard and Furnari 2013; Stables and Scott 2002).General agreement on the ideal of ESD and small sample sizes may have masked differences in teaching academics’ understanding and application of ESD across the disciplines (Christie et al. 2015). Although one should not seek to generalise disciplinary experience of any individual teacher (Littledyke 2008), identifying large scale differences between the disciplines can help ESD advocates tailor their approaches and programmes. Despite the importance of research involving teaching academics from across disciplines,
very few studies have explored these stakeholders’ conceptions, beliefs, experiences and practices of ESD in higher education, or how their current teaching practices might align with ESD pedagogy (Christie et al. 2013, 2015; Cotton et al. 2007; Reid and Petocz 2006). Studies that have involved teaching academics are often based on qualitative research methods, employing case study, singular university or singular discipline approaches, and involving academics with a stated interest in ESD, rather than conducting research from a multidisciplinary, or sector-wide, perspective (Aznar Minguet et al. 2011; Carew and Mitchell 2006; Cotton et al. 2007; Dyball and Carpenter 2006; Joseph et al. 2013; McKeown-Ice 2000; Reid and Petocz 2006; Shephard and Furnari 2013; Brinkhurst et al. 2011; Barth and Rieckmann 2013;Wemmenhove and de Groot 2001). It is important to acknowledge that although each institution is unique (Corcoran et al. 2004), universities are not ‘free standing’ and that developments, trends and innovation in
the higher education sector are indeed influenced by what is happening across the sector (Scott and Gough 2004: 243). As seen across the university sector globally, many Australian universities have policies
committing them to addressing sustainability1 yet ESD curricular inclusion has been minimal (Bekessy et al. 2003; Christie et al. 2013; Lang et al. 2006; Leihy and Salazar 2011; Noonan and Thomas 2004; Tilbury et al. 2005). Much of the sector wide research investigating ESD in higher education has largely been based on information gathered from policy documents, university websites, or administrators, rather than seeking the empirical opinions and experiences of current teaching academics (e.g. Bekessy et al. 2003;Holdsworth et al. 2008; Lang et al. 2006; Leihy and Salazar 2011; Sherren 2006; Thomas and Nicita 2002; Tilbury et al. 2005). As such, lessons learnt within the Australian university sector can serve universities globally. Nation-wide research was therefore conducted to investigate teaching academics’ opinions
and practice of ESD and ESD pedagogy across disciplines. The aims of the study were to:
1. Determine teaching academics’ current conceptions of and attitudes towards ESD in higher education.
