Education and Sustainability

Paradigms, Policies and Practices in Asia

Michelle Merrill, Patricia Burkhardt-Holm, Chew-Hung Chang, Md Saidul Islam, Youngho Chang

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138681415
• eBook ISBN: 9781351614740
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Comparative Education

This book provides an introduction to the state of sustainability education in Asia. It covers national policies, institutional policies and practices within Asian universities, sustainability considerations for teacher training at schools of education, and pedagogical practices for sustainability in higher education. With contributors from universities and NGOs in Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Cambodia, India, China and South Korea, this volume brings together the best papers from a series of successful international conferences on post-secondary education for sustainability in Asia.

The book is organized into five parts:

• Part I focuses on paradigms for sustainability education

• Part II looks at sustainability education contexts, strategies and outcomes at the national level

• Part III gives examples of sustainability programs and strategies adopted at specific universities

• Part IV highlights sustainability education research from schools of education

• Part V explores specific examples of post-secondary educational practices in sustainability

Part I
Projects and paradigms in sustainability education

1
Introduction

Education for Sustainability in Asian contexts

Michelle Y. Merrill

Global perspectives on sustainability and education

In 1987, the United Nations World Commission on the Environment (also known as the Brundtland Commission) defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987, 24). Since that publication, the use of the term “sustainability” has come to refer more generally to goals that promote environmental, economic and social well-being for current and future generations. In the common parlance of sustainable businesses, for instance, this is referred to as the ‘triple bottom line,’ defined as ‘Planet, People and Profits’ or ‘Economy, Equity and Environment.’ The United Nations recently developed a set of seventeen integrated Sustainable Development Goals to guide global progress toward more sustainable societies (United Nations 2017). Yet, whether in news headlines or technical journals, there is abundant evidence that we have not yet met sustainability goals in the economic, social or environmental domains in most places on this planet (e.g. Rockström et al. 2009, Griggs et al. 2014, United Nations 2017).

The need to improve how education prepares students to understand and address these sustainability issues is increasingly evident and urgent (Gruenewald 2004, De Haan 2006, UNCED 1992, Thomas 2004). This is particularly important in the countries of monsoon Asia, given their population demographics and development trajectories (see ‘Understanding Asian Contexts’ below).

Education for Sustainability (EfS) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)

Growing interest in sustainability and sustainable development led to the rise of an EfS/ESD movement (Lozano et al. 2013). To promote educational and sustainable developmental goals, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) declared the years 2005–14 as the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD). Over this decade, all countries were encouraged to promote ESD at all levels of education, including engaging learners with innovative content and pedagogy around themes of sustainable development (Wals 2014, UNESCO 2012). Wals (2014) review of UNESCO’s DESD progress worldwide found that, for the first half of the decade, HEIs were much more likely to be focused on greening their operations than on transforming their curriculum and pedagogy to improve learning opportunities for sustainability. In response, he calls for a network among higher education institutions that can bridge local, regional and global perspectives and expertise (Wals 2014). Prescriptive guidelines and further declarations regarding education for sustainability have been developed (UNEP-UNESCO 1975, UNCED 1992, Wright 2002, ULSF 1990, Wright 2004, Lozano et al. 2013), but implementation of these guides is only rarely in evidence, and the vast majority of universities have resisted institutional engagement with sustainability (Lozano et al. 2013).

Calder and Clugston (2005, 2003) provide a detailed history of the rise of ESD concern in higher education leading up to the DESD declaration. The introductory sections of several chapters in this book also provide brief takes on this history (Reza, Ch. 4; Lonn and Madhur, Ch. 5; Sharma and Sharma, Ch. 6; Wang and Liu, Ch. 9; Stien, Ch. 10; Chang and Pascua, Ch. 11; Preedidilok, Ch. 12; Wan, Ch. 13; Wan, Ch. 16), while the chapter by Kieu and Islam (Ch. 2) provides some detail on the broader history of thought regarding sustainability and sustainable development, and the chapter by Chang, Trang and Merrill (Ch. 3) provides a deeper look at the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development from economic perspectives.

There is a great deal of debate about the appropriateness of the terms Education for Sustainability (EfS) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), and their underlying implications for pedagogy and educational paradigms (e.g. Sterling 2003, Wals and Jickling 2002, Jickling 1992, Sterling 2010, Thomas 2009, Gadotti 2008, Kahn 2008, Hogan and Tormey 2008, Lee and Efird 2014a, Sterling 2004). Education for Sustainability is generally acknowledged as broader and can include ESD (Sterling 2004), but also includes wider philosophical, social and psychological considerations. Education for Sustainable Development seems to put more emphasis on economic development, and is seen as more anthropocentric than EfS. As ESD is the term selected by UNESCO, it is widely used in government policies and directives around the world (McKeown et al. 2002). However, some have suggested that the juxtaposition of sustainability and development (often assumed to be synonymous with economic growth) may be inherently oxymoronic (Selby 2006). One way to view it is that ‘sustainability’ addresses a final state, whereas ‘sustainable development’ focuses more on the way of achieving sustainability. The inclusion of “for” in both EfS and ESD implies an instrumental (or perhaps indoctrinating) view of education (Jucker 2002, Mochizuki and Fadeeva 2010, Lee and Efird 2014a), particularly neglecting deep ecology perspectives where ESD is concerned (Kopnina 2011).

Other related formulations are also discussed and used in the literature. Sterling (2004) considers ESD and EfS as successively expanded revisions of what was called Environmental Education in previous decades; he proposes “sustainable education” as an even broader term implying shifts of worldview beyond the modernist, anthropocentric paradigm. “Education for a Sustainable Future” (EfSF or ESF) is a phrase that emphasizes the intertemporal justice components of such endeavours (e.g. Calder and Clugston 2005). Others employ “learning for…” rather than “education for…” sustainability or sustainable development, as it changes the focus from teachers to students, and from delivery to outcomes of the learning process (e.g. De Kraker et al. 2007).

The editors consider EfS and ESD as slightly different themes and approaches, appropriate to different contexts. ‘Development’ need not imply growth alone. As it is used in biological sciences, ‘development’ may instead imply increasing complexity, maturation or a trajectory of other kinds of progress and change over time. If this broader, more biophilic interpretation of ‘development’ is used, without limiting that term to implications of growth or standard econometric approaches to development, EfS and ESD are sufficiently synonymous for the greater purpose of discussing education that has the intention of improving sustainability. Our authors work with the terminology that seems most appropriate or familiar to them within their national context. Most of the ensuing chapters use ESD to describe these sustainability education efforts.

A focus on higher education for sustainability

Emerging global sustainability crises (including climate change, biodiversity loss and insecurity of water and food supplies) follow from the ideas and plans of leaders in industry, government and society. Researchers and academics have pointed out that almost all of these leaders have tertiary degrees (Orr 2004, Wals and Blewitt 2010, Bacon et al. 2011, DuPuis and Ball 2013). To successfully address these sustainability crises, we will most likely need to transform higher education. Investing in EfS improvements in higher education could yield substantial and enduring benefits for society, as it may produce more leaders and innovators who infuse sustainability throughout their life’s work. The most successful future leaders will be those who can navigate a dynamic balance of economic, social and environmental concerns (Figge et al. ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Preface
• Author and editor biographies
• PART I Projects and paradigms in sustainability education
• PART II National policy on sustainability education
• PART III Policies, practices and programmes in Asian universities
• PART IV Sustainability in Asian schools of education
• PART V Practices in and out of the higher education classroom
• Index