The Influence of Higher Education on Student Learning and Agency for Sustainability Transition

Abstract

Higher education (HE) has a key role in educating graduates as decision makers and change agents; however, sustainability education (SE) remains on the fringes of mainstream curricula and is conducted on an ad hoc basis. The context of this research is five connected studies that aimed to investigate the influence of SE on tertiary students’ views, knowledge, behaviour, and agency to contribute to sustainability transitions. The mixed-methods study investigated learning for sustainability by focusing on key elements of the “learning system”, namely the learner’s personal context, the teaching context (SE compared to regular education) and learning outcomes. The research was guided by a unique conceptual framework that linked theories in education and learning, environmental psychology, and sustainability transitions. The influence of educational interventions was assessed using online pre-post surveys that consisted of well-established instruments and open-ended questions. Key transversal findings are resistance to SE, converging views and attitudes towards an “anthropocentric environmentalist” perspective, limited empowerment and occasional disempowerment from SE, a focus on personal behaviour change rather than professional action/agency, and a limited incidence of wider agency. Cumulative and deeper learning for sustainability occurred with repetition of SE and a greater connection to a student’s lifeworld. The current ad hoc approach to SE in HE is ineffective in creating widespread agents for change. Influences that foster transformative learning for sustainability and the development of competency and agency for sustainability are identified, and recommendations are provided for educational policy and praxis to enhance student learning and agency for sustainability transitions.

1. Introduction

The United Nations 2030 Agenda presents an ambitious vision of transformation towards sustainable futures articulated through seventeen interrelated sustainable development goals (SDGs). Learning is a catalyst in the transformation process and a key enabler for all 17 UN SDGs with learning required at multiple levels from individuals, groups, organisations, and networks to whole societies to address complex sustainability challenges and transform society [1]. The aim of SDG 4 is to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” ([2] p. 18) with specific learning objectives outlined in the cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioural domains. Education for sustainable development (ESD) is mentioned explicitly in SDG target 4.7 as a means to empower learners with important knowledge, skills, and attitudes to pursue sustainability [3].

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have a key role in fostering learning and the transition to sustainable development (SD) by building the skills and capabilities of graduates as decision makers and change agents. The key activities of HEIs in research, teaching, and community outreach facilitate the creation and translation of knowledge, which contribute both directly and indirectly to learning by individuals, groups, and institutions towards sustainability. The important role of HEIs is specifically recognised in several supranational and national policies [4], and many institutions have expressed their commitment to sustainability through various declarations, charters, and initiatives [5]. However, implementation of ESD remains on the periphery of mainstream curricula [6,7] and is conducted on a largely voluntary, ad hoc [8,9], and piece-meal basis [10]. To facilitate student learning and empowerment in such an environment, educators require a deep understanding of students’ existing sustainability dispositions that influence their ability and willingness to develop the required competencies and agency to contribute to sustainability transitions.

This paper reports on a research study [11] that investigated the contribution of higher education (HE) and ESD to tertiary student views, knowledge, behaviour, and development of their capability and agency to contribute to sustainability transitions. The research was in response to calls by scholars for an increased focus on transformative learning in ESD to create a paradigm shift towards a holistic view involving systems thinking [12,13,14,15], a stronger ecological orientation [16,17,18,19], and for “further research to measure the transformation and the impact of education for sustainable development.” ([20] p. 759). The challenges of implementing ESD in HE around the world are well researched [21,22]; however, less is documented regarding actual learning outcomes from current ad hoc approaches and the pathways for more effective sustainability teaching praxis in this environment. Few studies systematically investigated the overall influence of ESD across courses in particular institutions, and these showed highly variable results with generally weak learning outcomes [23,24,25,26]. Mainly, learning outcomes of ESD in HE conducted across multiple contexts was under researched. Sustainability education (SE) is often oriented to individual change and transformation; yet, little is known about how individual change emerges from the learning process or how such change contributes to transformative agency in students [27].

This paper describes the conceptual framework, methodology, and findings of five connected studies comprising an initial literature review and four empirical studies that investigated student learning for sustainability in HE. The focus of this research is on key elements of the “learning system” [28,29], namely the teaching context of SE compared to regular education, the personal context of the learner, and student learning outcomes. The research aims are:

• To investigate tertiary students’ sustainability perspectives in terms of their views, knowledge, and behaviour prior to a tertiary education intervention;
• To investigate the relationship between sustainability education in the tertiary curriculum and students’ sustainability perspectives, and identify the influences that moderate this relationship; and
• To investigate tertiary students’ experience of transformative learning in sustainability education and identify the conditions that facilitate this type of learning.

The next section reviews the literature that informed the design of a unique conceptual framework guiding this research. Section 3 outlines the methodological framework and the specific aims and methods for the five component studies. Section 4 presents key results from each study, while Section 5 discusses transversal findings across the studies with recommendations for tertiary educators and policy makers to enhance student learning outcomes. Concluding comments are provided in the final section.

2. Theoretical Framework

This research is contextualised in three theoretical/empirical fields: education and learning, environmental psychology and behaviour, and the role of actors/sectors in sustainability transitions. The broad conceptual framework combined elements across these theoretical fields and was adopted in response to calls for more research on links between sustainability education (SE) in HE and learning outcomes in terms of wider socio-ecological changes [30,31]. In doing so, the conceptual framework takes its point of departure by bringing together three important axes of SE aims and vision and linking SE to personal conceptual change, behaviour change, and broader social change.

The conceptual framework was operationalised by including a psychometric model of environmental attitudes and behaviour and reliable instruments to assess learning outcomes. Education and learning was approached through constructivism and transformative learning (TL) via Mezirow’s Perspective Transformation (PT) model [32] to focus on individual mindset/worldview and actions. Environmental psychology was approached via Stern’s Value Belief Norm model [33] to focus on individual environmental behaviour. Sustainability transitions (ST) was approached via the Multi-Level Perspective/Transition Management theories [34,35,36] to focus on links between agents/actors and changes in complex socio-technical systems. This broad framework conceptualised the influence of higher education (HE), learning, and other factors on an individual’s mindset and behaviour towards the environment and sustainability (VBN), elaborated the learning process and outcomes from SE (via TL), and situated individual outcomes in terms of wider societal sustainability (via VBN and ST). Thus, the conceptual synthesis connects learning (HE and other sources), learning outcomes, and influences on sustainability. A review of the literature related to the three models is discussed below.

2.1. Environmental Behaviour and the VBN Model

Sustainability can be perceived as a “value” situated within the personal context of an individual, organisation, and community perspective. Each entity perceives sustainability through their own value lens and reflects the wider context. Conceptions of sustainability and SD vary in terms of the required rebalancing of economic, environmental, and social/cultural pillars of societal outcomes now and into the future. Two such interpretations are notions of “weak” sustainability, which seeks an overlap of these societal outcomes and entails incremental change through an instrumental or mechanistic approach, and “strong” sustainability, which seeks a nested systems/holistic approach through a transformation of systems and values [37]. These approaches are associated with quite different societal pathways, SE pedagogies, intended learning outcomes, and behaviours [38,39].

Environmental and sustainability behaviour arises from a complex interplay of causal factors, both general and behaviour-specific [33]. A range of personal and social influences [40], personal motivations, and situational or contextual factors facilitate or constrain environmental behaviour [41]. Differences in worldviews and beliefs and perceived ability to achieve outcomes with current beliefs leads to differences in concern and motivation for action and learning. Peoples’ views about the environment are affected by influences, such as age, gender, level of education, income, culture, and personality [42].

In the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory of environmentalism, Stern [33] considers a wide range of causal factors affecting pro-environmental behaviour. The model is based on social psychology theory and links together personal values, worldview, and norm-activation theory to yield a range of pro-environmental behaviour (PEB). Components of the VBN theory are linked through a causal chain of five variables that lead to significant environmental behaviours, as shown in Figure 1. These variables are personal values, the New Environmental (or Ecological) Paradigm (NEP) scale [43], beliefs about adverse consequences for valued objects and ascribed responsibility to reduce the threat, and personal norms for pro-environmental action.

The VBN model specifies three environmental value orientations: biospheric is a concern about the intrinsic value of nature and the biosphere; altruistic is a concern about the welfare of other humans; and egoistic is a concern for power, achievement, and hedonism. The NEP scale relates to general beliefs about human–nature relations and measures an ecological paradigm/worldview, where human activity and a fragile biosphere are seen as inextricably interconnected, compared to an anthropocentric worldview (the Dominant Social Paradigm, DSP), where human utility is paramount [43]. It is the most widely used psychometric model of environmental beliefs and considered the gold- standard for environmental and sustainability research [44]. The NEP consists of fifteen statements (scored on a Likert scale) grouped into five dimensions: limits to growth; anti-anthropocentrism; balance of nature; anti-exemptionalism, and eco-crisis. NEP is often used as a unidimensional construct although many studies regard it as multidimensional [43,44]. Studies using NEP in developing and transitional economies [45], e.g., in Latin America [46], Japan [45,47], and in Turkey [48,49], show an integrated anthropocentric-environmentalist worldview where nature is valued for the directs benefits to humans. In this research, NEP was applied as a single measure and as multiple variables of component dimensions to identify more nuanced student views and responses to SE experiences.

The VBN model accounts for all non-activist types of support, such as environmental citizenship, policy support, purchase choices, and lifestyle behaviours [50], as well as personal influences on organisations, which are significant sources of environmental problems [51]. Environmental behaviour in the VBN is distinguished as either “private-sphere” or “public-sphere”, thus linking personal behaviours and wider societal change. Pro-environmental behaviour is affected by a combination of interventions [33], including education. Through SE, an individual is exposed to learning experiences that build their knowledge, skills, competence, and agency as individuals and professionals to take private-sphere and public-sphere actions to improve sustainability outcomes.

2.2. Sustainability Education and the Transformative Learning Model

The foundation for lifelong learning and for SD is learning to know, to be, and to live together with others [52]. Learning theories have evolved over time with the dominant view being the socio-constructivist approach that regards learning as participation [53]. Effective learning is a “constructive, cumulative, self-regulated…process of knowledge and meaning building” that is individually different ([53] p. 56). Meaningful engagement of students is affected by differences in their knowledge, motivation, and abilities [54,55] and by the “learning system” [28,29,56], which is influenced by the wider context. Sustainability learning extends beyond individual units of study and reflects the “horizontal connectedness” of learning that stretches across the study programme to the campus environment [57,58] and to learning opportunities in their lifeworld [59,60,61,62].

The type of learning required in contemporary approaches to ESD is to empower learners to transform themselves and the society in which they live [63]. The emphasis on societal transformation and system innovation is essentially a revolutionary approach as it calls for learners to adopt a reflexive perspective for “opening up of existing routines, rules, values and assumptions embedded in the institutions that have co-evolved with earlier “unsustainable” modes of socio-technological development” ([64] p. 84). It is also an emancipatory approach of building an individual’s capacity for critical, systemic, and reflective thinking. Graduates need to develop the capacity to contribute to sustainability transitions as individuals and in groups. Importantly, this capacity is learnt and constructed and dynamic [65], and HE can contribute by developing such capacities in their students.

Sustainability education (SE) is a broad term that encompasses the array of philosophical approaches (aims) to holistic sustainability and the teaching praxis (techniques) to build skills, knowledge, and potential agency for sustainability [66]. Implementation of SE in HE is largely conducted in an ad hoc, laissez-faire manner with a diverse range of aims and praxis that can result in a wide range of learning outcomes in student knowledge, skills, attitudes/views, and behaviours. The full range of teaching aims and learning outcomes were considered in this research project.

The effectiveness of any educational intervention depends on the learner’s state of readiness [67]. Student interest in sustainability and preparedness for sustainability education (SE) is affected by their prior knowledge, attitudes, skills, and values [68]. All learning entails some degree of unlearning and “supplantive learning” where we question and replace ways of knowing and acting. Where there is strong attachment to previous beliefs and behaviour, resistance or disorientation occur, and new learning can be problematic, but if the learner is able to navigate through this transition, it becomes “threshold” or transformative learning [69]. Learning for sustainability can be (1) incremental learning, representing a mechanical/instrumental approach (education about sustainability) of graduated learning (Bateson’s Level 1) that is not very challenging for learners or (2) transformative learning, representing an epistemological/threshold approach (education for/as sustainability) of paradigmatic learning (Bateson’s Levels 2 and 3) that can be very challenging for learners [70]. Previous studies support the inclusion of SE both as generic strategies of integrating sustainability themes into existing curricula and transformational programmes based on an integrated and holistic curriculum [71].

Holistic sustainability is a complex epistemology [72,73] characterised by uncertainty and indeterminacy that can disrupt a person’s frames of reference and prompt transformative learning (TL). Transformative learning requires great effort [74] and depends on the learners “state of readiness” and the context and quality of the learning environment [75]. In holistic SE units, students are challenged to “reflect on the content of the problem, the process of problem solving, or the premise of the problem” [76]. Consequently, there is an increased emphasis in HE on TL for sustainability due to the conceptual congruence between TL and holistic SE. These relate to the variety of outcomes, namely cognitive, conative, and affective [77,78]; the types of learning outcomes, namely instrumental, communicative, and transformative; and the properties of emergence and unpredictability. The intersectionality of TL and SE is reflected in the emerging theory and practice of Transformative Sustainability Education (TSE), which focuses on a holistic, interconnected, and relational ontology [79,80] and offers “potential for imaginative and emergent change, for healing and transformative engagement” ([81] p. 277). The educational theory adopted in this research focussed primarily on TL, which can accommodate the full range of potential learning outcomes from the current diversity in SE approaches. The VBN aligns with both TL and SE, as learning experiences in SE have the potential to lead to an array of changes, including beliefs, values, norms, behaviour, competency, and agency.

The theory of TL has evolved over the last 40 years to become the most recognised theory of adult learning [74], and Mezirow’s theory of Perspective Transformation (PT) is the most influential and dominant perspective in the field [82]. In Mezirow’s theory, each person interprets the world based on their perceptions of experience, which create “frames of reference” (meaning structures/perspectives, habits of mind, mindsets, worldview) that influence their thinking, beliefs, and actions [83]. Transformative learning is the process of examining, questioning, and revising those perceptions [84] and “taken-for-granted” frames of reference and learning to “negotiate and act on our own purposes, values, feeling, and meanings” ([85] p. 8). Mezirow’s theoretical framework detailed a 10-phase cognitive process for fostering TL in adult education, leading to more open, permeable, and justified meaning perspectives. Perspective transformation is characterised as triggered by a disorienting dilemma that challenges an existing frame of reference. Through a process of critical reflection on one’s underlying values and assumptions and constructive dialogue, a person transforms their problematic frame of reference and makes “an informed and reflective decision to act on his or her reflective insight” ([86] p. 87). Changes in perspective may occur through incremental changes in one’s points of view or as an epochal change in worldview, which is a rare event [74].

The renewed emphasis by the United Nations [63] on TL in SE heightens the imperative to measure learning outcomes, but there is no standard quantitative measure to assess TL outcomes in HE. Most TL studies are qualitative, with the few quantitative studies adopting a variety of measures [72]. The Learning Activities Survey (LAS) is a simple measure of TL in adult education and widely used in other educational contexts [20]. The LAS is a self-reporting assessment instrument used in adult education to determine the learning activities that contribute to PT. It was originally developed by King [87] based on Mezirow’s ten stages (precursor steps) of PT and informed by insights from Brookfield, Cranton, and other scholars [88]. The standard LAS instrument has four sections and consists of fixed-choice and open-ended responses. Several researchers have utilised the LAS as a quantitative tool only [89,90].

2.3. Sustainability Transitions and the Transition Management Model

Sustainability issues posed by environmental, social, and economic crises are grand challenges that cannot be solved incrementally but require a change in systems [36]. The conceptual framework guiding this study extends up from the level of individuals and organisations to societal transitions by considering key sectors (i.e., business) and institutions (i.e., HEIs) and how their actions resist or facilitate broader systems change. The inclusion of Sustainability Transition (ST) theory in the conceptual framework postulates how actions by individuals may directly and indirectly affect broader societal sustainability outcomes. The ST group of theories deal with large-scale transformative change of complex systems that are fundamental, structural, or systemic in nature. Transformation of complex systems can be illustrated by an S-curve representing a non-linear quantum shift from one dynamic equilibrium to another. Sustainability Transition theories suggest the transition progresses along phases of a logistic S-curve (pre-development, take-off, acceleration, and stabilisation) as shown in Figure 2.

Transitions of socio-ecological systems draw together notions of complex systems, co-evolution (synergy and resistance), and learning at various scales. Transitions are gradual, long-term (25–50 years) processes of innovation in socio-technical systems where society and its subsystems fundamentally change and reinforce developments in each other [36]. Transformations of societal systems require momentum and emerge from the interaction between actors on three levels: the “macro” level is the broader societal landscape of exogenous factors; the “meso” level is regimes and institutions that lead to incremental changes and path dependence; and the “micro” level is individuals/organisations and niches where radical innovations occur [91]. Synergistic actions across levels and functional areas drives the process, cross-pollinates across diverse sustainability activities, and builds capacity and momentum for transformation [39]. Transitions research focuses on the “meso” level of regimes that complements sustainability issues at the “micro” level (i.e., individual attitudes, motivations, and choices) [92]. Scholars in ST emphasise the importance of creating and maintaining public support during transitions to keep the process going and prevent backlash [36]. Sustainability transitions require wider societal changes in values, beliefs, and governance [93], and HE has a key role in this regard.

The four central conceptual frameworks in ST literature [92] are strategic niche management [34], the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), Technological Innovations Systems approach (TIS), and Transition Management (TM). The conceptual framework guiding this research was based on the Transition Management (TM) model, developed by Rotmans and Kemp [36] as a governance model to manage the transition process of socio-ecological systems. As illustrated in Figure 3, transition in the TM model is represented by the dynamic integration of a complex set of societal cogwheels (subsystems or domains) that must move synchronously across multiple levels to generate the momentum necessary for transformation to occur. Key cogwheels (domains) include the business sector, educational institutions, government and civic society, media, arts/culture, and physical and institutional infrastructure, all of which require agency and cycles of collaborative (social) learning for change to occur [35,36].

The role of knowledge, learning, and resistance by actors in the transition process is highlighted in all ST theories, and in recent years, there has been a greater focus on agency and learning. Smith, Stirling, and Berkhout [94] regard agency in ST as the ability to make a difference and exercise political, economic, and institutional power to alter the balance of selection pressures or adaptive capacity of the system. Agency in ST is explicit in the Multi-Level Perspective [95] and implied in TM where actors create linkages between processes at different levels [34]. The issue of power, agency, and politics was explored in ST research in a series of theoretical and empirical studies [96,97] as was the role of agency, power, and learning [98,99,100].

2.4. Broad Conceptual Framework

The VBN, TL, and ST (specifically TM) theories are united in the overall conceptual framework by linking common conceptual elements in education (how people learn), attitude–behaviour relationships (how people act), and sustainability transitions (how society and socio-technical systems change). The three theoretical streams are linked through the elements of learning, resistance, synergy/connection, and action/agency, which provide insights into how SE in HE contributes to students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour towards sustainability.

• Learning can manifest in TL theory as instrumental, communicative, and transformative learning or even as resistance; in the VBN model, learning can result in a change in values, beliefs, norms, and behaviours; and in TM theory, learning features on multiple scales and includes individual learning, collaborative/social learning, and organisational learning.
• Resistance is evident in all three theories and can block or even reverse progress towards sustainability/transformation. In terms of individual learning, resistance can arise due to epistemic barriers, value orientations, or educational praxis; environmental behaviour can be blocked by attitudinal and situational/contextual factors; and resistance in socio-technical systems stems from established structures and existing power relations.
• Connection/synergy is a catalyst for change in all three theories: in TL theory, synergy is evident across aspects of a person’s lifeworld, between instrumental and communicative learning, between types of knowledge, and between cognitive, affective, and conative outcomes; in the VBN model, the synergistic effect of values, beliefs, norms, and situational/contextual factors can inhibit or promote action; and in TM theory, transformation is contingent on the connection/synergy between actors/agents in niches and between sectors/domains and levels in the societal system.
• Agency is a fundamental element in all three theories and is reflected in different levels of action. Agency may be an outcome of TL, is reflected in behaviour in the VBN, and is a key input to TM.

The schema of the overall conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 4. The diagram conceptualises interactions between SE and a person’s values, beliefs, norms, and agency, which influence their behaviour and contribute to (or detract from) sustainability transitions. Linking the fields of education and learning, personal behaviour changes, and societal change into a single conceptual framework informed the design of empirical studies and interpretation of results. The broader conceptual framework linking SE to societal transformation thus adds to the field of SE.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Paradigm

As sustainability has multiple meanings, this research adopted an interpretive paradigm with a constructivist approach [101]. Interpretivism was chosen to better understand motives and actions, which requires a focus on interpretation, social context, and local circumstance [102]. Constructivism is related to adult learning in HE, where new meaning is contextualised within a learner’s existing knowledge and experience.

3.2. Research Method

The research was conducted in three stages (2011–2017), with mixed methods adopted within and across all stages to provide useful insights [103] and cross-validate the study findings [104]. This methodology aligns with the epistemology of Interpretivism and Constructivism, as qualitative findings provide insights and contextual perspective to better understand and interpret quantitative findings. Pre-post surveys were used in Stages 1 and 2 and post-test surveys in Stage 3. All surveys consisted of well-established instruments and included both open and closed questions (i.e., concurrent mixed methods) to triangulate findings and provide further insight into students’ learning experiences.

3.3. Research Approach

The research approach followed an evolutionary and emerging progression of enquiry with each stage informed by previous stages. The progression mirrored the evolving discourse in the literature on the scope and aims of SE and reflected the author’s personal journey and development as a reflexive SE practitioner with changing SE praxis. The research aims and methods were adapted accordingly from one empirical study to the next.

The research design consisted of an initial literature review (scoping study) and four empirical studies, namely a pilot study, a case study, a multi-university study, and a transformative learning study. Findings from the pilot study and case study situated in one institutional context in Stage 1 led to a wider quasi-experimental, multi-university study in Stage 2 to generalise the findings of SE versus regular education and finally to a narrower explanatory study in Stage 3 to investigate transformative learning outcomes from dedicated SE units. The component studies were conducted as follows:

• Study 1. Initial literature review (published in 2011, [105])
• Study 2. Pilot study (published in 2013—data 2012–2013, [106])
• Study 3. Case study (published in 2014—data 2005–2013, [107])
• Study 4. Multi-university study (published in 2018—data 2013–2015, [25])
• Study 5. Transformative learning study (published in 2021—data 2017, [108])

In this research, it was postulated that SE would provide new student knowledge and potentially alter student worldviews, attitudes, and personal norms [109], which in turn might influence minor personal behaviours, such as recycling and energy saving [110,111], or progress their learning journey. The full range of environmental behaviours in the VBN and their potential impact on systemic change were investigated.

The specific scope/aims and methodology for each study are presented in

Table 1. Research aims and methods in the five component studies.

Stage 1. Research Conducted at One University (Australia)
Study 1. Initial literature review study (published in 2011)
Scope/Aims	To provide a broad perspective on the influence of higher education (HE) on student learning for sustainability (LfS) in the context of personal and societal change; describe how complex societal systems transform; discuss the influence of the business sector and HE; and focus on the influence of tertiary business schools in facilitating the sustainability transition (ST) process.
Method	Secondary data research combined theoretical streams in psychology, social psychology, education and learning, and societal transformation to connect the field of adult LfS in HE with individual transformation and social change. Explored the contribution of the HE and business sectors in sustainability transitions. Outlined key conceptions of sustainability, different types of learning and pedagogical approaches, and explored the role and progress of personal and cultural values for sustainability around the world. Explored the role of values and pedagogy in learning for sustainability and the role and progress of tertiary business education in the sustainability transition process. In addition, linked the role of tertiary business education in fostering individual LfS and agency to facilitate societal transformation and argued for the inclusion of sustainability in all tertiary business education programmes.
Study 2. Pilot study (published 2013—data 2012–2013)
Scope/Aims	To investigate the existing sustainability perspectives (views, knowledge, and attitudes) of international students at an Australian university and compare the influence of different SE pedagogical initiatives on their perspectives.
Method	Action research study was conducted at two campuses over two semesters in 2011. The sustainability interventions consisted of course-specific introductory sustainability seminars, courses with sustainability elements already embedded in course curricula, and courses with no elements of sustainability. The sample consisted of several thousand international students enrolled in undergraduate or postgraduate IT or business programmes or in English language courses. Changes in student’s sustainability perspectives were assessed using pre-post surveys based on NEP and open questions. A total of 267 completed surveys (hard copy) were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively to explore students’ initial sustainability perceptions and evaluate changes over time. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS and included descriptive and inferential statistics, such as t-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Cronbach’s alpha, and chi-square tests.
Study 3. Case study (published 2014—data 2005–2013)
Scope/Aims	To describe the researcher’s pedagogical approach of using values to lever the inclusion of sustainability education (SE) in the curriculum of various business courses at an Australian university and investigate the immediate and medium-term impacts of various SE interventions on tertiary student views, attitudes, and behaviour towards sustainability
Method	Provided a detailed account of the researcher’s SE praxis in tertiary business education over an 8-year period (2005–2013), including examples of different interpretations of “value” to embed sustainability concepts into business courses. Reported the influence of an escalating integration of SE interventions on tertiary students’ sustainability views, conceptions, and behaviour over this time. Sample consisted of several thousand international and domestic students enrolled in business units taught or coordinated by the researcher. Research data were a synthesis of empirical results from online surveys in Study 2 (pilot study), course feedback and class discussions, as well as initial online survey results from Study 4 (multi-university study).
Stage 2. Research Conducted at Several Universities (Australia, Malaysia, Italy)
Study 4. Multi-university study (published 2018—data 2013–2015)
Scope/Aims	To use a common instrument to explore the sustainability perspectives of tertiary students across disciplines and levels of study in Australia, Italy, and Malaysia; investigate tertiary students’ prior knowledge, perceptions of the importance of sustainability and graduate skills required, and their awareness of campus sustainability activities; compare the influence of SE and regular education on tertiary student views, attitudes, and behaviour towards sustainability.
Method	Sample consisted of undergraduate and postgraduate students enrolled in a range of courses, disciplines, and locations at nine HEIs located in Australia, Malaysia, and Italy. A quasi-experimental design was adopted to collect data from EfS participants and non-EfS participants at each location with convenience sampling providing a wide representation of courses, disciplines, and locations. The sample covered several disciplines (engineering, architecture, business, sports medicine, health, biological sciences, education, etc.), modes of study (on-campus, distance education, and mixed mode), locations, and types of SE. Pre-post surveys were developed by a consensus of staff at participating universities and consisted of several scales and open-ended questions of student perceptions of graduate attributes, importance of sustainability, and their knowledge, views, attitudes, and behaviour towards sustainability. This included measures of environmental worldviews, such as the Inclusion of Nature in Self scale (INS), the NEP scale to measure beliefs and, the Hierarchy with Nature (HWN) scale to explore attitudes (developed by the researcher), ten items for self-reported behaviour, and measures of perceived importance of sustainability. Empirical data were collected online over five separate terms/semesters in 2013–2015. Several thousand students participated in the study and provided a total of 1422 completed responses. The dataset was analysed using SPSS and included descriptive and inferential statistics, such as t-tests, ANOVA, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and Cronbach’s alpha as well as non-parametric tests and partial correlations. Cross-sectional data were analysed to investigate differences in student dispositions at one point in time, and longitudinal data (matched responses) were analysed to investigate changes in student dispositions and behaviour over the term.
Stage 3 Research Conducted at Two Universities (Australia)
Study 5. Transformative learning study (published 2021—data 2017)
Scope/Aims	To explore the incidence and experience of transformative learning (TL) for tertiary students in dedicated SE units at two Australian universities by applying an augmented LAS to determine: (a) the incidence of perspective transformation (PT)/TL, (b) the contribution and importance of Mezirow’s 10 steps towards TL, (c) the influence of demographic, academic, study-related, and situational factors on PT/TL, (d) the type of learning outcomes, and (e) the development of competence, personal agency, and advocacy for sustainability.
Method	Sample consisted of undergraduate students undertaking dedicated SE units at two universities in Australia (one rural, one urban). The SE units were compulsory for students enrolled in sustainability or environmental science majors in one university and for students in business courses in the other university. Both units were delivered in a blended on-campus/distance learning mode and also widely available as electives to students in other courses, which drew students from across diverse locations, disciplines, and motivations. An online post-course survey (concurrent mixed-methods approach) covered sustainability worldviews, knowledge and behaviour, cognitive shifts in attitudes and learning, the Learning Activities Survey (LAS) and supplementary questions to explore the incidence/type of student TL, the influence of background and contextual factors, perceived capability, and intended behaviour towards sustainability. Approximately 1000 students were invited and provided 301 useable responses. Survey data were analysed to assess changes in sustainability dispositions and the incidence and extent of TL. Quantitative data were analysed with SPSS and included descriptive and inferential statistics, such as t-tests, ANOVA and Cronbach’s alpha (for respondent’s LAS score of TL), non-parametric tests, and partial correlations. Qualitative data were analysed for deeper insights to complement findings from quantitative analysis.

, followed by an overview of the sequential context for the overall progression of enquiry.

3.4. Research Instruments

All surveys used in the four empirical studies adopted well-known instruments to measure aspects of learning outcomes: environmental attitudes/perspectives by the NEP and Inclusion of Nature in Self (INS; [112]) scales and a new Hierarchy with Nature (HWN) schema developed by the researcher; transformative learning by an augmented LAS; and environmental behaviour and agency by standard questions. Supplementary open-ended questions were included that strengthened the mixed-methods approach [113] and served to qualify, enrich, and triangulate findings from the NEP, INS, and LAS scales. Supplementary questions were included in the LAS to addressed concerns by Taylor and Snyder [72] that LAS does not capture how people experience TL and to reduce possible error and bias in self-reported measures of PT [114]. The questions were informed by the literature on TL and SE [115,116] and explored the incidence and type of TL, respondents’ learning experience, the influence of background and contextual factors, and their capability and intended behaviour for sustainability. Detailed descriptions of instruments and questionnaires are provided in component publications [11,25,106,107,108].

3.5. Research Analysis

Quantitative data from surveys were analysed using the statistical software SPSS as described in Table 1.

3.6. Research Conducted in the Component Studies

Stage 1 was undertaken as three studies and consisted of secondary research for the initial literature review (Study 1) and primary research for the pilot EfS study (Study 2) and case study (Study 3) that investigated students’ and academics’ knowledge, views, attitudes, and behaviours towards sustainability. Primary research for these studies was conducted at the same HEI in Australia.

Study 1 was a scoping study that provided a broad perspective on the influence of HE on student LfS in the context of personal and societal change. The study reviewed key conceptions of sustainability; education for sustainability (EfS); different types of learning and pedagogical approaches, including threshold learning; as well as an exploration of the role and progress of personal and cultural values for sustainability around the world. The study linked disparate fields in psychology, namely social and environmental psychology, such as social and personal values towards sustainability; education/learning; and societal transformation. The study explored the role and influence of EfS in facilitating personal, organisational, and societal sustainability transitions and investigated the role and progress of the business sector and HE around the world. The study was limited to the business sector and business education programmes, as these were in the researcher’s field of interest. The study found mixed results for the business sector and HE around the world, with most HEIs still in the pre-development stage. It was recommended that tertiary business schools audit and embed SE in all programs, and educators identify students’ current knowledge and perspectives before selecting the appropriate pedagogy to scaffold student LfS. Recommendations for pedagogy and research were adopted in all subsequent empirical studies, which investigated students’ sustainability perspectives (views, knowledge, and attitudes) and behaviour and compared the influence of “regular education” and “sustainability education” in a variety of settings and over time.

Study 2 was an action research study of a pilot EfS program conducted at two campuses over two semesters in 2011. The study explored the nature of existing sustainability views, knowledge, and attitudes of international students in tertiary business and IT programmes and compared the impact of regular education and different types of SE pedagogical initiatives. The influence of SE interventions was assessed using a short pre-post survey based on a validated scale, the NEP. Results from student surveys and group discussions indicated significant underlying differences in students’ initial views and knowledge about sustainability and varying shifts and resistance to the same SE intervention based on their age, gender, and culture. These findings shed light on the influence of SE interventions on aspects of students’ sustainability knowledge and attitudes although limited sample sizes precluded any statistical inferences. It was recommended that the study be repeated with a larger sample and include behaviour and change over time.

Study 3 was a case study that expanded the scope of the pilot study to include students’ sustainability behaviour and investigate longer-term impacts of different SE interventions after 6, 12, and 18 months. The study reported on the researcher’s SE praxis in various tertiary business courses over an 8-year period (2005–2013) and demonstrated the use of values to include SE in the curriculum. Another aim was to investigate the influence of escalating educational interventions on students’ sustainability views, conceptions, and behaviour over this time. The study investigated and compared the influence of an introductory EfS seminar, the inclusion of sustainability topics throughout the syllabus, and deeper integration of SE in the curriculum through assessment. Findings revealed an escalating influence of SE course assessment on student attitudes and behaviour, the cumulative effect of SE repetition, and the persistence of these effects over time. It was suggested that educators embed SE into all courses, escalate integration of SE through assessment to motivate student engagement, and connect learning across courses and time. However, the limited scope and small sample sizes restricted generalizability of findings. It was recommended that a larger study be conducted with students across disciplines, levels, and locations to enable greater generalisability of results.

Stage 2 comprised Study 4, which expanded both the scope and scale of the pilot EfS and case study to a multi-university, multi-country context. The study investigated initial student perspectives and the influence of SE on their views, attitudes, and behaviour across a range of disciplinary, educational, and geographical contexts. A common instrument was used to systematically explore the sustainability perspectives of tertiary students in Australia, Italy, and Malaysia and investigate their prior knowledge, perceptions of the importance of sustainability and graduate skills required, as well as their awareness of campus sustainability activities. Pre-test and post-test snapshots were taken across various terms of study during 2013–2015. The study reported heterogeneity in initial student sustainability perspectives that were influenced by personal and educational factors, such as gender, age, “culture”, and discipline of study. Environmental worldviews were largely represented by an “instrumental” view of human–nature relationships. Post-test survey results indicated students were influenced by a wide variety of factors in their studies (both regular and SE) and by other aspects of their lifeworld, with comparatively stronger effects of SE on their cognitive perceptions and attitudes towards sustainability as well as a heightened ecological view and a closer connection to nature. The influence of exposure to SE was significant compared to the control group; however, the effect was weak and moderated by the students’ personal and educational context. The study provided useful insights into the diverse but evolving nature of students’ sustainability views and attitudes and the comparative influence of SE versus regular education in several countries. Further research was recommended to investigate the influence of SE on the incidence and experience of transformative learning (TL) and key learning outcomes, and this was adopted in the final study.

Stage 3 consisted of Study 5, which narrowed the focus to investigate the TL experience of undergraduate students in dedicated sustainability units at two universities in Australia. The SE units were compulsory for most participants but also available as electives. The study used the Learning Activities Survey [20] augmented with supplementary questions to capture the wide range of learning influences and outcomes from SE interventions. The study reported learning outcomes in terms of their knowledge, attitudes, behaviour, and intended agency for sustainability. The findings provided insights on factors contributing to changes in students’ worldviews, attitudes, and behaviour; to the development of their skills for systems/complex thinking and teamwork/collaboration; and to various forms of advocacy for sustainability.

In summary, the sequential empirical studies were complementary, as each focused on distinct aspects of the research aims that guided the research study.

4. Results in Component Studies

4.1. Study 1. Initial Literature Review

Trends in the World Values Map over a 30-year period indicate changes in socio-economic conditions (greater urbanisation, self-expression and rising per capita GDP) influence cultural/social values. As incomes grow, sustainability “values” (correlated to universalism, self-expression, and benevolence) have begun to converge around the world although differences in concern remain between cultures and geographic regions [117,118]. International surveys of young people aged 18–25 years show high levels of support for environment/sustainability [119,120].

Sustainability challenges are wicked problems embedded in complex systems that change with significant effort, synergistically and over time. Complex systems theory indicates transformative change is non-linear and evolutionary where the system and subsystems reorganise themselves into a new structure. A key sector in societal systems is institutions, such as HEIs, which are a microcosm of society and reflect the wider society’s attitudes and transition towards sustainability [121]. Thus, sustainability performance in HEIs is influenced largely by their social ecology [122]. The specific context and barriers/drivers towards sustainability reflect the regulatory environment, social movements and the power of stakeholders, and vested interests in protecting the national dominant social paradigm. At the same time, HEIs are also a leading indicator of their societies [121] and can be key agents of change for sustainability by embedding initiatives across all functional areas. This creates a tension between their dual nature of transmission/reproduction and leadership/evolution [123,124]. Shifts to sustainability in a HEI require a “whole system” shift that occurs in stages and requires a co-ordinated effort across all levels to build capacity and momentum for change in teaching and learning, research, operations, outreach/advocacy, and consulting [125]. Transformation in HEIs needs to be a purposeful endeavour with strategic objectives (top down) complemented by local actions (bottom up), which combine (synergise) to drive and nucleate change across the institution [126].

Progress towards sustainability in HEIs varies between countries and correlates with their cultural values mapping (World Values Map) and with progress of their respective business sectors. The study found mixed results for HE, with most in the pre-development stage and with a low incidence of EfS in Australian business schools. Most HEIs “have not ventured significantly beyond “small and incremental steps towards sustainability with initiatives confined to “low hanging fruit”.” (Senge 2008 cited in [127]). More significant efforts have been observed in early adopters and innovators. Business schools need leadership to encourage the teaching of sustainability that takes a critical approach to the dominant discourse in business education (such as corporate social responsibility, triple bottom-line reporting, etc.). However, sustainability is not generally integrated into business school activities, particularly the curriculum where SE remains at the margins [128]. Business students believed that corporate responsibility should be embedded in all MBA programs; yet only one-quarter believed their aspirations for sustainability literacy were being met by tertiary business schools [129,130,131]. Thus, HEIs and business schools are not providing the educational leadership to build capacity in themselves, their graduates, or their stakeholders to enable and drive change for sustainability.

The study recommended that tertiary business schools audit and embed sustainability into all courses to scaffold student learning for sustainability (LfS). However, educators need to understand their students’ current knowledge and perspectives before designing the pedagogy to scaffold student LfS. An educator can create the scaffolding that develops awareness, knowledge, and skills in graduates to build their capacity for threshold/TL towards sustainability. This entails fostering a deep understanding of technical knowledge (instrumental learning) that is contextualised in a holistic systems approach and facilitated by application to real-world case studies. Recommendations for pedagogy and research were adopted in subsequent studies.

4.2. Study 2. Pilot Study (Published 2013—Data 2012–2013)

These findings relate to results from pre-post surveys from tertiary students in non-SE units, in pilot EfS seminars, and in units with SE embedded in the curriculum.

Quantitative analysis across the amalgamated baseline sample (n = 218) found no statistical difference in mean NEP scores by age, gender, culture, level of study, and years in Australia; however, differences were observed in the underlying NEP dimensions. Students who were older or who lived in Australia for longer held stronger “human domination” scores (reduce NEP) offset by stronger scores for “anti human exemptionalism”, the balance of nature, and limits to growth (increase NEP), leaving NEP unchanged. Region of residence (a proxy for culture) affected environmental concern, with mean NEP scores for students from “Western countries” being higher than non-Western counterparts. Mean NEP scores for students from Europe and the Indian subcontinent were higher those for than Asian students. However, mean NEP scores masked larger differences between cultures in underlying NEP dimensions, consistent with the qualitative findings regarding culture.

Qualitative analysis of the combined baseline sample (n = 218) revealed underlying differences across the sample that varied by culture and gender. Students from the Indian subcontinent expressed greater environmental sensitivity compared to their Asian counterparts, who were more consumer-driven and relied on technology to solve sustainability issues. Females were more humanistic/social-altruistic regarding SD and more focussed on individual/social responsibility actions, while males were more concerned with on-going development and mechanistic/instrumental approaches to maintaining development and more confident of technological innovations to solve any problems.

Quantitative analysis of longitudinal, matched responses (n = 75) for the EfS seminar revealed heterogeneity in tertiary students’ baseline responses based on age, gender, culture, and level of study. Results showed significant differences in ex-ante (pre-test) mean NEP scores affected by age (older > younger), gender (female > male), main regions of residence (Europe > Indian subcontinent > Asia), years in Australia (longer > shorter), and level of study (postgraduate > undergraduate). No significant changes in ex-post (post-test) mean NEP scores were observed following the EfS seminar although significant changes in underlying NEP dimensions were detected that offset each other. The most significant ex-post effects were a heightened anthropocentric score (a stronger belief in human exemptionalism and greater confidence in human ingenuity/science to solve ecological problems) offsetting an increased eco-centric score (stronger environmental awareness and concern for the balance of nature). This integration of ecological and anthropocentric views reflects an “anthropocentric environmentalist” view and suggested students adopted the main tenets of modernity. Comparative pre-post results for mean NEP showed greater coherence according to Cronbach’s alpha, which rose from 0.558 to 0.675.

Qualitative results after SE interventions indicated greater student concern about sustainability and SD and ways to achieve better outcomes as well as the role of business (especially CSR) and technology to address sustainability challenges. After the EfS seminar, students became more aware of sustainability issues and challenges and felt a sense of responsibility to change their behaviour. Students expressed an interest in more case studies, videos, and models and suggested SE should be mandated in all programmes and not left as a voluntary initiative. Participating teachers regarded the EfS seminars as useful in creating awareness of problems and opportunities, believed it was good timing in students’ lives, and suggested making it more interactive with more props and providing practical advice (e.g., 3Rs). Students exposed to SE in the curriculum recognised the value of including sustainability in their courses.

Exposure to SE yielded differential responses to the same SE intervention and differed according to their gender, age, culture, and discipline. Overall, SE led to a more “utilitarian” view of human–nature relations, a greater perceived value of sustainability in their courses, and an increased awareness of sustainability concepts. The heterogeneity in students’ baseline attitudes/knowledge and differential responses to the same SE intervention suggests that educators try to understand their cohorts and tailor specific pedagogies to assist student learning for sustainability (LfS).

The study shed light on the influence of EfS interventions on aspects of students’ sustainability knowledge and attitudes although limited sample sizes precluded statistical inferences. The study was based on a quasi-experimental design with small sample size and so was unable to ascribe causality to these SE interventions. The study recommended a larger study be undertaken in multiple contexts (including counterparts with no exposure to SE) and include student behaviours.

4.3. Study 3. Case Study (Published 2014—Data 2005–2013)

This study investigated the influence of an escalating integration of SE on learning outcomes. The study reported mixed findings that revealed an escalating influence of SE course assessment on student attitudes and behaviour as well as persistence and accumulation of effects over time. Key results for incremental inclusion of sustainability topics (in undergraduate (UG) units in Marketing, Economics, and Finance and postgraduate (PG) units in Economics), the introductory EfS seminar (across various UG and PG units) integration of sustainability related assessment topics (in UG marketing units) are presented below.

4.3.1. Incremental Inclusion of Sustainability Topics

Students became more aware of sustainability issues and shifted their attitudes towards sustainability over time, particularly if they had undertaken several of the researcher’s units and/or had participated in the pilot EfS seminar program. Compared to UG marketing students, PG economics student responses showed a greater understanding of the concept of sustainability and shifts in their orientation towards sustainability (60% of respondents); however, the effects were moderated by age. About 6 months later, students’ reported perceptions and behaviours persisted and did not “decay”. Overall, the effects were mixed and weak (limited) in terms of altering student views/perceptions towards sustainability. Nevertheless, SE broadens knowledge and leverages sustainability issues into the disciplinary discourse.

4.3.2. Introductory EfS Seminar

As mentioned in Study 2, SE led to an increased belief in human exemptionalism and confidence in human ingenuity to solve ecological problems as well as heightened awareness of environment and concern for balance of nature and limits to growth. Around 30% of respondents shifted towards sustainability, 40% reported no change in views, and 40% held reinforced views; similar rates were reported for embedding sustainability items in the course curriculum.

4.3.3. Sustainability Topics and Assessment

For UG marketing students (6.5% response rate), 18% reported no change, 30% confirmed/firmed their views, and 52% shifted towards sustainability and recognised the role of marketing in creating more sustainable outcomes. Benefits included a change in awareness of sustainability issues and impact on behaviour, deep learning of the 4Ps for sustainable products/services, and a change in their perception and realisation of how to create change by influencing people’s green behaviour. Around 75% saw a direct relationship with their personal knowledge and awareness to boost sustainability outcomes and, through research, on their professional capacity to create change for sustainability through marketing. Students were re-surveyed after 18 months (2% response rate), of which 20% reported no impact, 10% reported no change to pro-sustainability views, and 60% reported that positive impacts from the course mutually reinforced sustainability topics in other courses. The change in personal behaviours persisted in 40% of respondents.

Small sample size and low response rates limited generalisability of results. It was recommended the research be repeated with a larger sample to investigate the impact of different SE interventions (across disciplines, levels, modes of study, and locations) on student views, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour over time.

4.4. Study 4. Multi-University Study (Published 2018—Data 2013–2015)

These results relate to pre-post test snapshots taken in SE and non-SE units in each of five terms/semesters during 2013–2015. Survey data were analysed cross-sectionally to understand students’ initial sustainability perspectives and longitudinally to explore any changes in these perspectives using matched pre-post data.

4.4.1. Cross-Sectional Analysis

Cross-sectional analysis across the pre-test sample (n = 915) showed heterogeneity in the influence of the personal, situational, and educational context on students’ initial sustainability perspectives. The significance of these influences is outlined below.

• Gender had no effect on the importance of sustainability, HWN, or INS scores but a pervasive effect on mean NEP (females M = 3.68, SD = 0.53, n = 607 compared to males M = 3.48, SD = 0.53, n = 345, F (1951) = 31.22, p = 0.000) and average HUMAN orientation scores (females M = 3.22, SD = 0.81 compared to males M = 2.89, SD = 1.78, F (1951) = 36.85, p = 0.000). This result was detected across age (except under 18 years of age) and discipline groups (except science), and there was no difference in gender across culture.
• Age group was significant, with all scores increasing with age except for average NEP, which exhibited a U-shaped, “early adult dip”, similar to the pilot EfS study.
• Culture (home region) exerted a significant influence on all scores except HWN, with NEP scores for Anglo-Saxon, EU, and Latin American students higher than Asian and Indian subcontinental counterparts (Welch adjusted statistic F (779.43) = 26.822, p = 0.000), similar to the pilot EfS study.
• Discipline of study influenced the importance of sustainability and HWN (not INS), with NEP scores for students in Arts, Science, and Education programmes higher than Accounting, Business Management, Architecture, and Engineering students (Welch adjusted statistic F (4168.06) = 26.57, p = 0.000). Thus, discipline of study and cultural factors remained significant influences on the importance of sustainability and on INS, HWN, and NEP scores, similar to the pilot EfS study.

Students held jointly strong ecological and human orientation views with equally firm scores for ECOCENTRIC (4.01) and HUMAN (3.10) orientations that confirm a strong “anthropocentric environmentalist” or utilitarian view, with nature valued in terms of human benefit. Cronbach’s alpha scores for reliability confirmed the strength of these views for the total NEP scale (0.776) and for the ECOCENTRIC (0.744) and HUMAN (0.789) orientations. The finding of converging views concurs with the pilot EfS study.

Student perspectives were not consistently expressed in self-reported sustainability behaviours, which were dominated by low-commitment actions. Gender differences did not translate into differential behaviour. Self-reported behaviour was influenced by demographic, situational, and educational factors, namely age, especially those over 40 (n = 946, F = 11.047, df = 3, p = 0.000, eta2 = 0.034); home region (n = 943, F = 11.214, df = 7, p = 0.000, eta2 = 0.078); country of study (n = 991, F = 22.457, df = 2, p = 0.000, eta2 = 0.047); years in the study country (n = 932, F = 7.534, df = 3, p = 0.000, eta2 = 0.024); and discipline of study (n = 940, F = 9.301, df = 7, p = 0.000, eta2 = 0.038). The overall behaviour score was linked to INS and Limits to Growth scores, while high-commitment items were related to INS and ECOCENTRIC orientations but varied across demographic, educational, and situational factors.

4.4.2. Longitudinal Analysis

Longitudinal analysis (n = 429) of matched pre-post scores for worldviews and attitudes in SE and non-SE cohorts are provided in

Table 2. Comparative pre and post mean scores for respondents’ environmental worldviews by group.

Group	Cronbach’s Alpha (NEP)	Average NEP	LTG Limits	AA Dominance	BN Balance	AE Constraints	Eco-Crisis	INS	HWN
		mean 1 (std deviation) (p-value) 2	mean 1 (std deviation) (p-value) 2	mean 1 (std deviation) (p-value) 2	mean 1 (std deviation) (p-value) 2	mean 1 (std deviation) (p-value) 2	mean 1 (std deviation) (p-value) 2	mean 1 (std deviation) (p-value) 2	mean 1 (std deviation) (p-value) 2
Pre-test Control	0.766	3.56 (0.519)	3.14 (0.719)	3.72 (0.901)	3.78 (0.668)	3.46 (0.704)	3.69 (0.779)	4.57 (1.446)	2.21 (0.781)
Pre-test Intervention	0.798	3.76 **a (0.546) (p < 0.0005)	3.44 **a (0.854) (p < 0.0005)	3.91 *a (0.809) (p = 0.033)	3.97 **a (0.705) (p = 0.007)	3.53 (0.742)	3.97 **a (0.753) (p < 0.0005)	4.71 (1.530)	2.31 (0.744)
Post-test Control	0.784	3.54 (0.539)	3.11 (0.741)	3.70 (0.857)	3.76 (0.682)	3.40 (0.726)	3.72 (0.771)	4.47 (1.475)	2.24 (0.796)
Post-test Intervention	0.806	3.78 **b (0.551) (p < 0.0005)	3.51 **b (0.763) (p < 0.0005)	3.86 (0.846)	3.97 **b (0.638) (p = 0.002)	3.57 *b (0.718) (p = 0.020)	3.99 **b (0.749) (p = 0.001)	4.93 **b (1.488) (p = 0.003)	2.28 (0.761)
Control		No significant changes in any pre- and post-test NEP score
Intervention		No significant changes in any pre- and post-test NEP, only for INS

¹ Scale range is from 1 = Anthropocentric view to 5 = Eco-centric view; ² Significant difference between groups at the * 0.05 level, ** at the 0.01 level, in (Pre)^a (Post)^b; Legend: NEP, New Ecological Paradigm; LTG, Limits to Growth; AA, Anti-Anthropocentrism; BN, Balance of Nature; AE, Anti-Exemptionalism; CRISIS, Eco-crisis; INS, Interconnectedness with Nature Scale.

. No significant changes were observed in any pre-post NEP score in either group although an increased coherence in NEP was detected across both groups. Exposure to SE, even for one term, resulted in a closer connection to nature (INS) and stimulated minor cognitive shifts in student perceptions and attitudes towards sustainability, which were significantly correlated with the importance of sustainability in their personal lives (intrinsic motivation) and with the frequency of mentioning sustainability in the course (educational effect). Exposure to SE reinforced an instrumental view of human–nature relations (i.e., incremental improvements but not a transformation), and behaviour was not generally affected by SE in one term.

Across the sample, post-test scores for student perspectives converged towards a more moderate or tempered stance between eco-centric and anthropocentric extremes, which concurs with pilot EfS study. Further, ANCOVA analysis of NEP (using the pre-test NEP score as a covariate) revealed significant interaction effects for several post-NEP scores between groups (SE and non-SE) and gender, discipline, and home region, which confirmed previous studies [132,133,134]. These findings suggest LfS is a complex, multi-layered phenomenon, and an amalgam of the student’s personal context (gender and culture) and learning situation (discipline and level of study). It was recommended that SE be woven into every programme to encourage a more critical and creative view of human–nature relations and to stimulate students towards transformational change.

The study had several limitations in terms of sample size and completion rates, and it was recommended the study be repeated with larger and more comparative samples across disciplines and levels. It was also recommended that mixed/merged methods be adopted to qualify results and provide greater depth and insights into learning experiences in SE courses, particularly students who report shifts in perceptions.

4.5. Study 5. Transformative Learning Study (Published 2021—Data 2017)

This study reports on the application of an augmented version of the Learning Activities Survey (LAS) to assess learning outcomes from dedicated SE units in HE.

4.5.1. Incidence of PT/TL

Just over one half (57%) of respondents reported changes that were interpreted by the researcher [108] as perspective transformation (PT) or TL towards sustainability (hereafter denoted as overall PT/TL). Changes in worldviews, attitudes, and behaviour reported by respondents aligned with the typology of TL outcomes by Hoggan [135] and sustainability competencies by Rieckman [136] as well as development of skills for systems/complex thinking, teamwork/collaboration, and advocacy. Holistic sustainability is a strongly challenging, confronting, and disorienting concept for students, and the rate of overall PT/TL was comparable to other TL studies (49% in Brock, [89]; 59% in Stone et al. [90]) of similar high-contrast, cross-cultural experiences. Not surprisingly, the rate of self-reported PT (75%) in the LAS was closer to the self-reported shift in attitudes/perceptions towards sustainability in the supplementary questions (73%).

4.5.2. Contribution/Importance of Mezirow’s 10 Steps to PT/TL

Cronbach’s alpha for Mezirow’s 10 steps showed satisfactory internal consistency (alpha = 0.78). Students who experienced overall PT/TL recalled significantly more of Mezirow’s steps (4.5 steps) compared to the group who did not experience overall PT/TL (2.5 steps). As shown in

Table 3. Frequencies of reported precursor steps and association with overall PT/TL.

Phase/PT Precursor Step	Total Responses (n)	Share of Total Respondents % (n = 301)	Number (n) and Share (%) of Overall PT/TL Respondents 1 (n = 171)	Chi-Square 2 (Yates Correction)	p3
1a Disorienting Dilemma (actions)	112	37.2	80 (46.8)	14.600	<0.001 **
1b Disorienting Dilemma (social roles)	124	41.2	94 (55.0)	29.709	<0.001 **
2a Self-examination (questioned worldviews)	61	20.3	46 (26.9)	9.856	0.002 **
2b Self-examination (maintained worldviews)	82	27.2	54 (31.6)	3.267	0.071
3 Critical reflection on assumptions	55	18.3	45 (26.3)	15.928	<0.001 **
4 Recognised discontent shared	89	29.6	68 (39.8)	18.655	<0.001 **
5 Explored new roles	93	30.9	70 (40.9)	17.615	<0.001 **
6 Planned a course of action	92	30.6	63 (36.8)	6.682	0.010 *
7 Acquired knowledge/skills	79	26.2	65 (38.0)	26.925	<0.001 **
8 Tried on new roles	67	22.3	52 (30.4)	14.128	<0.001 **
9 Built competence/confidence	93	30.9	66 (38.6)	10.174	0.001 **
10 Reintegrated into life	78	25.9	64 (37.4)	25.966	<0.001 **
None of these steps		12.3

¹ Number and share of overall PT/TL respondents who selected the precursor step; ² Relationship between individual precursor steps and the experience of overall PT/TL; ³ Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

, all steps were significantly related to overall PT/TL. Key steps were the disorienting dilemma (especially the social role of graduates and personal action with respect to their own impact on sustainability, their ignorance, and the challenge and opportunities to foster change), exploring new roles, planning action, and building competence. The lowest reported step in overall PT/TL was critical self-reflection. Students appeared reluctant to move beyond instrumental learning (IL) to engage in critical self-reflection of their own assumptions although respondents may not have recognised the critical reflection inherent in learning complex/systems thinking.

4.5.3. Factors Influencing PT/TL

Overall PT/TL was not influenced by any demographic or educational variable. The only significant influence of positionality was the perceived importance of sustainability to their study programme (X2 (4, n = 301) = 32.55, p < 0.001), their profession (X2 (4, n = 301) = 22.93, p < 0.001)), and everyday lives (X2 (4, n = 301) = 32.81, p < 0.001)). The influence was asymmetric, with “unimportance” having a higher impact (2–4 times more likely) on not experiencing PT/TL compared to the impact (2 times more likely) of “importance” on experiencing overall PT/TL. The strong link between personal motivation and overall PT/TL confirms the finding in the MU study.

Overall PT/TL was influenced by a range of situational factors, with teacher influence being the most important educational factor. Personal support especially from the teacher (and friends and partners) to provide a safe/supportive environment and educational activities (projects, assignments, class activities, readings, and online materials) and educational resources encouraged deep learning by students. Shifts in students’ mindsets and perspectives towards sustainability were fostered by the concept of holistic sustainability, complex problems and systems thinking, participation in group work, independent research, and experiential learning as well as previous learning experiences.

4.5.4. Type of Learning Outcomes

As expected, SE produced multiple learning outcomes in instrumental learning (IL) and communicative learning (CL) that are complementary and contribute to development of sustainability competencies. This finding was consistent with TL theory [135] and with results reported in previous studies in SE [115,137]. Learning outcomes related to knowledge, skills, and cognition (IL) were more frequently reported than insights into others’ values and interests (CL), and epochal TL was rare. Key outcomes were related to greater knowledge/awareness of environmental/sustainability issues (IL), greater appreciation of group work and collaboration (CL), and greater awareness of the challenge of social action/change (CL). Most students reported incremental changes, some reported TL shifts in epistemology and ontology, and few reported epochal transformations.

4.5.5. Development of Competency, Agency, and Advocacy for Sustainability

Significant relationships were found between overall PT/TL and development of self-reported competence, advocacy, and agency for sustainability (p < 0.001). Overall PT/TL was strongly linked to development of self-reported personal capability to identify/address sustainability challenges/opportunities (94%) with declining rates for intended advocacy within one’s personal sphere (90%) and for wider social change (65%). Changes in personal actions and intended behaviour were reported only in the personal sphere and not the professional sphere. Thus, SE was largely interpreted by students as personal action rather than professional capacity building or agency for wider change. These results confirmed the case study and were consistent with findings reported in other SE studies of limited effects on wider agency [138,139,140].

This study demonstrated the augmented LAS as an effective instrument to capture and measure learning outcomes from two dedicated SE units in HE. It was recommended that educators establish the importance of sustainability at the outset and focus on praxis that stimulates critical thinking. Educators were encouraged to adopt a wider range of intended learning outcomes, noting that TL takes time, and epochal TL is rare and requires significant effort. It was further recommended that educators connect the SE curriculum with aspects of learners’ lifeworld to motivate the effort required.

Further research was recommended using a pre-post method with matched respondents and preferably comparable control groups and to augment the LAS with triangulating questions and/or complementary qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews and/or reflective journals, to explore students learning experiences. It was also recommended to further test, refine, and calibrate the augmented LAS instrument in other SE settings.

5. Discussion

This section presents a synthesis of transversal findings across the five studies discussed in terms of student Learning for Sustainability (LfS) in HE situated within the broader context of societal transition towards sustainability. The discussion begins with the overall context of broad societal change and role and progress of HE and learning, then shifts to the teaching context, and finally to the learner context of individual students. The findings are presented under nine themes with recommendations for educational policy and praxis.

5.1. Challenges to Implementing SE in HE (Context of Contexts)

Complex systems change with significant effort, synergistically, and over time. Evidence drawn from the initial literature review (as a study) indicates that “strong” sustainability requires transformation of societal structures. Sustainability transitions (ST) studies show structural social change to be disruptive, unpredictable, chaotic, and contested [141]. While certain societal subsystems (socio-technical domains) related to waste, energy, and water have adopted incremental or gradual change towards sustainability, conditions to implement mainstream sustainability initiatives across entire societal systems do not yet exist. Overall, sustainability performance in most countries was found to be largely confined to the “pre-development” or initiation phase.

Transitions are often contested and emerge after struggles where incumbent interests, technologies, beliefs, and values [34] are challenged, resisted, and ultimately reconciled with the new reality. Changes in worldview/mindset are an important aspect of the psychological and sociological shifts required in ST, with the speed and direction influenced by the role of actors and their agency. Societal progress towards sustainability in most countries appears to align closely with their overall cultural values (see World Values Map), with Scandinavia and the EU leading the way. Cultural values around the world are moving towards a “sustainability value” as countries progress along their “economic development” route and become more urbanised [118,142] although social attitudes towards environmental and sustainability issues vary between different cultural groups (as evidenced in Studies 1–4).

Learning and education have a central role to play in supporting individual and social change. Sustainability education (SE) and LfS can contribute to societal transitions by raising awareness, building knowledge, prompting behaviour change, and developing competencies for individual and collective agency to foster change. However, achieving sustainability outcomes in both wider societal systems and individual worldview/mindset through SE are complex endeavours with shifts/transitions emerging over time from the interplay of contextual factors, actions, and agency.

Higher education has a central role in the sustainability transformation process, but overall progress of the sector around the world remains close to the “pre-development phase” [36], with most HEIs engaged in scattered and isolated initiatives [143]. The role of HE in sustainability remains contested [144], and SE presents a challenge [145] of balancing the contradictory task of “reproducing” society by promulgating existing knowledge that perpetuates unsustainability, and “leading” society by co-creating innovative approaches that advance sustainability [39,146]. The teaching context is influenced by the institutional context of HE and SE has also barely moved from the “pre-development phase” [36], with few HEIs in the “initiation/awakening stage” (in the sustainability maturation curve by Kapitulčinová [147]) as confirmed by recent studies [21,142]. The lack of progress arguably represents a lack of political leadership in the HE sector [8] and academic leadership in individual HEIs [148,149,150].

Evidence from this research project and recent studies [144,151,152,153,154,155] indicate SE is still not implemented systematically, with academics adopting a “free-choice” approach to sustainability in their courses. Academics around the world are key “gatekeepers” for implementing SE in their courses, and their teaching practice often reflects personal sustainability orientations/values, internal motivations, and capabilities [151,156,157,158,159,160]. Teaching practices are further constrained by external limitations implied/applied by their faculty [56], the institution, disciplinary traditions [161,162,163], professional bodies [156,160,164], government agencies, and/or sector level organisations [165].

Beyond these external challenges, academics face internal challenges from students. These stem from the wide variation in students’ personal values and conceptions of sustainability, a lack of motivation, a lack of perceived relevance to their programmes, and resistance to the concept of holistic sustainability per se. Academics are further challenged in engaging undergraduate students aged 18–25 years, particularly when SE is compulsory and not an elective unit. This was supported by indications of an early-adult dip in average NEP scores. In these cases, it proved difficult to “situate” sustainability in their studies, professional development, and personal lives. Thus, a myriad of obstacles and challenges at each level of the societal system influence the teaching context of SE in HE and how sustainability is addressed in the curriculum.

5.2. Challenges in the Learning Context (Motivation and Resistance)

The effectiveness of any SE intervention depends on the learner’s state of readiness [75]. Heterogeneity in student dispositions, especially the influence of personal context (i.e., demographic (age, gender) and cultural factors (home region, discipline of study, and acculturation)), affects their preparedness for and response to the challenges and opportunities inherent in SE. This finding was evidenced in the pilot study, case study, and MU study and supported by other studies reported in the literature [133,166,167,168,169,170].

Student perceptions of the importance of sustainability and personal motivations are important drivers of learning for sustainability. Motivation is known to play a crucial role in learning as an antecedent, as a moderating variable, and as an educational objective [55], and these influences were all confirmed in this research. Results across all empirical studies (2–5) confirmed motivation as a key driver of deep learning. These findings are consistent with previous studies on student motivation and resistance to TL [171,172]. In a recent multi-country study by Filho et al. [173], SE practitioners highlighted the importance of keeping a sustained interest and motivation from students as a major challenge. Motivation is a major driver of TL, and this study highlights the need for educators to situate the importance of sustainability at the outset to “fuel” students’ motivation. Student motivation can be enhanced by providing concrete learning opportunities to engage real-life learning in areas students identify as important.

Resistance to SE was evidenced in both the case study and TL study, particularly from students who did not see the relevance of sustainability to their programme and/or disagreed with it in principle. This finding is supported by other studies reported in the literature [161,174,175,176]. Another source of resistance was related to the unfamiliar pedagogies adopted in SE (e.g., active learning) and to engaging in critical reflection. Carefully selected assessment can leverage student LfS [80] as evidenced in the case study and the TL study and supported by the literature.

To motivate learning, it is recommended academics “situate” sustainability by embedding SE more deeply into regular courses, particularly through formative assessment, and by connecting SE to student perceptions of relevance primarily to their professional education and personal lives. To be more effective, it is recommended SE be mandated, formally coordinated, and sequenced across every traditional academic programme.

5.3. Learning Outcomes from SE in HE (Mixed Effects/Converging Views)

Evidence across Studies 2–5 revealed learning outcomes from the current ad hoc approach to SE in HE was mixed and weak (i.e., limited effect). In Studies 2–4, changes in pre-post scores for several NEP dimensions ranged from very small to very large and included both positive and negative shifts, which supports findings by other researchers [23,24,26]. Study 4 confirmed that compared to regular education, SE produced differential effects (across disciplines, levels of study, universities, and countries) with students reporting a heightened ecological awareness, a closer connection to nature, and cognitive shifts in their perceptions and attitudes towards sustainability. Importantly, a heightened ecological awareness and closer connection to nature are correlated with more committed actions by individuals [25]. However, overall effects from ad hoc SE encounters may be diminished by countervailing effects of their overall experience in tertiary education as shown in the MU study and by other researchers [151,152,160,177]. As a result, graduates may lack the values and skills to contribute to more sustainable outcomes, either personally or professionally. This suggests the current approach to SE in HE may retard progress and keep societies in the early phases of sustainability transition.

A similar set of factors were found to facilitate sustainability learning across Studies 3–5 (the case study, multi-university study, and TL study) and also reported in the literature [178]. These were personal support especially from the teacher (friends and partners), provision of educational activities/resources for students to undertake research, and the opportunity to create solutions/products that situated the learning “to the self”. Evidence from Studies 3 and 5 (the case study and TL study) found learning outcomes were dominated by instrumental learning (IL) about damage/limits and possible “solutions” (i.e., technical learning about sustainability). This finding is consistent with other studies reported in the literature [171]. Moreover, Study 5 confirmed students were not generally inclined to engage in critical thinking and self-reflection about the underlying assumptions and premises of their own beliefs, which typically cause disorientation and discomfort [76]. This finding is supported by other studies in the literature [171,172]. Educators are encouraged to support transformative learning by scaffolding student capacity for critical thinking and self-reflection by embedding such practices as a natural part of the student learning experience.

Findings across both SE and regular tertiary education revealed the current ad hoc approach to SE in HE led to an overall convergence in students’ worldviews associated with “weak” sustainability or unsustainability [179]. The convergence towards “anthropocentric environmentalism” aligns with a utilitarian view associated with “ecological modernisation” [180]. This view recognises human damage to nature and the fragility of ecosystems but maintains strong faith in human ingenuity to provide technical innovations that expand the earth’s carrying capacity and enable more sustainable development. The trend was evident in Studies 2–4 (pilot study, case study, and multi-university study). This convergence in student perspectives towards a “problem-solving” perspective through technological remedies [181] represents the mainstream orthodoxy with limited (i.e., weak) sustainability outcomes [182]. It reflects technical learning rather than the transgressive learning required to challenge existing disciplinary, institutional, and social structures and practices. Technical learning fosters incremental change as opposed to transformation towards sustainability and is contrary to expectations by educators and policy makers that SE will create “agents of change” for social transformation. The field of transformative sustainability education similarly advances transgressive learning to challenge the status quo in societal norms, systems, and practices [81,183,184].

Achieving sustainability requires critical theoretical, methodological, and paradigmatic shifts in teaching and learning in HE [185] that challenge the reductionist and mechanistic approaches in “firmly established empirical and analytical frameworks” ([186] p. 57). Accordingly, it is recommended academics and students adopt a more critical approach to SE, reflect on underlying disciplinary assumptions, and explore/create linkages with other disciplines (interdisciplinary approaches) to “situate” their discipline/profession in the context of potential solutions for complex sustainability problems.

5.4. Holistic Sustainability as a Challenging Concept (Crossing the Liminal Threshold)

The concept of holistic sustainability is a complex epistemology [72] that is very challenging for many tertiary students. Such a “threshold concept” necessitates a great deal of unlearning and relearning [70] that can produce a range of learning outcomes [39,73,187]. Findings in Studies 4 and 5 demonstrated holistic sustainability to be a new and challenging concept for many students accustomed to the culture of a mono-disciplinary tradition. Being confronted with both the complexity of sustainability theories and their translation to real-world “wicked” sustainability problems can result in “cognitive overload” [188] and pose a “disorienting dilemma” for students. While this can trigger TL, many students may resist the challenge of holistic sustainability (relationality in SE) and choose a “path of least resistance”. Sustainability educators can ease cognitive overload by designing “guided discovery” learning environments, which carefully balance guided learning with discovery learning [53]. Guided learning is direct instruction by educators to help learners initially construct the complex schema of sustainability (theoretical approaches), while discovery learning is the subsequent transfer of learning by students through self-discovery activities (practical outcomes) [53,189].

A guided discovery approach would help students navigate the challenge of holistic sustainability and produce stronger learning outcomes in SE. Evidence presented in Studies 3–5 and supported in the literature [178] demonstrates the importance of resources and tools to scaffold student learning from theoretical approaches to practical outcomes. In this research, student learning was enhanced by real-world case studies, applying theories to real world problems, participating in group work, undertaking research activities, and using online and digital resources of sustainability challenges and solutions. This finding reinforces the importance of providing an empowering environment for students to voluntarily reflect on, discuss, and traverse the discomfort of a disorienting dilemma [140]. It is recommended that educators focus on creating guided learning environments for holistic SE in HE.

To assess the effectiveness of SE initiatives, researchers/educators would benefit from an instrument capable of capturing among the wide range of learning outcomes. Findings from Study 5 (TL study) demonstrated the utility of a sustainability-augmented Learning Activities Survey [88] instrument to detect among the instrumental, communicative, and transformative learning outcomes and identify factors that contribute to cognitive, affective, and conative changes in students’ sustainability dispositions. Researchers could further test and refine this instrument [88] to assess SE in other HE settings.

5.5. SE in the Context of a Total Learning System (Connecting the Dots)

Learning is a holistic and lifelong process that encompasses all levels of formal education and learning in non-formal and informal education settings [38,190]. The synergistic effect of repetition and connection evidenced in Studies 3–5 supports the notion of “lifelong learning” [122,191] for sustainability. Repetition and connection had an accretive effect on sustainability learning over time and enabled links to students’ lifeworld and more sophisticated approaches to sustainability as evidenced in Studies 3–5 and also reported in the literature [151,192,193]. Repeated exposure to SE across the study programme resulted in learning outcomes that were deeper and broader in terms of envisaging wider system changes rather than simple technical learning. Further, some students shifted beyond personal behavioural change to supporting initiatives for organisational or societal change. These findings reaffirm the highly situated and constructivist nature of LfS and highlight the need to create environments that build incremental learning experiences; accommodate individual differences in knowledge, motivation, and abilities; and enable meaningful engagement [54]. Sustainability learning must be considered beyond the limits of each individual unit with educators encourage to consider the “learning system” [28,29] and “horizontal connectedness” [194] by linking learning across different areas of a student’s lifeworld, i.e., their personal and professional lives [61].

To achieve stronger outcomes, it is recommended that educators adopt a comprehensive approach to SE as part of the “learning system” [57]. All students should undertake a generic holistic SE unit, preferably at the start of their programme, to build baseline sustainability knowledge that is subsequently scaffolded across their study programmes. Given the range of learning outcomes and the accretive effect of SE over time, educators are advised to focus on incremental as well as epochal change by including SE in every unit/course. Educators are encouraged to ensure SE is infused into all units and formally coordinated and sequenced across each traditional academic programme [185]. The literature confirms student learning can be horizontally extended from the curriculum to the campus environment [58,195] and beyond [59,60,62]. Thus, educators should ensure student learning in the curriculum is applied to real-life learning contexts and connected to students’ profession, lifeworld, and lived experience. As demonstrated in this research and supported in the literature [178], creating connections between SE and meaningful situations enhances student motivation and learning. Notably, even in the absence of formal coordination of SE across a study programme, educators can link students’ disparate knowledge across time and space to create deeper meaning from their experiences [28,61].

Students are interested in how to enact their agency and leverage their actions to make a difference [196]. It is recommended HEIs forge stronger links across their functional areas (teaching, research, outreach, campus operations) to synergise internal learning opportunities and strengthen links with external partners (in industry, government, and civic sectors) to provide real-life sustainability opportunities for students in their chosen areas of interest. More committed HEIs could adopt transdisciplinary sustainability approaches to research and teaching by participating in projects with a range of external stakeholders. This transgression of disciplinary boundaries aligns with the “third mission” [197] of universities to co-create sustainable outcomes with their stakeholders [198].

The UN [3] has called on universities to contribute to societal transformation, requiring personal motivation and sustainability teaching competences by tertiary educators [173]. UNESCO [8] identified the need for training to develop the capacity of tertiary educators to embed SE in their courses. HEIs are encouraged to provide further training, resources, and incentives to develop educators’ interdisciplinary fluency and to foster students critical thinking skills. Effective SE praxis includes epistemological stretching [105,199], adopting more innovative teaching and learning practices, and fostering partnerships to engage students with stakeholders [173].

5.6. SE Effects on Personal Behaviour and Agency (Limited Spheres of Influence)

Improved knowledge and awareness of sustainability did not necessarily translate into behavioural changes as evidenced in results from Studies 3, 4, and 5, which confirmed findings in the literature [200,201]. While individual efforts and behaviours are important, most people’s actions are constrained by their external environment [41]. In this research project, outcomes from SE were mostly limited to the personal sphere (e.g., changes in low commitment personal behaviours and a better understanding of self and personal empowerment), with professional development limited to skills in systems thinking, complex/wicked problems, and teamwork/collaboration. Cotton, et al. [202] reported a similar finding of minor personal behavioural change and limited agency and collective action.

Evidence of the emergence of agency was found in Studies 3 and 5 (the case study and TL study) and reported in the literature [138,203]. However, wider agency was rare and emerged in an ad hoc fashion as an amalgam of the personal context of students (i.e., their positionality), how they responded to SE, and their unaided ability to connect sustainability learning in their courses to other events/opportunities in their lives. In effect, agency emerged when personal motivation coincided with competence and opportunity, although agency was directed to incremental action and system compliance rather than challenging societal structures and institutional settings.

Importantly, this research confirmed that following SE, individuals were unlikely to enact agency beyond their personal lives into the professional sphere and to wider societal change. These findings further support the argument for adopting a more strategic approach to SE in HE that looks beyond individual behaviour change to developing professional competence to address the systemic nature of sustainability challenges.

5.7. Developing Sustainability Competencies (Leveraging Wider Transformation)

Future professionals are better placed than individuals to influence social, cultural, and environmental resource use [56,151,176,204]. However, the ad hoc approach to SE does not support the impression of sustainability as an important professional competency. Nevertheless, evidence from Studies 3 and 5 (case study and TL study) demonstrated student exposure to SE, particularly in interdisciplinary units, developed certain professional skills for sustainability, such as enhanced problem-solving ability through systems thinking and complex/wicked problems, the capability for teamwork and collaboration, a better understanding of self and others, and insights on how to influence people to create social change. Other studies in the literature report similar development of student sustainability competencies, particularly in interdisciplinary units [116,137].

In the current ad hoc SE environment, educators are encouraged to focus on enhancing their students’ capacity for professional agency and action by developing students’ key competencies for sustainability (e.g., systems thinking, reflexivity, critical thinking, and social action/engagement) [15,136]. To motivate and stimulate deeper learning, educators could provide educational resources and learning activities to situate sustainability challenges in real-life professional scenarios. Further, policy makers are encouraged to translate sustainability competencies into specific disciplinary competencies that are linked to professional accreditation standards, as these would motivate and empower students’ professional agency and contribution to sustainability transitions.

5.8. Maintaining Optimism for Societal Change (Problematise vs. Opportunitise)

A cautionary note is that while SE in HE may engage previously uninterested students in the sustainability discourse (converging them to a central/tempered/moderate view), the current ad hoc process may be slowing the overall transition to sustainability. In raising sustainability issues, educators are confronted with the delicate task of creating a learning environment that fosters empowerment and hope instead of hopelessness and despair. Studies 4 and 5 found current SE practices tended to “problematise” (emphasise hurdles and barriers) and not “opportunitise” (outline possibilities and gains) the potential pathways to sustainability. This may have influenced overall outcomes that were focussed on greater personal effort and individual behaviour change. A general view among respondents was that significant societal shifts towards sustainability were entirely problematic, very slow, and simply “too hard”. These studies also revealed some “unintended consequences” of SE, with former activists of socio-ecological change becoming dispirited and despondent, and a generally diminished focus on transgressing or challenging the status quo of business, government, and existing institutional structures.

Overall, few students expressed enthusiasm or confidence to enact their agency for wider systemic change. This finding is supported by other studies reported in the literature on students’ “learned helplessness” [205], “perceived pessimism” [202], and a lack of faith in individual and/or collective agency [24,167,206]. Such outcomes from SE are not entirely unexpected [137,207] given the current emphasis on voluntary individual behaviour change and the influence of powerful vested interests in maintaining the status quo of neo-liberalism in many Western democracies. The essential features of capitalism, free markets, economic growth, and liberal individualism created and perpetuate unsustainability [181], and these “lock-ins” are difficult to dislodge. Students may be daunted by the enormity of the challenge posed by existing global economic structures and entrenched habits of mind and doubt their individual or collective ability to influence wider societal transformation [207,208]. Nevertheless, this research demonstrated that SE did lead to greater acceptance of complexity and support for stronger approaches to sustainability beyond voluntary actions (such as taxes and stronger programmes/initiatives by government, industry, and civic sectors), which makes a passive contribution to ST.

Researchers in the field of Transformative Sustainability Education (TSE) suggest educators explicitly acknowledge and accommodate students’ feelings of pessimism and despair and design environments that foster restorative learning and hope. Suggested educational tools include shifting from a reductionist, mechanistic perception to an ontological relationality and entanglement with the world [79,184], acknowledging the cognitive and emotional dimensions of an issue [196,209], discussing one’s feelings and exploring zones of discomfort [80], and focussing on empowerment practice by taking action [210]. Educators can foster student empowerment and optimism by showcasing successful initiatives by individual/organisational actors (niches) in sustainability transition experiments and by providing opportunities for students to participate in real-life projects.

Academics could adopt a more critical and systemic approach to SE, engaging with the process of societal structural change and the role of individual/collective efforts as well as professional/industry action to enhance ST. Educators are encouraged to explore “strong” sustainability [37,39,107,179] that calls attention to political processes and power structures that “resist challenges to the ‘rationality’ of the capitalist paradigm of production and consumption” ([211], p. 149) and focus on “transgressive/transformative agency” [31] to disrupt system “lock-ins”. In shifting the focus from personal behaviour change to structural influences [212], educators could problematise the dominant neo-liberal ideology of free markets, endless economic growth, and laissez-faire sustainability.

5.9. Free-Choice Learning and Agency in ST (Cascade of Chasms)

The current ad hoc approach to SE in HE leads to a cascade of chasms [11] between the UN goals of education (specifically SDG 4.7) and the emergence of agency for societal change [213]. Evidence from this research demonstrated the current ad hoc approach to SE in HE is ineffective in creating widespread agents for change. Contributing factors include the ongoing contestation about sustainability/SD and the role of HEIs, the laissez-faire free-choice approach to teaching, learning and behaviour for sustainability, and the framing of sustainability challenges as complex/wicked problems with uncertain outcomes in highly contestable environments. The convergence of student views towards “weak” sustainability (i.e., ecological modernisation) tends to perpetuate the dominant growth/instrumental paradigm rather than challenge norms to transgress and transform current socio-ecological systems. Thus, SE is not currently contributing to transformative sustainability learning, and there is evidence of limited development of personal, professional, and collective transformative agency to drive and maintain progress in ST. The reliance and emphasis of SE on individual behaviour change is problematic and faces severe limitations in effecting wider societal change. These are worrying trends and signify a shortcoming of the current ad hoc approach to SE in HE around the world.

6. Conclusions

Higher education institutions have a pivotal role in contributing to sustainability transformations through their research, education, operations, and outreach activities. The purpose of sustainability education (SE) is to enhance student capability and empowerment for whichever field/profession they occupy. However, the current approach to SE in HE is found to be seriously wanting. This paper reported on four empirical studies, conducted across time and in different countries, universities, and disciplines, that investigated student learning for sustainability in HE. These studies provided a deeper understanding of significant heterogeneity in student sustainability dispositions and actual learning outcomes from the current approach to SE in HE, which focusses on individual change and agency. Findings from this research are consistent with HE studies conducted around the world and are relevant to tertiary educators, policy makers, professional associations, and employers looking to a workforce and citizenry capable of addressing global environmental and sustainability challenges.

The current free-choice (ad hoc) approach to SE in HE yields learning outcomes that are too weak and dispersed to build the momentum necessary to create significant shifts in students’ dispositions beyond incremental learning and limited personal change. Instead, student worldviews are converging inexorably to a “weak” view of sustainability aligned with “eco-modernism” that favours incremental change and technological solutions within existing societal systems. In the current HE context, many factors drive resistance both to holistic sustainability per se and to TL for sustainability, with educators and students often challenged by epistemological and ideological aspects.

Implementing SE in HE creates a lever to consider sustainability and its relationship to students’ study programme and profession. This research found SE yielded beneficial outcomes in terms of greater personal awareness of the importance of sustainability issues, individual behaviour changes, and, in some cases, attempts to influence others in their personal sphere. However, behaviour change was limited to low-commitment actions. Agency was rare and emerged when personal motivation coincided with competence and opportunity, with agency enacted towards incremental action and system compliance rather than challenging societal structures and institutional settings. To consider “strong” sustainability and action, educators will need to adopt a more critical approach to transforming societal systems and structures as opposed to conventional SE that focuses on reform. Finally, SE contributed to a more sustainability literate population amenable to sustainability initiatives beyond individual behaviour changes, and while this contributes to support for long-term changes in sustainability transitions, much more is required in terms of agency and professional competence to accelerate the transition process.

This research study reinforced sustainability learning as a holistic, lifelong process. Student learning is enhanced by repetition and connection over time, and deeper learning is motivated when sustainability is considered important by students and connected with their lifeworld, i.e., their personal and professional lives. Adopting a holistic approach to student learning requires more attention and planning by policy makers and tertiary educators. It is also time to challenge the free-choice approach of SE in HE and adopt more committed approaches to teaching and learning for sustainability in all programmes. Implementation of SE must be a relevant (preferably mandated) inclusion in all study programmes and carefully sequenced and connected to create the synergy and build momentum for personal transformation and professional competence to contribute to organizational change and societal transitions.

In summary, a strategic and systematic effort in SE is required to emphasise the importance of sustainability (to motivate students to engage with the challenging concept of holistic sustainability), to ground/anchor their learning experiences by connecting to meaningful/relevant situations in their lifeworld, and to scaffold the development of their sustainability competencies from each learning experience. Adopting such a concerted approach would likely lead to progressive shifts in student knowledge, views, and perspectives and build their skills, competencies, and agency as individuals and professionals to address pressing global challenges and hasten the transition to sustainability.