Transitioning to **Quality Education**

Transitioning to Sustainability Series

MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade • Manchester • Tianjin •Tokyo • Cluj

EDITOR Eila Jeronen University of Oulu, University of Lapland, University of Helsinki, Finland

EDITORIAL OFFICE MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland

For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated below:

Author 1, and Author 2. 2021. Chapter Title. In *Transitioning to Quality Education*. Edited by Eila Jeronen. Transitioning to Sustainability Series 4. Basel: MDPI, Page Range.

© 2021 by the authors. Chapters in this volume are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book taken as a whole is © 2021 MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND.

**ISBN 978-3-03897-892-3 (Hbk) ISBN 978-3-03897-893-0 (PDF) ISSN: 2624-9324 (Print) ISSN: 2624-9332 (Online) doi:10.3390/books978-3-03897-893-0**

## **Contents**


## **About the Editor**

Dr. Eila Jeronen, University Research Fellow, Ph.D. (Education), Lic. Phil. (Biology), M. Sc. (Biology), University of Oulu. Eila Jeronen is adjunct professor of environmental education at University of Oulu, adjunct professor of sustainable development education at University of Helsinki, and adjunct professor of biology education at University of Lapland. Her research interests are teacher education and teaching and learning, especially in the area of natural sciences, environmental education, sustainable development education, and health education. She has published in several international journals and guided doctoral students. She has also served as a university lecturer at the Faculty of Education in the University of Oulu, Finland, and worked on international projects in several countries. eila.jeronen@oulu.fi

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8610-2355 http://cc.oulu.fi/~ejeronen/index.html

### **Contributors**

ANNETTE SCHEERSOI Professor, University of Bonn, Germany.

COSTAS P. CONSTANTINOU Professor, University of Cyprus, Cyprus.

EIJA YLI-PANULA Adjunct Professor, University of Turku, Finland.

EILA JERONEN Adjunct Professor, University of Oulu, Finland.

GULSEDA EYCEYURT TURK Assistant Professor, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Turkey.

GÜLIZ KARAARSLAN SEMIZ Assistant Professor, Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University, Turkey.

HAMDI KARAKAŞ Assistant Professor, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Turkey.

HELEN KOPNINA Ph.D., The Hague University of Applied Science (HHS), Netherlands.

JORMA JOUTSENLAHTI Adjunct Professor, Tampere University, Finland.

KATRI VARIS MA, Law School of University of Eastern Finland, Finland.

KRISTIJAN KRKAČ Professor, Zagreb School of Economics and Management, Zagreb, Croatia.

MARIA HOFMAN-BERGHOLM Ph.L., Centria University of Applied Sciences, Finland.

MARTINA MATIŠIĆ Professor, Business High School Varaždin and the High School in Maruševec, Croatia.

MIIA RANNIKMÄE Professor and Head of the Centre for Science Education, University of Tartu, Estonia.

PÄIVI PERKKILÄ Adjunct Professor, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

PEKKA TOLONEN Ph.D., University of Turku, Finland.

PHILIP VERWIMP Professor, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels.

SOFIA VESTERKVIST MA, Research Assistant, University of Turku, Finland.

SHIRLEY SIMON Emeritus Professor, University College London, United Kingdom.

TUULA KEINONEN Professor, University of Eastern Finland, Finland.

YASMINE BEKKOUCHE Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.

### **Abstracts**

#### **Development Goals, Its Limitations, and Alternatives by Helen Kopnina**

Despite the willingness of many educational institutions worldwide to embrace Education for Sustainable Development and Education for Sustainable Development Goals, critical scholars have pointed out that the very enterprise of sustainable development is not without its contradictions. Therefore, any education that engages with sustainable development needs to be carefully reviewed, rather than supported, in its ambition to promote the supposedly universally desirable aims. The rhetoric of sustainable development as meeting the needs of present and future generations is largely anthropocentric in failing to take nonhuman species into account when setting up pragmatic and ethical objectives. Similarly to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that have helped to raise living standards across the world, but have largely failed to address environmental sustainability challenges, the Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) tend to prioritize "inclusive economic growth" at the expense of ecological integrity, which is very likely to negatively affect not only nonhuman species but also future generations and their quality of life. Thus, as this chapter will argue, universally applicable Education for Sustainable Development Goals (ESDGs) is problematic in the context of addressing the long-term sustainability for both human and nonhuman inhabitants of the planet. Given escalating climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and depletion of natural resources, this chapter questions whether ESDGs can qualify as a desirable "quality education". The paradoxes of sustainable development and ways forward that seem a better alternative for ESDG include indigenous/traditional learning, ecopedagogy, ecocentric education, and education for degrowth, steady-state, and Cradle-to-Cradle and circular economy. Advantages of universal education are also highlighted, as any education that supports basic literacy, numeracy, and values attributed to the intrinsic rights of humans and nonhumans can help students to be equipped to deal with social and environmental challenges.

### **High Quality Educated Teachers and High-Quality Textbooks— The Two Pillars of Quality Education by Maria Hofman-Bergholm**

This book chapter is a theoretical discussion highlighting two important pillars of quality education. The importance of teaching material and textbooks is discussed and issues around implementation of sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals in education. It contains research results from the Nordic countries around teacher education and early childhood education teachers, discussions on issues and obstacles and some possible solutions for a way forward.

#### **Systems Thinking Research in Science and Sustainability Education: A Theoretical Note by Güliz Karaarslan Semiz**

Systems thinking is a very important skill in both science education and sustainability education. In order to achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs), the quality of education should be increased to be able to deal with the complex problems of today, and the systems thinking skills of students and teachers should be developed. Many studies have so far investigated systems thinking skills within the science education and sustainability education context, and they have shown that systems thinking skills can be developed at different grade levels using various teaching strategies. The aim of this literature review is to examine these studies in terms of topic, research methodologies and systems thinking models. Moreover, 32 articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2009 to 2019 were selected and examined. The data were analyzed through qualitative content analysis. The results revealed that the topics that the majority of researchers focused on included sustainability problems, complex systems and earth system (especially water cycle). In the 13 articles, researchers studied systems thinking skills with lower secondary school students. Fewer studies were conducted with primary school, upper secondary school and undergraduate students. Furthermore, 17 articles included intervention studies and the most frequently used teaching strategies were inquirybased teaching and computer simulation programs. Systems thinking models used in the selected articles were also examined and discussed. This literature review provides several directions for future studies.

### **Finnish Subject Student Teachers' Views on Their Social Competencies at the End of Their Educational Studies by Eija Yli-Panula, Eila Jeronen, Sofia Vesterkvist and Pekka Tolonen**

In subject teacher education, the main issues in sustainable development education (SDE) lie in questions as to what the educators are supposed to teach, what the status of subject teacher education is today in embedding SDE, and how SDE relates to the focus on professional competencies in teacher education. The aim of this study is to investigate the subject student teachers' views on their social competencies in teaching students about sustainable development (SD) with respect to local, regional, and global environmental issues. The study questions were: (1) What kind of environmental problems do the students regard as core environmental problems—locally, regionally, and globally? (2) What kind of opportunities do the students feel they have to socially influence local, regional and global environmental issues? (3) How do the students identify and understand the social relationships in the classroom? and (4) How do the students see their likelihood of influencing the school culture they are working in with respect to sustainable development? A total of 142 subject student teachers at six Finnish universities were surveyed. The material was collected using a web-based questionnaire and analyzed by inductive content analyses based on two factors: (1) the multidimensional adapted process model of teaching, especially regarding teachers' social competences and (2) the competences in SDE. The results showed the students are concerned about issues such as climate change and littering, and would address these by reasonable knowledge construction and social means. In the school environment, the students are interested in SD decision-making, and they value equality and the mental wellbeing of students, which are supported by the quality of education goals, especially Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4). The findings are discussed with respect to the social skills introduced in the multidimensional adapted process model of teaching, in particular with respect to the UNESCO's listed competencies in teaching and learning about SD.

#### **Start for Sustainable Development: Ecological Footprint by Hamdi Karakaş**

The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between elementary school students' ecological footprint mean scores and their attitudes towards sustainable development. Two hundred and ten elementary school students from three different regions of Turkey (east, middle and west) were included in the study group. As a result of the research, the mean ecological footprint scores of elementary school students were calculated as 2.11 global hectare (gha) and their ecological footprint has been determined to be lower than Turkey's mean (2.7 gha), but higher than the world mean (1.8 gha). The mean score of attitude towards sustainable development of elementary school students was calculated (X = 3.62), and the low mean score showed that elementary school students did not exhibit the expected sustainable development attitude. A negative correlation was determined between the mean scores of ecological footprints of elementary school students and the mean scores of sustainable development attitude and it was concluded that this relationship was significant. This result shows an inverse relationship between ecological footprint and sustainable development for elementary school students. Achieving sustainable development is primarily possible by changing the consumption habits of individuals. This can be achieved with SDG goal 4 "Quality Education". Ecological footprint awareness can be used as a tool for the students to become aware of their own consumption habits, to develop the characteristics expected from it and thus to create sustainable development by using natural resources more effectively.

#### **Possibilities of Popularizing a Philosophy Course in High Schools: The Case of Croatia by Martina Matišić and Kristijan Krkač**

In the text, the authors provide a research plan related to changes in a high school philosophy course. The mentioned description, analysis, review and suggestions are put together in the following way. 1st Part: we supply a theoretical context for a different understanding of the high-school philosophy course in gymnasiumbased educational systems. This understanding is based on the inclusion of a series of topics in popular philosophy as a philosophy of popular phenomena and the inclusion of modern teaching methods and tools, such as philosophy in comic book format or philosophy by the film. 2nd Part: we suggest some principles of remodeling for the high school philosophy course, based on previous descriptions of different understandings of philosophy as popular, but also with the inclusion of inter-course topics that overlap with 2 or more courses that are different to philosophy. 3rd Part: we present the results of the primary research related to high school philosophy course textbooks in Croatia in the period 1965–2019.

### **An Argumentation Practice Based on STEAM for the Chemistry Education of Gifted by Gulseda Eyceyurt Turk**

In this study, it was aimed to enhance gifted students' argumentation skills by making them complete the missing parts of chemistry animation scenarios based on STEAM and then reconstruct them as an argument as an enrichment. The study was conducted with 12 gifted students at a school for the gifted in Ankara province in Turkey. A case study was used as one of the qualitative designs during the study. Seven different worksheets requiring the students to draw the missing part of each chemistry animation scenario and then criticize them as arguments were used as data collection tools. Content analysis was utilized for the gathered data. At the end of the study, it was found that the gifted students were able to complete the missing parts of the chemistry animation scenarios in order to construct proper concept images and then reconstruct them as arguments. It could be said that the gifted students' argumentation skills were enhanced based on their increasing success of arguing the missing parts of the chemistry animation scenarios with the help of justifying their conclusions with premises.

### **Academic Literacy Supporting Sustainability for Mathematics Education—A Case: Collaborative Working as a Meaning Making for "2/3"?**

#### **by Päivi Perkkilä and Jorma Joutsenlahti**

In this article, we focused on sustainable development in mathematics education from the point of view of academic literacy in mathematics (ALM). ALM was understood here through three integrated components: mathematical proficien-cy, mathematical practices, and mathematical discourse (languaging). ALM skills support 21st Century competences which are important for citizen skills. Both ALM skills and 21st Century competences support lifelong learning and sustainable education. Citizens of future society need both ALM and 21st Century competences to model and solve the issues of sustainable development. We want to develop prospective teachers' content knowledge and pedagogical con-tent knowledge of school mathematics in the spirit of sustainable education. As the case, we chose the mathematical symbol "2/3" and how collaborative mean-ing making for "2/3" influences prospective class teachers' interpretations. Col-laborative meaning making is part of ALM. Collaborative working as a tool for meaning making supports the other parts of ALM. By languaging different meanings for "2/3" in pairs, prospective class teachers deepened their under-standing about fractions. By supporting ALM skills in teacher education, future class teachers can have a more sustainable basis to teach mathematics for chil-dren. As a conclusion, based on the results of our case study, we summarized objectives for sustainable development for teacher education, teachers, and stu-dents in mathematics education.

### **Outstanding Performance or Reversal of Fortune in Burundi's Education System? by Yasmine Bekkouche and Philip Verwimp**

From the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals, the focus of educational policies recommendations for the Global South has shifted from the quantity to the quality of education. The learning crisis many developing countries face is even more severe in sub-Saharan Africa and exhibits the difficulty of reforming education systems. The political economy of education seems to be a key factor in study education quality. In that regard, Burundi provides an insightful case study: its education system stands as an outlier when it comes to primary school quality and presents a strong geographical heterogeneity. We find that Burundi has experienced a sharp increase in test scores from 2009 to 2014, both in an absolute sense and relative to similar sub-Saharan African countries. We find this increase is mainly due to the performance of the Northern provinces, the region of birth of late President Nkurunziza. Turning to the mechanisms, no other hypothesis has been tested, but our difference in difference analysis reveals that the improved performance of this region cannot be explained by better infrastructure.

### **Integrating Sustainability Issues into Science Education through Career-Based Scenarios in the MultiCO Project by Tuula Keinonen, Katri Varis, Costas P. Constantinou, Miia Rannikmäe, Annette Scheersoi and Shirley Simon**

The MultiCO project focused on creating career-based scenarios with the intent to make science education more relevant to students and to enhance students' interest towards science studies and their awareness of scientific careers. This was undertaken through longitudinal studies involving interventions that used motivational scenarios, which were created with multi-stakeholder co-operation between scientists in education and natural sciences, experts from industry and civil society organisations, and formal, as well as non-formal science educators and students. Scenarios were defined as motivational student-relevant constructs related to an attractive issue with the possibility to involve students in an unusual scientific, hands-on activity appreciated as relevant by students, and included career-related aspects. The scenario problem, issue or situation was linked to EU challenges related to energy, water, waste, climate change, food, health, and transport issues. In this book chapter we introduce these scenarios in the light of sustainability focusing on content, context, pedagogy, and skills considered in the scenarios. In relation to Education for Sustainable Development, MultiCO scenarios incorporate both affective and cognitive aspects of learning using contexts relevant to students. The scenarios include decision-making through social learning, local or global perspectives, critical thinking and analysis, and empower students to take action on issues related to sustainability.

## **Transitioning to Quality Education: Examining Education for Sustainable Development Goals, Its Limitations, and Alternatives**

#### **Helen Kopnina**

#### **1. Introduction**

*The Limits to Growth* report published almost half a century ago was based on a computer simulation of exponential growth with a finite supply of resources, and it underscored concerns about human population growth and increase in consumption (Meadows et al. 1972). Heeding the report's warning and expressed need to urgently address environmental problems resulting from demographic and industrial activity increase, The Belgrade Charter, supported by The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), developed educational guidelines to facilitate the transition to an environmentally sustainable society. This education was targeted towards addressing environmental problems and motivating students to better protect the environment (Orr 1994). The Belgrade Charter's initiative intended to teach students at all levels the fundamentals of ecology, simultaneously developing an awareness of the plight of the environment and motivation for protecting it through the acquisition of knowledge and practical skills to address challenges (UNEP and UNESCO 1976).

However, despite the increased severity of environmental problems since the 1970s, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2019) and the Millennium Assessment Reports (MEA 2019) testify, pro-active education focused on understanding the root causes of the problems and drastic measures focused on their resolution has given way to a more optimistic belief in a balanced and integrated approach to the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development (Leicht et al. 2018). In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development produced a well-known document called *Our Common Future*, also known as the Brundtland Report, named so in recognition of the former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland (WCED World Commission on Environment and Development). In this document, sustainable development was referred to as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising

the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED World Commission on Environment and Development, p. 4).

Soon after publication of the Brundtland Report, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) was developed. ESD commonly encourages changes in knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes to enable a more sustainable and just society, aiming to empower the present and future generations to meet their needs (Leicht et al. 2018). In its phrasing, as opposed to a more urgent tone of the Belgrade charter, the ESD has placed more emphasis on social and economic aspects of sustainability (UNESCO 2005).

Consequently, the UN Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs), following the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), was developed. These goals built upon what was seen as great achievements of the MDGs: reducing poverty, mortality, and raising overall living standards throughout the globe. The 17 SDGs include poverty alleviation, sustainability education for achieving food security and promoting sustainable agriculture, ensuring a continuum of quality care for healthy lives and well-being, quality education, gender equality and empowerment, sustainable management of water and sanitation, access to sustainable and modern energy, sustainable economic growth, sustainable industrialization and infrastructure, sustainable cities and human settlements, conservation and sustainable use of marine and terrestrial ecosystem and resources, justice and peace, and partnerships for implementation.

Significantly, while the MDGs did achieve many social and economic goals, their record in targeting environmental problems from climate change to biodiversity loss has been seen as dismal (IPCC 2019; MEA 2019). The failure of biodiversity conservation strategies and climate change mitigation efforts are apparent as the greenhouse gas emissions have sharply increased after the publication of *The Limits to Growth* report (Washington 2015). It has also been noted that while the MDGs aims of eliminating extreme poverty and hunger, reducing mortality, etc., have been achieved, future social and economic security, let alone environmental integrity, can hardly be guaranteed due to increased pressure on natural resources and accelerating climate change that affects mostly poor countries (Wijkman and Rockström 2012). Critical academic researchers have stated that the overarching drivers of overshoot are the ideology of economic growth, population growth associated with increase in consumption, as well as denial of ecological limits (Rees 2010; Washington et al. 2017).

Ignoring these failures, swiftly after the publication of the SDGs, new documents supporting Education for Sustainable Development Goals, or ESDGs, were published (UNESCO 2017). The fourth goal of the SDGs, namely "Quality Education", aspires to enable every student to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development (UNESCO 2017). This assumes that the SDGs and ESDG are a good thing.

This chapter will argue that universally applicable ESD and ESDG are problematic. Quality education does require teachers that have the competence, knowledge, and skills to be able to plan and carry out meaningful education and teaching. However, if sustainability and sustainable development are not the same, and might be at times even opposed to each other, the question is whether teaching sustainable development should be seen as something "good" in the first place. This chapter will explore the question of what is wrong with ESD/ESDG and what can be done better to encourage a more radical understanding of sustainability challenges and action to address them. The chapter will encourage critical reflection on the ideas of sustainable development, assuming that such reflection can foster greater awareness of contradictions inherent in the SDG's aims to simultaneously address social, economic, and ecological challenges through economic means. To explain what might be wrong with ESD/ESDG, the broader question will be posed: what is or should be the purpose of education?

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

This chapter is based on desk research examining policy documents, especially stemming from the United Nations, as well as pedagogical and critical literature on sustainable development. These materials (web pages on the Internet, journals, and books in the fields of education or pedagogical studies and critical theory, etc.) were searched using content analysis (Norris and Jacobson 1998; Elo et al. 2014). As noted by Elo et al. (2014), results of qualitative content analyses are linked to transferability, conformability, and credibility; however, it is often difficult to evaluate the trustworthiness of such analyses because of the specific data collection method used. In this case, one of the limitations was the fact that sampling of ESDG-related literature was restricted to UNESCO documents, as the initiative started just a few months before writing this chapter. While there is robust literature addressing the impact and shortcomings of ESD (for recent overview see Kopnina 2020), ESDG practices still need to generate a volume of evaluative academic publications. The section criteria used for literature selection were relevant to the central premise of this paper—identifying and analyzing the aims of ESD and the ESDG curriculum. The literature review was organized into sections that presented themes including the transition from education that heeds the *Limits to Growth* warning of environmental problems, to education embracing the (naïve)

optimism of the Brundtland report, corresponding to the transition to ESD and ESDG. This literature search also identified trends in these shifts, including relevant theory connected to the critique of sustainable development, anthropocentrism, and neoliberal economy.

#### **3. Results: What Is or Should Be the Purpose of Education?**

The documentary film Schooling the World, directed by Carol Black (2010), reflects on the education offered to local Indian villagers as well as presents interviews with anthropologists and professionals involved in development. Black traces the idea of universal education to Christian missionaries as well as colonial powers, operating schools from Africa to Australia, with learning aimed to substitute indigenous knowledge with the supposedly superior notions of progress. In a chapter reflecting on her experience in making the movie, Black (2017, p. 453) writes:

"Just as non-Christian societies have been seen by missionaries as "heathen" rather than as having different but valid spiritual beliefs, societies that lack schools are often seen not as having different but valid modes of knowledge and learning, but as "uneducated" and "illiterate." And just as the "salvation" of Indigenous people has often historically been the companion of conquest, the "education" of Indigenous people is often an integral part of planned programs of economic development and resource extraction on Indigenous lands . . . "

Helena Norberg-Hodge, author and filmmaker and the founder and director of Local Futures, reflects on an assumption that Western education and knowledge is superior, and that our "developed" nations have "evolved to a higher level of being, and that these people, however lovely they are, they're going to benefit from this superior knowledge" (Norberg-Hodge in Black 2010). This realization reflects the theory of "cognitive imperialism", describing the "process through which education is used to validate certain forms of cognition and to simultaneously devalue others that represent alternative perception and spiritual understanding which for millennia have guided human relationship to the natural world" (Battiste 1998, p. 19). In this documentary, cognitive imperialism refers to schools set up by missionaries or Western development agencies, oftentimes destroying bio-cultural diversity. While "traditional" (implying a "thing from the past") learning is seen as "backward", Western education and the desire to "get a good job" is perceived as modern and superior (Black 2010). However, from an anthropological and historical point of view, "traditional" cultures "are not failed attempts at being us—they are unique

answers to the fundamental question, 'What does it mean to be human and alive?'" (Davis quoted in Black 2010).

The ESDGs do not provide an answer to this question. In fact, in its colonial overtones implying that Western society knows better (although its sustainability record shows otherwise), an imposition of "universal" education is also highly suspect. This leads us to the realization that a less neocolonial alternative to "education for all" should not come from the top down, but perhaps from the bottom up.

#### *3.1. ESD and ESDG: A Good Thing?*

As early environmental education used to emphasize human responsibility in the process of environmental destruction and called for the duty to repair the damage, with an often ecocentric (ecosystem-centered, recognizing the intrinsic value of environment) approach (Van Matre 1978; Orr 1994), ESD tends to be more focused on the balance between social, economic, and ecological needs as well as being almost exclusively anthropocentric (Bonnett 2007, 2013; Kahn 2010; Kopnina 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a; Washington 2018). The terms "inclusive economic growth" or "sustainable use" are used abundantly in the descriptions of the SDGs (e.g., UNESCO 2017), basically presenting the environment as a resource for human use and excluding nonhuman species as stakeholders (Kopnina 2018; Kopnina and Gjerris 2015). Clearly, "inclusion" here refers to one single species (Kopnina and Cherniak 2016), as nonhuman beings and their habitats do not profit from economic growth or industrial development.

As Haydn Washington (Washington 2015; 2018) has emphasized, sustainability and sustainable development are different concepts. The term sustainable development often refers to wanting to sustain industrial and economic development (Kopnina and Meijers 2014; Washington 2018). The triple objectives (People, Profit, Planet) also tend to see "people" as separate from "profit", thus creating a double weight to counterbalance "planet". By contrast, the concept of environmental sustainability takes the "planet" as a basic necessity that supports both People and Profit (Washington 2015). The "planet" also contains billions of nonhuman species, whose survival has a very different moral imperative than "profit". Simply, species extinction is a great moral wrong (Cafaro and Primack 2014). While sustainable development rhetoric frames issues of (human) hunger, inequality, racism, sexism, etc., as normative ethical issues, it seems to leave out human responsibility for converting habitats into agricultural or urban areas and threatening biodiversity.

Critics have noted while hunger and disease in one single species deserve moral consideration, the planetary-scale discrimination against nonhuman species also

deserves our attention. As Eileen Crist (Crist 2012, p. 149) states, "More serious than modern society's potential ability to technologically fix or muddle through problems of its own making is people's apparent willingness to live in an ecologically devastated world and to tolerate dead zones, endocrine disruptors, domestic animal torture (aka CAFOS), and unnatural weather as unavoidable concomitants of modern living".

As testified by indicators of the rapid decline of biodiversity (MEA 2019), increase in activities contributing to climate change (IPCC 2019), and shortage of natural resources, we can hardly speak of the success of policies implicated in "sustainable development" (Wijkman and Rockström 2012). Philip Alston, a UN special rapporteur on poverty and human rights, said the impacts of climate change are likely to undermine not only livelihood for millions of people (Aston does not mention billions of nonhuman beings) but also democracy and peace. Quoted in *The Guardian* (Carrington 2019), Alston said "Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction".

In this context, the SDGs' focus on "sustainable industrial development" remains disconnected from a critical realization that one cannot have the cake and eat it too. Crist (2012, p. 149) reflects that "sustainability" of the current industrial system is, at least in the short term, possible. Crist reflects that the "civilization at work prospecting, expanding, and diversifying the resource base is also increasingly engaged in the parallel work of correcting the side effects of its excesses" (ibid.). This is the reason why proponents of sustainable development embrace "imminent possibilities of geoengineering, synthetic biology, genetic engineering, laboratory-made meat, and sundry adaptation projects to keep climate change under control and food on the table" (ibid., p. 149). Indeed, the "Brundtland-type definitions of sustainable development reflect highly anthropocentric and economist motives that lead to nature being seen essentially as a resource" (Bonnett 2007, p. 710). It is precisely the human needs and wants, particularly economic growth and industrial development that are immoral towards the rest of the species (Kopnina 2016a; Washington 2015). Crist (2012, p. 150) has summarized this moral issue as follows:

Human supremacy has ensconced widespread indifference toward the plight of nonhumans and their homes; it ignores and keeps itself ignorant of the question of, their reproductive rights, as individuals and as species. The dominant culture thus seems unable to grasp the moral evil of erasing wild Nature just to accommodate more and more people to live, all at once, on a planet occupied as a resource satellite.

This implies that for sustainability education to reach further than the comfortable rhetoric of "balance" or "sustainable use", the less comfortable questions of expansion of the human population and the growing appetites need to be addressed. It is, therefore, surprising that many researchers and practitioners embrace the idea of teaching for sustainable development, ESD, and ESDG. Scholars have warned that as long as social and economic priorities are being taught at the expense of environmental awareness, sustainability remains no more than a slogan (Bonnett 2013, 2015; Fien 2010; Kahn 2010; Kopnina 2013c, 2014c; Molina-Motos 2019; Sitka-Sage et al. 2017).

To sum up, the most common application for sustainable development, as "balancing" triple objectives and the SDGs, is not only anthropocentric (Adelman 2018; Kotzé and French 2018), but also counterproductive in educating future planetary citizens. In its designation as "quality education", the ESDG might negate environmental sustainability.

#### *3.2. Universal Education as a Positive Force: Better Alternatives*

Not all Western education needs to be criticized off-hand as economy-centered, neocolonial, or hegemonic; some types of education can be much more so. For example, a terrorism group Boko Haram (which means "Western education is prohibited"), has been responsible for creating an educational vacuum, and promoting authoritative types of "pure Islamic education" or no education at all for girls (Vos 2019). While Islamic education embraces basic numeracy and literacy, as well as wider values and eco-ethics (Mohamed 2014), the more strict or militant "pure" education promotes intolerance towards other cultures, religions, and ways of life (Vos 2019). In a less extreme example, basic numeracy and literacy are often rudimentary in poorer countries, placing children at a disadvantage when they become adults.

In the critique of Western education one needs to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as education can be a tool of self-reflection and development of critical ability. Some critical commentators, interviewed in the documentary Schooling the World, notably Vandana Shiva, Manish Jain, Helena Norberg-Hodge, and Wade Davis, are Western-educated themselves (Kopnina 2013a).

Additionally, the choice of education does not need to be "either-or", a combination of topics and didactic styles is possible. A combination of Western education that calls attention to the scientific understanding of sustainability challenges, such as climate change, evidence of species extinction, or pollution, and local or indigenous value transfer can result in a more holistic education combining

"modern" insights and traditional wisdom. Below, different types of alternative education will be discussed.

#### 3.2.1. Critical Pedagogy, Eco-literacy, and Ecopedagogy

A return to sustainability education or education for the environment, as embraced by the Belgrade Charter, offers an alternative for educating responsible global citizens. There are many varieties of education—starting from elementary schools and leading on to universities—that can qualify as education for the environment fostering ecological citizenship (Spannring 2019). Inspired by critical pedagogy developed by Paulo Freire's seminal text *Pedagogy of the Oppressed* (Freire 1986), the inter-related fields of ecopedagogy and eco-literacy were to empower disenfranchised students by taking control of their own lives in the face of oppressive power holders, and understanding of one's position within a community, through active participation and engagement. Considering neoliberal economy or rapacious capitalism, it must be noted that industrial socialism or communism (at least in theory) is still based on resource exploitation (Kopnina 2016b). While neo-Marxist in its nature, Freire's theory has wider applications as it exposes the larger scale of oppression.

In the SDG-framed society and economy-centered sustainability, the impact on the oppressed nonhuman species is forgotten. The question asked by proponents of sustainable development can be summarized as "What is the maximal number of people that the Earth can provide resources for without severely degrading those resources for future people?" (Crist 2012, p. 149). Yet, as Crist notes, if planetary-scale oppression of nonhuman species is taken into account, the real moral question should be "How many people, and at what level of consumption, can live on the Earth without turning the Earth into a human colony founded on the genocide of its nonhuman indigenes?" (Crist 2012, p. 149).

Richard Kahn (Kahn 2010) foresees ecopedagogy, critical pedagogy, and eco-literacy as unique opportunities to engage students with this kind of question. This pedagogy results not just in emancipatory learning but also in the task of realizing ethical and pragmatic aspects of what development means for billions of other species. This emancipation is inspired by civil rights liberation movements, liberating slaves, granting voting rights to women and minorities (Kahn 2010; Kopnina 2014d, 2015b).

However, as opposed to social liberation movements, environmental and animal welfare liberation movements such as Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) have been labeled as "radical". According to Kahn, it is not

the radicalism of the movement that needs to be criticized but a society that indeed labels movements that defend nature as terrorist organizations. Education inspired by critical pedagogy, eco-literacy, and ecopedagogy, while not at all supporting the strategy of economic sabotage employed by ELF and ALF, draws its inspiration from ideals that drive these groups (Kahn 2010; Nocella 2007). It does so as part of a future-oriented, political and legal vision rooted in ecocentrism (Cafaro and Primack 2014) that radically opposes the globalization of ideologies such as colonialism, neo-liberal economy, and imperialism, also discussed by Black (2010; 2017). These types of education attempt to foment an understanding of the current environmental predicament as well as the motivation and tools (knowledge, skills) to actively address these challenges. Such education is founded on cultural democracy, indigenous sovereignty, human rights, and respect for all life (Anderson 2012; Black 2010, 2017; Kahn 2010). In its attempt to liberate both human and nonhuman beings and support the flourishing of all planetary citizens within the multi-species community (Spannring 2019), ecopedagogy is a far cry from ESDG. ESDG can be seen as toothless in terms of environmental protection efficacy.

Equally far from ESDG is education that takes a complex interplay and intricate entanglements between social and environmental systems as a starting point (Black 2010, 2017). Far from being "under-developed" (as the very paternalistic and colonial term "development" implies), indigenous knowledge systems have developed over centuries and involve diverse, versatile content. Distinctive patterns of interpretation are anchored in diverse but traditionally sustainable worldviews (Kahn 2010). Indigenous knowledge, with its integration of the material and spiritual domains, with interdependent culture and other forms of life, is not seen in the current education of sustainable development. In a certain sense, traditional "education for all" used to exist in all localities.

Similar to ecopedagogy is the concept of ecological literacy (sometimes known as eco-literacy), developed by David Orr (1994), which emphasizes the ability of learners to understand basic facts about the environment and ecosystem functions. Ecoliteracy involves appreciating the principles of ecological community organization and uses those principles for creating sustainable societies, for example, based on Cradle-to-Cradle principles (McDonough and Braungart 2002). These principles refer to the regenerative design of products and the entire industry by using materials as nutrients circulating in technological or organic metabolisms without harmful, toxic waste products.

#### 3.2.2. Emancipation and Empowerment Education

In part, stemming from the *Pedagogy of the Oppressed* (Freire 1986), another alternative is an admittedly more "Western" type of education that can be described as emancipation or empowerment education. This education is rooted in empowerment theory that explores relationships between individuals within specific social, organizational, political, and, significantly, educational environments (Freire 1986; Shor 1992). When empowerment is applied to areas concerned with sustainability or nature protection, intentional education for sustainability can be seen as an enabling process targeting student abilities or competencies such as self-determination, self-efficacy, motivation, and active engagement (Kahn 2010; Nocella 2007), which is in line with the early ideals of the Belgrade charter. In this context, empowerment education reaches beyond pure economic aspirations toward more humane—and in this way possibly truly universal—ways of being in this world.

Ethically, empowerment education promises simply to encourage learners to be independent from social or cultural impositions and restrictions. Pragmatically, this education can also encourage, indirectly but very significantly, more sustainable relation to the environment through restrictions on unwanted births. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA 2009, 2011, 2019) has reported the need for educational investment that empowers women and girls to engage in family planning. While smaller families have a positive correlation with reducing poverty as well as a beneficial impact on climate mitigation and natural resource depletion, reducing the population is a win–win solution to social, economic, and environmental challenges (Wijkman and Rockström 2012). While the interaction between demography, food production, and biodiversity is complex, the combination of education that focuses on teaching the importance of humans, and particularly women's rights, cannot be understated (Crist et al. 2017). As Crist (2012, p. 146) notes, an "international financial, technological, knowledge and informational campaign" is needed to "bring the full range of modern contraceptive methods, safe abortion, professional counseling, and sex and health education". This is especially true in countries where these means are most urgently needed, particularly in the developing world (Potts 2009).

Next to human rights education, animal rights (and animal welfare) education is emerging (Best 2009; Gorski 2009; Kopnina and Cherniak 2016; Kopnina and Gjerris 2015; Lu et al. 2013; Ortiz 2015; Spannring 2019). In a recently published book, *Animal Rights Education*, Horsthemke (2018) explores how the ethical treatment and status of animals influence pedagogy, teaching, and learning in general, through existing forms of environmental education, humane or posthumanist education, ecopedagogy, critical animal pedagogy, and critical animal studies.

#### 3.2.3. Ecocentric Education

Ecocentric education is based on eco-philosophical principles, having its foundations in land ethics, deep ecology (Barrable 2019; Glasser 2004), social ecology, ecofeminism, experiential education deep ecology (e.g., LaChapelle 1991), ethics underlying biological conservation (e.g., Norris and Jacobson 1998), and/or animal rights (e.g., Horsthemke 2018) and welfare (Kopnina 2019a; Molina-Motos 2019), post-humanism and post-colonialism (e.g., Bonnett 2013), and other types of pedagogies closely related to the ones discussed above. In a larger context, ecocentric education promises to bring the realization of moral wrongs inflicted by one species upon all others, and is also a vision of hope, as expressed by Crist (2012, p. 150):

Hope lies in humanity's coming to realize the immensity of what we are irretrievably losing, which is not resources. Hope lies in the fact that we are native to the Earth: we have the potential of understanding that we are losing our own family.

This is a far cry from the 17 SDGs that emphasize sustainable use and sustainable industrialization perpetuating an anthropocentric and profit-driven paradigm. By contrast to the ESDGs, ecocentric education fosters wonder or empathy towards nature (Nakamura et al. 2019). The issues of food security and the basic needs of human beings—and for that matter, nonhuman beings—are deemed important, as all lives matter in an ecocentric thought.

#### 3.2.4. Education for Alternative Economic Models

Alternatives to neoliberal, capitalist (or industrialist socialist or communist) systems have been proposed by several critical economists and social scientists. These include the concepts of degrowth, steady-state economy, and circular economy (Daly 1991, 2014; O'Neill 2012; Washington 2015, 2018). While the scope of this chapter does not allow for a detailed discussion of these alternatives, briefly, a steady-state economy refers to an arrangement where throughput is maintained within ecological limits (Daly 1991, 2014)—something that in the context of present overproduction and overconsumption requires degrowth. O'Neill (2012) defines degrowth as the voluntary transition towards a just, participatory, and ecologically sustainable society. O'Neill (2012) proposes a framework based on ends and means, and a set of biophysical and social indicators derived from a steady-state economy, which considers the capacity of the planet to provide resources (admittedly, in this case in mostly anthropocentric framing of 'natural resources' and 'ecosystem services') and particularly variables including population and consumption

growth. Notably, ESDG-related publications (Leicht et al. 2018; UNESCO 2017) do not mention degrowth (O'Neill 2012), steady-state economy (Daly 1991), nor Cradle-to-Cradle economy (McDonough and Braungart 2002). However, there are occasional references to the circular economy, finding reflection in the emerging education for Cradle-to-Cradle economy (https://www.c2ccertified.org/education) and education for circular economy (https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ourwork/approach/learning).

Here, again, caution needs to be exercised as circular economy models have been often subordinated to "business-as-usual" in opportunities for future economic growth (Kopnina 2019b; Rammelt and Crisp 2014). Education for a circular economy, therefore, should not serve the purpose of education for sustaining profit that results in greenwashing, with businesses appearing green without taking sometimes drastic necessary steps to become truly 'circular' (Kopnina 2019b).

#### 3.2.5. Indigenous and Traditional Education

Because the system of Western, top-down education is so different from the way local people live, so divorced from their traditional culture or harsh reality, as noted by Manish Jain (quoted in Black 2010), many local pupils end up without a diploma. This failure is based on assuming that the standard measurements of ability, or success measured by the amount of money a future job promises, do not take into consideration alternative ways of learning and being. By contrast, the conditions of learning in most indigenous societies, such as freedom, curiosity, observation, experimentation, and horizontal collaboration, may be more effective conditions for scientific learning than teacher-directed, textbook-based instruction found in most classrooms (Vedder-Weiss and Fortus 2011). Indeed, "it is likely that transmission of environmental knowledge may depend on a sibling or peer teaching, particularly during early childhood" (Zarger 2010, pp. 358–59). As the integrative and inter-dependent character of cultural and biological systems often escapes biological science, as Nabhan (1982, 2001) argues, indigenous knowledge that is continuous with and derived from ecosystemic awareness can offer ways forward. Nabhan (2001) notes that traditional intergenerational learning includes passing on stories and legends from old to young, stories that embody existential questions without explicit moralizing. The explicit prioritization of Western ideas over those of traditional societies is unfashionable in the post-colonial world, yet 'traditional ecological knowledge' is only considered if it contributes to corporate or industrial interests (Kidner 2017), for example, when it helps the pharmaceutical

industry in their search for medicinal properties of rare plants. However, learning from indigenous people contains much deeper lessons that reach beyond mere utility.

#### 3.2.6. Basic Literacy and Numeracy Education

In some countries in Africa or South America, the lack of basic human rights and even basic education providing basic literacy or numerical skills leads to situations where girls are taken out of schools and forced to give birth after childhood marriage or even after rape (Vos 2019; Wurth 2019). So, some basic education and policy that helps to maintain human dignity and rights—even though it can be seen as Western—can be seen as "good". One of the challenges is how to combine Western values with culturally variable ones.

Black (2017) notes that indigenous families may be making well-reasoned decisions about how to maintain their traditions while still accessing some of the positive returns of basic literacy and numeracy schooling. These basic academic skills and competencies are arithmetic, health, governance, and land rights. Such lessons can be conducted in a way that integrates existing culture and new skill development, perhaps involving parents or members of extended families not to disrupt respect for elders (Lynch and Judd 2009). It is significant though that basic numeracy and literacy education has been part of traditional education in many cultures as well.

See Table 1 (next page), which summarizes different types of alternative education.

#### **4. Discussion: Lessons from ESDG and Alternatives**

This chapter has argued that great caution needs to be exercised when promoting education for sustainable development and education for sustainable development goals. This caution is warranted by the underlying contradictions of the very enterprise of sustainable development that tend to prioritize social and economic objectives at the cost of environmental integrity, which, ironically, is the very foundation upon which social and economic systems are built. It was also argued that the root causes of unsustainability, population, and industrial production growth are not readily discussed in the framing of sustainable development. While the accent, both pragmatic and ethical, often lies in elevating poverty and raising living standards (which are certainly worthy objectives), the United Nations framing of sustainable development is woefully inadequate due to robust anthropocentric bias, which effectively excludes concerns about the welfare of all but one single species.



Not all types of education mentioned above can or should apply in all contexts—some countries or regions might suffer from lack of basic literacy or numeracy education, but they might promote traditional values that teach the wisdom of the elders about the human relationship to the environment. "Modern" problems associated with industrial development might not be adequately addressed by any traditional education, and awareness of these issues may need to be taught. For example, in poorer countries that are most affected by plastic pollution, such as Cambodia, behavior change in the use of plastic has been rarely noted until recent educational campaigns were launched (https://plasticfreecambodia.com/; Phnom

Penh Post 2019). A school-level program teaching about separating organic and nonorganic (e.g., plastic) garbage and using organic garbage for composting can be a starting point.

As in the case of Cambodia, school curricula in developed countries can be enriched by a more critical focus on the dominance of industry (e.g., oil producers that make petrochemical residue products, such as plastic, affordable and easily available globally) and ask students to engage with alternative thinking to sustainable packaging in line with Cradle-to-Cradle principles. While schools in developed countries may be paying lip service to sustainability, they seldom have a curriculum that encompasses human–environment interdependency as many indigenous cultures used to have (Anderson 2012).

Considering this, universally applicable education focused on the SDGs, without realizing that the goals concerned with combatting climate change, biodiversity loss, and indeed the long-term welfare of future generations are negated by continuous economic growth, is problematic. In addition, considering the discussion of neo-colonialism and bio-cultural diversity above, the appropriateness of any kind of education should be considered on a case-to-case basis.

As a counterweight to education centered on economic development, this chapter has discussed alternative forms of learning. Traditional and indigenous learning, critical pedagogy, illiteracy, ecopedagogy, ecocentric education, and alternative economy education, including education for degrowth, steady-state economy, and Cradle-to-Cradle and circular economy were discussed.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest. There were no founding sponsors who had a role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

#### **References**


© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## **High Quality Educated Teachers and High-Quality Textbooks—The Two Pillars of Quality Education**

#### **Maria Hofman-Bergholm**

#### **1. Introduction**

In 2015, 193 countries committed to achieving the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a shared vision of humanity that provides the missing piece of the globalisation puzzle. The extent to which that vision becomes a reality will depend on today's classrooms; and it is educators who hold the key to ensuring that the SDGs become a real social contract with citizens. (OECD 2018, p. 2)

In the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN 2015), the United Nations (UN) launched a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) to be achieved during a 15-year period. All these goals relate to education in different ways, and once again, education is set in a key position to solve all kind of problems that society faces today. The OECD even take it a step further, claiming that it is the educators in the classrooms who hold the key (OECD 2018). The SDGs build on the former millennium development goals to end poverty, inequality and climate change with one big difference—the Agenda 2030 and the SDGs are universal, not only focusing on poor countries (Owens 2017).

The SDG 4, which is the focus of this publication, states that we need an education that "ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning" (UN 2015). In a recent report, UNESCO states that it appears unlikely that the targets within SDG 4 will be met, and that there is a risk that it will not be meaningful for everyone, as it is a universal agenda, and it is unclear how different countries perceive its relevance (UNESCO 2019). This is a major weakness of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. What is of great importance and what we need to bear in mind is to recognize the different conditions that different countries have for fulfilling such universal agendas when arguing about ways of implementing the SDG 4 and its targets. We must remember and recognize the difference between north and south; east and west; rich and poor, even though the lines are not as apparent now as they were 20 years ago (Rosling et al. 2018). Unfortunately, there is an imminent risk

that climate change affecting the world right now will increase poverty again and increase the gap between poor and rich (IPCC 2018).

Some of the targets within SDG 4 relate more to poor countries, while other targets within the goal relate to rich countries. Some of the targets relate both to poor and rich countries, for instance, human rights and appreciation of cultural diversity are targets within SDG4 that almost every country in the world, rich or poor, have problems to fulfill in different ways. In the rich countries, cultural diversity is not always appreciated, and there are issues about how governments treat aboriginal people and their rights, while in poor countries there are different angles of the problem in fulfilling human rights. The concept of lifelong learning also has a different emphasis depending on the education and income levels of the nations, and if the nation is a democracy or a dictatorship. For instance, the apartheid in South Africa has resulted in now adult people who have had little or no education. Here, lifelong learning and literacy from an adult perspective is important (McKay 2018), while this is hardly a problem in the Nordic countries.

In the Nordic countries, SDG 4 and, for instance, target 4.7 (the target is: "By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture´s contribution to sustainable development" (UNESCO 2019, p. 3) tend to be a bit problematic to fulfill within 2030, regarding education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, as there is still no consensus among academics about the concept of sustainable development and which competences it involves (Hofman-Bergholm 2018a; Sinakou et al. 2018; Brandt et al. 2019). The result of this is that sustainability seems to be ignored by a large part of teacher education institutions, at least in Nordic countries (Wolff et al. 2017; Palmberg et al. 2017; Hofman-Bergholm 2018b; Hofman 2012; Borg Carola et al. 2014), which might have serious consequences throughout the whole education system, from early childhood education to teacher training programs. This is problematic, as sustainability and the development of sustainable lifestyles are targets within the SDG 4 "quality education for all" and OECD (2018) point out that educators hold the key to sustainability.

This book chapter is outlined as a theoretical discussion around the issues for implementing sustainability in education, from early childhood education to higher education, starting from a lifelong learning perspective.

#### **2. Sustainability Issues in Quality Education and Lifelong Learning**

Traditionally, the term 'lifelong learning' is often attributed to adult education, but lifelong learning begins at birth, and should therefore also include early childhood education (Pramling Samuelsson and Park 2017). As Pramling Samuelsson and Park (2017) state, a lot of researchers seem to agree on the fact that a sustainable future depends on how the next generation is educated. They argue about the importance of high-quality early education and the enduring benefits from learning experience during early childhood education. It is not children's age that determine where they stand in their individual development; it is the culture they live in and prior experiences (Pramling Samuelsson 2011). Pramling Samuelsson (2011) summarize research from different kind of studies and conclude that children's attitudes and interests are developed during quite early age. That is why it is highly important to start educating children about sustainability at an early age (Pramling Samuelsson and Park 2017). Seen from this perspective, lifelong learning is the base for quality education, and it highlights the importance of an early beginning with Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).

To implement sustainability in education, it is not only policies and steering documents that are important, the executive level is equally important. Educating teachers who are teaching in early childhood education about sustainability issues should be as important as the development of curriculum plans that include sustainability (Pramling Samuelsson and Park 2017). The fact is that, for instance, in Finland, there is a gap between vision and the implementation of sustainability in early childhood teacher education (Furu et al. 2018).

Wolff and Furu (2018) have investigated how Finnish student teachers in early childhood education understand the concept of sustainable development. The research (ibid) show that the student teachers in early childhood education in Finland possesses a limited understanding of the sustainability concept, and likewise graduated teachers (Wolff et al. 2017), and even teacher educators in Finland (Hofman 2012). In another article, Furu et al. (2018) take it as far as to state that sustainability has such an inconspicuous position in the Finnish early childhood teacher education that it can be called insufficient. The same problem also seems to be common in other levels of education in Finland and other Nordic countries, all the way from the base to the top in the educational system, even though the education in the Nordic countries is considered to be high quality education.

Research shows that sustainability is integrated into Finnish schools' practices in different ways, and more or less frequently (Wolff et al. 2017). An external evaluation (Pathan et al. 2012) carried out on behalf of the Finnish Ministry of Education and

Ministry of the Environment in 2012 revealed that only 35% of the 917 primary and secondary schools participating in the questionnaire had programs for sustainable development. This is despite the political request for sustainable development programs in every school. In a recent article (Wolff et al. 2017), teacher training in the Nordic countries is discussed, especially teacher training in Finland. The article identifies five issues as to why an exceptionally good education, as the Finnish teacher education is according to the PISA results, does not successfully integrate sustainability into the education. These issues will be discussed in the next paragraph.

One reason why Finnish teacher education is seen as a high-performance education, producing high educated and well-trained teachers that help students perform well in the Programme for International Student Assessment of OECD (PISA tests), can be found in what the PISA tests measure. Until now, the PISA tests have focused on quite easy measurable competences, such as mathematics and reading, which has been focus in the Finnish educational system for a long time, but this changed in the last PISA test 2018, where more focus was on global competences, according to OECD:

Goal 4, which commits to quality education for all, is intentionally not limited to foundation knowledge and skills such as literacy, mathematics and science, but places strong emphasis on learning to live together sustainably. But such goals are only meaningful if they become visible. This has inspired the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the global yardstick for educational success, to include global competence in its metrics for quality, equity and effectiveness in education. PISA will assess global competence for the first time ever in 2018. (OECD 2018, p. 2)

Results of this PISA round 2018 will be released on 3 December 2019, so it is still uncertain as to how the Finnish students scored this time. It is an important step forward that the OECD seems to have realized that the PISA measures regulate what schools put focus on and through bringing in focus on the SDGs in PISA tests as well as other measurable competences forces the educational systems to adapt to the SDGs. This is, first and foremost, probably a very important step towards the implementation of ESD in every school.

As Finnish students performed very well in the PISA test 2000, researchers turned their eyes towards Finland to try to understand what they had done to achieve this. Finland is known to have had a very good education system since the 1968 education reform act took place and a systemwide reform of the Finnish

educational system was carried through to be a fully comprehensive system during the 1970s. This is probably the base for the good results achieved in the 1990s. During this period, Finland also had a system with central approval of textbooks used in the school system. Finland is also one of the countries where a very high rate of teachers report that they use textbooks as a base for instructions. What might illuminate the Finnish high PISA scores in 2000 is the fact that Finnish teachers have a deep-seated tradition of using textbooks in their teaching, and that the textbooks were reviewed and approved central during a critical period of development of the Finnish educational system (Oates 2014).

According to UNESCO (2016), textbooks are recognised as core for the new SDG on education, and the amount a country spends on learning resources is a good measure of its willingness to provide all students with quality education. Access to appropriate learning materials is listed as a key strategy for achieving the first means of SDG 4. Textbooks are especially important in countries with low incomes, large classes, many unauthorized teachers and insufficient teaching time. "Next to an engaged and prepared teacher, well-designed textbooks in sufficient quantities are the most effective way to improve instruction and learning." (UNESCO 2016, p. 1).

Steiner (2017) summarizes what research says about teaching materials. He highlights that teaching materials are a decisive factor for students to successfully complete school, and that teaching materials with context and deep content are used in all high-performing school systems. Steiner's (2017) conclusion is that teaching material is very important. The English school curriculum expert Tim Oats also highlights the role of high-quality textbooks, especially during the improvement of school systems, but also the supportive role that high quality textbooks have on high quality teaching and learning (Oates 2014).

In the 1990s, the central approval of textbooks in the Finnish school system ended, but teachers still use textbooks to a great extent (Oates 2014). Textbooks are produced by teacher educators and researchers, but the question is if the now not central approved textbooks still are of such high quality and supports the national curriculum and policy documents, as in the 1990s. The results from the latest PISA investigation will be very interesting regarding global competences and SDG 4. How did the Finnish pupils perform in this area? Moreover, an important question that needs to be the object of further research is: If textbooks are this important, do the textbooks used by teachers in Finland cover the sustainability issues and targets within the SDGs?

#### **3. So, Why Is Sustainability Not Implemented in Education?**

So, why is sustainability not successfully implemented in teacher education? Is it only because nations chose to focus on things that the PISA tests measure, to perform in the global competition with other countries? This might be one reason, but there are also other issues identified.

One of the key issues/problems for implementing sustainability in education in the Nordic countries seems to be the teacher's lack of knowledge and the leaders' lack of interest in the issue. This is probably due, in part, to the complexity of the concept of sustainable development (Hofman 2015; Wolff et al. 2017). This complexity is the reason why sustainability education is characterized by a holistic approach (Boeve-de Pauw et al. 2015). According to research (Boeve-de Pauw et al. 2015; Uitto and Saloranta 2017; Borg Carola et al. 2014), school teachers, both in Sweden and Finland, are not able to adapt this important holistic view of education for sustainability, due to their own lack of a holistic understanding of sustainable development as a concept (Hofman 2012; Borg Carola et al. 2014). Borg Carola et al. (2014), Hofman (2012) and Wolff et al. (2017) state that there is a problem within teacher education, when it is not able to develop the holistic thinking needed for understanding the sustainability concept. Here is a main obstacle for implementing sustainability in the educational system; student teachers learn how and what to teach through teacher education, but as Goodwin, Smith, Souto-Manning, Cheruvu, Ying Tan, Reed and Taveras (Goodwin et al. 2014, p. 284) point out, "teacher educators cannot teach what they do not know". It all goes back to teacher education and the teacher educators—if newly qualified teachers do not know how to teach about sustainability, then there is an issue within teacher education.

Wolff et al. (2017) found these reasons for ignoring the sustainability in the Finnish teacher education: sustainability is in conflict with overall trends in society and politics; teacher education takes place at universities and is based on separate academic disciplines. Sustainability is also intricate because it is strongly connected to ecological literacy, and it is value dependent. Universities need to overcome these obstacles and become forerunners in the sustainability process (ibid.). Ignoring sustainability in teacher education will not lead to the achievement of the 17 SDGs.

As mentioned earlier, Finland is well known internationally for its highperformance education according to the PISA tests. One contributing cause of Finland's high PISA results in 2000 is probably the very competent and highly educated teachers who teach in Finnish schools. This is a result of the high-quality teacher education in Finland, where teacher education has been provided as university education since the 1970s (Wolff et al. 2017). Teacher education in Finland is a very

popular first-hand choice for new students, and the teacher education institutions can choose top students to their education. The teacher education for both primary and secondary school teachers leads to a higher academic degree, indicating that the Finnish teachers are very well educated. However, according to Wolff et al. (2017), this does not mean that Finnish teachers are prepared to teach about sustainability issues, as sustainability seems to play a minor role in Finnish teacher education. This is possible because Finnish universities are autonomous, and can decide the content in their educational programs.

The fact that Wolff et al. (2017) state that graduated teachers do not know how to teach about sustainability makes it quite remarkable thataccording to the decree on national goals of education and the Basic Education Act, sustainable development is included in basic education in Finland. It feels provocative that Finnish teachers are not taught how to teach about sustainability, even though it is actually written in Finnish law, and highlighted already in the Finnish core curriculum 1994. The Finnish core curriculum from 1994 (Finnish National Board of Education 1994) states that biodiversity, equality, democracy, human rights and cultural diversity build the main values which touch the targets in SDG 4 to a great extent, and in the core curriculum from 2004 (Finnish National Board of Education 2004), and in the current version from 2014 (Finnish National Board of Education 2014), the importance of sustainability is even more outlined. However, at the same time, it is obvious that educators have more policy documents than the core curriculum to follow (Wolff et al. 2017), and a lack of time and knowledge is often stated as a cause that the teachers do not teach about sustainability (Borg Carola et al. 2014; Hermans 2016).

#### **4. We Need to Change the Way We Think and Act—But How?**

To achieve a high-quality education that includes sustainability, research indicates that change is needed in both early childhood teacher education and teacher education. In 2017, UNESCO pointed out the need for a new way of thinking:

Sustainable development cannot be achieved by technological solutions, political regulation or financial instruments alone. We need to change the way we think and act. This requires quality education and learning for sustainable development at all levels and in all social contexts. (UNESCO 2017)

One of the five identified obstacles for implementing sustainability in teacher education was that sustainability is intricate, because it is strongly connected to ecological literacy (Wolff et al. 2017). Research indicates that an ecological illiteracy has developed during the past few decades (Palmberg et al. 2017). Our planet suffers from air pollution, biodiversity loss, deforestation and other problems (Wolff et al. 2017), due to our continued unsustainable way of living and a major environmental threat, which has now been given more attention by Greta Thunberg´s climate actions in 2019, is climate change (ibid.), which is interconnected with consumption (Ivanova et al. 2016), and thus a part of the unsustainable system. However, how can the mindset of humans be changed?

Market forces that now control the system in most of the world glorify consumerism as a requirement to achieving happiness, and society members are convinced by market forces that development and happiness are dependent on economic growth (Salonen and Konkka 2015). However, there are indications that our consumerism instead of making us happy is driving us toward illness and alienation from the social relations that increase our wellbeing (ibid.). Studies across countries show that increases in income per capita and levels of happiness do not correlate to any great extent (Salonen and Konkka 2015; Andersson and Eriksson 2010), and it now appears that values other than economic, for example living with (social relations) and for other people (doing things for others), are more important to human wellbeing than economic growth (Helliwell 2014). This is an indication that our unsustainable lifestyles and consumption do not even give us the benefits we think they do, and calls for a new way of thinking (Hofman-Bergholm 2018a).

Today, consumerism is the main focus of almost all societies over the world and world politics focuses on economic growth (Assadourian 2013; Bauman 2007; Salonen and Konkka 2015) except one, Bhutan, where Bhutan's Fourth King Jigme Singye Wangchuck already in the early 70s indicated: "Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product (GNP)" (Freeman 2005, p. 1).

Bhutan's development policy, Gross National Happiness (GNH), represents an alternative policy for economic growth instead of focusing on gross national product (GNP). The GNH development policy includes the conservation of environment and equitable socio-economic development. Bhutan focus on sustainable development in their education, through values in the education and the pedagogical practices. A study (Ahonen et al. 2018) of Bhutan´s secondary school students' views about their countries GNH policy concludes that the GNH development policy and the quite recently initiated GNH value education has succeeded. Bhutan has also developed a GNH teacher training, which is successful in the implementation of GNH in their school system. This needs to be shared globally to promote sustainable development education (ibid.).

Mankind needs alternative plans for the future, for the safe existence of the planet and for an economic growth and it should all be based on systems thinking (Bunge 2000; Sterling 2009; Ahonen et al. 2018). UNESCO calls for a change in how we think and act, but how do we manage this change? UNESCO places education in a key position to enable this change, but so far, the desired results have not been achieved, even though ESD has been on the agenda for more than a decade (Hofman-Bergholm 2018a). Perhaps ESD is not enough; there is probably something still lacking that is crucial for an overall change to begin. Hofman-Bergholm (2018a) found common denominators in the nature of ESD and systems education through a literature review, and argue that there are indications that ESD and systems education could benefit from each other. Systems education and ESD could obviously constitute an interlinked common ground for sustainability education throughout the world, instead of being bounded from each other. This new learning approach with systems thinking linked to ESD could emphasize the development of different levels of systems' understanding, such as learning how to work in transdisciplinary teams, teaching basic ecological key concepts which is necessary for a holistic understanding of the sustainability concept and promoting value discussions, deliberation and action competence (Hofman-Bergholm 2018a).

Palmberg et al. (2017) and Hofman-Bergholm (2018a) argue that systems thinking can be a part of this new kind of thinking UNESCO is asking for. There is an increasing recognition that there are strong links existing between systems approaches and the sustainability goals (Cavana and Forgie 2018). Systems education helps people understand that their individual actions and choices contribute to an interconnected system, determining both the well-being of humans and the planet (ibid.). Therefore, systems thinking and systems education need to be incorporated in the education of teachers, because there is a necessity to develop an educational programme that provides individuals with knowledge about how different actions and choices affect the whole society (Palmberg et al. 2017; Hofman 2015; Hofman-Bergholm 2018a). Systems education can help transition towards a sustainable planet (Cavana and Forgie 2018).

Pramling Samuelsson (2011) highlights the '7Rs' as one way of thinking about a pedagogy for ESD in early childhood education; these Rs stand for: respect, reflect, reduce, reuse, repair, recycle and responsibility. These Rs both could and should serve as a base for all kind of education throughout the educational systems. These Rs should be the leading words for all activity and tasks in a lifelong education, from birth to death.

To overcome the obstacles found in teacher education for implementing sustainability, writing new agendas, policy documents and new curriculums is not enough. (Hofman 2012; Hofman 2015; Wolff et al. 2017; Hofman-Bergholm 2018a; Hofman-Bergholm 2018b). It appears as the development of systematic and holistic competences are dependent on repetition during the entire education of future teachers—occasional courses are not enough (Brandt et al. 2019). A reorganization of teacher education to address sustainability and systems thinking is probably necessary to educate student teachers in these issues (Hofman-Bergholm 2018a, 2018b). It would be of great importance that all teacher students develop a system thinking perspective, so the newly qualified teachers and early childhood education teachers learn how to teach systems thinking skills to children for a sustainable future. Teacher education programmes should therefore include such a form of systems thinking that is based on critical thinking, deliberation and action competence and use the '7Rs' to promote the understanding of the sustainability concept in the study programs for teachers and early childhood education teachers. Sustainability cannot be taught without involving systems thinking (Palmberg et al. 2017).

However, to reorganize and change the whole system of teacher education is time-consuming, and adding some compulsory courses on the concepts of sustainability, ecological principles and systems thinking for all teacher students could serve as a stopgap (Hofman-Bergholm 2018a), but in the long run, a reorganization of teacher education institutions toward a systems and action approach to solve complex sustainability problems will be necessary (Hofman-Bergholm 2018a, 2018b; Brandt et al. 2019). In a recent article, Hofman-Bergholm (2018a) put forward some suggestions and recommendations around what and how to reorganize teacher education institutions.

#### **5. Textbooks and Teacher Education—Something Worth Investing in for All Countries**

To achieve SDG 4, there is still a lot to do for every nation worldwide. Moreover, what we need to bear in mind is the different starting point that every nation needs to fulfil the goal and its targets. The difference between global south and north needs to be taken in to account, as developing and developed countries need different perspectives and strategies to reach SDG 4. Perhaps some of the targets within the goal need to be left unfulfilled in some countries, to put focus on the most basic parts to be fulfilled. In poor countries, the focus should be on developing quality education and quality early childhood education and adult education for everyone, both boys and girls, black and white. In richer countries which are already considered

to have developed a high-quality education, the focus needs to be on the educators, in teacher education, general education and early childhood education, to develop their understanding of how and what to teach for a sustainable future, as researchers seem to agree on the fact that a sustainable future depends on how the next generation is educated.

The most important goal should be to reach consensus on the concept of sustainability. Teacher educators need to be educated in sustainability to be able to educate student teachers, and teacher education institutions need to be re-organized to include sustainability in every part of education. In-service teachers need to be educated and to help in-service teachers in their work; there need to be high quality textbooks available with high quality content regarding sustainability (from systems thinking and how your choice affect society to climate change and how we affect nature and climate).

The importance of textbooks has also been lifted forward in this chapter. Research shows that textbooks and teaching materials count and affect teaching, and this is why it is highly important that it supports the curriculum content. This means that who writes the teaching materials and chooses the content of the textbooks is fairly important. One can even ask if teaching materials should be state approved to assure the support of the curriculum, as it seems to be a focal point of quality in teaching.

The availability of textbooks of high quality, and with a content that supports the teachers' work in implementing the curriculum content and objectives in their teaching, is a very important corner stone for the education, both in rich and poor countries.

So, how can we achieve an education that "ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning" as the SDG 4 states (UN 2015)? Transformation and change, in a quite urgent manner, are needed at all levels of education, and in all societies. We now must open our eyes and look around to find the alternative plans for the future, and the general education in Bhutan could provide an example of an education that has successfully implemented ESD in its system.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

Ahonen, Päivi Anneli, Eila Jeronen, and Riitta-Liisa Korkeamäki. 2018. How to Live Happy and Good Life? Secondary School Students' Views about Bhutan's Gross National Happiness Policy. *International Journal of Environmental & Science Education* 9: 703–18.


© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## **Systems Thinking Research in Science and Sustainability Education: A Theoretical Note**

#### **Güliz Karaarslan Semiz**

#### **1. Introduction**

The current global problems related to climate change, energy, environment and economic inequality are complex and systemic problems, which require systemic solutions (Capra and Luisi 2014). These problems are not only the subject of science, but also the subject of geography, philosophy, economy and history (Booth-Sweeney 2017). For a sustainable world, all these problems need to be addressed together, considering the social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainability (National Research Council (NRC) 2012). At this point, education plays a crucial role to shape individuals' knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be responsible citizens for a sustainable world. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) adopted at the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Summit emphasize that all learners should acquire the necessary knowledge and skills for sustainable development until 2030. Seventeen SDGs highlight the main themes of sustainable development, which are justice, peace, equity, and gender (Osman et al. 2017). SDG 4 underlines that all people should have equal access to education and promotes lifelong learning opportunities for all people (United Nations UN). It is important to develop teachers' capabilities and increase the quality of education to deal with the complex problems of today. Particularly for children living in low-income countries, the fragile environment should be strengthened with the necessary knowledge and skills for sustainability. It is crucial to address poverty, climate change and inequality, which are interrelated problems whose solutions are interlinked (United Nations UN). Students and teachers should see these important issues as systems that interact and affect each other (Booth-Sweeney 2017). Systems thinking is a necessary tool to understand these problems and find solutions to them (Meadows 1991).

Systems thinking is a combination of different skills and is a higher order way of thinking (Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion 2005; Senge 1990). Systems thinking is related to thinking in terms of connectedness, understanding relationships, patterns and contexts (Sterling et al. 2005). According to Senge (1990), it is a discipline to understand the complex systems and the interconnections among them. Systems thinking helps

one understand how the whole system works, the fundamental reasons behind the problems, and how to find solutions to these problems (Meadows 2008). For instance, in order to understand climate change, we first need to understand how the climate works as a system, the social, political, and environmental factors affecting climate change and the relationships among these factors (Booth-Sweeney 2017). In a similar way, a watershed ecosystem includes the dimensions of a system and the relationships among them. The interconnection among geological, ecological, atmospheric and hydrological systems is important for the sustainability of the earth system (Logan 2018). Furthermore, in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, integrated, holistic and multidisciplinary approaches are required, which implies putting systems thinking into practice in education (Reynolds et al. 2018).

Systems thinking has received the increasing attention of educators in recent years and has been investigated in different disciplines such as science education (e.g., Batzri et al. 2015; Brandstadter et al. 2012; Riess and Mischo 2010), biology education (e.g., Fanta et al. 2019; Zangori and Koontz 2017), engineering education (e.g., Gero and Zach 2014), and sustainability education (e.g., Ate¸skan and Lane 2018; Connell et al. 2012; Sandri 2013; Remington-Doucette et al. 2013). In these studies, different research methods, measurement tools, instructional strategies and different systems thinking models have been used. Moreover, systems thinking has been investigated in various fields of study, such as ecosystems, climate change, energy transfer, and the groundwater systems (e.g., Evagorou et al. 2009; Pan and Liu 2018; Shepardson et al. 2014).

In science education, understanding complex systems and their functions requires systems thinking (Pan and Liu 2018). National Research Council (NRC) identified science education standards and focused on the core ideas and cross cutting concepts. The NRC framework included the core ideas related to the complex structure of ecosystems and the dynamic relationships in ecosystems. The NRC framework further addressed systems thinking as a cross cutting concept of understanding systems and system models. Various studies have examined students' understandings of complex systems (Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion 2005, 2010a; Jin et al. 2019; Puttick and Raymond 2018). Understanding complex systems is a challenging process. For example, climate change education is generally considered to be challenging because it includes complex structures which are difficult for students to understand (Orion and Ault 2007). First, students should understand the carbon cycle system in order to understand the impact of carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere (Puttick and Raymond 2018). If students can perceive climate as

a system, then they can gain a better insight into the connection between climate, climate change, environment and humans (Roychoudhury et al. 2017).

The systems thinking perspectiveis critical to understanding theinterconnectedness in natural systems. In order to find solutions to sustainability problems, integration of knowledge about natural and human systems and collaboration between disciplines are needed (Remington-Doucette et al. 2013). Thus, systems thinking is regarded as a central component to achieve sustainability literacy (Nolet 2009) and the key competency that teachers should have in the field of sustainability education (UNESCO 2018). It is not easy to understand sustainability issues without a systems thinking perspective (Cloud 2005). Therefore, it is important to foster teachers' systems thinking skills so that they can create teaching strategies to enhance the systems thinking skills of their students (Lavi and Dori 2019).

In order to develop the systems thinking skills of students, different approaches and strategies have been proposed in several research studies. In a recent study, Schuler et al. 2018 designed courses to measure and improve pre-service teachers' systems thinking skills. They created a competence model and measured the four dimensions of systems thinking (declarative system knowledge, system modeling, solving problems using systemmodels, and evaluation of systemmodels). They revealed that pre-service teachers' systems thinking and their pedagogical content knowledge to teach systems thinking can be improved through teacher education programs.

Lavi and Dori (2019) also conducted a research study in order to foster and evaluate systems thinking skills of science and engineering pre-service and in-service teachers. They developed a method to create a common language, a shared terminology related to systems thinking for science and engineering teachers. Thus, they contributed to the literature methodologically by developing a valid and reliable rubric to assess systems thinking skills.

In another study, Brandstadter et al. (2012) examined the effectiveness of the concept mapping technique to measure students' systems thinking within the context of science education. The participants of their study were primary and secondary students and they found that computer-based concept mapping is an appropriate tool to make large scale assessments in systems thinking.

Research studies to facilitate and assess systems thinking skills in science and sustainability education have increased in recent years. It is important to examine these studies in terms of their research methodology and the systems thinking models that they used. In this way, similar and different aspects of these research studies can be explored, and the gaps in the literature can be identified to guide future studies.

#### *Systems Thinking Models*

Systems thinking has been investigated in various contexts, and different systems thinking models have been used. To be able to find a common framework for the systems thinking research, it is important to examine these models. In this part, systems thinking models used in the science and sustainability education context were presented briefly to understand the structure of these models. These models were categorized based on the dates when they were developed.

The system dynamics and systemic reasoning models were developed in the 1990s and used in educational research. Systems dynamics in education was first reported by Forrester (1992) and refers to learning by doing to change mental models (Forrester 2007). Through a systems dynamics approach, students develop problem solving skills and learn cause–effect relationships between concepts (Forrester 1992). Systems dynamics are related to integrating real life systems into computer simulation models to explore the complex structure of the systems (Forrester 2007). Systems thinking skills include dynamic complexity, positive and negative feedback processes, stock-flow relationships, recognizing delay, understanding their impacts and identifying non-linearities (Booth-Sweeney and Sterman 2000). Stock–flow relationships, feedback loops and relationships are considered aspects of systems dynamics (Nuho ˘glu 2014).

Chandler and Boutilier (1992) developed a model related to systemic reasoning that includes four aspects. The authors argued that systemic reasoning is useful to understand open dynamic systems like ecological systems. The systemic reasoning model was used in recent research studies. Hokayem and Gotwals (2016) used four aspects of systemic reasoning to design learning progression within the ecological issues context. The four aspects of systemic reasoning determined by Chandler and Boutilier (1992) are as follows:


Richmond (1991, 1993), who is an expert on systems thinking, described that individuals with a systemic perspective can see both the forest and the trees. The author noted the gap between the nature of the current problems of the world and our understanding of them. To reduce this gap, systems thinking should be understood well. Richmond (1993) suggested a systems thinking model that

constitutes seven aspects, which are dynamic thinking, closed loop thinking, generic thinking, structural thinking, operational thinking, continuum thinking, and scientific thinking. These seven aspects show the multidimensional nature of systems thinking and each of them should be developed for better learning (Richmond 1993).

Hmelo-Silver and Pfeffer (2004) noted that it is important to recognize complex systems like ecosystems, in order to understand the interconnectedness of the world. For example, while learning ecological systems, it is necessary to envision how individuals, populations and communities interact with each other (Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007). In general, the characteristics of complex systems are difficult to understand. There are complex interactions among the components of complex systems, and these interactions are mostly nonlinear, including positive and negative feedback loops (Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion 2005; Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007). If a change occurs in the components of a complex system, the stability of the whole system can be disrupted (Roychoudhury et al. 2017). These complex systems can be understood from different perspectives, like the systems dynamics model and the structure-behaviour-function (SBF) model (Hmelo-Silver and Pfeffer 2004). The SBF model formulates the essential principles to understand complex systems and allows understanding the structural elements in a system, the components of a system, the purpose of these components, and the mechanisms that enable the functioning of these components (Hmelo-Silver and Pfeffer 2004). In science education, students experience difficulties in learning complex systems (Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion 2005). For example, they mostly learn simple linear relationships and visible components of ecosystems (Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007; Hogan 2000). In order to develop students' understanding of complex systems, computer-supported and hands-on activities have been suggested as useful tools (Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion 2005, 2010a; Hmelo-Silver et al. 2015).

Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion (2005) studied systems thinking in the field of earth system science and developed a structural hierarchical model to determine the characteristics of systems thinking. Orion (2002) maintained that understanding the earth's subsystems and their relationship with the environment requires understanding what science is. When students develop an understanding of water systems, they can understand the important role of water systems in global ecosystems (Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion 2005). The authors listed eight emergent characteristics of systems thinking within the earth science context, as follows:


Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion (2005) emphasized that a system thinker should first understand a system's components and interactions. In order to reduce environmental threats to earth systems, dynamic and cyclic relationships should be identified. Understanding the human impact on water cycle systems of using fertilizers and pesticides can be an example of understanding dynamic relationships. Moreover, according to the authors, there might be hidden dimensions of systems that might not be seen at the first glance. The authors, for instance, noted several questions for the water cycle system, such as "What is the cause of groundwater pollution?", "How can people be affected by that pollution?" and "How long can those chemicals stay in the rocks?". They suggested that these kinds of questions are needed to have backward- and forward-thinking skills. In other words, it is important to consider the impact of current problems on our future life.

Stave and Hopper (2007), on the other hand, suggested a model which includes a taxonomy of systems thinking. The authors developed this model based on the systems dynamics literature and the interviews with systems educators, in order to determine individuals' systems thinking levels. The authors categorized seven systems thinking components based on the levels of Bloom's taxonomy. These systems thinking components are recognizing interconnections, identifying feedback, understanding dynamic behaviour, differentiating types of variables and flows, using conceptual models, creating simulation models, and testing policies. These are the dominant systems thinking components which were derived from the literature.

Recently, Arnold andWade (2015) compared various systems thinking definitions and determined different and common points. Then, the authors suggested a new definition for systems thinking that can be used in a variety of disciplines, focusing on the goals and elements of system thinking and the interconnections among these elements. The authors combined different elements of systems thinking, such as interconnections, feedback loops, stock and flow relationships, non-linear relationships and dynamic behavior, and stated that their systems thinking definition can be used in systems thinking research studies.

Within the scope of sustainability education, researchers focused on various systems thinking models, and discussed systems thinking as one of the key competencies of sustainability education (e.g., Sleurs 2008; UNECE 2011; Wiek et al. 2011). Sleurs (2008) defined systems thinking as recognizing that we are a part of the global system and understanding the relationship between environment, economy and society. Riess and Mischo (2010) defined systems thinking as "the ability to recognize, describe, model and explain complex aspects of reality as systems". Based on this definition, Fanta et al. (2019) designed the heuristic competence model of systems thinking within the sustainability education context. This model included four dimensions, which are "declarative system knowledge" (knowledge of different system properties), "system modeling" (understanding complex systems by system models), "solving problems using system models", and "evaluation of system models". This model was used to create effective approaches to develop the systems thinking skills of students and teachers. Furthermore, Karaarslan-Semiz and Teksöz (2020) determined twelve systems thinking skills, in the science and sustainability education context, based on the literature. The authors described some of these skills as identifying the components of a system; hidden dimensions; interrelationships among the social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainability; time dimension; recognizing personal role in the system, and the cyclic nature of the system. In order to improve the systems thinking skills of pre-service science teachers, the authors designed an outdoor education for a sustainability course, and they explored whether that outdoor education course could develop pre-service science teachers' systems thinking skills.

Some systems thinking models within the science and sustainability education context were examined and are presented in Table 1. Although these systems thinking models have similarities and differences, they are mostly based on the early definitions of systems thinking, such as that of systems dynamics by Forrester (1992) and the systems thinking approach by Richmond (1993). The systems thinking components proposed in these models are all important and interconnected. As seen in the analyzed articles, researchers have mostly used these models to design systems thinking interventions and assess the systems thinking skills of the learners.



Based on the discussion above, the author aimed to present the whole picture of systems thinking models in science and sustainability education and methodological and instructional insights related to systems thinking research. It is expected that this literature review will provide several directions for future research studies. The following research questions guided this study:


#### **2. Materials and Methods**

This study aims to review the recent research studies on systems thinking in science and sustainability education. A systemic review was conducted in order to find appropriate articles for reviewing. In particular, the studies conducted in the past 10 years, from 2009 to 2019, were examined. Major journals in science education and sustainability education were found. In some journals, appropriate articles for this study could not be found; therefore, they were not included in the study. A search was conducted based on the terms systems thinking, science education, education for sustainability, education for sustainable development (ESD) and sustainability education. Most of the articles were written in English. Only two of the selected articles were written in Turkish. The articles were selected in terms of the following criteria:


The articles were divided into two groups: studies with and without intervention. Articles as theoretical notes and literature reviews about systems thinking were not included in the study. Consequently, 17 journals were selected and examined. In these journals, 32 articles fulfilling the above-mentioned criteria were analyzed. The selected journals and articles are presented in Table 2.


Qualitative content analysis was performed to analyze the selected articles (Frankel and Wallen 2006). The articles were analyzed based on the categories of topics, systems thinking models, and research methodologies. The methodology sections of the articles were categorized in terms of sample, research design, data collection process, and instructional design (if there was an intervention). Each article was read several times by the author, and a data analysis table was constructed for

each article. The selected articles were examined based on the above-mentioned categories. The following section presents findings of the data analysis.

#### **3. Results**

As stated earlier, the selected articles were analyzed based on the pre-determined categories, which are topics, systems thinking models and research methodologies. Coding tables were created for each article. Table 3 shows an example of the coding system of two articles.


**Table 3.** An example of the coding of the articles in terms of topic, systems thinking models and research methodologies (with and without intervention).

According to the content analysis results, three categories of topics framed the research studies, which are "complex systems", "sustainability issues and global problems" and "earth system science". The findings showed that the research content of 47% of the articles included sustainability issues and global problems, followed by complex systems and earth systems.

In terms of research methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative research designs were adopted in the selected articles. Notably, 53% of the articles included intervention in order to foster students' systems thinking skills. Moreover, 47% of the articles included descriptive studies such as assessing the current level of systems thinking skills of students. Notably, systems thinking researchers mostly preferred experimental and qualitative research designs.

Moreover, the selected studies included various participant groups from primary school to undergraduate level. Lower secondary school students were found to be the most studied sample (40%). It was observed that the number of studies conducted with primary school, upper secondary school and undergraduate students was limited. Moreover, both qualitative and quantitative data collection tools were used in the studies. In fact, systems thinking researchers mostly preferred written assessments (40%) and interviews (28%) to evaluate systems thinking levels of students. The authors were less likely to use quantitative measurement tools to assess systems thinking skills. Table 4 shows the analysis of the selected articles in terms of topics and research methodologies.

Lastly, systems thinking models used in the selected articles were examined. It was explored that systems thinking researchers used various systems thinking models. The most commonly used systems thinking model was the systems thinking hierarchical model developed by Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion (2005). The model of understanding complex systems and emergent perspectives and the structure–behavior–function model were also used in the analyzed articles to explain complex systems. There are some similarities related to the components of systems thinking in these models. The dominant characteristics of systems thinking explored in the models were the identification of components of a system and the interconnections among these components, understanding the dynamic and cyclic relationships, identifying the feedback loops, recognizing the hidden dimensions, and exploring the impact of current practices on future practices (time dimension). All these characteristics of systems thinking have been described in systems thinking models. Table 5 summarizes the systems thinking models and the number of articles that used these models.

Instructional strategies most frequently used in the intervention studies were "inquiry-based learning", "game-based education", "problem-based learning", "computer simulation programs", "outdoor learning" and "group work". Among these instructional strategies, inquiry-based teaching and computer simulation programs were the most commonly used teaching methods to improve systems thinking skills. Moreover, researchers used different teaching strategies together. For instance,

game-based education, computer simulation programs and inquiry-based education were applied together to foster students' systems thinking skills. Figure 1 shows the instructional strategies used in the analyzed articles.





**Figure 1.** Instructional strategies used in the analyzed articles.

#### **4. Discussion and Conclusions**

The current problems we encounter are dynamic, complex and wicked sustainability problems, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, poverty, and

the degradation of ecosystems (Chandler and Boutilier 1992; Wiek et al. 2011). Systems thinking is necessary to gain insight into these interrelated problems and to produce sustainable solutions (Capra and Luisi 2014). Systems thinking needs to be applied in science and sustainability education, in order to understand complex systems, such as ecosystems, socio-cultural and economic systems. Students can only actively participate in sustainability actions when these complex and dynamic relationships are understood (Riess and Mischo 2010). Therefore, systems thinking is a critical skill in science and sustainability education. Karaarslan-Semiz and Teksöz (2020) emphasized the importance of fostering pre-service science teachers' systems thinking skills so that they can contribute to developing the systems thinking skills of their future students.

Through this literature review, various topics, research methods and systems thinking models in the selected research studies were examined. Furthermore, the gaps in systems thinking research in the science and sustainability education context were explored. In the analyzed articles, the majority of the researchers focused on sustainability problems, ecosystems and the components of the earth system (particularly the water cycle). The earth system is a complex and dynamic system including interactions between the subsystems of the earth, and human activities impact the whole system (National Research Council NRC). Systems thinking is a good perspective to understand how the earth system works. Within the framework of National Research Council (NRC), it was emphasized that, before students proceed to secondary school, they should understand the major systems of Earth (geosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere). They should understand that there is always interaction among Earth's systems (Lee et al. 2019). For this reason, researchers have assessed the systems thinking skills of students in the subjects of water cycle, carbon cycle, ecosystems or climate system (e.g., Shepardson et al. 2014; Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion 2010b). In the analyzed articles, sustainability problems were also used as a topic to determine the systems thinking skills development of students. A holistic view of global sustainability problems helps learners see the comprehensive picture and contribute to problem solving (Connell et al. 2012).

This literature review further revealed that researchers mostly conducted systems thinking studies with lower secondary school students. In the literature, there are some discussions about the age and grade level that are appropriate for teaching systems thinking skills (Lee et al. 2019). As the systems thinking is a higher order skill and difficult to foster, it is important to engage students in all age groups and grade level (Zohar and Dori 2003). Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion (2010b) suggested that systems thinking skills can be taught and mastered at elementary school level. Therefore, in the future, more studies relevant to systems thinking skills development can be conducted with elementary school students. In the current analysis, it was found that fewer studies focused on developing student teachers' and undergraduate students' systems thinking skills. Fanta et al. (2019) pointed out that studies on how to improve the systems thinking skills of adults are limited. Future systems thinking studies may be conducted in the higher education level. For instance, more intervention studies can be administered to foster the systems thinking skills of student teachers, as they can facilitate the learning environment to improve their future students' systems thinking skills. Science teachers and teachers linked to sustainability related subjects should have fundamental knowledge of system science and the ability to apply this knowledge to solve sustainability problems (Fanta et al. 2019). Therefore, in order to enhance the systems thinking skills of teachers, systems thinking should be integrated into teacher education programs. More research can be conducted to develop the systems thinking curricula in teacher education.

According to the data analysis, qualitative research tools including written assessments and interviews were mostly preferred to assess systems thinking skills. In addition to qualitative tools, multiple assessment techniques such as Likert type questionnaires, scales and two or three tier tests can be used to measure systems thinking skills. Brandstadter et al. (2012) argued that there is a need to develop appropriate measurement tools to assess systems thinking skills in educational studies.

In terms of research methodology, more than half of the examined studies included intervention studies and described different instructional strategies. The most common instructional strategies applied to foster systems thinking skills were inquiry-based teaching and computer simulation programs. Researchers also used problem-based learning and group work in the intervention studies. The least mentioned instructional strategies were outdoor learning and game-based education. Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion (2010a) emphasized that inquiry-based outdoor and indoor learning activities can be effective to develop students' systems thinking skills. According to Fanta et al. (2019), problem-based instruction is an effective tool to develop a deeper understanding of complex systems. Jeronen et al. (2017) also emphasized that field work, field trips and problem-based activities are useful strategies to develop students' knowledge and interest in sustainability. Therefore, more intervention studies can focus on both indoor and outdoor learning strategies, to enhance the systems thinking skills of students.

Lastly, systems thinking models used in the selected articles were examined. In the published studies to date, different systems thinking models have been

used according to the context of the research studies. The majority of the researchers used the systems thinking hierarchical model, complex systems and structure–behavior–function model as a framework. Researchers and educators agree that systems thinking is critically important to understand the complexity of the current problems and to propose solutions to them (e.g., Senge 1990; Meadows 2008; Arnold and Wade 2015). However, a variety of definitions of systems thinking can be found in the literature. Arnold and Wade (2015) emphasized that there is a need to create a precise definition of systems thinking, including, especially, three kinds of information, namely "purpose", "elements" and "interconnections". Previously, Meadows (2008) emphasized that these three aspects are the crucial components of systems thinking. In this study, it was explored that researchers particularly emphasized several components of systems thinking, which refer to interconnections, dynamic and cyclic relationships, feedback loops, hidden dimensions and time dimensions. Karaarslan-Semiz and Teksöz (2020) pointed to the affective dimensions that can be included in a sustainability education context. In future studies, systems thinking models may include more affective dimensions, such as building empathy with people and non-human beings and developing a sense of connectedness to nature. Affective or psychological factors can be considered in future systems thinking inquiries.

As a conclusion, in the analyzed articles related to science and sustainability education, it was found that researchers investigated different topics and used various measurement tools and research methodologies with different target groups from the primary level to higher education. This literature review revealed that the number of research studies conducted with primary, upper secondary school students and student teachers is limited. Future studies may be conducted with these target groups. In addition to qualitative research, quantitative and mixed research methods can be applied in the systems thinking research. Furthermore, curriculum analysis can be conducted to be able to integrate the systems thinking skills into curriculum programs. In teacher education programs, systems thinking courses can be designed to foster student teachers' skills and their pedagogical content knowledge to teach systems thinking to their students.

In the current times, we have complex problems that need urgent solutions. Developing the systems thinking skills of the individuals is extremely important to build a sustainable future. As this review revealed, more research is needed to nurture and evaluate students' systems thinking skills in science and sustainability education. Especially in disadvantageous regions, systems thinking oriented school programs can be designed to achieve equal and inclusive education and to improve

learning outcomes for all individuals. Future studies may investigate the ways to integrate systems thinking into science education curriculum and design systems thinking integrated science and sustainability education programs.

**Acknowledgments:** I would like to thank Arran Stibbe for reading this chapter and giving his valuable comments and suggestions.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### **Finnish Subject Student Teachers' Views on Their Social Competencies at the End of Their Educational Studies**

#### **Eija Yli-Panula, Eila Jeronen, Sofia Vesterkvist and Pekka Tolonen**

#### **1. Introduction**

The study described in this paper is part of the project OVET (Opettajankoulutuksen valinnat—ennakoivaa tulevaisuustyötä) concerning the Finnish primary and subject teachers' competencies (Metsäpelto et al. 2020). The aim of the study is to examine the Finnish subject student teachers' social competencies in teaching students about sustainable development (SD) with respect to local, regional, and global environmental issues. The primary focus is on the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4), which includes ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all. SDG4 pertains to the quality of education for improving the quality of life through innovative solutions to the world's greatest problems (UNESCO 2017).

Teacher qualification in Finland depends on a university-based education. The subject teacher qualification requires 180 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits for a lower degree and at least 120 ECTS credits for a university degree, which includes or is supplemented by courses totalling at least 60 ECTS credits in teacher pedagogical studies. Pedagogical studies offer a wide range of qualifications for teaching in basic, high school, and other educational institutions. They consist of basic and specific subject studies in education and include education in science and studies of science as a subject as well as teaching practice. In addition, the subject teacher is required to have sufficient subject matter knowledge (Korppas 2008, p. 2). The participants of this survey were subject student teachers from Finnish-speaking universities. The results were redrived from content-based analyses.

Humans impact the physical environment in many ways: overpopulation, pollution, burning fossil fuels, and deforestation. These factors have triggered climate change, soil erosion, poor air quality, and undrinkable water. These resulting negative impacts can affect human behavior. Education is seen as a means to guide the human community towards sustainable lifestyles as it has been found to positively affect both environmental awareness and attitudes (Nisiforou and Charalambides

2012; Fletcher 2000). Thus, the important questions are: What should be taught in the future? What should future teachers be able to do? What do subject student teachers feel they are capable of or prepared to do? and What do they think they can do as teachers?

Sustainable development education (SDE) aims at sustainability and a sustainable society. It addresses environmental issues and SD as both developing and improving the living environment, as well as ensuring the participation and empowerment of the people. It also increases awareness of environmental issues and their social impacts, negotiating what issues to address, promoting environmental justice, and gathering the resources and partners necessary to confront these issues. Thus, SDE supports the achievement of the United Nations' SD goals (UNESCO 2017).

The way individuals work at school is influenced by the school culture, a historically mediated system of meaning. Its elements are the norms, values, beliefs, ceremonies, rituals, traditions and myths of the school community (Stolp 1994; Silvera 2017). Therefore, the focus of SDE should be on action competence, critical thinking, deliberation, and understanding how one's choices affect local, national, and global societies and the entire biosphere (Wolff et al. 2017). Action competence is part of social skills and competencies (Metsäpelto et al. 2020).

#### **2. Theoretical Background**

#### *2.1. Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Environmental Theory*

In this study, student teachers are thought to live and study in an environment comparable to that described by Bronfenbrenner. According to Bronfenbrenner (1994) ecological environment theory, the individual is an active factor affecting the environment, which must adapt to the conditions of the environment. The environment is understood to consist of nested entities of various scales and their interrelationships within micro-, meso-, exo-, macro-, and chronosystems. A microsystem is a pattern of activities, social roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given face-to-face interaction. A mesosystem is a system of microsystems. An exosystem comprises the linkages and processes taking place amongst two or more settings, at least one of which does not contain the developing person, but in which events occur that indirectly influence processes within the immediate setting in which the developing person lives. A macrosystem consists of the overarching pattern of the micro-, meso-, and exosystem characteristics of a given culture or subculture, with particular reference to the belief systems, bodies of knowledge, material resources, lifestyles, opportunity structures, hazards, and life course options that are embedded

in each of these broader systems. A chronosystem encompasses change or consistency over time, not only of the characteristics of the person but also of the environment in which that person lives (Bronfenbrenner 1994).

#### *2.2. Teachers' Competencies in Connection to the MAP Model and Social Competences*

The multidimensional adapted process (MAP) model of teaching is based on the study of Blömeke et al. (2015). A MAP model consists of the following: (a) dimensions of competencies, (b) situation-specific skills, and (c) professional practices (Metsäpelto et al. 2020). Dimensions of competencies are divided into five groups. Cognitive competencies are (1) the knowledge base for teaching and learning and (2) cognitive skills. Non-cognitive competencies are (3) social skills, (4) personal orientations and (5) professional well-being. The focus of this article is on the social skills.

Teachers need social skills both in the classroom as well as when working with colleagues outside the classroom. This has been attested to in the literature (Jennings and Greenberg 2009). This has also been supported by the responses that primary school teachers have given in the ongoing survey at the University of Turku for students five years after they have graduated. According to these findings, the most important working life skill is the ability to cooperate (Aarresaari 2017).

The MAP model further divides social skills into relational skills, emotional competency, diversity competency, and intercultural competency and interaction. Relational skills are needed to be able to act constructively and reciprocally take into account others' views and to be able to listen to and provide others with the personal and professional space they need. This also includes negotiating and conflict management. Emotional competency, in turn, consists of the ability to perceive and recognize one's own and others' emotions and their causes and effects. An emotionally competent teacher is also able to regulate and express emotions in an appropriate way. Diversity competency involves the ability of a teacher to see and value every child as an individual. It also means that the teacher possesses the skills to prevent processes of marginalization and to promote the furtherance of equality and participancy. Intercultural competency and interaction give the teacher the ability to interact and communicate in multicultural contexts. Thus, the teacher is sensitive to how ethnicity, language, age, religion, gender, sexuality, and social class can lead to oversimplifications, misunderstandings, and prejudices.

This article focuses mostly on relational skills and the emotional competency of the subject teacher students.

#### *2.3. Teachers' Competencies in SDE*

According to Brundiers and Wiek (2017), the knowledge dimensions required for integrative SD include content knowledge, methodological skills, communication skills, collaborative teamwork, participant engagement, project leadership ability, continuous learning ability, and self-care. According to UNESCO (2017), the key competences for sustainability comprise the following eight different competencies. Systems thinking competency (e.g., to recognize and understand relationships and analyze complex systems), anticipatory competency (e.g., to understand and evaluate multiple futures, create one's own visions for the future, and deal with risks and changes), and normative competency (e.g., to understand and reflect on the norms and negotiate sustainability values that underlie one's actions to principles, goals, and targets) are situated in the cognitive domain (Velazquez and Rivas 2020). According to Velazquez and Rivas (2020), the socio–emotional domain comprises strategic competency (e.g., to collectively develop and implement innovative actions), collaboration competency (to learn from others) and critical thinking competency (e.g., to question norms, practices, and opinions; to reflect on one's own values, perceptions, and actions), and the behavioral domain includes—for its part—self-awareness competency (e.g., the ability to reflect on one's own role in the local community and global society) and integrated problem-solving competency (e.g., the ability to develop solution options to promote sustainable development by integrating the abovementioned competences).

The key competencies for sustainability can be understood as "transversal, multifunctional and context independent" (Rychen and Salganik 2003). They represent the particularities that citizens who work to achieve sustainability need to sort out at present, as well as complex forthcoming challenges. They are relevant to all SDGs and enable individuals to relate the different SDGs to each other—to see 'the big picture' of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015). The key competencies represent cross-cutting competencies that are necessary for all learners of all ages worldwide. Thus, teachers, including subject teachers, should be able to master the issues concerning the key competences for sustainability and be able to apply their knowledge in teaching situations.

#### *2.4. Strategies for SDE in Finnish Subject Student Teachers' Studies*

On the one hand, policy documents and strategies request SDE at all levels, including teacher education in Finland. On the other, Finnish universities are autonomous when it comes to decisions regarding the scope of SDE and practice, and there are no common models for how to integrate SDE into university courses

and teacher education (Wolff et al. 2017). SDE is seldom compulsory in Finnish subject student teachers' study programs. As a result, there is great variation in teacher educators' knowledge and skills about how to integrate and teach SD issues to the subject student teachers. This ultimately means that the main responsibility lies with the biology and geography educators with a particular focus on ecological SDE. The other two dimensions, economic as well as social and cultural SDE, are also introduced. Both the worldviews and methods of solving worldwide problems are seen in the Finnish policymaking documents and strategies (Ministry of Education 2006; Ministry of the Environment 2007).

National policy documents and action plans describe goals and offer ideas on how to implement SD at all levels of education (Ministry of Education 2006; Ministry of the Environment 2007). In these documents, the citizens are strongly encouraged to learn to maintain social, cultural, and economic well-being without depleting natural resources or overloading nature's delicate balance. According to Wolff et al. (2017), this means that the role of education and training is to ensure that all citizens have the knowledge, skills, readiness, and vision that will enable them to build a sustainable and reasonable future and commit to a sustainable way of life. According to the Basic Education Act (Finlex 2001), social dimensions of the SDE are emphasized, such as responsibility and collaboration promoting tolerance as well as trust among human groups, people, and cultures.

The emphasis on SD regarding teacher education curricula has become stronger in recent years, but differences exist amongst the teacher education programs of Finnish universities. Due to the diverse strategic goals of the universities, the SD goals might be difficult to achieve in Finnish teacher education programs (Wolff et al. 2017). This means that SDG4—which relates to the quality of education as part of student teachers' 'social competencies' in teaching SD, which is within the focus of this study—may not be attainable. Thus, we decided to study the Finnish subject student teachers' competencies, especially the social competencies.

#### **3. Research Questions (RQs)**

Wolff et al. (2017) have argued that qualified Finnish education fails in SDE. In response to their study, the authors wanted to investigate what subject student teachers regard as core environmental problems in SDE (RQ1), while also focusing on the subject student teachers' social competencies (RQs 2, 3, and 4). The four RQs of the study are as follows:

1. What kind of environmental problems do the subject student teachers regard as core environmental problems at the local, regional, and global levels?

	- a. How keen is the subject student teacher in participating in social communication?
	- b. What kind of social capacity does the subject student teacher think she/he has?
	- c. What kind of things does the subject student teacher think influences her/his decision-making?
	- a. How keen is the subject student teacher in participating in the development of the school culture regarding SD?
	- b. What kind of things does the subject student teacher think influences her/his decision-making?

In the Material and Methods section, the analyses are presented according to RQs 1–4 and questions in the questionnaire.

#### **4. Materials and Methods**

#### *4.1. Collection Methods of Material*

The material was collected using a web-based questionnaire (Webropol 2.0) in the spring of 2019. The target group consisted of the subject student teachers who spoke Finnish as a first language and who had completed at least 25% of their pedagogical studies before the survey. A total of 1200 subject student teachers from six universities in Finland were sent an invitation to participate in the survey and the link to the questionnaire by email. The response time was six weeks and three days. Two reminders of the survey were sent to the prospective participants. Participation in the study was voluntary, and the subject student teachers were allowed to complete the questionnaire at the time and place most convenient for them. However, due to the voluntary nature of the survey, the target population may not have been uniform, and the survey may have been answered in very different environments and situations.

In total, 142 subject student teachers responded to the survey. However, the answers of four of subject student teachers were excluded from the analysis of the results because they had not yet completed at least 25% off their pedagogical studies. The final analysis thus covers the responses of 138 subject student teachers. The majority of the respondents were women (74.6%) aged 20–29 years (69.6%). Of the remaining respondents, 30.4% were over 29 years of age, and approximately 82% had completed most of their pedagogical studies (over 75%); however, most had little to no experience in actual teaching (83.3%). The respondents studied natural sciences, mathematics, humanities, their mother tongue, and foreign languages. Additionally, one subject student teacher was studying physical education, and two participated in adult education.

#### *4.2. Analysis Methods*

The research material was primarily handled in a data-driven manner. However, Saloranta's doctoral dissertation's themes of social and cultural sustainability, as well as UNESCO's definition of SD and SDGs, were used to formulate the questions on the questionnaire (Saloranta 2017; UNESCO 2017). The questionnaire included both open-ended and multiple-choice questions, and its main focus was on the open-ended questions. The questions dealt with SD and students' social skills, but these themes were not specially addressed directly in the questions to the subject student teachers. The estimated duration of the survey was 15 min. The following sections describe the questions in the questionnaire and their analysis in more detail.

#### 4.2.1. The Subject Student Teachers' Perception of Major Environmental Problems (RQ1)

The kind of environmental problems the subject student teachers regarded as core environmental problems at local, regional, and global levels were the initial focus of the study (RQ1). In the questionnaire, the subject student teachers were asked about the key environmental problems at each individual level. To avoid overlapping in analyses, a clear division was made between ecological, economic, social, and cultural problems.

In the study, the problems of pollution and destruction of terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems, biodiversity, climate change, and air pollution were classified as ecological environmental problems. The economic problems of the environment were defined as those related to people's unsustainable lives: overconsumption, point sources, traffic, and waste. For example, traffic encompassed both the heavy use of transport and the disadvantages of public transport. Similarly, waste referred to a large amount

of waste, littering, and deficiencies in waste management, whereas overconsumption referred to the excessive use of matter and energy, such as favoring instant fashion and unsustainable returns on energy. The point sources mainly dealt with factories but also agricultural emissions. Social and cultural problems included human health and well-being and such human rights as access to food, water, and education as well as equality.

#### 4.2.2. The Subject Student Teachers' Opportunities to Influence on Environmental Problems (RQ2)

Secondly, the kind of opportunities the subject student teachers felt they had to socially influence the local, regional, and global environmental issues were studied. The subject student teachers were also asked how and with whom they would solve the environmental problems. Here, too, they were allowed to respond individually at different levels. The answers of the subject student teachers were divided by further sorting them into different solutions based on their impact on other people and their knowledge, views, and decisions. The solutions included collaboration, education, and influencing attitudes (action to change attitudes) or policies (civic participation). Attitudes can be affected by setting an example for others or by increasing the positive interest of others in the environment. Policies can have an influence by voting, strikes, or other methods of manifestation. Social solutions also involve policy decisions, volunteering, and various forms of innovation and research for SD. Social action, in turn, can lead to more sustainable neighborhoods and influence people's consumption choices. The key impact of policy decisions is described, for example, in the following answer:

The use of fossil fuels and other emissions-producing activities can both be enforced and directed to more environmentally friendly activities through legislation and taxation. It creates a situation where there are no other cost-effective and sensible solutions. (female student 136 = F136, at the regional level, policy decision)

The subject student teachers were also asked whom the students thought is responsible for solving environmental problems. Three categories were used in analyzing the subject student teachers' answers. If the subject student teachers included themselves as problem-solvers, the answer was labeled 'I'. If subject student teachers mentioned other problem-solvers, but not themselves, the answer was labeled 'others'. If the answer contained no solver, the answer was marked as 'not detectable'.

4.2.3. The Subject Student Teachers' Understanding of the Social Relationships in the Classroom (RQ3)

The third research question concerned how the subject student teachers identified and understood the social relationships in the classroom. One question in the questionnaire was designed to determine the subject student teachers' actions in two school-related social situations from the teacher's perspective. The questionnaire included different statements for students to choose from. How to solve the school-related social situations concerning disputes in the class was the focus of the first question (Part 1), and organization of a class trip was the focus in the second one (Part 2).

In the first question, the following case was presented: Two students started to argue in the classroom after the teacher left the class. It was possible to resolve the situation by either promptly returning the students to their seats, letting the headmaster talk to the quarrelers, or by dealing with the dispute either in the classroom or in the corridor. The subject student teachers were also asked to justify their choices. In a question regarding the organization of a class trip, the teacher had to contact the tour staff because all students did not fit within the capacity of the tour. The subject student teachers were able to explain their own ways to solve the situation. Frequent themes were picked from the subject student teachers' answers focusing on what kind of things affected their decision-making.

The following statements were also made to the subject student teachers (Part 3): 1. Continuous economic growth is possible; 2. Economic equality will be achieved between the welfare states and developing countries in the next few years; 3. The school day should start at eight o'clock; 4. Finland can afford to cut forests at the current rate; and 5. The traffic rules should always be followed. This article does not elaborate on the subject student teachers' reasoning for these statements, but it defines the subject student teachers' confidence in their own opinions. Certainty of subject student teachers' confidence in their own opinions was divided into strong opinions, statements, beliefs, and uncertain opinions. Strong opinions used an exclamation mark or other means of confirmation, such as 'of course' or 'definitely', in sentences related to the reality of the statement. In turn, beliefs used mitigating expressions or emphasized one's own opinion, such as 'probably' and 'I think'. In uncertain opinions, the subject student teachers clearly stated that they did not control the subject and did not know if their answer was correct.

4.2.4. The Subject Student Teachers' Likelihoods to Influence the School Culture with Respect to SD (RQ4)

Firstly, the study sought to determine how the subject student teachers saw their likelihood to influence the school culture with respect to SD at the school where they worked in the future with respect to sustainable development. RQ4 had two secondary questions: How keen is the subject student teacher in participating in the development of the school culture regarding SD? and What kinds of things the student thinks influence her/his decision-making? The subject student teachers' general interest in influencing their school environment from the perspective of SD was also studied. The question was implemented on a sliding scale divided into 10 sections, where 8–10 meant interested and 10 very interested in SD. Secondly, the subject student teachers were asked an open-ended question about a problem in their school community and their more specific thoughts on how to solve it. Thirdly, they were asked to choose the three most important ways of influencing school culture based on the themes of social and cultural sustainability presented by Saloranta (2017).

According to Saloranta, the themes that meet the criteria of social and cultural sustainability are the well-being of staff and students, school and school safety, prevention of bullying and exclusion, student care and other learning support, cultural environment, customs and traditions, and multiculturalism and internationality. In the questionnaire, the corresponding options included a vegetarian food day once a week, reducing traffic speeds near the school, reducing online bullying with a specialist visit, setting up a hobby club for school pupils' leisure activities, learning about local cultural sites and landscapes, and taking the celebration culture of minority groups into account in school activities. The options in the questionnaire did not directly follow the same principles as the SD themes; for example, a vegetarian food day involves not only well-being but also an ecological approach. However, they were all central to the values of social and cultural SD.

#### **5. Results**

#### *5.1. The Subject Student Teachers' Perception of Major Environmental Problems (RQ1)*

The subject student teachers mentioned ecological and economic environmental problems more often than cultural and social problems and other environmental problems (Figure 1). Economic problems were most often mentioned at the local level and ecological problems at the global level.

**Figure 1.** The environmental problems at local, regional, and global levels that were mentioned by the subject student teachers were further divided into ecological, economic, social and cultural problems, as well as other environmental problems. Other environmental problems included problems in the school environment and people's indifference to environmental problems.

Climate change was considered to be the most important environmental problem at the global level; however, it was also mentioned at the local and regional level (Figure 2). Air pollution was also considered as central to global warming as well as other sources of air pollution: traffic, overconsumption, and point sources. In addition to climate change, the respondents mentioned biodiversity loss, land pollution, deforestation, and water pollution. At a regional level, there was concern about logging in Finnish forests and the state of the Baltic Sea. At a global level, rainforests were frequently mentioned. A subject student teacher wrote and explained this as follows: 'Global warming, extreme weather phenomena, ocean acidification. The list is long. I think every one of them is central and interrelated to each other' (F74).

The subject student teachers most often referred to waste at the local level, with an emphasis on littering and lack of recycling. At the global level, they most often mentioned plastic; microplastics in the sea were mentioned only in two answers. The biggest concern in the transport sector was driving private cars and the lack of public transport. At a global level, the effect of airplanes was mentioned a few times.

**Figure 2.** Environmental problems mentioned by the subject student teachers at local, regional, and global levels. The graph only covers ecological (terrestrial ecosystem, air pollution, climate change, biodiversity, aquatic ecosystem), economic (overconsumption, point sources of pollution, waste, traffic), and social and cultural (human well-being, human rights, equality) environmental issues. In addition, the subject student teachers mentioned problems in the school environment and the general disregard for the environment.

There were a few mentions of social and cultural problems. Problems affecting well-being included health problems caused by poor air quality. Human rights problems referred to famine and depletion of clean drinking water, as well as refugee and human inequality. The inequality of women was highlighted in the context of the problems caused by population growth. Human genetic engineering was seen as a threat to the future.

#### *5.2. The Subject Student Teachers' Opportunities to Influence on Environmental Problems (RQ2)*

The subject student teachers found international cooperation and reasonable construction to be important in solving environmental problems (Figure 3). Reasonable construction was seen as sustainable when it had, for example, well-functioning public transport, waste management, and recycling opportunities. Furthermore, the importance of the policy was perceived to be essential at the regional and global levels. At the local level, in particular, household consumption choices and education were considered necessary.

**Figure 3.** The solutions for environmental problems at local, regional, and global levels mentioned by the subject student teachers.

In most of the answers, the subject student teachers excluded themselves from the solvers of the environmental problems, and only the responsibility of other parties was identified (Figure 4). Some of the answers did not identify the solvers at all, and in the remaining answers, the subject student teachers presented themselves as the solvers of environmental problems. For example, the family, school pupils and staff, big companies, policymakers, the European Union, UNESCO, the United Nations, and rich nations were mentioned as problem-solvers. The subject student teachers' role in solving environmental problems was less pronounced at the regional and global levels than at the local level.

**Figure 4.** The subject student teachers' views (n = 138) on who will act as a solver of environmental problems. In some of the answers, the problem-solver was not detectable, and in some cases, the respondents excluded themselves from the possible problem-solvers (Other). In other responses, the subject student teachers considered themselves to be problem-solvers, either alone or as one of the other problem-solvers (I).

#### *5.3. The Subject Student Teachers' Understanding of the Social Relationships in the Classroom (RQ3)*

#### 5.3.1. Dealing a Dispute in Class (Part 1)

The questionnaire results indicate that subject student teachers would preferably clarify the situation with the disputants either in the classroom (42.0%) or in the corridor (37.7%) when dealing with a dispute in class. A minority of the subject student teachers (20.3%) thought that they would ignore the dispute and return to the lesson being taught, while no one would ask the principal to settle the dispute, preferring to deal with it themselves. Many subject student teachers mentioned that their solution would depend on either the severity of the dispute and the physicality, personality, or nature and habits of the disputants and other students (29.0%).

The subject student teachers who thought that they would quickly deal with the matter were those who initially thought the dispute was small. Some subject student teachers stated that if the dispute was more serious, it could be directed to the principal. Otherwise, the dispute would be dealt with by the teacher and the disputants after the lesson or would be left unresolved. The reason for this choice was that arguing would take class time from other students and reduce their ability and opportunity to learn. The dispute was considered to not belong to other students. The answers emphasized the idea of student equality and their right to learn content. For example, one student teacher stated: 'Probably a small dispute so it's best to simply return to the subject' (F21).

The subject student teachers who would resolve the dispute in the corridor emphasized the idea that the dispute must be resolved, but that other students should not be involved in the dispute. The dispute should be dealt with as soon as possible by the teacher dealing with the disputants because that would avoid future problems for the well-being of students, as well as making it easier to pass the subject. The answers also revealed a certain amount of emphasis on educational work. The respondents did not want to include other students in the dispute due to the rights and well-being of individual students and because it allowed others the possibility to focus on the content being taught. The subject student teachers wanted to provide disputants with an equitable and peaceful environment in which to deal with a situation where no one would feel embarrassed or would have to deal with their personal issues in public. They also thought that the private conversation might lead to a more in-depth discussion. Some of the answers also highlighted the teacher's own responsibility in resolving the situation. One subject student teacher wrote:

It is better to have the dispute handled in person, without the class being present, so that things can be talked through. In the meantime, the rest of the class can do tasks, for example. However, the issue should not be ignored but cleared up, and the causes of the dispute should be discussed. (F8)

The subject student teachers who noted that they would settle the dispute in the classroom also indicated a desire to deal with the dispute immediately to avoid future problems. They wanted to settle the dispute amongst everyone, emphasizing the idea that other parties are an indirect part of the situation. This answer emphasized the equality of students, but as mentioned earlier, in most cases, the subject student teachers wanted to teach content in the name of equality, thus addressing the situation with the whole class for the sake of well-being and maintaining a positive atmosphere. In addition, the answers emphasized the role of education alongside the content of the subject and the opportunity created by the situation to develop skills for handling social situations. Some of them also mentioned the school's rule about not leaving the class unattended during the lesson. In addition, they stated that they would not want to leave other students alone to avoid more arguing. One participant expressed this idea: 'I want to hear the views of all of those present in the situation so that I can find out what has really happened. I want the class to see how conflicts are resolved constructively' (F98).

#### 5.3.2. Organizing a Class Trip (Part 2)

The subject student teachers were also asked to present a solution to a situation where the class is making an excursion that not everyone will be allowed to go on due to occupancy restrictions. Most subject student teachers wanted to end up with a plan and to discuss it with the tour staff (58.7%). Some, in turn, were ready to directly ask the tour staff's opinion on the problem without a plan (12.3%). The rest of the answers (29.0%) did not show any social interaction with other people on the trip. One suggested solution was to change the destination or to divide the class into groups and then make several visits.

In addition to the solutions presented above, other commonly occurring issues were noted in the answers. For example, one-third of the subject student teachers also had an alternative plan. Usually, the alternative plan was ready to be implemented if the first plan with the tour staff did not work. Some subject student teachers questioned the controversial situation (11. 6%). The number of resources was also mentioned (10.1%). For many of them, it was important that every student has the possibility to join the excursion. In several answers, this was emphasized separately in addition to the solution (18.8%). Excluding other students was a less common option, either directly (2.9%) or as a fallback option (5.1%).

#### 5.3.3. Responding to Different Statements (Part 3)

The subject student teachers were given five statements that they had to mark as true or false and justify their answers (see Table 1). The statements were: 1. Continuous economic growth is possible; 2. Economic equality will be achieved between the welfare states and developing countries in the next few years; 3. The school day should start at eight o'clock; 4. Finland can afford to cut forests at the current rate; and 5. The traffic rules should always be followed. The subject student teachers substantiated their statements in different ways, and these were divided based on opponents into strong opinions, statements, beliefs, and uncertain opinions. Most answers were statements without strong expressions of feeling. Strong opinions were more represented in the answer option (True/False) that was more common amongst the other subject student teachers. An exception to this was statement 4, where strong opinions appeared in both true and false answers.

**Table 1.** Subject student teachers' answers to the statements and the certainty of the answers. The statements were: 1. Continuous economic growth is possible; 2. Economic equality will be achieved between the welfare states and developing countries in the next few years; 3. The school day should start at eight o'clock; 4. Finland can afford to cut forests at the current rate; and 5. The traffic rules should always be followed.


#### *5.4. The Subject Student Teachers' Likelihood to Influence the School Culture with Respect to SD (RQ4)*

The fourth research question was designed to determine the subject student teachers' interest in influencing school culture in the context of SD. About 70% of the subject student teachers were interested, and nearly 25% of them were very interested in participating in the school's culture of SD (Figure 5). More specifically, they preferably wanted to influence bullying prevention in the school environment (Figures 6 and 7). In addition, the well-being of school staff and students, as well as student welfare, was seen as a meaningful part of influence.

In general, the subject student teachers saw bullying and inequality (53.4%) to be major problems in the school community (Figure 6). Other problems for students (18.1%) and teachers (16.4%) in the school community were also central to this. They were concerned also about teacher exhaustion, the poor work atmosphere, and lack of collaboration skills amongst teachers. They argued that teachers today are being overly pressured to use digital devices and implement other innovations, and that this could result in their relationships with colleagues being poor. They also

expressed concern about students' exhaustion, motivation problems, and lack of skills in areas such as civility, cooperation, and language skills (Finnish as a second language = S2 students). They also mentioned electronic devices and their harmful effects.

**Figure 5.** The subject student teachers' willingness to participate in the development of the school culture regarding sustainable development (SD).

**Figure 6.** Problems of the school community mentioned by the subject student teachers in the open-ended questions (%). The teachers' section included both teacher well-being and lack of collaboration skills, and the pupils' section included well-being, motivation, and scholarship.

Inefficiencies in inclusion and integration were mentioned several times (7.8%), and they were usually linked to the lack of resources in the school. Class sizes were considered too large for teachers to control. Noted health and environmental problems (4.3%) included indoor air problems, loss of food, lack of recycling, and laziness in implementing sustainable development. The questionnaire also asked them to describe a multidisciplinary approach to any solution; however, this did not suit many of the stated problem situations. All the same, even in other problems (for example, bullying), multidisciplinary teaching methods were often considered ineffective.

**Figure 7.** The level of importance concerning the subject student teachers' willingness to participate in the development of different school culture subjects regarding SD. This was a multiple-choice question, and the subject student teachers had to choose three answers in order of their importance based on the available options. The options were based on Saloranta (2017) social and cultural sustainability themes.

The subject student teachers wanted to influence the same things they saw as a problem in the school environment. They thought that teachers' decisions were primarily applied to equality, the creation of a good atmosphere, security, and the well-being of the students (Figure 7). They wanted to make the school environment a pleasant place where everyone had the same rights and opportunities. They felt that bullying weakens this possibility the most. They also shared personal experiences of bullying, as one subject student teacher wrote: 'I think bullying is the worst thing a student can experience. Bullying on the Internet is a difficult and "invisible" dilemma that deserves greater attention for its possible eradication' (F6). The subject student teacher's willingness to participate in the development of the school culture is 9 (Figure 5), and they had chosen "Prevention of Bullying" as the most important subject in which to participate (Figure 7).

In addition, the teachers wanted to influence current problems and provide students with opportunities for developing civility and spiritual growth. The importance of the environment and the students' interests were also reflected in the answers. However, the subject student teachers themselves were not very interested in participating in school physical safety.

#### **6. Discussion**

The subject student teachers were aware of the existence of SDE in school, in general. Global, regional, and local environmental problems were identified as well as some methods to solve these problems. These results were in keeping with the Finnish policymaking documents and strategies (Ministry of Education 2006; Ministry of the Environment 2007; Finnish National Board of Education 2013, 2014). However, they did not see social disadvantages as environmental problems as much as ecological and economic disadvantages.

In earlier studies, it has been shown that the young pupils and students highlighted and brought up littering as a major environmental problem (e.g., Loughland et al. 2002; Palmberg and Kuru 2000; Ercan 2011; Yli-Panula et al. 2019) which was also the case in this study. The results of this study showed that the subject student teachers were concerned about littering at the local level. The results also showed that the Finnish subject student teachers were aware of the adverse effects of climate change, especially at the global level. However, for example, no swamps were mentioned in the answers, although this has been the case in media. Climate change is a diverse socio-scientific issue (Sadler 2011), and it is regarded one of the biggest health threats of the 21st century (Watts et al. 2015; Robbins 2015; McIver et al. 2015). In the article of Yang et al. (2018), Chinese medical students were found to be less likely to adopt a global view of the impacts of climate change. Climate change as a topic-specific epistemic belief has been shown to be very likely culturally bound (cf. Bråten et al. 2009).

The subject student teachers in this study were not very much aware of social disadvantages. They believed that environmental problems can be solved both by social means, such as international cooperation, politics, and education, and also by sustainable consumption and reasonable construction (cf. Ercan 2011). In their opinion, environmental problem-solvers include schools, politicians, and large companies, and they stated that their responsibility for solving environmental problems is greater at the local than at the global level.

With respect to the school community, the subject student teachers attached great importance to student equality and well-being. This was reflected in their practices in the school community and their interest in the influence of school culture. Therefore, they saw bullying as one of the biggest problems in the school community, and they wanted to contribute to its prevention. This result differs from previous research results, for example, that classroom cohesion and self-efficacy in social conflicts have been shown to be directly associated with students' willingness to intervene in bullying situations (cf. Wachs et al. 2018), and it is important to also take this into account in SDE. The subject student teachers were also concerned about the well-being of teachers and students within a demanding working community. In general, they were interested in the impact of SD. These results support those of previous research (Andersson et al. 2013). Amongst other things, they wanted to increase vegetarian meal opportunities in schools and reduce food waste. They assessed their social capacity as generally being good, but they also often wanted to make their own decisions, ignoring social help or opinions. Thus, based on the results of the study, it seems that it is important that teacher educators see, according to Bronfenbrenner's ecological environmental theory (1994), the starting points for SDE from an individual perspective taking into account the student teachers' ideas and views when the goal is promoting equity, improving quality of life and well-being, sustaining natural resources, and protecting health.

The reliability of this study is based on methodological triangulation: a mixed method approach was used, and several type of questions (e.g., open-ended and closed questions) were used in each research question. The reliability is also supported by the four researchers who participated in all phases of the study, for example, coming to an agreement on the analysis concerning the subject student teachers' answers (Lincoln and Cuba 1985). The reliability of the study is also supported by the earlier findings of other researchers. However, this study also has limitations. Although the number of participants is quite small, it still gives an overview of the Finnish subject student teachers' views of their social competencies.

#### **7. Conclusion and Implications**

According to the Finnish subject student teachers' views, they are concerned about core environmental problems on the local (e.g., littering, lack of recycling, people's well-being), regional (e.g., the state of the Baltic Sea), and global (e.g., climate change, human rights) levels. It is evident that they are interested in SD decision-making in school, and they value equality and the mental well-being of people. They expressed the belief that environmental problems can be solved both

by social means, such as international cooperation, politics, and education, as well as by sustainable consumption and reasonable construction. Thus, they believe we can achieve SDG4 and improve the quality of education; however, the authors stress the need to strengthen teacher training in social skills.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, E.Y.-P., E.J., S.V., P.T.; methodology, E.Y.-P., E.J., S.V., P.T.; validation, E.Y.-P., E.J., S.V., P.T.; formal analysis, E.Y.-P., E.J., S.V.; investigation, E.Y.-P., E.J., S.V., P.T.; resources, E.Y.-P., E.J., S.V., P.T.; data curation, E.Y.-P., E.J., S.V.; writing—original draft preparation, E.Y.-P., E.J., S.V., P.T.; writing—review and editing, E.Y.-P.; visualization, E.Y.-P., S.V.; supervision, E.Y.-P., E.J.; project administration, E.Y.-P.; funding acquisition, E.Y.-P., P.T.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, OVET project.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### **Start for Sustainable Development: Ecological Footprint**

#### **Hamdi KARAKA ¸S**

#### **1. Introduction**

The recognition of environmental problems on a global scale and the adoption of international measures took place in 1972 with the Human and Environmental Conference held in Stockholm. After that, UNESCO issued an "International Environmental Education Program" on 22 October 1975 and published a declaration called the Charter of Belgrade. In 1977, the "Intergovernmental Environmental Education Conference" was held in Tbilisi and the Tbilisi Declaration 1977 was published. The sentence, *"Environmental Education should contribute to the awareness of the economic and ecological interdependence of the modern world in order to create a spirit of international responsibility and solidarity"* was used in the final declaration of the conference in Tbilisi (Tbilisi Declaration 1977, p. 2). As a result of these three conferences, it was emphasized that defending and improving the environment is an inevitable task for humanity and that environmental education is a must for the generations currently living and will continue to live on earth. The Rio Summit in 1992 made significant contributions to Environmental Education. In this meeting, it was emphasized that environment and development could not be considered separately and that any development should be sustainable development (Misar 2000).

It has become inevitable that efforts to raise environmental awareness and environmental problems in a global sense should be made available at all levels of education levels starting from pre-school period through environmental education programs (Yücel and Özkan 2013). With environmental education, the aim is to help individuals develop positive attitudes towards the environment, thus leading them to sustainability by shaping their lifestyles with environmentally conscious behavior (Meyer 2004). This is because sustainability envisages increasing the biologically productive areas, ensuring their self-renewal and the maintenance of renewal capacities (Yıldız and Selvi 2015). Sustainability includes environmental–economic trade-offs from choices that affect social-ecological systems today and in the future, and it reflects a dilemma for us (Chapin et al. 2011). Therefore, sustainable development has become a necessity for a livable world. Sustainable development means

continuing without harming the economy (Taylor et al. 2007). While sustainable development is evaluated from an economic point of view, it aims not to ignore the environmental dimension and to use resources in a balanced and sparing manner by considering the next generations (Harris 2000). In the development policies to be implemented, it is important to protect ecological processes, sustainable use of resources and the conservation of genetic diversity (Soussan 1992). From this point of view, the aim of environmental education should be to provide awareness that will ensure sustainable development. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) emphasizes that individuals' attitudes towards sustainable environment should be replaced by education programs (IUCN 1991); The Rio Summit agenda 21 report (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)) states that the environmental value, attitude, skills, behavior and ethical awareness necessary for sustainable development are acquired through education (UNCED 1992). The 17th United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was published in 2015 as a framework program for the necessity of integrate the environment in all aspects of sustainable development (SDGs 2015). Among these goals, SDG 4 has been identified as "Quality Education" and emphasized that the education to be provided to the students in schools from an early age is a powerful tool for creating sustainable and flexible societies. Within the framework of the same objective, Quality Education is critical for promoting sustainable development, addressing environmental and development issues of the people and countries and increasing their capacity to create green sectors. Thus, with the sustainable development, the interests of future generations will be protected, the interests of today's people will be ensured, and a balance will be established (Collin 2011).

A modern understanding of environmental education should be considered, which addresses environmental elements with a holistic and sociocultural approach, emphasizes sustainability, and encourages individuals to act (Sauvé 2005). Pooley and O'Connor (2000) emphasized the necessity of activities to help students develop positive attitudes towards the environment as well as providing theoretical knowledge to the students, determined that the use of different methods and techniques is important in creating lasting behavior. The concept of "Ecological Footprint" for students in terms of environmental education and sustainability and awareness about this concept is one of the prominent activities. According to Wackernagel and Rees (1996), ecological footprint can be used as a method in games and school projects to enable sustainable lifestyle activities to realize concrete local practices such as mathematics, biology and physics taught

simultaneously. The concept of ecological footprint can be combined with in-school and out-of-school educational activities.

Based on this point, it was deemed important by the researcher to measure the relationship between sustainable use of resources and ecological footprint and the aim was to work with students at elementary level (primary school 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade; secondary school 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade) that form the basis of the educational process. The students in the elementary education process receive the information about Life Science, Science and Social Studies courses and the theoretical information about environmental education directly in this process, and they can implicitly perform activities for environmental education through other courses (MoNE (2017a, 2017b, 2017c)). When the related studies are examined, the lack of a study examining the concept of ecological footprint and student attitudes towards sustainable development together makes this research valuable. At the same time, this study is important in terms of measuring the ecological footprints of this group of students who will use the resources in the future and to determine their attitudes towards sustainable development and to determine the level of these students in order to provide a prediction for the teachers who are the practitioners of the educational process. Thus, the results of this study can contribute to the development of ecological footprint awareness in educational environments and increase the number of studies in this field. From this point of view, in this study, it was aimed to investigate the relationship between primary school students' ecological footprint average scores and their attitudes towards sustainable development.

#### **2. Theoretical Part**

#### *2.1. Destruction of Natural Resources*

Human beings obtain many elements that will help them continue their lives from the environment and the natural resources offered by the environment. When these natural resources are used in reasonable amounts, the world can renew itself and the natural cycle can be re-formed. While the changes that people made on natural life did not pose a threat to the ecosystem until the industrial revolution, unconscious interventions with nature led to the disruption of the natural balance in the ecosystem and ecological problems on a global scale (Özbu ˘gutu et al. 2014). Very important reasons, such as scientific and technological developments in the last century, overpopulation, the desire to use and consume more, urbanization played an active role in this issue, natural resources rapidly depleted, the interaction between living and non-living beings was disrupted and natural life changed. This change and careless use of resources brought about some

complications, also called "environmental problems" such as global climate change, perforation of ozone layer, destruction of forests, erosion, air, soil, water pollution, reduction of biological diversity, radioactive pollution and acid rain (Borden 1985; Sam et al. 2010). Developing countries with a relatively poor and vulnerable population are primarily affected by the consequences of such environmental changes (Rudolpha and Figge 2017). While these environmental problems are felt in small dimensions and at local levels in the middle of the last century, they are now increasingly being addressed globally (Özdemir et al. 2004). However, the point that should be kept in mind is that the threat posed by the problems will not only be the problem of the present day, it will also cause the needs of the next generation to be borrowed, and what they will need will be used up.

With the improvements in technology, people strive to dominate nature and strive to make their lives easier. On the other hand, governments aim to progress in every field so that they can provide a better life for the citizens and they use all natural resources as a prominent input. Thus, rapid economic growth and development is seen as the basic requirement for all states. Humankind has been thinking that everything can be taken and consumed, forests as a supply of paper and timber; seas as a source of fish and energy; plants and animals as sources of food and space as an endless source of resources to be conquered (Aydın and Aykaç 2016). However, the survival of human beings can only be ensured by the resources of the world, which have been greatly changed by humans themselves (Reece et al. 2013). Unfortunately, these resources are being used extensively today, and serious environmental disasters such as air, soil, water pollution, hunger, drought and the destruction of forests are threatening human life. However, humans giving up excessive consumption habits and gaining positive behaviors towards the environment will ensure that resources are not used more than necessary. Thus, the amount of pollution and waste in our world can decrease, environmental balance can be maintained, global climate change can slow down and the pressure on biodiversity can be reduced (EPA (1999)).

#### *2.2. Ecological Footprint*

Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees first introduced the concept of ecological footprint. Their goal was to find out how long the humankind could continue by taking away from the nature and leaving only waste and how long the resources in the world could withstand this situation (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Ecological footprint is a method created to calculate the burden of a certain population for the nature in which they are located (Huiqin and Linchun 2011). The concept of ecological footprint means the biologically fertile soil and water area needed to re-produce

the resources consumed by an individual, community, or activity with existing technology and resource management and to eliminate the waste it creates. Thus, the ecological footprint measures how quickly human activities are consuming the resources of nature and often presents us with biological capacity and the renewal capacity of nature (Bastianoni et al. 2012; Peng et al. 2018). In its simplest form, the formula *"Ecological footprint* = *Consumption x Required production area"* is used to make ecological footprint calculations. According to the ecological footprint estimates, it is reported that it is used as a way to estimate the effects of human beings on nature and that approximately 2 hectares of land is needed per person (Reece et al. 2013; Cunningham and Cunningham 2018). Ecological Footprint is calculated according to six different components: carbon footprint, agricultural land footprint, forest footprint, grassland footprint, built area footprint, fishing area footprint and is expressed with the phrase "global hectare" (gha) (WWF (2012)). These components are, briefly:


The ecological footprint has been developed to measure the impact of human activities on ecosystems. With the ecological footprint calculation, it is possible to measure the land and sea area needed to regenerate the natural resources consumed by a human being. To explain this with a simpler example, a person who consumes one bread (300 g) a day, the calculations aim to ascertain how much area should be cultivated for 120 kilograms of bread for that person to eat per year, how much area should be planted for the cotton in that person's clothes, how big of an area is the water that that person drinks is supplied from, etc. (Co¸skun and Sarıkaya 2014). Thus, ecological footprint measurements are made to obtain nutrients, produce resources, generate energy, eliminate waste and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide increased by photosynthesis through the use of fossil fuels (Kele¸s et al. 2008). According to the WWF (2018) report, the ecological footprint of the US citizen was determined to be equal to the footprints of 43 African citizens. Moreover, UAE, Qatar, Denmark, USA, Canada, Kuwait and Estonia are among the top 10 countries with the largest ecological footprint. It can be estimated that there is a relationship between ecological footprint and economic development and that ecological footprints of consumption in developed countries have increased. The most important reasons for this situation are the unsustainable consumption behaviors, high resource wastage and carbon emission increases caused by industrialization (Koru 2012).

The growth of the ecological footprint determined by the provision in productive ecosystems such as food, housing area, transportation and amount of waste consumed by the society and/or individual results in the destruction of biological resources (Akıllı et al. 2008). From this perspective, the ecological footprint refers to the sustainability relationship between the rate of human consumption of Earth's resources and the degree of healthy or unhealthy ecosystems. At the same time, it is a concept that brings up questions such as what is the share of people in environmental problems and "what can I do?" (Kaypak 2013). Since the ecological footprint reveals the relationship between natural resource supply and demand, it provides a scientific basis for recognizing imbalances and generating solutions (Günal 2018). The ecological footprint focuses more on consumption and gives clues about the damage that people create in nature. In this respect, it is considered that the calculation of ecological footprint reveals the dimensions of the pressure on ecosystem and has an important role in the development of ecological awareness and ecological consciousness. With the awareness of the ecological footprint, the pressure exerted by the consumer society on the planet can be reduced and the growing ecological footprint can be scaled down.

#### **3. Aim of the Study**

The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between elementary school students' mean ecological footprint scores and their attitudes towards sustainable development. For this purpose, the following sub-objectives were sought:


#### **4. Materials and Methods**

#### *4.1. Relational Survey Model*

In this research, the relational survey model, a quantitative research method, is used. An existing situation or phenomenon in the survey model is the approach that is tried to be described as it is. When conducting survey research, the researcher takes a sample from the population he wants to work with and asks survey subjects one or more questions about attitudes, perceptions, or behaviors (Stockemer 2019). In relational screening, the aim is to learn the change of more than one variable together and how it occurs, if there is any change. Starting from the most probable solution, these relationships are tested (Yıldırım and ¸Sim¸sek 2013). In this context, the relationship between the ecological footprint mean scores of elementary school students and their attitudes towards sustainable development was described and interpreted.

#### *4.2. Study Group*

Elementary school students (primary school 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade; secondary school 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade) participated in this study. Primary school students are between aged 6–9; middle school students are aged 10–13. Maximum diversity sampling method, one of the purposeful sampling methods, was used to determine the study group. With maximum diversity sampling, a relatively smaller study group is created, and it is aimed that this study group reflects the diversity of individuals who may be part of the problem to the maximum extent (Yıldırım and ¸Sim¸sek 2013). Thus, it is ensured that the sample group reflects the universe well. In this process, the researcher tried to select the sample group that could best reflect the elementary school student population and the data were collected in the second semester of the 2018–2019 academic year. The researcher contacted different elementary schools from three different regions of the country

(east, middle and west) and made appointment in advance to apply the data collection tools. The researcher went to the schools that accepted the appointment, informed the students on how the data collection tools would be answered and gave the students 20 minutes to answer the scale questions. As a result of data collection, 210 elementary school students from three different regions of the country (east, middle and west) were reached directly. Regarding the 210 students, the fact that they live in different parts of the country, reside in different settlements and study in different grade is thought to have a structure that can reflect the elementary student profile in the country (Table 1). Thus, maximum diversity was achieved.


<sup>1</sup> 1st grade is not included in the sample group because the literacy level is not sufficient.

#### *4.3. Data Collection Tool*

In this study, "Turkey Specific Ecological Footprint Calculator" developed by Kele¸s and Özsoy (2010) and "Scale of Attitudes Towards Sustainable Development" developed by Kaya (2013) are used together.

"Turkey Specific Ecological Footprint Calculator" was developed by Kele¸s and Özsoy (2010) as part of a project. The ecological footprint calculation tool consists of 16 questions in total with 5 questions in the food category, 3 questions in the goods category, 4 questions in the shelter category and 4 questions in the transportation category. The questions are about what foods elementary school students are fed with and how often, monthly consumption costs, the size of the house they live in and their expenses, energy consumption options and public transportation preferences and durations. Elementary school students were asked to answer the questions in the ecological footprint calculation tool individually. The ecological footprint calculation tool expresses the number of planets needed in the universe individually by the numerical values of the means taken by elementary school students.

"Attitude Scale for Sustainable Development" was developed by Kaya (2013). The scale has been prepared in a way to reflect the sustainable development attitudes of secondary school students and scale items have been shaped by social, environmental and economic sustainability dimensions of secondary school students. The validity and reliability studies of the scale were conducted by the scale preparer. The 5-point Likert scale consists of 21 items and 3 factors with social, environmental and economic sustainability dimensions. The ratings of these three dimensions are "completely disagree (1)", "disagree (2)", "slightly agree (3)", "agree (4)" and "fully agree (5)." It was suggested that this scale could be applied to different student groups (Kaya 2013). The researcher primarily piloted and tested whether the scale could be applied to elementary school students. This scale pilot was applied to 97 elementary school students who were not included in the research and after the analysis for the pilot application, the main application was started.

#### *4.4. Data Analysis*

The data collection tool was applied face to face to the elementary school students after the informed by the researcher in compliance with the principle of volunteering and without the name of the student on the forms. All data were randomly ordered and SPSS software was used for statistical analysis of the data. In this research, the data collection tool was applied twice as pilot application and actual application. The purpose of piloting is to test whether the Attitude Scale for Sustainable Development is a reliable data collection tool for elementary school students.

The pilot study was applied to 96 elementary school students who were not included in the sample group, and the obtained data were analyzed and Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as 0.92. The reliability coefficient of 0.80 and above indicates that the questionnaire is highly reliable (Büyüköztürk et al. 2012). In this context, it was decided that the scale could be applied to elementary school students, no changes were made on the data collection tool and the actual implementation was started.

In actual practice, this scale was applied to 210 elementary school students. The Cashier Meyer Olkin (KMO) value of the scale was 0.73 and the Bartlett Sphericity Test results (x<sup>2</sup> : 3494.115; sd:210; *p* < 0.05) were determined to be significant. This result shows that the data about the scale is suitable for factor analysis. In the actual application, the Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient for the whole scale and the reliability results for its sub-dimensions was calculated.

The reliability results of the sub-dimensions of the scale were high and the Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient for the whole test was calculated as 0.92 (Table 2) and the scale was considered to be highly reliable (Büyüköztürk et al. 2012).


**Table 2.** Reliability analysis of sub-dimensions of the scale.

Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests were performed for the normality of data sets applied to elementary school students. Looking at the results obtained from the tests, it was determined that the data were suitable for normal distribution (*p* > 0.05) and the skewness and kurtosis coefficients were in the range of +2 to −2. At the same time, Levene test was performed for each variable to evaluate the equality of variances and since the data showed normal distribution (*p* > 0.05), a decision was made to use parametric tests in the analysis of the measurements. Percentage, frequency and arithmetic mean were used in the analysis of the mean scores of the ecological footprint and attitude towards sustainable development of elementary school students. In the comparison of these mean scores according to gender, location and type of school, independent groups were analyzed by t-test and the effect size (eta square [η´ 2 ]) was calculated. *Cohen's d* formula, which is put forward by Cohen in effect size calculation is taken as a basis. According to Cohen, if the value of *Cohen's d* is less than 0.2, the effect size is small; if it is 0.5, medium and if it is higher than 0.8, the effect size is large (Kılıç 2014). The difference between the mean scores of the subscales of the Sustainable Development Attitude Scale was analyzed by ANOVA test.

The correlation between the ecological footprint mean scores of the elementary school students and the sustainable development attitude mean scores was calculated by correlation analysis and "Pearson Correlation" coefficient was used. The correlation coefficient (r) has a value between −1 and +1, which means a positive increasing

relationship as it approaches +1, a negative increasing relationship as it approaches −1, and a neutral relation as it approaches 0 and with Sig. (2-tailed) value a significant relationship is interpreted. At the same time, |r|< 0.30 is interpreted as a relationship with weak force, 0.30 < |r|< 0.70 is interpreted as medium–strong relationship and |r| > 0.70 is interpreted as a strong relationship (Büyüköztürk et al. 2012).

#### **5. Results**

In this study, it was aimed to investigate the relationship between primary school students' ecological footprint average scores and their attitudes towards sustainable development. The findings related to the sub-objectives formed in line with the aims investigated are given below.

#### *5.1. Findings on the Ecological Footprint Mean of Elementary School Students*

The answers of the elementary school students to the questions in the ecological footprint calculation tool were analyzed and the mean scores of the ecological footprints of elementary school students are calculated.

The mean ecological footprint scores of elementary school students are calculated as 2.11 gha (Table 3). This value indicates that more than two worlds will be needed to meet the needs of elementary school students. Mean ecological footprint scores of elementary school students were compared with independent groups *t*-test according to gender, location and type of school and the results.

**Table 3.** Ecological footprint mean scores of elementary school students.


The difference between the mean scores of ecological footprints of elementary school students was not statistically significant according to gender and location variable (*p* > 0.05), but according to the type of school variable it is statistically significant (*p* < 0.05) (Table 4). The effect size of the difference between the school type variable scores (η´ 2 ) was calculated as 0.42 and this value was determined to be a moderate effect since it was 0.2 < *Cohen's d* < 0.8. The mean scores of ecological footprints of the students in the secondary school education process are lower than the students in the primary education process which was the previous education level. This situation can be interpreted as the education process reducing the mean scores of students' ecological footprint with a moderate effect.


**Table 4.** Comparison of mean ecological footprint scores with independent groups *t*-test.

1 t(208) = 3.249; *p* = 0.001; η´ <sup>2</sup> = 0.42.

#### *5.2. The Findings Regarding Elementary School Students' Attitudes Towards Sustainable Development*

The answers of the elementary school students to the questions in the "Attitude Scale for Sustainable Development" were analyzed and the percentages and frequency calculations of the answers were made.

When the answers of elementary school students towards their attitudes towards sustainable development are examined (Appendix A), it is observed that many questions are concentrated in "strongly agree" and "agree" options. However, when some items were examined, it was seen that some items did not reflect the attitudes expected from elementary school students. When the answers to items S.4, S.5, S.7, and S.8, and the social dimension of sustainable development were examined, it was observed that most elementary school students held their interests ahead of society's interests (strongly disagree, disagree, and undecided rates total N:117, 55.7%); they could not have empathy while evaluating behavior (strongly disagree, disagree, and undecided rates total N:112, 53.2%); they could not be neutral in evaluating the events (strongly disagree, disagree and undecided rates total N:133, 63.4%) and that they could say things that would hurt the person they are talking to (absolutely disagree, disagree and undecided rates total N: 119, 56.6%). When the answers to items C.2, C.5, and the environmental dimensions of sustainable development were examined, it was observed that most elementary school students do not prefer public transportation (strongly disagree, disagree and undecided rates total N:131, 62.4%) and do not prefer nature-friendly products instead of plastic products (strongly disagree, disagree and undecided rates total N:132, 62.8%). In Article E.3, which is the Economic Dimension of Sustainable Development, it is seen that most elementary school students do not pay attention to buying surplus products (strongly

disagree, disagree and undecided rates total N:116, 55.3%). It can be said by looking at the answers given to these items, that elementary school students may have problems in achieving the expected behaviors through the MoNE (2017a, 2017b, 2017c).

The mean scores of attitude towards sustainable development of elementary school students were calculated together with their sub-dimensions. When the scale mean scores are calculated, elementary school students score between 1 and 5, which means positive attitude as the mean of the scores approaches five.

The mean score of attitude towards sustainable development of elementary school students was calculated as 3.62 (Table 5), since this value is in the range of 3.41 < X< 4.20 it covers the "agree" range of points (Kaya 2013). However, the low mean score may indicate that elementary school students do not exhibit the expected sustainable development attitude. The mean scores of elementary school students regarding the subscales of Sustainable Development Attitude Scale were calculated and the difference between the subscales mean scores was analyzed by ANOVA test.

#### **Table 5.** Sustainable development attitude mean scores.


It is concluded that the mean scores of attitude towards social dimension of sustainable development of elementary school students are lower than the other dimensions and mean scores of economic dimension are higher (Table 6). However, the difference between the mean subscale mean scores was not statistically significant (*p* > 0.05). Sustainable development attitude mean scores of elementary school students were compared with independent groups *t*-test according to gender, location and type of school.

**Table 6.** Comparison of sustainable development attitude sub-dimensions between mean scores.


<sup>1</sup> F(1,208) = 0.742; *p* = 0.477.

The difference between the mean scores of sustainable development attitude of elementary school students is not statistically significant according to the location variable (*p* > 0.05) and according to the gender- and school-type variable it is statistically significant (*p* < 0.05) (Table 7). The effect size of the difference between gender-variable scores (η´ 2 ) 0.46; the effect size of the difference between school type scores (η´ 2 ) was calculated as 0.40 and these values were determined to be a moderate effect since they were 0.2 < *Cohen's d* < 0.8. Female students have higher attitudes towards sustainable development than male students. This can be interpreted as the lower mean scores of the ecological footprints of female students than male students (Table 4) and they feel more responsible for using environmental resources more effectively. Sustainable development attitude mean scores of the students in the secondary school education process are higher than the students in the primary education process which is the previous education level. This situation can be interpreted as the education process increasing the students' sustainable development attitude mean scores with moderate effect, just like the mean ecological footprint scores.


**Table 7.** Comparison of sustainable development attitude mean scores with independent groups *t*-test.

1 t(208) = 3.343; *p* = 0.001; η´ <sup>2</sup> = 0.46 <sup>2</sup> t(208) = −2.831; *p* = 0.005; η´ <sup>2</sup> = 0.40.

#### *5.3. The Findings on the Relationship Between the Mean Scores of Ecological Footprints of Elementary School Students and the Mean Scores of Attitude Towards Sustainable Development*

The relationship between the mean scores of ecological footprints of elementary school students and the mean scores of sustainable development attitudes was revealed. In order to reveal this relationship, "Pearson Correlation Coefficient" was based on by performed correlation analysis.

A negative correlation was determined between the mean scores of ecological footprint of elementary school students and the mean scores of sustainable development attitude (0.30 < |r| < 0.70) and this relationship was determined to be significant (*p* < 0.01) (Table 8). This result shows an inverse relationship between ecological footprint and sustainable development for elementary school students. The low ecological footprint mean scores of elementary school students may be related to the increase in sustainable development attitudes or the high ecological footprint mean scores may be related to the low mean sustainable development attitude scores.


**Table 8.** Correlation between the ecological footprint mean scores and sustainable development attitude mean scores.

<sup>1</sup> *p* < 0.01.

#### **6. Discussion**

In this study, the relationship between elementary school students' ecological footprint mean scores and their attitudes towards sustainable development was investigated. As a result of the research, the mean ecological footprint scores of elementary school students were calculated as 2.11 gha. Elementary students' ecological footprint has been determined to be lower than Turkey mean (2.7 gha), but higher than the world mean (1.8 gha) (WWF 2012). At the same time, in a study conducted with consumers in Turkey, the ecological footprint mean rate was determined to be low with 2.26 gha and the ecological footprints of individuals have been demonstrated to be on an inadequate level (Özgen and Aksoy 2017). In their study based on the calculation of ecological footprint, Akıllı et al. (2008) emphasized that the amount of ecological footprint per person should be no more than 1.8 gha and that this value should not be exceeded in terms of sustainability. Even if it is a developed or developing country, it should make significant improvements in resource utilization efficiency (reducing waste, turning to sustainable resources, systematically separating economic activity from environmental impacts, etc.) and

try to reduce material consumption levels by balancing (Farmer and Cook 2013). This effect should start with students from an early age. According to Grigoryeva (2010), using the ecological footprint in ecology education serves as an effective tool in planning students' environmental behaviors. By using ecological footprint training practices, students' attitudes, awareness and behaviors towards environmental problems can be changed (Çetin 2015). Making ecological footprint calculations of students at all levels of education can be considered as a starting point in recognizing their consumption habits and raising awareness of a sustainable world. This is because, with ecological footprint calculations, students pay attention to how their consumption can destroy natural resources and how global environmental problems can occur.

The difference between the ecological footprint mean scores of elementary school students was determined to be statistically significant according to the type of school variable and the effect size of this difference was determined to be moderate. The mean ecological footprint scores of the students in the secondary school education process were lower than the students in the primary school education process, which was interpreted as reducing the mean ecological footprint scores of the students with moderate impact. Students involved in the education process learn about many concepts such as environment, ecology, consumption, environmental awareness, etc., and that information changes their attitudes and behaviors towards the environment. Kele¸s (2011) concluded that the information and activities transferred to the students during the course of the study were effective at all grade levels and caused a decrease in the ecological footprint scores of the students. According to Kiziro ˘glu (2001), as individuals learn positive and negative effects on the continuity of ecosystem, they act more responsibly in matters related to the environment. Since most human activities strongly affect ecosystems, the awareness of responsibility required for the individual should be raised for the care and protection of nature (Chapin et al. 2011). When evaluated from this perspective, presenting the concept of ecological footprint to the students from early classes, and arranging in-class and out-of-class applications that highlight this concept may be effective in creating the desired awareness and decreasing the mean of ecological footprint. When some studies in the literature are examined (Meyer 2004; Weinberg and Quesenberry 2010; Benzer and ¸Sahin 2012; Özgen and Aksoy 2017), it can be seen that active participation practices are effective in creating ecological footprint awareness and creating sustainable environmental awareness.

The mean score of attitude towards sustainable development of elementary school students was calculated (*X*¯ = 3.62), and the low mean score showed that

elementary school students did not exhibit the expected sustainable development attitude. When the answers they gave to the scale items were examined, it was determined that most of the elementary school students could not provide sufficient answers in some social, environmental and economic items. Most of the decisions that adversely affect the ecosystems were taken with the need to maintain certain socioeconomic benefits, rather than being intentionally misused (Chapin et al. 2011). With regards to sustainable development, the environmental dimension indicates the protection of natural environment and biological diversity in which human activities take place (Koçak and Balcı 2010), the economic dimension indicates the use of natural resources in production process (Goodland 1995), the social dimension indicates inter-communal equality (poverty reduction) and protection of cultural diversity (Moffatt 1996). When these three dimensions are considered as a system, it becomes clear that sufficient consumption of resources and environmental behavior should be established to ensure an environmentally sustainable development. Environmental education issues integrated with curricula should take place at all levels and levels of education, as they have a facet that covers all segments of society. In their studies, McMillan et al. (2004) evaluated the environmental values of the classes that carry out studies at university level and take courses. They emphasized that the ecological footprint test applied to university students and the video they watched had a major impact on developing value judgments towards the environment.

It was determined that the difference between the average scores of sustainable development attitude of elementary school students is statistically significant according to the gender and school type variable and the effect size of this difference is medium. Female students' attitudes towards sustainable development were determined to be higher than male students. Özdemir et al. (2004) and ¸Sama (2003) determined that female students had more knowledge about the environment than boys and they paid more attention to environmental issues. In this study, the mean ecological footprint scores of female students are lower than male students and it can be interpreted that the sustainable development attitude mean may be higher because they feel more responsible for using environmental resources more effectively. The sustainable development attitude mean scores of the students in the secondary education process are higher than the students in the primary education process, which is the previous education level. This situation can be interpreted as the education process increasing the students' sustainable development attitude mean scores with moderate effect, just like the mean ecological footprint scores. According to Simon (2009), education plays a key role in the development of sustainability. As the education level increases, individuals' perception, attitude and behavior towards sustainability will develop.

A negative correlation was determined between the mean scores of ecological footprints of elementary school students and the mean scores of sustainable development attitude and it was concluded that this relationship was significant. This result shows an inverse relationship between ecological footprint and sustainable development for elementary school students. Therefore, when elementary school students are able to keep their ecological footprint mean scores lower, it will help them to increase their attitude towards sustainable development. Weinberg and Quesenberry (2010), in their study, gave students the key concepts of global, local sustainability theme and gave them ecological footprint education. As a result of the research, they found out that the students see how individual and national ecological footprints are structured and understand the importance of sustainable life. Meyer (2004) concluded that the ecological footprint analysis and activities used as an environment education tool increased the awareness of the individuals participating in the research in a positive way, developed their attitudes in a moderate positive way and were effective in acquiring responsible behaviors towards sustainable living. van Vuuren and Smeets (2000) stated that the concept of ecological footprint is an interesting tool affecting consumption preferences. Hart (2003) suggests that teachers should engage in practical activities in their classrooms in the form of theory, activity and community building in order to achieve the goal of environmental education. Therefore, ecological footprint can be used theoretically and practically in educational processes as an educational tool in changing consumption habits and ensuring sustainable development.

Individuals' attitude towards an event or fact constitutes a general design of his behavior type for that object. There are cognitive, emotional and behavioral elements in the formation of this attitude. Attitudes and behavioral patterns consists of action, target for action, content for action and time elements. A general or specific pattern of these four elements is provided with attitudes towards action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977). The first step to create this attitude starts with creating awareness. In order to ensure sustainability, this awareness will be created first, and then individual responsibility, behavior change, development will continue and sustainable development will be ensured (Lourdel et al. 2006). Thus, this process will be completed. Therefore, creating ecological footprint awareness in students will be a beginning for sustainable awareness and will prepare the ground for transformation into behavior change by taking responsibility. Negev et al. (2008) found a strong relationship between the nature of children and their attitudes and behaviors and

stated that it would be effective in developing awareness, attitudes and behaviors that would occur in children.

#### **7. Conclusions**

Achieving sustainable development is primarily possible by changing the consumption habits of individuals. Children, who are the guarantee of the future, should play a critical role in the success of this change. One of the most important ways to contribute to this process is to train them in the best way. This is because when children interact with society, they will both socialize and also affect the development of society (Lucerne Declaration 2007). Starting environmental education with the concept of ecological footprint contributes to the awareness of students' own consumption habits, the development of the expected features, and thus the development of sustainable development by using natural resources more effectively. The results of this study will provide an insight to readers and education practitioners to demonstrate the relationship between ecological footprint and sustainable development. In this way, it will increase the studies on ecological footprint awareness and, by creating awareness, it will be possible to develop an attitude towards the environment and create environmental behavior. This training process will be an important step in achieving sustainable development. Thus, a step may be taken in reaching the "Quality Education" targets expected from SDG's goal 4.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest. There were no founding sponsors who had a role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

#### **Appendix A**

Distribution of elementary school students' attitudes towards sustainable development.



#### **References**


© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
