The school as a place for practice

How Education for Sustainable Development contributes to quality education

Djapo is a learning organisation that innovates and pioneers ESD with, for and thanks to its partners. Together with educational and other societal actors, we bridge the gap by reflecting, applying, testing, innovating, adjusting, clarifying and sharing.

Imprint

The school as a place for practice

How Education for Sustainable Development contributes to quality education

Concept and development Djapo

First edition 2022

Realised with the support of the Belgian Development Cooperation. The opinions expressed by our organisation do not necessarily reflect those of the Belgian State and are in no way binding on the latter.

Lay-out & illustrations

Toast Confituur Studio Printing Zwartopwit/sustainable printing © 2022/Djapo

www.djapo.be info@djapo.be

Permission to reproduce this material must be obtained from the concerned copyright holders. For all information, please contact Djapo.

We have made every effort to respect all copyrights. If you believe that copyright has been infringed, please contact Djapo.

THE SCHOOL AS A PLACE FOR PRACTICE

Djapo

Expert, pioneer, partner

Thanks

Djapo aims to support children and young people in developing their disposition to deal with our societal issues. We don’t tell them what society should look like. Rather, we give them the opportunity to work with these issues, in the classroom and at school. This enables them to develop the systemic, transformative, social and reflective dispositions needed to want and be able to make conscious choices.

This is achieved within the formal education system by working closely with teachers and schools, teacher trainers, supervisors and researchers. We start from their reality, and the opportunities and obstacles they experience. The schools are a crucial link in this process. They provide quality education on a daily basis and reach all children and young people. Djapo also involves educational umbrella organisations, networks and policy makers. Our approach takes into account the expectations of policymakers and society regarding education, young people and sustainable coexistence.

Fed by the constant interaction of theory, practice and policy, Djapo focuses on the development of didactic and pedagogic frameworks, methods and tools. We find our inspiration in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). ESD is based on scientific research, is practised internationally and receives explicit attention in the United Nations Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

For Djapo, ESD emphasises on the one hand that school is a place where children and young people can develop and exercise their skills relative to societal issues. On the other hand, ESD highlights the impact these same societal issues have on the purpose of education. After all, the issues in our society are urgent. So, there is a need for education that enables children and young people to develop the ability to actively and resiliently deal with societal complexity and to make conscious choices in this regard.

We don’t think that a sustainable society is capable of definition. We all have our own idea of sustainable society. And these diverse ideas cannot be captured in a single image

of the future. Moreover, the path to that future society is ambiguous, complex and dynamic.

ESD stimulates and supports children and young people in forming their own image of sustainable society. At the same time, it offers opportunities to gain experience in shaping society according to that image, in the safe training ground that is school.

In this publication, we discuss the most important concepts related to quality ESD. We have consulted the latest and best scientific findings on ESD and compared them to our own, practical experiences. This has given us a theoretical framework, on the basis of which we want to form ESD. It provides guidance for the development of didactic methods and tools for use in the classroom and the school. The aim is to create a powerful learning environment that provides opportunities for developing ESD disposition.

This initiative is an invitation to everyone concerned with quality education to engage in the conversation. We want to open the way to a dialogue about the goals of education, the ways to achieve those goals and the added value that ESD can bring to this process. It’s our hope that this dialogue will stimulate continued research into the theory and practice of ESD, providing the impetus for further experimentation, substantiation and innovation.

We see this theoretical framework as a starting point that indicates what is currently possible and where our knowledge still needs deepening and broadening. It is the basis from which we can deploy and continue to innovate our practice. Conversely, we will also continue to use dynamic, learning practice in order to develop its theoretical basis.

You are invited. Let us begin.

This text is the result of intensive teamwork within Djapo - and the critical eye of some honest friends. Its development was a process of trial and error, and a process that will continue, unabated. We thank all current and former Djapo employees who contributed to this text, and the external experts who fed our reflections. Djapo thanks, in particular, the following for sharing their thinking with us:

Dr Angela Salmon - Prof. Dr T. Arjen Wals - Arne JanssensProf. Dr Arthur L. Costa - Bea Merckx - Ben HolvoetDr Bena Kallick - Bert Massa - Brigitte Pycke - Christophe

Calis– Dr David Hyerle - Dr David Perkins - Delphine Vervenne - Dr Dries Verhelp - Eef Thoen - Eleni SinakouEllie Lefèvre - Hilde Stroobants - Hugo VandenbrouckeImke Deleu - Prof. Dr Dries Verhelst - Eef ThoenEleni Sinakou - Ellie Lefèvre - Hilde Stroobants - Hugo Vandenbroucke - Imke Deleu - Prof. Dr Jelle Boeve-de Pauw

- Dr Jeroen Lauwers - Prof. Dr Katrien Van PoeckDr Kevin Goris - Kwinten Keulemans - Prof. Dr Leif Östman - Liesbet Van den Driessche - Lotte MichielsenLut Favoreel - Marleen Dierickx - Miette Plessers - Patrick

Malfait - Patrick Vleeschouwer - Pieter Lievens - Prof. Dr Danny Wildemeersch - Roos Steeman - Dr Shari TishmanTom Uytterhoeven

The disposition to make conscious choices in society

Conscious

choices in society

Society and education: an interaction

Issues in society

We are all confronted daily with issues, which lead to choices. So, we consider all aspects of such issues, the pros and cons, and then proceed to take up positions, make choices and take action.

Our society also has to deal with many, usually complex, societal issues. Today’s societal issues also seem to be increasingly challenging. There are the profound changes in our climate and biodiversity, as well as issues like poverty and inequality and an ever-increasing number of refugees. Moreover, societal issues are intrinsically interlinked.

There is a sense of urgency - an urgent need for fundamental changes in the way we organise our society. Worldwide, the call for change is very loud. For instance, in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Van Poeck, Östman & Öhman 2019).

To deal effectively with complex societal issues in today’s world is therefore certainly not self-evident. This makes it all the more important that we approach the issues in a positive way, by making conscious choices. This leads to a different approach, which is especially needed for complex societal issues.

The school as a place for practice

Djapo promotes education that supports and encourages pupils to make well-considered choices in society. After all, the school can have a major impact on the development of children and young people into active and resilient global citizens, and this process can be stimulated by societal issues. It can help to develop the disposition to make conscious choices and, as a result, help individuals to maximise their resilience and decisiveness. School can achieve this by offering pupils support and encouragement. By offering them the chance to learn from the world as it is, and also the opportunity to renew their world (Masschelein & Simons 2013). In other words, the school can use societal issues as a valuable, relevant learning context for its pupils. It can create a climate in which the pupils at school encounter with society in a certain sense, with all the questions, answers, initiatives and conflicts that belong to that process.

This means that, while in a safe and protected environment, pupils can be confronted with authentic issues such as poverty of opportunity, gender inequality, climate change and water pollution. They can engage with these issues within the school as ‘scholè’ (Greek for ‘leisure’) (Masschelein & Simons 2013), without any pressure to perform. The school becomes a safe place for practice (Masschelein & Simons 2013) where pupils can learn to take up a standpoint and act

accordingly. This learning process is essential in our society, where we are confronted with urgent issues on a daily basis. In chapter 2 ‘ESD experimental environment’, we go into detail about working with societal issues.

The school as a place for practice is an environment – in which pupils can deal with societal issues – without having to meet any societal agenda, – without suffering the direct consequences of their choices in their own lives, – and with space to reflect on their choices, the processes leading up to them and their consequences, – and to learn from this experience.

Disposition to make conscious choices

What are ‘conscious choices’?

We make several big and small choices every day. We think about our options and act on them. So, making a choice does not mean passively choosing from a menu of options. Yet we often make choices without really thinking about them. In such case, we choose on the basis of routine (Swartz et al. 2008), out of familiarity or habit. This kind of choice is useful in everyday life, to avoid dwelling on each individual choice, which is not necessary. But it is often good to reflect on a choice, in order to break routine and do things differently. Because if we reflect on our choices, we don’t just make any choice. By using the term ‘conscious’, we align with the concept of ‘skillful thinking’ by Swartz et al. (2008). This emphasises goal-oriented thinking, being aware of what is going on in the process of making our own choices and in those of others. After all, there are many aspects that determine the choices we make in our thinking and acting: our identity, values, emotions, convictions, interests, etc., all play a role. As do the zeitgeist and the place in the world in which we find ourselves at that moment. Making conscious choices starts with being aware of what drives those choices. This brings us to what we call ‘disposition’.

What do we mean by ‘disposition’?

In the context of this paper, ‘disposition’ means both the extent to which, and the probability that, we will think and act effectively and, in a goal-oriented way. This disposition, and the extent to which it is present, is determined by various factors. It is generally accepted that knowledge and skills play a role in the choice process. But the choices one actually makes depend to a large extent on being alert to situations in which knowledge and skills can be meaningfully applied, and on the motivation to apply specific knowledge and skills. The extent to which each of these factors is present varies from person to person.

We can therefore summarise that the disposition to think and act effectively and, consequently, the disposition to deal with societal issues in a goal-oriented way, becomes determined by the systematic interaction between four factors: knowledge, skills, sensitivity and motivation (Perkins et al. 2000). Specifically, if you want to apply something, you will be able to do so more easily and will know more about it. But the reverse is also true: you will want to do what you can do well. The four aspects are thus inextrica-

bly linked (Tishman & Andrade 1996) (Perkins et al. 2000) (Tishman 2001). In this context, Djapo chooses to replace the word skills with the word ‘thinking processes’, because this places more emphasis on their process-oriented nature.

So, in our context, the 4 factors stand for:

– the extent to which we can use knowledge in the context of a societal issue/choice,

– the extent to which we can deploy thinking processes in the context of a societal issue/choice

– the extent to which we are alert to situations in which it is useful to deploy thinking processes and knowledge in the context of a societal issue/choice,

– the degree to which we are motivated to apply knowledge and thinking processes in the context of a societal issue/ choice.

‘Disposition’ also denotes a tendency to think and act effectively and is influenced by four aspects:

– knowledge

– thinking processes

– sensitivity to opportunities to use knowledge and thinking processes

– the motivation to apply knowledge and thinking processes.

Zooming in on the 4 aspects of the disposition of choice

Sensitivity

Sensitivity is one of the four aspects that determine the extent to which we act consciously, whether this action is mental or physical (Perkins et al. 2000) (Tishman 2001). It is indeed not only important to be able to conduct a thinking process, but also to recognise situations in which it makes sense to use certain knowledge or key thinking processes.

By identifying sensitivity explicitly, we create the space to improve pupils’ alertness to opportunities (Perkins et al. 2000). Thus, we want pupils to develop sensitivity to learning opportunities from the perspective of others and the environment, in situations in which it makes sense to look for more options, in situations in which it makes sense to scrutinise their own norms and values, and so on.

Those who develop this sensitivity become alert to situations in which it may be useful to deploy certain knowledge and thinking processes.

Considering sensitivity as a part of a competence or dispo-

sition stimulates so-called ‘high-road transfer’ (Salomon & Perkins 1989). By this we mean that creating opportunities to develop sensitivity will in turn create other opportunities. Those who recognise the added value of the specific combination of thinking processes and applied knowledge in a particular situation are more sensitive to other situations in which a similar combination of thinking processes and knowledge could also be useful.

Sensitivity, as a part of disposition, refers to recognising situations in which it is useful to use certain knowledge or key thinking processes.

MOTIVATION

Motivation

Researchers like Dewey and later also Perkins and Tishman showed that intelligent behaviour cannot be explained by skills alone (Perkins et al. 2000) (Perkins, Jay & Tishman 1993). Without motivation, a person will not be inclined to exhibit certain behaviour. Motivation as a component of disposition is thus the drive that learners feel to take action (Tishman & Andrade 1996) (Perkins et al. 2000). This is about wanting to deploy available knowledge and thinking processes when facing a societal issue.

In the context of the disposition to think and act consciously, it is a pitfall to regard pupil motivation as a precondition for action. This implies that the pupils must already be motivated, whereas motivation (as a meaningful component of disposition) is precisely what good teaching can inculcate (Biggs 2003). Teachers can try to stimulate this through the way they design a powerful learning environment - the ESD

experimental environment (about which more below). We emphasise try because, as Gert Biesta (2020) points out, education is by definition subject to the risk that our learning activities do not have the desired effect. There is always the risk that pupils will take the liberty of turning away from the education offered.

Motivation as part of a disposition is the drive we feel to use certain knowledge and thinking processes.

Knowledge

We need knowledge to function in the world. We use it in our daily lives to understand and gain insight into the things around us. This in turn helps us to deal with the issues in our private lives, our professional lives, and in society (Perkins 1992).

Building up knowledge is therefore one of the important goals of education. Djapo follows the vision of David Perkins, who sees knowledge as dynamic. It is not something you just ‘have’, but something you ‘use’ (Perkins 1986) (Perkins 1992). In school practice, this means that knowledge is gained by using it, for example by thinking about societal issues. In this way, we do not only think about knowledge, but also with knowledge.

Which is why Djapo uses the term ‘thinking-based education’ - education in which knowledge is not approached as something you first acquire, and which then enables you to do something with it, but the other way round: knowledge as something you acquire by doing something with it.

Knowledge is therefore a very active concept. We build it up by working with it and, above all, we want to be able to use it. In this sense, knowledge is something that plays a part in the application of a disposition. Without knowledge, you have nothing to think with or about. Just as, without the sensitivity or motivation to engage in certain thinking processes, knowledge is useless.

Knowledge, as a component of a disposition is something we build up by using it.

KNOWLEDGE

Key thinking processes

In both the professional and educational world, ‘skill’ is a much-used term. Djapo, as mentioned, deliberately chooses to replace the term ‘skills’ with ‘thinking processes’. ‘Key thinking processes’ are fundamental thinking processes that are applied to every issue. Because every choice, conscious or unconscious, is preceded by a thinking process.

The word ‘key’ is a crucial in the term ‘key thinking processes’. It points to what Hyerle (2009) calls ‘fundamental cognitive skills’. These are skills that are used in a goal-oriented way in more complex thinking process like critical thinking, creative thinking and analysis. Every more complex thinking process consists of a combination of key thinking processes as a function of the desired end result. That end result could be a critical analysis, a brainstorm, a comparative study or a decision. The strategic use of thinking processes keeps us from impulsive or routine choices. Which thinking processes we use depends on the goal we want to achieve (Runco 1994). How we go through the processes, in which combination and order, is different for each individual and determines the result. The effective and goal orientated use of thinking processes requires a learning process. The use of visual thinking tools or thinking routines can offer an interesting stepping stone here. More about this in the chapter ‘EDO experimental environment’.

Schools can set, as a goal, any complex thinking process they wish to pay attention to when thinking about societal issues. These could be systems thinking, critical thinking, creative thinking, or any other complex thinking process.

Societal issues, because of their great complexity, provide an excellent context for activating and developing these key learning processes in pupils. It is important that the school pays ‘explicit’ attention to them (Perkins, 1992). By ‘explicit’ (Perkins, 1992), we mean that the school visibly valorises and thus names them, and repeatedly evaluates their use. For example, by consciously reflecting on what the various processes have contributed to the final result. But we also learn from and teach each other by sharing what goes on in our minds when we are confronted with a societal issue, and hearing from others about what goes on in their minds. For the teacher, it is a good way of gaining a better understanding of the pupils’ thinking and of how to relate learning activities to that thinking. By making key thinking processes explicit, however, we gain insight not only into a pupil’s capability of applying thinking processes, but also into the pupils’ motivation and sensitivity in detecting situations in which it may be useful to ask questions or make connections. And finally, explicitly going through thinking processes enables pupils to experience knowledge as something relevant, something they can do something with (Per-

kins, 1992). Pupils learn by doing; by applying knowledge to achieve a goal. They learn by thinking (Perkins, 1995).

There are many different taxonomies for classifying thinking processes. Djapo chooses to follow the vision of David Hyerle and to make thinking processes as specific as possible. We selected 12, key thinking processes, based on cognitive science research, specifically Upton and Hyerle’s (2009) research on Thinking Maps. We have expanded the 8 fundamental thinking processes of the Thinking Maps with a number of thinking processes that occur particularly in the ESD research of Edubron and the University of Ghent.

Key thinking processes are fundamental thinking processes that are invoked in relation to every issue in a well-defined combination or order.

Key thinking processes

CREATIVE THINKING

COMPLEX THINKING PROCESSES SYSTEMS THINKING CRITICAL THINKING ...

BRAINSTORM DESCRIBE PRIORITIZE OBSERVE ...

Figure

Relation of the key thinking processes to complex thinking processes

Th e school as a

place for practice

Education for Sustainable Development

Space to practice

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) means education that starts from the vision of the school as a safe place for practice, in which pupils are given opportunities to develop the disposition to make conscious choices in society and through experiences with societal issues.

This allows them to grow into active, conscious and resilient world citizens who, together with others, make their own choices and who can and want to shape society. A school that provides ESD not only gives children and young people general development opportunities, but also teaches them to deal consciously with the societal choices and questions with which they are or will be confronted. ESD dispositions (about which more below) are incorporated into the curriculum from pre-school to higher education. In doing so, the school fulfils its role as a place for practice par excellence, where pupils can gain experience from dealing with societal issues, and learn from these experiences, without societal pressure. They can experience successes and mistakes without any major consequences. This is why ESD explicitly presents societal issues as a relevant, authentic and transdisciplinary learning context for pupils, within which they can develop themselves optimally. Here the previously discussed aspects of the disposition of choice apply - the four factors that determine the disposition to think and act effectively and purposefully, i.e., sensitivity, motivation, knowledge and thinking processes. These factors provide the educational professional with an accurate compass for designing learning activities.

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) means education – that starts from the vision of the school as a safe place for practice, – in which pupils are given opportunities to develop the disposition to make conscious choices in society – through the experience of dealing with societal issues.

The complexity of societal issues

The complexity of societal issues offers many opportunities for the development of the disposition to make choices in society as resilient individuals, together with others, in an active, conscious way. Societal issues can vary greatly in complexity. The complexity of an issue depends on two factors (Block, Van Poeck & Östman 2019): – the general consensus on underlying norms and values – the general consensus on scientific evidence.

The less consensus there is on either of the above points, the more the answers may differ and thus the more complex the issue is.

It is precisely this lack of uniformity of issues and the fact that certain issues call for new, creative answers that makes them an interesting learning context at school. Since even the teacher does not have ready-made answers, the pupils experience the questions as authentic. They feel genuinely called upon to use their dispositions in search of answers. The knowledge and skills imparted by the teacher are also seen as valuable and relevant because they are not an end in themselves, but a means of renewing the world (Van Poeck & Östman 2020).

Even more interesting is that societal issues, due to their lack of unambiguous, ready-made solutions, give rise to research and the construction of hypotheses (Van Poeck & Östman 2020).

Finally, complex societal issues also encourage interaction and the exchange of perspectives. After all, they are treated at school as potential conflicts between interests, values and ideologies (Öhman & Östman 2019) and therefore require a specific approach. The mere transfer of knowledge is not desirable in the context of societal issues. This is by no means intended to minimise the importance of knowledge transfer, given the richness and stratification of the concept of knowledge. By building up knowledge through

the interaction and exchange of perspectives, knowledge (Biggs 2003) is not limited to one’s own experiences and personal knowledge, but is expanded by the knowledge of others. So, we experience that we do not exchange perspectives in order to convince others of our rightness, but in order to create new possibilities with them. Moreover, in this way we experience that our idea or perspective regarding a particular situation does not automatically apply to all situations (Öhman & Kronlid 2019).

An additional advantage is that all this leads to innovation. Transitions that can break through existing systems and routines are taking place. By going beyond our own knowledge or points of view, we can look at reality from a different point of view and transcend our limitations (Wals 2010).

For the education provider, this means that he or she cannot pretend to be someone who ‘knows it all’ and cannot act as a moral authority. He or she is someone who values pupils’ perspectives and encourages them to express them (Öhman & Östman 201).

Societal issues are an interesting learning context because of their

– authenticity

– initiation of research

– initiation of collaborative learning.

CERTAINTY ABOUT THE NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE

Figure inspired by graph Van Poeck & Östman (2019)

ESD dispositions

What are ESD dispositions?

A school that uses Education for Sustainable Development lets pupils work on societal issues. It offers pupils the opportunity to develop the disposition to make conscious choices in society. It enables them to learn by working on societal issues. These can be minor, specific, local issues or large, more abstract, global ones. Bringing these issues into the school calls for certain dispositions. We call them ESD dispositions. These dispositions can be seen as goals that guide educational practice. It is good to keep in mind that they are not goals in themselves, but rather aspects of our thinking and doing that determine the success we achieve. In tapping into ESD dispositions, the combination of knowledge, key thinking processes, sensitivity and motivation ensures that we think and act effectively and purposefully on societal issues.

ESD dispositions are a compass in the process of the school designing a powerful learning environment that offers pupils the space to develop as conscious, resilient and active global citizens.

Four ESD dispositions

Many educational professionals will agree that education should offer pupils the opportunity to develop the disposition to make conscious choices in society. However, this intention is very general and therefore difficult to concretise. To make it possible to translate this goal into learning activities, we break it down into four ESD dispositions: systemic, transformative, social and reflective dispositions.

ESD dispositions work together as a system for dealing with and addressing societal issues. In practice, therefore, they are always addressed simultaneously and in combination.

– Systemic disposition is the disposition to think in systems and relationships, to switch between different perspectives and to look for leverage points for change. One could see it as a disposition that enables us to gain insight into what is happening around us.

– Transformative disposition is the disposition to intervene at one or more leverage points in order to initiate fundamental change in one or more systems. Transformative disposition can be seen as the driver of change (Lotz-Sisitka 2015) (Wals 2017). It is crucial to eventually take action, to make a choice, a decision, have an opinion. Ideally, that action should be taken at one or more leverage points. Because change rarely comes about by acting on just one leverage point (Block & Paredis 2019), we speak of ‘one or more’. In the same way, real, sustainable change only comes about when we bring about change in multiple systems and not just in one.

– Social disposition is the disposition to interact with different perspectives on thinking and acting. Interaction can happen between people, face to face. But we also interact with other perspectives that we find in books, the media or articles. An object can also be a subject with which you interact (Giamminuti, Merewether & Blaise 2020).

– Reflective disposition is the disposition to look back at thinking and actions, question them, evaluate them, appreciate them or adjust them where necessary. The influence of the frame of reference also plays an important role in this disposition. After all, actions are always guided by the underlying frame of reference (Hyerle 2009) (Van Poeck & Östman 2019).

By explicitly focusing on reflective disposition at school, we offer pupils the opportunity to grow in critically evaluating societal issues and the way in which we deal with these issues as a society, both collectively and individually. Moreover, by studying the underlying frames of reference, we offer pupils the opportunity to learn from the knowledge, values, beliefs and interests behind these different points of view (Öhman & Östman 2019).

Of course, the four defined ESD dispositions are not the only ones that are addressed when pupils deal with societal issues. We therefore do not regard this selection and its interpretation as static, but as a starting point for educational professionals as regards the goal of education. The dispositions are selected as a function of the general disposition to make conscious choices in society, so that

pupils develop into conscious, resilient and active global citizens. At the same time, however, we also see them as dispositions used in daily life and in making daily choices, both personal and professional.

The four ESD dispositions are called upon when we think about a societal issue in an action-oriented way, in order to make conscious choices in the society in which we live.

Social disposition

Figure 11 Reflective disposition

SOCIAL DISPOSITION

THE DISPOSITION TO MAKE CONSCIOUS CHOICES IN SOCIETY

TRANSFORMATIVE DISPOSITION

SYSTEMIC DISPOSITION

REFLECTIVE DISPOSITION

Four dispositions in relation to the disposition to make conscious choices

ESD and the three domains of purpose in education

Education has three recognized domains of purpose in education: qualification, socialization and subjectification (Biesta, 2020). The development of ESD dispositions at school is best done while keeping these three domains of purpose in education in sight. Translated into ESD, they can be described as follows:

– Qualification: Education stimulates pupils to build up knowledge and to become skilled in the targeted application of key thinking processes in addressing societal issues.

– Socialization: Education socializes pupils within a culture and in terms of traditions and practices in which we consciously value the development of ESD dispositions.

– Subjectification: Education stimulates pupils to be able and willing to have freedom in making and acting upon their own choices, and thus to lead the life they want to lead, in a society that imposes environmental and societal limits on that freedom.

The school offers pupils opportunities for qualification, socialisation and subjectification by creating an ESD experimental environment for them. Societal issues are put on the table, for pupils to learn from. Knowledge, opinions, feelings and solutions are not offered as an end in themselves, but as the means for pupils to learn to make their own choices in and for society, with respect for their physical and social environment.

Pupils are thus given the opportunity to build up knowledge and become skilled in the targeted use of key learning processes that enable them to discover their own opinions and beliefs (qualification). By offering this opportunity, the school shows how much importance it attaches to this process, and pupils are socialised in terms of these values. An important addition, however, is that pupils are also given the opportunity to experiment with the way they translate these opinions and beliefs into their actions in society. In this way, a reality check with the physical and social

environment immediately takes place. Pupils are given the opportunity to experience how they can become subjects of the world, in the sense of ‘active shapers of their own choices’.

In other words, subjectification is a very fundamental domain of purpose in education within ESD, which deserves extra attention. After all, it is not always customary in education to encourage pupils to make their own choices or take action. However, having the freedom to make choices is not a licence to act out of self-interest or without regard for others. It is about freedom in a context. Our planet - but also society - mark the limits of this individual freedom. These boundaries can be physical (e.g. our ecosystems) or social (in the context of what others want). By ‘being able and willing to accept freedom’, we mean finding a place in the world in such a way that we make our own choices, without doing violence to our physical and social environments (Biesta 2020). This freedom thus appeals to the domain of purpose in education of ‘qualification’, ‘socialisation’ and ‘subjectification’.

The three domains of purpose in education function as a systemic whole and are inextricably linked to each other. Examples of subjectification are the so-called ‘climate truants’. They think that participating in climate marches is more important than being at school and they put that opinion into action. Their choice goes against society’s prevailing norm that children and young people should attend school every day. The young people are thus ‘subjects’, or shapers. They make choices and act accordingly. This is in contrast to many other times when they are ‘objects’ at school - direct objects, following the norms and values of the school and what is decided for them.

The development of ESD dispositions in education preferably takes place in the context of the three, recognised domains of purpose in education: qualification, socialisation and subjectification.

Figure 13 The three domains of purpose in education

3 DOMAINS OF PURPOSE IN EDUCATION

Zooming in on ESD dispositions

When ESD dispositions are called upon, knowledge and key thinking processes are addressed simultaneously. In addition, there is a need for sensitivity to opportunities to deploy knowledge and key thinking processes, and for sufficient motivation to do so.

During these processes, we see growth opportunities in a number of dispositions. What follows can be seen as the sub-dispositions that make up ESD dispositions, as concretisation of the ESD dispositions, and as domains reinforcing the ESD dispositions. However, we are not so much interested in designing a taxonomy as in highlighting what can strengthen the disposition to make conscious choices in society.

Interacting with different perspectives

(Arnold & Wade 2015) (Arnold & Wade 2017) (Seibert 2018) (Sinakou et al. 2019) (Benson & Marlin 2017) (Sweeney 2001)

As mentioned earlier, interaction can take place between people, but also with other perspectives - found in books, the media or articles. We can also interact with an object (Giamminuti, Merewether & Blaise 2020).

In the interaction with other perspectives, the concept of ‘frame of reference’ (Hyerle 2009) (Van Poeck, Östman & Öhman 2019) is a practical tool. A frame of reference is a dynamic framework that determines our perspective on a (societal) issue, and is formed by emotions, values, norms, convictions, interests, knowledge, the time in which we live, our physical place in the world, our identity and the societal domains that are the standpoints from whence we look. In particular - are we looking at an issue from a social, environmentalor economic perspective? The frame of reference is a model that helps pupils find answers to questions such as ‘What influences the way I perceive this information?’ and ‘What prior knowledge or experience helps or hinders me in understanding the new information?’. After all, when looking for different perspectives on a societal issue, it is useful to know what factors determine our perspective.

A frame of reference offers us a practical tool for this. It gives us the opportunity to look for people with different values, interests, cultures, etc. (other frames of reference), to complement our own perspective. As a result, we are less inclined to judge, we can more easily distance ourselves from our own initial point of view, and our own knowledge is expanded by that of others.

Understanding the importance of different perspectives does not mean falling into ‘relativism’. Relativism means that we do not dare to stand up for our own point of view or that we do not dare to choose a specific point of view: we start from the idea that every point of view is equally valid, and it is therefore wrong to reject a thought or an idea. However, critical reflection on different points of view,

SOCIETAL ISSUES

is just as important if we want to experience the richness of different perspectives (Wals 2010). The point is that we want to be stimulated to explore avenues that we ourselves did not think of, so that we can gain a better understanding, make better choices and discover new avenues. Empathic listening is an important skill in this process. Trying to empathise, without losing sight of ourselves and our own point of view, can be a source of insight (Biesta 2015). In any event, the insight gained gives one a broader, more informed or more diverse view of the matter at hand.

Dynamic thinking

The world is a complex system and is constantly changing. Anyone whose view of the world is governed by these two insights understands that societal issues are dynamic in nature. It means that as soon as we take action to address a specific, societal issue, the societal issue itself will change. And, as a result, the opportunities for action will change (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015). In other words, a single change can lead to a total change of the system. Those who are alert to the dynamics in systems have a better view of the causes of societal issues, their consequences and the leverage points for change.

Recognition of leverage points

When we look at the world and societal issues in a systemic way, we can quickly lose ourselves in their complexity, non-linearity and dynamic nature. However, if we are alert to leverage points within the system, this alertness can provide clarity and effectiveness. Leverage points are

in fact factors that we can change ourselves and which, in turn, change the system as a whole (Menson & Marlin 2017)

(Meadows 2008) (Arnold & Wade 2015).

Systemic view of society

Societal issues are sometimes so complex that the opportunities for change are not always clear or accessible. It requires a systemic way of looking, a certain sensitivity, to notice them (Wals 2010). One way to categorise systems is to examine their causes and effects. Sometimes consequences manifest themselves immediately and it requires little systemic disposition to identify the consequences of choices (Meadows 2008) (Wals 2011) (Arnold & Wade 2015)

(Arnold & Wade 2017).

However, consequences often don’t manifest themselves immediately, or we are not immediately aware of the longer-term consequences, or we are not aware of consequences elsewhere, or we have to deal with unintended consequences.

Being alert to hypothetical, intended and unintended consequences, as well as to short and long-term effects, means we can make more effective choices for a sustainable society. We will also see changes in systems which we would at first sight not have thought of.

Towards transformation, together

One can never bring about transformation in society alone (Biesta 2020). It is something we do together. After all, initiatives that aim to bring about change in society can

only really last if they are picked up by others (Biesta 2020). Seeking dialogue with the other in order to understand his or her perspective is an essential part of this (Costa 2008) (Perkins 2001). Moreover, the group’s alertness is greater than that of the individual, because each member of the group has different antennae and sensitivities (Perkins 2001).

We call this working together towards transformation, ‘action-oriented thinking’. Its importance in the context of societal issues cannot be underestimated (Sass et al. 2020). Pupils reinforce each other’s individual qualities when they work together towards taking action (Wals 2011). Moreover, it is always intended that the action should have an effect, and that it therefore becomes part of ‘the world’. In other words, that it is accepted and adopted, not only by ourselves, but also by others. Action therefore has, as a necessary component, the others, and thus concerns not only the commencement of action, but also its maintenance, for which the other is a necessary key (Biesta 2020).

The entire process on the way to transformation must be carefully designed, according to an equally carefully formulated goal (Swartz et al. 2008). Ideally, that goal should be set by the pupils themselves, from their intrinsic motivation, and expressed in the challenge. This challenge determines the strategic, goal-oriented thinking process (Perkins 1981). Action is any possible end result expressed in the challenge, and can be either direct or indirect. Whereas direct action is aimed at an immediate transformation, indirect action is aimed at others who can make a transformation possible (Sass et al. 2020).

It is important to realise that the world is in motion: once we have taken up the challenge, or even reached our goal, everything may still change (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015). Confidence in our own capacity to shape society, initiate real change and sustain it does not arise overnight. This is where the importance of enculturation comes to the fore - the process of socialisation in a culture in which engagement with societal issues is central (Tishman, Jay & Perkins 2001).

Questioning paradigms

There is a great need to question the foundations of current societal systems and to emerge from that engagement doing things differently. Simply ‘optimising’ societal systems is clearly not enough. Paradigms may and must be scrutinised. Along with the pursuit of resilience, it is something to which we should remain attentive. Resilience is defined as ‘the capacity to absorb and survive shocks’ within a system which, in itself, may be entirely unsustainable, unjust or even totally harmful to people and the planet (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015). Therefore, providing opportunities to develop resilience to environmental, social or economic shocks must always be combined with the development of a systemic, critical disposition that allows us to understand and challenge the causes of these shocks.

A society in which many ‘unhealthy’ systems are ingrained requires a critical look at its actions, ideas, events, beliefs, values and norms. This critical approach requires us to evaluate, value and challenge the systems in society. Moreover, it is an incentive to look for ways to replace unhealthy

systems with sustainable ones (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015). In other words, a critical view can be the impetus to take action (Sass et al. 2020) and bring about the desired change in society.

Dealing with chaos and uncertainty

By interacting with societal issues, one comes into contact with a lot of information, much of it often contradictory. Things seem complex and out of our reach, which can bring chaos and uncertainty. Giving pupils the opportunity to experience complexity, and at the same time offering them strategies for dealing with it, enables them to learn to cope with chaos and the uncertainty that can accompany it (Wals 2011).

Conflict as a driver of research

Democracies require a certain sensitivity to the different expressions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ that may exist in different contexts. Pupils can also learn to express themselves in a nuanced way and to be alert to the nuances of others when it comes to complex issues - such as societal issues - that benefit little from uniformity. Rather than smoothing out differences, we are talking about the disposition to communicate correctly and respectfully about differences (Öhman & Östman 2019). Behind this is also the attitude of seeing conflict and disagreement as a source of broadening our understanding (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015).

For the school, this implies a pedagogy and didactics that are not necessarily geared towards consensus, but rather

towards a correct way of dealing with conflicting views (Tryggvason & Öhman 2019). It is precisely through conflicting views that pupils can develop into active shapers of their own standards and values. Conflicting views are therefore a fruitful starting point for authentic dialogue at school (Tryggvason & Öhman 2019).

Expressing views

The complexity of societal issues calls for dialogue. We can only enter into a dialogue if we are able to articulate our own ideas and points of view properly (Wals 2011).

It is crucial, in this articulation, that we are aware of our own frame of reference and the aspects of it that guide our thinking and actions. This awareness plays a role in determining and formulating our own positions.

Formulating one’s own points of view and arguments is something the teacher encourages when bringing a societal issue into the classroom (Van Poeck & Östman 2020). It can be a way of giving pupils a chance to practice democracy. They experience that their own freedom to express themselves and make choices must always be in proportion to the freedom of others to express themselves and make choices (Biesta s.a.) (Öhman & Östman 2019) (Biesta 2020).

Dynamics between frame of reference, thinking and doing

We learn by interacting with our environment (Öhman & Kronlid 2019). Faced with a particular societal issue, we will

interact with the social and physical environment and what is going on in society. On the basis of this interaction we form, consciously or unconsciously, our norms and values (Palmer 2016). These norms and values then shape our future thinking and acting with regard to ethically charged issues such as societal questions.

If we are confronted with a different societal issue, our thinking and acting will also change. This creates a never-ending dynamic process that is always in motion.

One of the foundations of self-reflection is alertness to the influence of our values on our thinking and acting. Another is awareness of the dynamic nature of our values. Do I think and act in accordance with my own norms and values? Or do I think and act according to someone else’s values? Do I want to do this? Do my values still apply in this situation, etc.?

Influence of behaviour on others and on our environment

Our thoughts and actions have a direct or indirect influence on our surroundings. This means that our choices can deprive another of the freedom to choose. Using the freedom to think and act in a democracy must therefore always be based on an attitude of equality and solidarity, in which one takes the freedom of others into account (Biesta s.a.). Being aware of the fact that our behaviour has an impact on our physical and social environment lays the foundation for a respectful way of thinking and acting, which is considerate of others and of environmental limitations.

Responsibility for the well-being of self and others

Societal issues, from small, concrete and local to large, abstract and global, tend to provoke moral reactions. By moral reactions, we mean that we spontaneously feel responsibility for another being or thing. They are a necessary condition for the desire to help shape society.

Such reactions, like conflicting views, can be interesting starting points for classroom research (Öhman & Östman 2019).

The ESD experimental environment

The ESD environment experimental

What?

Djapo defined a number of fields of action in which school teams and teachers can actively and purposefully engage in order to develop a powerful learning environment. We call this learning environment the ESD experimental environment. It is a learning environment that aims to give pupils opportunities to develop the disposition to make conscious choices in society. This chapter provides a framework within which an ESD experimental environment can take shape.

A school can create developmental opportunities by designing learning activities according to five principles. The principles are conceived as a tool and not as conditions for development. Nor are they intended as learning objectives. We will elaborate on this later in this chapter. The five principles are:

– learning from societal issues

– learning by doing

– learning through action-oriented thinking

– learning by interacting with other perspectives

– learning by making thinking visible

The three domains of purpose in education discussed earlier have great value here, because they can direct and shape the pedagogical and didactic decisions of the education professional.

For clarity, we repeat the three domains of purpose:

– Qualification: education stimulates pupils to build up knowledge and to become skilled in the targeted application of key thinking processes in addressing societal issues.

–

Socialization: education socializes learners in the culture, traditions and practices in which we consciously value the development of ESD dispositions.

– Subjectification: education stimulates pupils to be able and willing to have freedom in making and acting upon their own choices, and thus to lead the life they want to lead, in a society that imposes environmental and societal limits on that freedom.

An ESD experimental environment is a school learning environment that aims to give pupils the opportunity to develop the disposition to make conscious choices in society.

POWERFUL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

SOCIETAL ISSUES

LEARNING BY DOING

LEARNING THROUGH ACTION-ORIENTED THINKING

LEARNING BY INTERACTING

LEARNING BY MAKING THINKING VISIBLE

Figure

Overview learning environment with the 5 elements

Experimental

The word ‘experimental’ in ESD experimental environment relates to the school as a place for practice. In it, pupils have the freedom to think in an action-oriented way about societal issues, without having to meet expectations towards the family, the professional world, society or the government (Van Poeck & Östman). By decoupling development from an agenda, pupils are given the freedom to gain experience. They are allowed to experience mistakes, failures and successes and learn from them. By engaging with societal issues, the school creates opportunities for pupils to develop themselves and, as a result, society.

Specifically, this means that ESD’s primary goal is the learner’s development, with the school’s learning activities on societal issues such as poverty, discrimination and climate change being first and foremost an opportunity for the learners to develop into individuals who make their own choices. A secondary goal, which is a consequence of the primary goal, is societal transformation.

The metaphor used by Masschelein and Simons (Masschelein & Simons 2013), in which education is seen as a place where the school puts matters such as societal issues ‘on the table’ for pupils, brings this view of formal education into sharp focus. The teacher may communicate an opinion, a conviction or a feeling, but always with the intention of opening up the issue. Pupils are thus given the opportunity to form their own opinions, beliefs and feelings.

The metaphor thus (also) points us to the duty of education, to bring the world to the school and to the pupils, using the learning opportunities that the world offers. In this process we are not value- neutral. We show that we have an opinion, a feeling or a point of view when necessary.

In this way we create a learning context for pupils, in which they are the subjects of the change they themselves envisage, and not the objects of change conceived by other societal actors, such as the school or the government.

The school offers learners a learning context by creating an ESD experimental environment in which societal issues from which they can learn are put on the table, and in which knowledge, opinions, feelings and solutions are not offered as ends in themselves, but as the means to be able and willing to make choices in and for society, with respect for the physical and social environment.

Societalissues

Making conscious choices about societal issues requires opportunity to practice - to get started, to achieve success, to make mistakes and to learn from them. The school can offer pupils this opportunity from the moment they enter as a pre-schooler, until the time they leave. ESD therefore explicitly presents societal issues as a relevant, authentic and transdisciplinary learning context for pupils, within which they can optimally develop themselves.

Environment

The word environment refers to the place(s) where pupils learn in the context of formal education. After all, learning takes place not only in the classroom, but throughout the school and in the midst of society. The term ESD experimental environment thus refers not only to the classroom, but to any learning environment within the context of formal education.

Societal issue vs challenge

Djapo makes a distinction between, on the one hand, major societal issues such as hunger, inequality and climate change, and on the other, specific challenges formulated by the pupils, towards which they can work in an action-oriented way.

Societal issues are broad, societal problems in regard to which carefully formulated end goals are lacking and paths to solutions uncertain (Runco 1994). They are authentic and relevant starting points for (learning from) action-oriented thinking. There is a need to formulate ‘challenges’ in order to give the process an action-oriented form, precisely because the issues are so broad and their formulation so unclear.

This process from societal issue to challenge to conscious choice can be a very instructive route for the development of pupils’ ESD dispositions. Nevertheless, ESD should not be equated with project education. ESD is education that provides opportunities to develop pupils’ disposition to make conscious choices in society. It therefore also provides opportunities to develop ESD dispositions.

A ‘small excursion’ vs action-oriented thinking

The school can also offer simple and highly targeted learning activities for the development of ESD dispositions, without having to go through the whole process from societal issue to choice. These are, as it were, small excursions into societal issues. At the other end of the spectrum is true, action-oriented thinking, where pupils start from a societal issue and work towards an action.

Societal issue –challenge – choice

A societal issue is a starting point for action-oriented thinking, the beginning of a process that ends (provisionally) with the making of a conscious choice.

The process from societal issue to choice is carefully constructed, and includes the necessary time for reflection. Without wishing to lapse into a step-by-step plan, there are divergent and convergent phases in such processes. One diverges to explore the possibilities for action, and then converges once a choice is made.

An explanation of some of the issues in the process of moving from societal issue to choice, via the challenge, follows. The challenge is required in order to work in a highly focused way towards the desired action.

From societal issue to challenge: a personal question

The process from societal issue to carefully formulated challenge is preferably performed by the pupils themselves (Kay 1994). This allows them to see working towards a choice as something of their own, something they personally want to realise in society, and not as a task or job.

The motivation and engagement of learners is much higher if the challenges are locally relevant (Östman, Van Poeck & Öhman 2019) and if these challenges have a direct link to the living environment of learners and the local community around the school. Challenges are preferably formulated in a group. This is because of the educational benefits that arise when we engage in learning processes together, but also from a societal point of view. Participatory, democratic and transdisciplinary work is necessary in order to transform society (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015).

Alternately diverging and converging

Societal issues are very broad, so research is needed to get a full picture of the issue and all possible sub-issues; to bring systems into focus and to explore all of their sub-issues. Information is sought, preferably together with others. We call this divergence. The added value of collaboration is discussed further in this chapter.

Despite divergent exploration, the teacher can to some extent direct the focus or attention of pupils by providing specific information, or by directing the pupils’ attention towards certain aspects of the societal issue. For example, when dealing with the issue of inequality, a teacher could focus attention on housing, educational opportunities, etc.

An important source of knowledge here is interaction with other perspectives in order to broaden or deepen our own view. We need this in order to be able to decide for

ourselves what touches us, makes us curious, or triggers us regarding the issue. This can then lead to convergence, towards a carefully formulated challenge.

In other words, divergence is necessary in order to converge and thus arrive at a challenge that:

– relates to a sub-aspect of a societal issue

– is a result of transdisciplinary research on a societal issue, in which more than one perspective is always taken into account – relates to something that affects or motivates the pupils personally or as a group (intrinsic motivation)

– offers opportunities to take action within the pupils’ own scope of action.

DesigninganESD

First field of action: Learning from societal issues

As described above, societal issues provide an interesting context for developing the disposition to make choices in society as resilient persons, and to do so in an active, conscious way and together with others. At the same time, pupils are given the opportunity to renew the world from the safe place for practice that school can provide (Van Poeck & Östman 2020) and to experience that they themselves can be shapers of society.

Which societal issues you bring into the classroom depends on the pupils. Their level of development, interests and emotions, as well as factors such as current events, strongly determine the issues that can be addressed.

However, this is not an easy task, especially with young children. After all, carefully chosen local and concrete societal issues can turn into more complex and worrying societal issues, in which terror, the extinction of ecosystems or even death come into the picture. A teacher who does not want to inhibit the curiosity of pre-schoolers and who does not want to simply dismiss the children’s questions wonders at that moment how hard these societal problems hit pre-schoolers, how parents will react and how far you as a teacher have to go to ‘neutralise’ high-impact, societal issues.

As explained above, in an ESD experimental environment, attention is paid to a number of principles with the aim of creating a safe place for practice for the making of conscious choices in society. Ideally, children and young people grow up in an environment in which they can practice safely at home and in their free time. Djapo focuses on setting up such a place for practice at school. The defined factors that determine a quality ESD experimental environment have therefore been developed from an educational perspective, which does not alter the fact that they also deserve attention in other contexts.

The various fields of action form a systemic whole. This means that if you take action in one of the fields, there will automatically be movement in the others.

In situations like this, it is advisable for a teacher to slow down and enter into dialogue with colleagues, in order to find answers together. Together, they can find ways of continuing to use the children’s questions as their departure point (Palmer 2016). While this theoretical framework focuses on creating opportunities to develop pupils’ ESD dispositions, we must not forget that teachers must also attend to the development and exemplification of their own dispositions. In order to deal with serious societal issues that children face, the teachers’ team needs to put heads together. The social dispositions of teachers, in which the exchange of perspectives plays an important role, are very much at the forefront here and are an opportunity for the development of these skills in practice, both for ourselves, as teachers, and in teacher teams.

SOCIETAL ISSUES

Second field of action: Learning by doing

As human beings, we usually only start to think consciously when we are confronted with situations in which existing knowledge, skills or values are no longer useful or sufficient, or seem to have failed. Such situations make us reflect and trigger our creativity to renew the world (Van Poeck & Östman 2020). By ‘learning by doing’ we mean that the learners start thinking about an issue because they feel that the knowledge and skills they have acquired so far via the teacher are not sufficient to generate answers.

Societal issues present us with such problematic situations. The feeling that we do not have the right knowledge or skills to provide an answer demands that we make a move, by thinking or acting, or both at the same time. An ESD experimental environment in which this happens offers opportunities for learning by doing: we learn by going through thinking processes, then through actual action, and finally by reflecting on both. This alternate thinking/doing and reflecting should lead to achievement of our objectives - via new knowledge, skills or insights, an opinion, different possibilities, an analysis, or something else. It is a process in which pupils enter into relationships with the world around them. We learn by relating to what comes our way in the social, physical or emotional world, because in the process we give meaning to it (Taguchi 2007) (Östman, Van Poeck & Öhman 2019). These relationships are not only cognitive – as our feelings also determine the meaning we give to things. These feelings amount to important added value (Håkansson, Van Poeck & Östman 2019) that derives from this way of shaping a powerful learning environment, because they make us feel involved in the world around us.

‘Learning by doing’ allows pupils to develop by making them think about the world, make choices and reflect on those choices. Because learning occurs in relation to the surrounding world, the learning process is a rich one in which cognition and emotion go hand in hand, and in which knowledge and skills are used to achieve a goal.

Figure 17 Learning by doing

LEARNING BY DOING

Third field of action: Learning through action-oriented thinking

Making a conscious choice in connection with a societal issue is the provisional end point of a thinking process that starts with detecting a societal issue itself. The intention here is that the school, as a place for practice, provides the space to build confidence around one’s own disposition to shape society (Sass et al. 2020). The societal issue is the start of a process in which pupils learn to work purposefully towards a desired end result, as a function of that issue. We call this action-oriented thinking and it includes a number of very important concepts. These are discussed below.

Goal-orientation

The whole process is carefully designed according to an equally carefully formulated goal (Swartz et al. 2008), which is ideally set by the pupils themselves on the basis of intrinsic motivation (see above), and which is expressed in the challenge. This challenge determines the strategic, goal-oriented thinking process (Perkins 1981).

It is important to realise that the world is in motion: after we have taken up the challenge, or even reached our goal, everything may still change (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015).

Action

Action is any possible end result expressed in the challenge, and can be either direct or indirect. Whereas direct action is aimed at an immediate transformation, indirect action is aimed at others who can make a transformation possible (Sass et al. 2020).

It is particularly important that we act together on societal issues (Sass et al. 2020). Pupils reinforce each other’s individual qualities when they work together towards action (Wals 2011). Moreover, it is always the intention that the action has an effect, and that it therefore becomes part of ‘the world’. In other words, that it is accepted and adopted, not only by ourselves, but also by others. The others are therefore a necessary component of action. The other is a necessary key to sustaining action (Biesta 2020).

Confidence

Pupils must be given the time to build up confidence in their own disposition to make their own choices in society and to actively shape that society. Enculturation is of great importance here: children and young people are socialized in an environment in which action-oriented thinking about societal issues is expressly valorised.

The challenge

A challenge is formulated in such a way that it invites action-oriented thinking and the search for different possibilities. The movement from societal issue to challenge is therefore a very important process in action-oriented thinking.

After the teacher or the pupils have determined the societal issue, an investigation follows which, as interim result, should end in a carefully formulated challenge (Sass et al. 2020).

A number of aspects of our vision on thought education are crucial in this research:

– Learning in interaction: An important part of the investigation is based on interaction with other perspectives.

– Knowledge: knowledge is imparted by the teacher as well as fellow pupils and is gradually built up by the pupils themselves.

– Subjectification: During the investigation, which is aimed at formulating a challenge, we strive to ensure that the pupil not only develops his or her own standpoint on the societal issue, but also the desire to act on it and take responsibility for it.

During the investigation one clusters information into categories, prioritises, deletes and adds information. Finally, one evaluates, in order to arrive at one’s own position on the societal issue (Sass et al. 2020). This perspective will determine which aspect of the societal issue falls within your scope of action or influence, which aspect of it you feel most involved with and where you want to see change. This will be the challenge you want to take up.

The school can provide pupils with the space to build up confidence around their own disposition to shape society. Starting from a societal issue, pupils learn to work purposefully towards a desired end result. Through enculturation, action-oriented thinking on societal issues becomes commonplace.

LEARNING THROUGH ACTION-ORIENTED THINKING

Figure 18 Learning through action-oriented thinking

Fourth field of action: Learning through interaction

Learning by interacting with other perspectives requires activities that stimulate the dynamics between the learner’s perspective and other perspectives.

By identifying interaction as a field of action, we draw the attention of the school and the teacher to the importance of interaction with other perspectives. After all, an ESD experimental environment is one in which the disposition to make conscious choices in society is stimulated and nurtured through interaction with others, whether in person, on paper or through the internet. And indeed, books, articles, documentaries, websites, etc. also bring learners into contact with other perspectives (Taguchi 2011). This allows pupils to deepen and broaden their understanding. As with any field of action defined in the ESD experimental environment, it is important that the interaction is not limited by the classroom walls.

Societal issues require interaction because they cannot always be captured in a single truth. This ambiguity stimulates the exchange of perspectives. Other perspectives will always challenge, deepen or extend our own, but that requires a systemic view. For it is necessary to look at the different perspectives not as separate information, but as contributions to what we already know.

Personal and societal benefits of interaction

Enriching one’s own perspective through dialogue with other perspectives is invaluable for learners, both personally and socially.

We learn to use the richness of other perspectives as a function of our own insights. By interacting with the world, our views can change. It is not the information itself that brings about that change, but the way we structure it and how we think about it. Education should

therefore not only focus on knowledge acquisition, but also on conceptual change. This takes place when pupils collaborate and enter into dialogue with others - both peers and teachers. Good dialogue allows the activities that shape mutual understanding to be elaborated and deepened.

– We learn an important democratic principle, namely that we do not necessarily exchange perspectives in order to convince others that we are right, but that we can use them to create new opportunities. We learn that our idea or perspective about a particular situation does not automatically apply to all situations (Öhman & Kronlid 2019).

– Interaction stimulates cooperation by, for example, dividing the work.

– Interaction encourages critical thinking. By interacting with other perspectives, it is easier to remain critical of our own thinking and actions, and those of others. In other words, we become more alert to the thoughts and actions both of ourselves and of other group members.

– By engaging in dialogue with each other, we are obliged to think and to make explicit, which facilitates the metacognitive evaluation of our thinking processes.

– Opposing views or opinions encourage further investigation of a topic (Håkansson, Van Poeck & Östman 2019).

– The fact that we are doing something together encourages greater commitment than when we are working alone.

Inhibiting factors

Social interaction can also constrain thinking, especially if there is too much emphasis on the fact that ‘all opinions are welcome’. A word of explanation. We can easily understand that doctrine, which requires a group of people to follow a point of view and live by it, inhibits individual thought. Thinking can also be restricted by authoritarian regimes or authoritarian management, where all ‘subjects’ are supposed to think and act in the same way. In both cases, individual ideas that potentially differ from the guiding ideas of the doctrine or leader are considered undesirable. Prejudice, in which people make unconsidered judgements, also severely limits thinking. Doctrine, authoritarianism and prejudice are all social forces that limit thought.

Social interaction can bring about the same thing. If every opinion is regarded as a truth with a right to exist, relativism can arise. The purpose of thinking together, however, is not to allow all the different perspectives to coexist, but rather to form a foundation for one’s own point of view, on the basis of which we can decide for ourselves what is relevant or right for us (Perkins 2001).

Enculturation, repetition, self-discovery and reflection

Building confidence in the disposition to make conscious choices regarding societal issues requires enculturation, repetition, self-discovery and reflection.

This means that the school and the teachers must systematically set up learning activities that stimulate interaction. These convey the message that interaction with other perspectives does not undermine the learner’s own perspective, but rather creates new opportunities (Öhman & Kronlid 2019). For example, by allowing the learner’s own understanding to evolve, to enrich and deepen. During discussions in which different perspectives are explored, it is important that the teacher does not strive for consensus, but rather emphasises personal enrichment through interaction with these different perspectives.

The frame of reference as a tool for exploring perspectives

As demonstrated earlier, the concept of ‘frame of reference’ provides a practical tool for examining different perspectives. A frame of reference is a dynamic frame that determines our perspective on a (societal) issue and is formed by emotions, values, norms, convictions, interests, knowledge, place, time, identity and also the societal dimensions applying to our perspective or standpoint.

When we look for different perspectives on a societal issue, it is useful to know which factors determine our own perspective. In this way, we can, for example, look for people with different knowledge, values, norms, interests, etc., in order to supplement our own perspective.

The frame of reference is a model that helps learners find answers to questions such as ‘what influences the way I perceive this information?’ and ‘what prior knowledge or experience helps or hinders me to understand the new information?’. From the answer to such questions, the richness of other perspectives can become clear and we can search for them in a focused way.

Learning by interacting with other perspectives offers benefits, both on a personal and societal level. It requires a systematic approach at school, so that pupils experience time and again that their own insights are not compromised, but rather deepened and broadened by interaction.

Figure 19 Learning by interacting

LEARNING BY INTERACTING

Fifth field of action: Making thinking visible

We learn by thinking (Perkins 1992) about societal issues. It is therefore important to make learners think about societal issues and to make their disposition to think visible. This means that not only thinking processes are made visible, but also knowledge, sensitivity and motivation.

But how can thinking be made ‘visible’? It can be achieved

– by using the language of thinking (in spoken and written language)

– by visualising (making visible to the eye)

Examples of how thinking can be made visible are the Djapo visual thinking tools, the thinking routines of Project Zero, the ‘thinking maps’ of David Hyerle and many other conceptual structures such as mind mapping, relationship circles, etc.

By making thinking visible

– pupils feel more involved on the basis of their own interests and the desire to take action may grow;

– as a result, the pupils actively shape the learning community together with the teacher;

– more opportunity is created for formative assessment, as it enables dialogue between pupil and teacher about the learning process itself;

– metacognitive disposition is strengthened, and therefore the disposition to know how to look for an answer. This increases the disposition to think and to learn.

thinking dispositions are developed because we give pupils the message that thinking itself is valued. Pupils thus become more motivated to develop and use their thinking dispositions (Ritchhart & Church 2020).

We explore these two ways of making thinking processes visible, below.

The language of thinking (Costa & Kallick 2008)

Identifying and stimulating your disposition for thinking through spoken and written language is a powerful way of making thinking visible. Developing a language of thinking is ideally a process that teachers and pupils go through together, making sense of all the elements that make up the disposition to think. Once the disposition to think has acquired language and meaning, it can be recognised and named. By then discussing the context and purpose of the thinking processes, we create a powerful learning environment in which to develop our thinking dispositions. The language of thinking thus expresses not only the thinking processes themselves, but also the context in which they are applied and their ultimate goal: to provide choice, analysis, a set of options, a list of pros and cons, or an opinion.

By using the language of thinking at school, pupils learn the value of thinking together and of learning from that process. The language of thinking is in this way a medium for creating a thinking culture. A thinking culture in which

the language of thinking comes to the fore can be recognised by four actions: questioning, reflecting, valorising and paraphrasing.

– Asking questions that stimulate thinking These are questions that probe learners’ knowledge and understanding, probe the thinking processes they have used, or ask them to apply their knowledge and understanding in other contexts. Less relevant here are ‘absolute’ questions (where the pupil is expected to give an answer that the teacher sees as ‘correct’) and rhetorical questions.

– Reflection is important in assessing which thinking processes have been applied when, in what context, in what combination and how effectively. It is crucial to be able to express reflection in words.

– Valorising through specific feedback. Pupils’ disposition to think are stimulated by evaluating an answer, regardless of whether it is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. By identifying what is right and what is wrong, the answer is valorised and the development of the disposition to think is stimulated. This cannot be done without thinking.

– Paraphrasing a learner’s answer, not only valorises their thinking, but also stimulates them to think further. For this, the teacher’s disposition to listen is essential.

Example:

– You choose to focus on the systemic disposition of pupils. You want to explicitly provide pupils with opportunities to develop this disposition through the design of your ESD experimental environment.

– You choose a manageable number of thinking processes that are important for you to develop with your learners. For example: making connections, asking questions and describing.

– Together with your learners you explore the meaning of these concepts (making connections, asking questions, describing). You explore not only what they can mean, but also when learners use them in everyday life at home and at school, what they are used for, when they are used and when they are not, who uses them often and in what context. You try to be alert as a group, noticing when someone in the class applies these concepts, and being aware of interesting opportunities to further apply them. This is how you build a common language of thinking together.

Thinking routines as devised by Project Zero at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (Ritchhart, Church & Morrison 2011) (Ritchhart & Church 2020) are a very effective way of stimulating thinking through the use of the language of thinking.

These are well-defined sequences of specific thinking processes, each of which serves a particular purpose: to enhance understanding, stimulate creativity, explore themes,

build argumentation, etc. Thinking routines, even more than fixed thinking strategies, build a thinking culture in the school. A shared language of thinking is an important medium here. Thinking routines in themselves are a good starting point for further development in the school community.

Visualisation

Thinking can be visualised, by which we mean made visible to the eyes. This is interesting from an educational point of view, because visualisations show at a glance what is going on in the heads of learners. This makes it easier to design tailor-made learning activities that match the level of learners’ learning processes. The learners themselves can also gain insight into their own thinking through visualisations. We point to two types of visualisation.

– Visualising can be done by documenting the pupils’ investigations in order to discuss them afterwards. This can be done with the help of aids like video and photographic material, portfolios, drawings, notes and diagrams on a whiteboard or large sheet of paper. Pupils and teachers can use these aids for review, or as a basis for telling others about their investigations. Parents, for example, form a particularly interesting audience in kindergarten contexts. But documentation can also be used simply as a window into what is going on among the learners at that moment, what insights and knowledge are available to them and what questions have arisen. – Visualising can also be done by using visual thinking tools. These are graphic tools that connect standalone information and knowledge into a meaningful, dynamic whole by applying at least one fundamental thinking process. These visualisation tools are closely related to documenting, but we identify them separately because they do something that the above-mentioned documentation method does not - they portray certain thinking processes very specifically. Well-known examples are mind maps and relationship circles. Djapo’s visual thinking tools are also designed to build knowledge and understanding together with others, to rediscover or structure already-acquired information, to share ideas and experiences, to give meaning and to engage in dialogue with others.

For Djapo’s visual thinking tools see: www.djapo.be

Figure 20 Learning by making thinking visible

LEARNING BY MAKING THINKING VISIBLE

Whole School Approach

Whole

School Approach:

an interaction

In Chapter 1 we discussed an important goal of education - how to develop the disposition to make conscious choices in society. We’ve broken down this wide-ranging endeavour into workable goals, called ESD dispositions. In Chapter 2, we put forward the ways of thinking and doing that will help give pupils the opportunity to develop their ESD dispositions. This thinking is supported by the Whole School Approach (WSA). This approach aims not only to implement the ways of thinking and acting explained in chapters 1 and 2 in the classroom, but at every level of school life, from the individual pupil, to the class and to the whole school.

It is important to emphasise here:

– Society influences the goals of education. Education sometimes tends to ‘reproduce’ society, to follow the

prevailing rules. While ESD encourages us to transcend the existing paradigms and be conscious of the purpose of education and how to achieve it. By involving ESD in school development, and thus repeatedly stimulating learning about societal issues, the ESD WSA creates the potential to renew society (Mogren 2019).

– The context in which the pupils live is extremely important for the results of their learning and it forms part of the journey that leads to achieving the desired goals.

– It is important to keep re-evaluating our goals on a regular basis (Biesta & Pols 2012).

Specifically, this means that the fields of action defined for the ESD experimental environment apply not only at the level of the pupils in the classroom, but also at the level of the whole school. They give substance to a school organisa-

tion and culture that aims to support pupils’ development. Conversely, the school organisation and culture enable and strengthen the ESD experimental environment. They are, in fact, tools for optimising school learning opportunities for pupils to develop their disposition to make conscious choices in society. Interaction takes place.

The prerequisite for this interaction is a school culture in which professional development also forms an integral part. A culture that reflects on the goals of education and their effective application in practice. This requires the school team to be open to examining, questioning and evolving their own pedagogical and didactic practices and vision. This kind of professional development also provides a strong basis for bottom-up, professional learning, based on real-life experiences (Mogren, Gericke & Scherp 2018).

A WSA in ESD stands for stronger interaction between – the opportunities the school offers pupils to develop themselves, especially in the ESD experimental environment, and – the way in which the school chooses to shape its organisation and culture.

The fields of action in the ESD experimental environment give substance to the school organisation and culture, and conversely, the school organisation and culture support the creation of a powerful ESD experimental environment.

WHOLE SCHOOL APPROACH

WholeSchool Approach:

thefieldsofaction

To understand the importance of a Whole School Approach to ESD, we need to look at the school as a system. Just as ESD dispositions influence each other, and it is therefore impossible to regard them as completely separate, the fields of action in the ESD experimental environment also influence each other. They form a systemic whole and cannot be viewed in isolation. In this set of interrelationships and connections, WSA must remain a workable concept and therefore Djapo has chosen two aspects on which to focus when implementing quality ESD in schools: school organisation and school culture.

WHOLE SCHOOL APPROACH SCHOOL CULTURE

Figure 22 Overview of the 2 aspects of WSA: school culture and school organisation

SCHOOL ORGANISATION

School organisation

The importance of the school organisation

By identifying the school’s organisation structure as a field of action for the WSA, Djapo aims to ensure that the way a school is organised supports the implementation of an ESD experimental environment, and vice versa: that the ESD experimental environment supports the school’s organisation. This creates coherence in the actions of the school, which is crucial for the development of pupils’ ESD dispositions.

In order to define how the school organisation impacts the predefined learning outcomes, we refer to the research vision of the research group, Edubron1. It looked for factors in school organisation structures that could increase the effectiveness of ESD. By incorporating these factors into its organisation, a school can greatly facilitate the development of ESD dispositions. By ‘school organisation’ Edubron means the organisational forces in a school.

The characteristics which the school organisation (Verhelst et al. 2021) can influence in such a way as to make a difference to the integration of an ESD approach can be divided into two groups. Two contextual characteristics form one group and six central characteristics the other. Together they form a systemic whole, a compass that gives direction to the school organisation (Mogren 2019) and at the same time is an expression of the school culture. By focusing on the various characteristics, we also express existing or desired norms, rules of conduct, values and assumptionsincluding unexpressed assumptions.

Example ‘Pluralistic communication’ will be greatly facilitated in the school organisation if we make community thinking ‘visible’ (ESD experimental environment).

Example ‘Action-oriented thinking’ (in the ESD experimental environment) is an interesting way of shaping a ‘shared-vision’ school organisation.

School organisation can support the implementation of an ESD experimental environment and, vice versa, the ESD experimental environment can support the school organisation.

PLURALISTIC COMMUNICATION

SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIPS

DEMOCRATIC DECISION-MAKING

SHARED VISION

ADAPTABILITY

COLLECTIVE EFFECTIVENESS

ESD-EFFECTIVE SCHOOL

SCHOOLRESOURCES

SUSTAINABLELEADERSHIP

¹The research group was established in 2000 and is part of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Antwerp.

Figure 23 School organisation

Contextual characteristics

Sustainable leadership – School leaders are often the initiators of ESD and play an important role in the implementation of ESD at a school (Verhelst et al. 2020). Leadership style determines processes and results. Sustainable leadership can support and strengthen the creation of a powerful ESD experimental environment. There is, of course, much to be said on the subject of sustainable leadership, but one of its most important aspects is participation by teachers, pupils and parents in decision-making (Vanhoof & Van Petegem 2017). Participation does not mean that everyone must always participate in the decision-making process. There are two conditions for real participation.

– Expertise in the subject, which leads us once again to the importance of professional development at school.

– The extent to which teachers, pupils and parents feel involved. This involvement may have its origins in personal interest and personal concern.

These conditions cannot be separated.

Example: Interaction (in the ESD experimental environment) can broaden and deepen the holistic view of the supervisor.

Example: Making thinking processes visible (in the ESD experimental environment) can facilitate interaction and communication about them.

School resources – School resources are the second contextual feature of school organisation focussed on by ESD-effective schools. The resources include three components: time management, professional structures and physical structures (Verhelst, Vanhoof & Van Petegem 2021).

– Time management: Here, the necessary attention is paid to the time frame within which tasks are planned, and whether matters can be outsourced.

– Professional structures: Paying attention to the way groups are organised.

– Physical structures: Dealing with available infrastructure and financial resources.

School resources must, after all, be applied to achieve a high-quality, powerful ESD experimental environment.

Example: Purchasing display boards to make thinking visible and thus reinforce the ESD experimental environment.

Example: Providing spaces in which pupils can easily confer with each other.

Example Providing resources for introducing pupils to a specific societal issue outside of school.

Sustainable leadership and available resources are the context that enables the other parts of school organisation to achieve ESD (Verhelst, Vanhoof & Van Petegem 2021). These two contextual conditions enable school teams to work with the six central characteristics of school organisation while the physical environment at school makes collaboration and support possible (Verhelst, Vanhoof & Van Petegem 2021).

Core characteristics

Pluralistic communication – ‘Pluralistic communication’ at the level of school organisation refers to the way in which the different stakeholders at school, such as teachers and school leaders, communicate with each other, both formally and informally (Verhelst, Vanhoof & Van Petegem 2021). It implies recognition of other points of view and the need to engage in dialogue with the different stakeholders at a school, such as teachers and school leaders, in both formal and informal contexts (Verhelst, Vanhoof & Van Petegem 2021). Pluralistic communication enables professional development, or the creation of new knowledge within the school team. As it makes us think critically about what we are doing at school - and can continue to interrogate the education process in a constructive way. Pluralistic communication can enrich differing perspectives and deepen our own thinking and acting. In other words, pluralistic communication supports our professional development by enriching our own point of view through dialogue with others. It creates a critical and objectively distanced perspective on the educational practices at school. Pluralistic communication is therefore important in creating, encouraging and supporting an ESD experimental environment.

Example ‘Learning through interaction’ (in the ESD experimental environment) gives concrete expression to pluralistic communication, as it refers to the richness that different perspectives bring to one’s own thinking and acting.

Example Making the thinking processes of those involved

‘visible’ is a useful tool and a focus for communicating in such a way as to bring many ideas and viewpoints from multiple perspectives to the fore. Thus, each idea, in itself, can be a starting point for further thinking.

Supportive relationships – ‘Supportive relationships’, as a characteristic, includes the way the school team is supported by people within the team, but can include support from other schools, support from management teams and support from external partners (Verhelst, Vanhoof & Van Petegem 2021). These supportive relationships reinforce the creation of an ESD experimental environment, in which the enrichment that others can offer us is important.

Example: A teacher wants to commit to regular, action-oriented reflection on societal issues in the classroom. This involves bringing people from the community into the classroom in order to better understand the issues. The school organisation then supports the teacher in contacting and arranging to receive these parties, etc.

Democratic decision-making – Democratic decision-making requires seeing the knowledge and expertise of others as a source of new ideas and possibilities, without compromising our own perspective (Öhman & Kronlid 2019). It is a characteristic that creates opportunities to practice democracy, for both teaching staff and pupils, through the activity area, ‘learning by doing’. Democratic decision-making is closely linked to sustainable leadership. After all, through sustainable leadership, a culture can be created in which democratic decision-making is put into practice and valorised. School principals do not take into account the knowledge and expertise of teachers, pupils and external parties just once, but do it systematically, so that it becomes part of how things are done at school. Management teams, with their sustainable leadership, attach importance to participation, both inside and outside the school (Vanhoof & Van Petegem 2017).

Example: Management discusses a proposal with the teachers’ team, seeking the teachers’ opinions. This discussion takes place with an open attitude on the part of the management, and with management not feeling its position is threatened by teachers wanting to adjust its proposal. On the contrary, management sees the value of other perspectives and welcomes amended proposals.

Shared vision – ‘Shared vision’, as a characteristic, requires zooming in on the need for a common understanding of what we want to develop in pupils and how to best go about it. We achieve a shared vision by interacting and communicating with each other, both inside and outside the school. Above all, we must keep in mind the dynamic aspect of such a vision: there is no single truth, and the vision is in constant evolution, together with the times, the people and the societal context of the school.

Example: A school that is committed to learning through interaction with other’s perspectives will find it easier to achieve a shared vision. Engaging in dialogue and sharing ideas with each other is part of the school culture and infiltrates the nature of the school organisation.

Adaptability – The courage to challenge prevailing paradigms is a characteristic of ESD (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015). This is the context in which we understand ‘adaptability’ - it is the disposition of the school team to react in an appropriate way to questions, expectations and opportunities from within or outside the school, with a view to improving or further developing the education provided (Vanhelst, Vanhoof & Van Petegem 2021). The school always keeps its pedagogical project and thus its vision in mind. It asks itself whether it should change itself, or its environment, and whether it should take action on the issue at hand. While we are considering what adjustments should be made, it is interesting to also ask whether a particular change should be small or far-reaching. Should new elements be added to the school’s operation, or should new processes be designed? The courage to question prevailing paradigms is a characteristic of ESD (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015).

Collective effectiveness – ‘Collective effectiveness’ means that all members of a school team believe that the efforts they make together have a positive influence on the learning of children and young people (Verhelst, Vanhoof & Van Petegem 2021). This belief has a strong influence on pupils’ learning and on the effectiveness of the school team’s ESD approach. Belief in its own abilities will actually make the school team more effective in its approach. And empower it to make the school a powerful ESD experimental environment.

Example: ‘Learning through action-oriented thinking’, means time is spent building positive experiences based on our own ability to make an impact. Deployment in this field of action in the ESD experimental environment gives colour and substance to the collective effectiveness of the school organisation.

School culture

The importance of school culture in a WSA Our thoughts and actions are always related to the context and prevailing culture in which we move. This is an important insight for education, because it means that pupils think and act in the way that is encouraged in school.

As a result, making conscious choices for a sustainable society is not only linked to learning activities, but also to ‘enculturation’. If we want pupils to think independently about societal issues, confident of their own impact on society, then it makes sense to build that into the school culture. If we want to see pupils think for themselves, we need to create a culture in which thinking is valued and encouraged. If we want pupils to work together based on the idea that different perspectives can enrich and deepen their own ideas, then that principle must preferably made tangible in the school culture.`

Making conscious choices for a sustainable society is influenced by the culture in which we find ourselves.

What is culture?

Vanhoof and Van Petegem (2017) define school culture as the whole of shared meaning-making between all participants in school events. Ritchhart (2015) describes school culture as a group of people telling a story. The relationship between teachers, pupils and learning is central here. Everyone has a part in the story, influences the story and makes it come alive.

If we follow the metaphor of culture as a story, then culture is something dynamic, which is constantly being created and shaped by all participants. But it also implies that there is a special role for (school) leaders.

Many people play a role in a WSA - pupils, teachers, management, administrative and executive staff and, preferably, also parents and people related to the school. The story of a school culture is told by all of those involved. Knowing this, it is interesting to look at the story of our own school and (try to) answer the questions that it raises. What story are we actually telling? What message do we explicitly and implicitly send to the pupils, and what do we tell them by deliberately or unconsciously leaving some things out? Which people play a role in our story? What relationships do they have with each other? What is the purpose of the education we provide? What is our vision of learning? Not to mention - does our vision match the messages we send out? What message do we convey explicitly through our rules of conduct and, implicitly, through what we evaluate, through the questions we ask and through the learning activities we design? In other words, coherence is central here. Is the ideal story we have written about ‘making education’ and our vision thereof also the story that pupils experience at school?

The story of the education we want to provide must be evaluated and adjusted so that pupils themselves play a part in the story we have in mind. Adapting also implies shaping the culture we live in.

Shaping culture through our story

Project Zero, a research initiative of the Harvard Graduate School of Education (pz.harvard.edu of Harvard 2021), identifies eight forces that can create, shape and also tell our story. Eight forces with which we send messages to the pupils. In this way we create a school culture.

Expectations – The concept of ‘expectations’ as the designer of a school culture has two aspects.

– On the one hand, adults can have expectations about the behaviour of pupils. This is expressed, for example, in the rules of conduct and standards at school. They describe what we expect from pupils.

On the other hand, expectations can also concern a set of beliefs about the world and how it works. At school, for example, we have expectations about learning and how that works, how pupils build up knowledge and develop their dispositions to make conscious choices for a sustainable society. These kinds of expectations are called by David Perkins, ‘action theories’ - theories about how our actions and behaviour relate to desired results.

Our expectations of pupils influence the goals we want to achieve. They not only explicitly determine the course we take, but also act as a kind of internal compass. To shape a school culture requires thinking about these expectations. What vision of learning does the school have? What is the vision of education? What role does subjectification have in that education? What are the expectations with regard to evaluation?

Example: A teacher clearly states in an assignment that he/ she expects pupils to compare two solutions to a problem.

Example: By emphasising the value of thinking, the teacher shows pupils that they are expected to think for themselves.

Language – Language, as a shaper of school culture, guides our attention and actions. However, language is not only about the explicit meaning of the words themselves. It also conveys messages in an implicit way. By expressing certain things in words and leaving others unsaid, we indicate what we consider important. What we value in practice and what we do not value. If we are aware of this, we can create a language within the school, as a group, that states what we really want to valorise. In this way we work more purposefully.

In the context of ESD and the approach described in this theoretical framework, it is interesting to use the language of thinking - i.e., language that names thinking processes, but also identifies that someone has been so alert as to initiate a particular thinking process. It is language that stimulates further or deeper thinking, and raises the idea of cooperation. With words like ‘we’, ‘together’ and ‘us’, language can highlight the strengths of a group.

The language of hypotheses invites us to speak not in absolute terms, but in assumptions that are still to be investigated. This implies the use of the conditional form. Examples are: ‘How could one do this?’ instead of ‘How can one do this? or ‘How could we deal with this?’ instead of ‘How do we deal with this?’

Example: The teacher creates a culture in which thinking is seen as important. He/she does this by naming the thinking processes used in the classroom in assignments, feedback, class discussions, etc.

Time – The time we spend on something reflects how much we value it. Giving pupils time to formulate their ideas shows that we value what they say. Giving time to explore a societal issue, so that pupils can relate their own challenges to it, tells how important we think it is for pupils to think about which societal issues they want to tackle. All these things leave a mark on pupils’ thinking and actions, and help shape the school culture.

In this context, it is interesting to consider the functions of education. How much time do we spend on qualifying pupils (building knowledge and skills)? How much time is spent on socialisation? And how much time do we really spend on providing opportunities for subjectification, providing the freedom to make one’s own choices and act accordingly? The three functions of education are always present, in every school, but the balance between them, which function/s prevail in the education actually provided, is significant for the school culture. If we want pupils to develop the disposition to make conscious choices in society, then ample attention and time must also be devoted to subjectification activities.

Example: Spending time in the classroom on learning through interaction, in which pupils explore each other’s perspectives, indicates that we value this.

Modelling – An educational professional is always consciously displaying skills, knowledge, strategies, etc., with the explicit intention that pupils will learn from this display. At the same time, a teacher is constantly in pupils’ view. Pupils see what you spend time on, how you talk, where your teaching interests lie, and how you collaborate

with others. We call this modelling, and it happens at both explicit and implicit levels.

Modelling does not mean that the teacher has to be a perfect role model. For the teacher, learning to think also means taking risks and sometimes arriving at a dead end. Teachers who strive for conscious choice in society also gradually adjust the processes that they themselves initiate, and this takes place in the presence of the pupils. They think and act, reflect and monitor. ‘Learning to think’ means, among other things, learning to cope with uncertainty and mistakes, learning to make adjustments, learning from experience, and reflecting on this entire process.

Modelling opportunities are not only provided by teachers and management. Pupils also learn from each other. This often requires that a teacher has to draw a pupil’s attention to another pupil.

A powerful ESD experimental environment, in which pupils are given optimal opportunities to develop their ESD dispositions, must be populated with teachers who identify with ESD dispositions and the values behind them. This means that pupils can recognise the same ESD dispositions (in development) in the teachers. In other words, modelling requires a certain authenticity from the teachers.

Example: A teacher is open to receiving criticism from pupils about rules at school that are not sustainable. He/ she searches, together with the pupils, for how things could be done differently and shows by his/her own attitude that insights are constantly evolving and that we can deepen our insights by collaborating with others.

Example: A teacher shows, by his/her own attitude, that it is not bad not to know something. The teacher is prepared to tell pupils that he/she does not personally understand a societal issue well enough and has asked for advice from others.

Opportunities – At school we want to offer pupils opportunities to develop, both individually and within a group. In this sense, the ESD experimental environment is very important. It offers opportunities for development. Creating opportunities is an important tool, necessary to start learning. And crucial in this context, of course, is the question of what you want to develop using these opportunities. If you create opportunities specifically to develop ESD dispositions, you send the message that you value them.

Moreover, you create not only opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills (qualification), and to socialise in the world, but also opportunities for pupils to take the freedom to shape their own thoughts and actions, taking into

account their physical and social environment (subjectification).

For the school, a number of questions are of interest: what are these opportunities for? What can pupils get out of it? And which opportunities do we not provide (even though we may want to do so)?

Example: A teacher sets up a task in such a way that the pupils themselves come up with the idea of involving others in the solution. By doing so, he/she encourages pupils to be alert to opportunities to learn from others.

Example: A teacher offers societal issues as a learning context, because he/she wants to make pupils aware of societal issues in the school environment.

Routines – Routines are shared practices or ways of thinking and doing, which the group takes for granted. They provide a framework that helps us to think and learn, for example by offering a system of thinking processes. These kinds of thinking routines play an important role in tackling problems or questions for which there are no answers yet, such as societal issues. Thinking routines are especially useful if they can initiate and support the ESD dispositions in terms of achieving a specific goal. They provide an infrastructure that the pupils can use when tackling societal issues, and which they themselves can further develop over time.

By introducing thinking routines at school, one shapes a culture in which thinking is considered valuable. It is also important that these thinking routines are ‘released’ after a while. In other words, that the pupils themselves can evolve them.

Example: een krachtige denkroutine in de klas is de gewoonte om de vraag en de aanpak met aandacht te bespreken, alvorens te starten met de opdracht.

Example: het kan een vaste routine in de klas zijn om de leerlingen anderen te laten betrekken bij het nadenken over een (maatschappelijk) vraagstuk.

Interaction – The quality of interaction between teachers and pupils strongly determines a school culture in which learning is enjoyable and good.

Interaction that is respectful, stimulates thinking and promotes autonomy is particularly valuable for the development of ESD dispositions. The way questions are asked is particularly decisive here, because questioning is an important form of interaction between teacher and pupil. After all, questions reflect what the teacher thinks is important.

Figure

Environment – The physical environment of the school influences the way pupils and teachers interact. The environment can either inhibit or stimulate the development of EDO dispositions.

The development of ESD dispositions requires a school where the various fields of action in an ESD experimental environment are at least possible to engage.

Example: It must be possible to learn by interaction. In a classroom in which pupils can only look in the direction of the teacher, it is difficult for them to interact with each other’s perspectives. The physical environment must allow for interaction.

Example: Empty walls in the classroom on which thinking processes can be displayed send the message that learning is a process, and that making ideas visible can contribute to what the pupils are working on at that moment.

The messages that a physical space sends out are the reason why the environment is also seen as a shaper of a school culture. Taking pupils beyond the school walls sends the message that what they are learning has a purpose and a function in the real world.

The above mentioned eight forces help us create, shape and tell our story, and so to create a school culture.

Summary

A WSA in which the ESD experimental environment is opened up, from classroom level to school level, is a way of thinking and doing. School organisation and school culture are two aspects we can work with if we want to make the school a powerful, quality, ESD experimental environment. The fields of action defined for the ESD experimental environment are then present in every fibre of the school, from the school’s organisation to its culture. A must for achieving this condition is the openness and sensitivity to grow and learn as a school.

For growth, learning from each other and from each other’s perspective through dialogue is a basic disposition. Management and teachers should also be open to developing new knowledge and skills and to socialising within a school culture that is consciously taking shape. Management and teachers are the designers of the change they envisage, while respecting the limits of the given physical and social environment. In this way, the school is a real place for practice for change and renewal, in which all participantspupils, teachers, management, other staff and all involved partners - can learn together from societal issues.

Bibliography

Jensen, B. & Schnack, K. 2006. ‘The action competence approach in environmental education’, Environmental Education Research 12(3-4), pp. 471-486.

Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. 2006. ‘The action competence approach’, Environmental Education: Reprinted from Environmental Education Research (1997) 3(2), pp. 163–178. Environmental education research, 12(3-4). pp.471-486.

Jensen, B. 2000. ‘Health knowledge and health education in the democratic health-promoting school’, Health education, 100(4), pp. 146-154.

Katholiek Onderwijs Vlaanderen. 2021. Betekenisvolle situaties. Accessed via https://zill.katholiekonderwijs.vlaanderen

Kay, S. 1994. ‘A method for investigating the creative thought process’, Runco, M. (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. New Jersey: Ablex. pp. 116-129.

Kim, D. H. 1999. Introduction to systems thinking (Vol. 16). Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications.

Lijmbach, S., Van Arcken, M., Van Koppen, C.S.A., Wals, A. 2002. ‘”Your view of nature is not mine!”: Learning about pluralism in the classroom’, Environmental Education Research, 8(2), pp. 121-135.

Öhman, J. & Östman, L. 2019. ‘The ethical tendency typology’, K. Van Poeck, L. Östman, & J. Öhman. (Ed.), Sustainable Development Teaching London & New York: Routledge. pp. 83-92.

Östman, L., Van Poeck, K. & Öhman, J. 2019. ‘A transactional theory on sustainability learning’, Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. & Öhman, J. (Ed.), Sustainable Development Teaching. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 127-139.

Östman, L., Van Poeck, K., Öhman, J. 2019. ‘Principles for sustainable development teaching’, Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. & Öhman, J. (Ed.), Sustainable Development Teaching. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 40-55.

Palmer, A. 2016. ‘Is this the tallest building in the world? A posthuman approach to ethical dilemmas in young children’s learning projects’, Global Studies of Childhood 6(3), pp.283-298.

Perkins, D. 1986. Knowledge as Design New York & London: Routledge.

Perkins, D. 1992. Smart Schools New York: The Free Press.

Perkins, D. Jay, E., Tishman, S. 1993. ‘Beyond abilities: a dispositional theory of thinking’, Merill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1). pp.1-21.

Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. 2015. ‘A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach’, Procedia computer science 44, pp. 669-678.

Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. 2017. ‘A complete set of systems thinking skills’, Insight 20(3), pp. 9-17.

Benson, T. & Marlin, S. 2017. ‘The Habit-forming Guide to becoming a Systems Thinker’. Pittsburgh: Systems Thinking Group. Biesta, G. 2015. Het prachtige risico van onderwijs Culemborg: Phronese.

Biesta, G., & Pols, W. 2012. Goed onderwijs en de cultuur van het meten Amsterdam: Boom Lemma.

Biesta, G. 2020. ‘Persoonsvorming in het onderwijs: Socialisatie of subjectificatie?’ accessed via https://slo.nl/publish/pages/4507/essaypersoonsvorming-gert-biesta.pdf

Biesta, G. 2020. ‘Risking ourselves in education: qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited’, Educational Theory 70(1), pp.89-104.

Biggs, J. 2003. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. (2e ed.). Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Block, T. & Paredis, E. 2019. ‘Four misunderstandings about sustainability and transitions’, K. Van Poeck, L. Östman, & J. Öhman (Red.), Sustainable Development Teaching. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 15-27.

Block, T., Van Poeck, K. & Östman, L. 2019. ‘Tackling wicked problems in teaching and learning. Sustainability issues as knowledge, ethical and political challenges’, Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. & Öhman, J. (Ed.), Sustainable Development Teaching. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 28–39.

Boeve-de Pauw, J., Gericke, N., Olsson, D., Berglund, T. 2015. ‘The effectiveness of Education for Sustainable Development’, Sustainability, 7, pp. 15693-15717.

Booth Sweeney, L. 2001. ‘When a butterfly sneezes: A Guide For Helping Kids Explore Interconnections in Our World Through Favorite Stories’, Kellie Wardman O’Reilly.

Breiting, S., Hedegaard, K., Mogensen, F., Nielsen, K., & Schnack, K. 2009. ‘Action competence, conflicting interests and environmental education’. The MUVIN programme. Research Programme for Environmental and Health Education, DPU (Danish Schools of Education).

Breiting, S., & Mogensen, F. 1999. ‘Action competence and environmental education’, Cambridge journal of education, 29(3), pp.349-353.

Činčera, J., Skalík, J., & Binka, B. 2018. ‘One world in schools: an evaluation of the human rights education programme in the Republic of Georgia’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(6), pp. 769–786.

Costa, A. L. 2008. The school as a Home for the Mind: Creating Mindful Curriculum, Instruction, and Dialogue. California: Corwin Press.

Costa, A.L., Kallick, B. 2008. Learning and Leading with habits of mind. Alexandria: ASCD

Dejonckheere, P., Vervaet, S. & Van de Keere, K. 2016. ‘STEM-didactiek in het kleuter- en lager onderwijs: het PK-model’. Accessed via https://lirias. kuleuven.be/retrieve/433601.

Djapo vzw. 2018. Methode creatief denken: een denk- en werkwijze voor het basisonderwijs. Meer dan 20 lessen en 100 werkvormen.

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2021. The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets.

Rome: FAO.

Giamminuti, S., Merewether J. & Blaise, M. 2020. ‘Aesthetic-ethicalpolitical movements in professional learning: encounters with feminist new materialisms and Reggio Emilia in early childhood research’, accessed via www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie20

Hakansson, M., Van Poeck, K. & Östman, L. 2019. ‘The political tendency typology. Different ways in which the political dimension of sustainability issues appears in educational practice’, Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. & Öhman, J. (Red.), Sustainable Development Teaching. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 103-114.

Hyerle, D. 2009. Visual tools for transforming information into knowledge Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Jaušovec, N. 1994. ‘Metacognition in creative problem solving’, M. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. (pp. 77-95). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing

Jensen, B. B. 2002. ‘Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour’, Environmental education research, 8(3), pp.325-334.

Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A., Kronlid, D., & McGarry, D. 2015. ‘Transformative, transgressive social learning: Rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, pp. 73-80.

Lowyck, J. & Terwel, J. 2003. ‘Ontwerpen van leeromgevingen’, N. Verloop & J. Lowyck. 2003. Onderwijskunde. Een kennisbasis voor professionals. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Masschelein, J. & Simons, M. 2013. In defence of the school. A public issue Leuven: Education, Culture & Society Publishers.

Meadows, D. H. 2008. Thinking in systems: A primer Chelsea green publishing.

Mogensen, F. 1997. ‘Critical thinking: a central element in developing action competence in health and environmental education’, Health Education Research 12(4), pp. 429-436.

Mogensen, F., & Schnack, K. 2010. ‘The action competence approach and the ‘new’ discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria’, Environmental education research, 16(1), pp.59-74.

Mogren, A. 2019. Guiding principles of transformative education for sustainable development in local school organisations: Investigating whole school approaches through a school improvement lens (doctoral thesis, Karlstads Universitet).

Öhman, J., & Kronlid, D. O. 2019. ‘A pragmatist perspective on value education’, Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. & Öhman, J. (Ed.), Sustainable Development Teaching. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 93–102.

Öhman, J. & Östman, L. 2019. ‘Different teaching traditions in environmental and sustainability education’, K. Van Poeck, L. Östman, & J. Öhman. (Ed.), Sustainable Development Teaching London & New York: Routledge. pp. 70-82.

Öhman, J., & Kronlid, D. 2019. ‘A pragmatist perspective on value education’, Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. & Öhman, J. (Ed.), Sustainable Development Teaching. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 93–102.

Öhman, J. & Östman, L. 2019. ‘Different teaching traditions in environmental and sustainability education’, Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. & Öhman, J. (Ed.), Sustainable Development Teaching London & New York: Routledge. pp. 70-82.

Perkins, D. 2001. ‘The social side of thinking’, A. Costa (Red.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Virginia: ASCD. pp. 158-163.

Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. 2000. ‘Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits’, Educational Psychology Review 12(3), pp. 269-293.

Pieters, J. & Verschaffel, L. 2003. ‘Beïnvloeden van leerprocessen’, N. Verloop & J. Lowyck, J. 2003. Onderwijskunde. Een kennisbasis voor professionals. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Puccio, G. & Murdock, M. 2001. ‘Creative thinking: an essential life skill’, A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Virginia: ASCD. pp. 67-71.

Ritchhart, R. 2002. Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Ritchhart, R. 2015. Creating cultures of thinking: The 8 forces we must master to truly transform our schools. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Ritchhart, R., Church, M. 2020. The power of making thinking visible. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Rudsberg, K. & Öhman, J. 2010. ‘Pluralism in practice. Experiences from Swedish evaluation, school development and research’, Environmental Education Research, 16(1), pp. 95-111.

Runco, M. A. 1994. Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Runco, M. & Chand, I. 1994. ‘Problem finding, evaluative thinking, and creativity’, in M. Runco (Red.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing. pp. 40-76.

Salomon, G., Perkins, D. 1989. ‘Rocky Roads to Transfer: Rethinking Mechanisms of a Neglected Phenomenon’, Educational Psychologist, 24(2), pp. 113-142.

Sampermans, D., Reichert, F. & Claes, E. 2021. ‘Teachers’ concepts of good citizenship and associations with their teaching styles’, Cambridge Journal of Education pp. 1-18.

Sass, W., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Olsson, D., Gericke, N., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. 2020. ‘Redefining action competence: the case of sustainable development’, The Journal of Environmental Education, 51:4, pp. 292-305.

Schuler, S., Fanta, D., Rosenkraenzer, F., & Riess, W. 2018. ‘Systems thinking within the scope of education for sustainable development (ESD) – a heuristic competence model as a basis for (science) teacher education’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 42(2), pp.192-204.

Seibert, M. 2018. ‘Systems thinking and how it can help build a sustainable world: a beginning conversation’, Solutions for a Sustainable & Desirable Future, 9(3), p.11.

Sinakou, E., Donche, V., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. 2019. ‘Designing Powerful Learning Environments in Education for Sustainable Development: A Conceptual Framework’, in Sustainability, 11(21), 5994. Steunpunt Diversiteit en Leren. 2021. ‘Wat is een Brede school?’ Accessed via http://bredeschool.org

Swartz, R., Costa, A., Beyer, B., Reagan, R. & Kallick, B. 2008. Thinkingbased learning. Promoting quality student achievement in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.

Taguchi, H. L. 2007. ‘Deconstructing and Transgressing the TheoryPractice dichotomy in early childhood education’. Accessed via www.tandfonline.com/loi/rept20

Taguchi, H. L. 2011. ‘Investigating Learning, Participation and Becoming in Early Childhood Practices with a Relational Materialist Approach’, Global Studies Of Childhood Vol. 1, Nr. 1.

Tishman, S., & Andrade, A. 1996. Thinking dispositions: A review of current theories, practices, and issues. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Project Zero, Harvard University.

Tishman, S. 2001. ‘Added value: A dispositional perspective on thinking’, A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Virginia: ASCD. pp. 72-75.

Tishman, S., Jay, E. & Perkins David N. 2001. ‘Teaching Thinking Dispositions: From Transmission to Enculturation. Theory into practice Vol. 32, 1993. College of Education, The Ohio State University.

Tryggvason, A., & Öhman, J. 2019. ‘Deliberation and agonism. Two different approaches to the political dimension of environmental and sustainability education’, Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. & Öhman, J. (Ed.), Sustainable Development Teaching. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 115-124.

UNESCO. 2017. Global education monitoring report. 2017/8. Accountability in education: meeting our commitments. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 2017. Education for Sustainable Development Goals. Learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO.

Universiteit Twente. n.d. ‘Checklist “taxonomie van Bloom”’. Accessed via https://www.utwente.nl

Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. 2017. Doeltreffend schoolbeleid: praktijkboek beleidsvoerend vermogen in scholen. Leuven: Acco.

Van Poeck, K. & Östman, L. 2019. ‘Sustainable development teaching in view of qualification, socialization and person-formation’, Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. & Öhman, J. (Ed.)’, Sustainable Development Teaching. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 59-69.

Van Poeck, K. & Östman, L. 2020. ‘The risk and potentiality of engaging with sustainability problems in education. A pragmatist teaching approach’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 54(4), pp. 1003-1018.

Van Poeck, K. & Vandenabeele, J. 2012. ‘Learning from sustainable development: Education in the light of public issues’, Environmental Education Research, 18(4), pp. 541-552.

Verhelst, D., Vanhoof, J., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Van Petegem, P. 2020. ‘Building a conceptual framework for an ESD-effective school organization’, The journal of Environmental Education. Accessed via www.tandfonline.com/loi/ vjee20.

Verhelst, D., Vanhoof, J. & Van Petegem, P. 2021. ‘School effectiveness for education for sustainable development (ESD): What characterizes an ESDeffective school organization?’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership.

Vermunt, J. D. & Verloop, N. 1999. ‘Congruence and friction between learning and teaching’, Learning and instruction 9(3), pp. 257-280.

Verus, Vereniging voor christelijk en katholiek onderwijs. (n.d.). ‘Pedagogische en levensbeschouwelijke eigenheid op het democratisch speelveld’. Accessed on 30.09.2021 via https://www.verus.nl

Wals, A. (EduVideo Wageningen University. 2017, 22 juni) ICA Conference Zagreb. Accessed via https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=a3feHXT0Fic&feature=youtu.be.

Wals, A. (Ed.) 2007. ‘Social learning towards a sustainable world: Principles, perspectives, and praxis’. Wageningen: Academic Publishers.

Wals, A. 2010. ‘Between knowing what is right and knowing that is it wrong to tell others what is right: on relativism, uncertainty and democracy in environmental and sustainability education’, Environmental Education Research 16(1), pp. 142-151.

Wals, A. 2011. ‘Learning our way to sustainability’, Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 5(2), pp. 177-186.

Wals, A. 2015. Beyond unreasonable doubt. Education and learning for socioecological sustainability in the Anthropocene Wageningen: Wageningen University.

2020. ‘Duurzame Ontwikkelingsdoelstellingen of Sustainable Development Goals van de Verenigde Naties – SDG’s’, http://www.sdgs.be

2021. ‘Het Design@School proces’, http://www.designatschool.net

How are we educating children and adolescents?

Few are indifferent to this question. Which is just as well. As it stimulates dialogue on the topic. And Djapo, as a learning organisation, and as an innovator and pioneer within and on the topics of society and education for decades, is keen to participate in this dialogue.

The school as a place for practice is Djapo’s vision on how Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) contributes to an education that gives children and adolescents opportunities to occupy a mindful and resilient position in society. Djapo’s vision of ESD suggests a contemporary approach in which educators use the complexity and urgency of societal issues to generate fertile, relevant opportunities for development.

ESD is sometimes seen as separate from and additional to an already well-rounded educational curriculum. This publication changes this view, providing a practice-based vision of ESD as a unique opportunity to strengthen our educational system.