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).