Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
DOI 10.1007/s11625-012-0181-5
OVERVIEW ARTICLE
Learning for change: an educational contribution to sustainability
science
Matthias Barth • Gerd Michelsen
Received: 11 November 2011 / Accepted: 12 July 2012 / Published online: 10 August 2012
Ó Springer 2012
Abstract Transition to sustainability is a search for ways
to improve the social capacity to guide interactions
between nature and society toward a more sustainable
future and, thus, a process of social learning in its broadest
sense. Accordingly, it is not only learning that is at issue
but education and educational science, of which the latter is
about exploring the preconditions of and opportunities for
learning and education—whether individual or social, in
formal or informal settings. Analyzing how educational
science deals with the challenge of sustainability leads to
two complementary approaches: the ‘outside-in’ approach
sees the idea of sustainability influencing educational
practice and the way the relationship of learning and
teaching is reviewed, theoretically as well as within the
social context. In an ‘inside-out’ approach, an overview is
given of how educational science can contribute to the field
of sustainability science. An examination of the literature
on education and sustainability shows that, while sustain-
ability features prominently in one form or another across
all sectors, only little work can be found dealing with the
Handled by Zafar Adeel, United Nations University International
Network on Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH),
Canada.
M. Barth (&)
School of Global, Urban and Social Studies,
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT University),
Melbourne, Australia
e-mail: matthias.barth@rmit.edu.au
G. Michelsen
Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication
(INFU), Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany
contributions of educational science within sustainability
science. However, as sustainability is a concept that not
only influences educational practices but also invites dis-
ciplinary contributions to foster inter- and transdisciplinary
research within the sustainability discourse, the question
remains as to how and to what extent educational science in
particular can contribute to sustainability science in terms
of an ‘inside-out’ approach. In this paper, we reconstruct
the emergence of education for sustainable development as
a distinctive field of educational science and introduce and
discuss three areas of sustainability research and throw into
relief the unique contribution that educational science can
make to individual action and behavior change, to orga-
nizational change and social learning, and, finally, to inter-
and transdisciplinary collaboration.
Keywords Educational science  Learning  Education
for sustainable development  Competence  Social
learning  Communities of practice  Interdisciplinarity
The challenge of sustainability science
A growing awareness of the increasing scale of human
impacts on the natural environment not only contributed to
the emergence of the concept of sustainable development,
but fostered as well a scientific response to the fundamental
social, cultural, economic, and ecological changes that
humankind is confronted with (Kajikawa 2008; Quental et
al. 2011). Such scientific attention responds to both a
growing skepticism about whether science nowadays is
meeting challenges adequately, particularly those posed by
the quest for sustainability, and new demands articulated
by society (Gallopı́n et al. 2001). The emerging area of
sustainability science however, is not a ‘science’ by any
123
104
usual definition, i.e., understood as a set of principles by
which knowledge of sustainability may be systematically
built (Rapport 2007). A closer exploration of the nature
of sustainability science instead suggests that the notion
of multiple sciences addressing a common theme seems
to more readily apply, rather than that of a mature dis-
cipline with shared conceptual and theoretical compo-
nents (Clark and Dickson 2003). Thus, it is recognized
that knowledge from various disciplines has a critical
role to play and contributes to the overall goal of sus-
tainability science.
While a core sustainability science program has begun
to take shape, certain disciplines have also become estab-
lished as foundational (Clark 2007; Kajikawa et al. 2007).
Such disciplinary engagement with sustainability-related
aspects has a two-fold impact: discipline-oriented foci and
research approaches are introduced as contributions to the
transdisciplinary discourse of sustainability science, while,
at the same time, the reflexive treatment of sustainability
science affects in its turn the disciplinary development.
Examples of such a development are to be found in the
natural sciences (McMichael 1997), the science of engi-
neering (Mihelcic et al. 2003), and the social sciences
(Ascher 2007).
Among the latter, it is education that is considered
crucial. We witness actors in all educational sectors
actively striving to integrate aspects of sustainability into
their activities and a ‘‘plea for more education for sus-
tainable development’’ (Arima 2009) is emphasized
prominently.
This paper presents an attempt to explore in more detail
the extent to which educational science is already con-
tributing to the discourse in sustainability science and,
conversely, how the challenge of sustainability is
acknowledged within educational science. In addition, both
fields will be discussed separately: education for sustain-
able development (ESD) is introduced as a policy mission
with a certain development over time; as an educational
concept, unfolding in specific learning objectives, teaching
content, and related pedagogies; and as an emerging area of
research. Finally, three distinct areas will be introduced, all
of them of special interest to sustainability science and to
all of which educational science can contribute a unique
point of view.
Educational science and sustainability
As transition toward sustainability will be one of social
learning in its broadest sense, the crucial question in this
process is finding ways to improve the social capacity to
guide interactions between nature and society in the
direction of more sustainable trajectories (Kates et al.
123
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
2001). Thus, it is not only learning that is at issue but
education and educational science.1
A close analysis of the nature of educational science
makes it obvious that it has a great deal in common with
sustainability science. Two aspects seem to be especially
notable in this connection. First, both sciences are problem-
driven and highly value-laden in nature and may be labeled
as use-inspired basic research, i.e., they deal with prob-
lems of practice and policy, which constitute a rich source
of important—and often fundamental—research questions
(Clark 2007; National Research Council 2002). Educa-
tional science, generally speaking, is about exploring the
preconditions of and opportunities for learning and edu-
cation—whether individual or social, formal, non-formal,
or informal. The concern with these questions of learning
and teaching has a long history (e.g., Connell 1980; Cremin
1990) and carries various, often conflicting, connotations
(Keiner 2010). Wagner and Wittrock (1990) distinguish in
this regard between models of the ‘‘pragmatically special-
izing professions’’, the ‘‘formalized disciplinary dis-
courses’’, and, finally, the ‘‘comprehensive social sciences’’
as three different patterns of theoretical and social forma-
tion in educational science.
Second, both disciplines rely on a number of related
disciplines, with problems investigated from different
points of view and in an interdisciplinary manner. In
educational science, there is an on-going discussion, from a
meta-perspective, that questions the nature and the com-
mon ground of research. During the twentieth century,
there was a common notion of a field with distinctive
‘key’ or ‘foundation’ disciplines, in particular, philosophy,
sociology, psychology, and the history of education, rather
than a discrete discipline (Bridges 2006). Today, a growing
recognition of interdisciplinary fields of study can be wit-
nessed, as ‘not all educational research can or should be
pure in terms of disciplinary background; there are many
questions in education that need to be addressed, that do
not fall neatly into any one particular disciplinary box’
(Furlong and Lawn 2010). Along with a growing field of
empirical research in the late twentieth century, a different
view was established: ‘‘Education has its own set of fea-
tures—not individually unique from other professional and
disciplinary fields of study, but singular in their combina-
tion—that gives rise to the specialization of education
research’’ (National Research Council 2002).
An even clearer picture might be drawn when the
‘epistemological’ dimension is considered with its ques-
tions of theory and method, and the debates about the
extent to which a common body of knowledge is
1
See Le Grange (2004) for a discussion of differences and
commonalities of these two concepts, especially in respect to
environmental and sustainability issues.
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
represented (Bredo 2006), but also the ‘sociological’
dimension, with its struggle to establish itself and build
disciplinary structures (McCulloch 2002). Such a more
differentiating point of view reflects strong social struc-
tures as indicated by, e.g., existing education programs,
educational professions, networks, and publication routines
(Mills et al. 2006).
While research in educational science partly uses the
same methodologies as those of neighboring disciplines,
there are also a number of distinctive educational approa-
ches. Cohen et al. (2009) introduces eight typical styles of
educational research, covering areas like survey, longitu-
dinal, cross-sectional and trend studies, case studies, and ex
post facto research. Among the different research methods
in educational science, action research (Kemmis 2004;
Gustavsen 2003) and evaluation (Ryan and Cousins 2009)
may be seen as among the most influential contributions of
educational science.
Considering these links between sustainability science
and educational science, the question remains as to how
educational science deals with the challenge of sustain-
ability. Like other disciplines that contribute to the on-
going discourse about sustainability, there are two kinds of
mutual interaction that educational science can engage
with. First, in an ‘outside-in’ approach, the idea of sus-
tainability influences educational practice and the way the
relationship of learning and teaching is discussed, theo-
retically as well as within the social context. In this way,
sustainability is taken up as a topic within the educational
field, which leads to a didactic and curricular examination
of the educational potential of sustainability. It is the field
of ESD that represents the area in which such a discourse
takes place. The second kind of interaction is an ‘inside-
out’ approach, which considers how educational science
can contribute to the field of sustainability science. Edu-
cational science may offer unique theories and methodo-
logical approaches to the study of individual and social
learning processes that are to lead to a more sustainable
future. In this way, both approaches complement the range
of disciplinary contributions and enrich interdisciplinary
settings.
The extent to which education is considered in sus-
tainability science and sustainability in educational studies
to date may be illustrated by exploring some bibliometric
data. To examine the extent to which these two questions
are discussed in the relevant literature, two major databases
were chosen: (1) ‘ERIC’ [Education Resources Information
Center, published by the United States Department of
Education (USDE)] for educational records; and (2) ‘Sus-
tainability Science Abstracts’, published by ProQuest,
CSA, which covers sustainability-related records. The
search was limited to journal articles published from 1992
to 2010, and similar search strategies were employed in
105
both cases.2 Figure 1 displays the growth in the number of
articles in both databases. The number increased from zero
in both cases to 239 (ERIC) and 172 (CSA) publications,
with a noticeable increase after 2000.
These numbers show an overall increase in educational
articles on sustainability in absolute numbers. More
informative is, perhaps, the proportion of relevant articles
per year in per million, which takes into account the overall
growth of records over time and can be calculated by this
formula:
n (records [descriptor in year xÞ
 1; 000
N (records in year xÞ
There is, however, a significant difference: while the
contributions within the educational community steadily
increase both in absolute numbers and in relation to the
overall growth, the relative variation in sustainability
science is ambiguous, with a peak around 2002.
While this study of the two databases—both compre-
hensive in their field, but by no means exhaustive—suffers
from a number of limitations, a general conclusion can,
nevertheless, be drawn: the last couple of years witnessed
the publication of an increased number of articles dealing
with sustainability from an educational point of view.
Within the field of educational studies, this increase is not
only visible in absolute numbers but indicates also a
growing influence of sustainability within the educational
field as such—even though on a low level—and, thus,
proves the assumption of an outside-in influence. Con-
versely, however, a growing inside-out influence on sus-
tainability science cannot be proved.
The role of sustainability in education
As the idea of sustainability gradually began to influence
educational practice, the concept of education for sustain-
able development (ESD) emerged. ESD emphasizes
aspects of learning that enhance the transition toward
sustainability. As a vision of education that seeks to bal-
ance human and economic well-being with cultural tradi-
tions and respect for the Earth’s natural resources, it
‘translates’ research outcomes of sustainability science into
educational practices. Moreover, ESD is an integrative
approach to teaching and learning and, thus, offers a
changed educational paradigm, rather than yet another
‘adjectival’ education (Sterling 2001; Wals 2010b). We
2
The search in ERIC was based on the thesaurus term [sustainable
development] for the search criterion ‘Descriptor’, as all records there
are related to education. For Sustainability Science Abstracts, the
term [education AND (‘‘sustainable development’’ OR ‘‘sustainabil-
ity’’)] was employed for searching within all abstracts (‘‘AB’’), due to
an absence of a similar consistent thesaurus-based descriptor system.
123
106
Fig. 1 Educational articles
dealing with sustainability from
1992 to 2010. Note that the
sample universe for 2010 is still
not completed and will be
growing as articles will be
continuously integrated
will reconstruct the expansion of sustainability into edu-
cational science on the three different but related levels of
policy, pedagogies, and research.
ESD as a mandate of educational policies3
From its very beginning, ESD has been a crucial part of
policy-making and sustainable development strategies. It
was first formally recognized internationally in 1992 with
the publication of Agenda 21, as a result of the so-called
Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The matura-
tion and rise in status of ESD can be deduced from a
variety of declarations, organizational formations, and key
policy publications, and can be described in four consec-
utive steps.
The first step, the programmatic stage of firm estab-
lishment (1992–1997), is marked by attempts at institu-
tionalization, such as the establishment of the United
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD),
and a general positioning of relevant stakeholders, like the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Orga-
nization (UNESCO) as the task manager for Chapter 36 of
Agenda 21.
‘Education for a Sustainable Future’, a report published
by UNESCO in 1997, constitutes a turning point in the
development toward a second, pragmatic stage of practical
relevance (1998–2002), characterized by greater orienta-
tion to practice. It explores the key principles of ESD,
emphasizes the necessity to reorient education in all sec-
tors, introduces best-practice examples, and points out
actions that need to be started (UNESCO 1997).
The acceptance of the United Nations Decade of Edu-
cation for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) by the
3
The following overview seeks to capture some of the main
developments in a more systematic manner, but is by no means
exhaustive. For a more comprehensive overview of developments and
the state-of-the art, see Wals (2010b); a more regional focus can be
found in, e.g., Tilbury and Janousek (2007), who concentrate on the
Asia-Pacific region.
123
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
United Nations General Assembly marks the beginning of
the third stage of implementation and transfer (2003–
2008). With a large number of different activities in the
framework of the decade, the implementation of ESD in all
educational sectors was supported and targets were iden-
tified in the continued expansion of these fields of action.
Five years into the decade, a next stage of progress ori-
entation and reflection (since 2009) was reached. The
‘World Conference on Education for Sustainable Devel-
opment—Moving into the Second Half of the UN Decade’
and a mid-decade review in the same year of the contexts
and structures of ESD have offered opportunities to take
stock of what had been achieved so far. Finally, growing
stress was laid on the assessment of progress in ESD. Thus,
a number of approaches began to be developed, imple-
mented, and test indicator systems by means of a method to
monitor the progress achieved were introduced (Bormann
and Michelsen 2010; Elias et al. 2007).
ESD as an educational concept
As a unique educational concept, ESD is an area of edu-
cational practice that both makes a significant contribution
at all of the different levels of formal education and also
acknowledges the relevance of non-formal as well as
informal education. The nature of ESD will be explored in
what follows by considering not only the underlying par-
adigm change introduced by the concept, but also the
dimensions of learning objectives, content, and pedagogies.
Paradigm change
Agenda 21 and the implementation of the decade had
prepared the foundations for ESD and raised great expec-
tations as stated in the Bonn Declaration, the final docu-
ment of the UNESCO World Conference on Education for
Sustainable Development: ‘‘Education for sustainable
development is setting a new direction for education and
learning for all. It promotes quality education, and is
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
inclusive of all people. It is based on values, principles and
practices necessary to respond effectively to current and
future challenges’’ (UNESCO 2009).
These expectations mark nothing less than a paradigm
change, brought on, e.g., by Sterling in his typology, which
focuses on education about, in, and for sustainability
(Sterling 2001). While education about sustainability sim-
ply transmits ‘factual’ information about sustainability
concepts and processes (leaving existing assumptions
unchallenged), education in sustainability uses experiential
and interactive learning processes (a more learner-centered
approach) to support the development of greater under-
standing. Education for sustainability, finally, is oriented
more strongly toward a transformative approach to edu-
cation, encouraging the adoption of sustainability princi-
ples, ethics, and values.
In a similar comparison, Vare and Scott distinguish
between ‘ESD 1’, which promotes certain behaviors and
ways of thinking, and ‘ESD2’, which focuses on ‘‘building
capacity to think critically about [and beyond] what experts
say and to test sustainable development ideas’’, as well as
‘‘exploring the contradictions inherent in sustainable liv-
ing’’ (Vare and Scott 2007). Thus, ESD deals explicitly
with values and separates itself from a point of view that
sees the act of learning as a neutral process and learning as
a self-evident good (Sterling 2010). By doing so, ESD
needs to be positioned between the two poles of indoctri-
nation and value-relativism: at the one end, education as a
tool to achieve certain social goals is criticized and rejected
as an inappropriate way of instrumentalizing education for
political ends (Fischer 2010; Jickling 1992). At the other
end, the nature and purpose of education is stressed as
being always determined by human values, history, and
changing patterns of power relationships. It can never be
value-neutral, as the processes of education continually
expose students to filtered experiences (Fien 1997; Grant
and Zeichner 1984). In summary, ESD has to consider the
underlying values and support the learner’s critical reflec-
tion on them.
Learning objectives, content, and pedagogies
The nature of the educational concept of ESD has been
explored in greater detail considering the three interlinked
dimensions of its learning objectives, the content related to
the learning objectives, and the pedagogies related to both.
In the literature on ESD, a number of approaches offer
frameworks that define learning objectives and share the
goal of enabling people to not just acquire and generate
knowledge, but also to reflect on further effects and the
complexity of behavior and decisions in a future-oriented,
global perspective of responsibility (e.g., de Haan 2006;
see Wiek et al. 2011a for a systematic overview). Across
107
the different concepts, a broad consensus can be found in
terms of the main aspects to be incorporated, a focus on the
individual, and a general output perspective.
To support these learning goals, adequate and mean-
ingful content must be found that allows the development
of individual competencies (Segalàs et al. 2009). In view of
the shifting nature of relevant topics both over time and in
different cultures, the aim can not be to have a certain set
of fixed topics as a kind of ‘closed box’, but, rather, to only
operate with guidelines in order to avoid arbitrariness
(Künzli et al. 2000). On this point, targets set out in sus-
tainability science and related policy activities may help to
define some criteria for selecting content. Table 1 show-
cases some of these initiatives, which led to a number of
educational approaches.
Pedagogical approaches that support competence
development and deal with relevant topics show a general
shift from teacher-centered training and instruction to
learner-centered learning and capacity-building (Barth
2011; Cotton et al. 2007; Wals and Blewitt 2010). This
shift is reflected in the literature on pedagogies for ESD,
which advocates approaches that are based on social-con-
structivist learning theories and offer opportunities for
dialogical, active, and critical reflection (Corney and Reid
2007; Sterling 2001; Tilbury 2004).
As this discussion has shown, ESD pedagogies are not
completely new, but rely strongly on their historical roots,
such as problem-based learning (Boud and Feletti 1997),
social learning (Bandura and Walters 1965), situated
learning (Lave and Wenger 1991; Young 1993), and social-
constructivist approaches to learning (Biggs 1996; Brans-
ford et al. 1990; Brown et al. 1989), to name only a few. The
unique contribution of ESD is to further develop such
approaches and to systematically link them to challenges
related to sustainability, such as uncertainty (Glasser 2007;
Burandt and Barth 2010), complexity (Scholz et al. 1995),
and interdisciplinarity (Hoare et al. 2008; Jones et al. 2010).
Within the last few years of the Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development, important work has been done to
further develop and establish the concept of ESD (Wals
2010b). Two instances of notable work in this connection
are the development of a framework of requirements for
sustainability research education (Brundiers and Wiek
2011) and the introduction of didactical key principals for
ESD across different sectors (Barth 2011; Hansmann 2010;
Sterling 2001). We see educational settings being devel-
oped and evaluated that correspond to the challenges
identified. Examples are especially prominent in higher
education and encompass the use of transdisciplinary case
studies at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule
(ETH) in Zürich, Switzerland (Scholz et al. 2006; Stauff-
acher et al. 2006), applications of the syndrome approach at
Leuphana University in Lüneburg, Germany (Barth and
123
108
Table 1 Guiding frameworks for selecting content in education for sustainability
WEHAB targets
Background Proposed as a contribution to the
preparations for the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (2002);
identification of five research priorities
and key thematic areas that are integral
to the implementation of sustainable
development
Topics Water; energy; health; agriculture;
biodiversity
Reference United Nations World Summit on
Sustainable Development (2002)
Educational e.g., O’Donoghue and Lotz-Sisitka
application (2006)
Godemann 2006; Burandt and Barth 2010), or the use of
real-world learning opportunities at the School of Sus-
tainability at Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
(Brundiers et al. 2010). Finally, new approaches and
delivery modes of education are analyzed and utilized to
facilitate ESD, e.g., Internet-based distance education,
which increasingly provides international and intercultural
learning opportunities (Barth and Rieckmann 2009; Cör-
vers and de Kraker 2009) and modes of experiential and
service learning that support stronger links between formal
and informal learning settings (Brundiers and Wiek 2011,
Sutheimer and Pyles 2011). The manifold activities from a
growing group of teachers across all sectors bear witness to
the vitality of ESD as an educational concept and its further
development.
Research on ESD
The third dimension that constitutes the nature of ESD is
the fact that it has become a critical area of academic
research. The maturation of the field can be derived from
the growing number of articles (see above), but also by the
establishment of specialist journals. Using the results of the
study of the databases of ERIC and Sustainability Science
Abstracts mentioned above, Table 2 lists those journals
that are explicitly devoted to ESD in their title, as well
those that might have a longer history or a broader focus
but also include ESD explicitly in their scope as one of
their aims and areas of interest.
Additionally, a further 18 journals were found that had a
special issue on ESD in the last few years. Finally, mention
must also be made of the growing number of conferences
on ESD [e.g., the Environmental Management for Sus-
tainable Universities ((EMSU) series on ‘‘Knowledge
123
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
Millennium Development Goals Earth Charter
The Millennium Development Goals Declaration of fundamental ethical
(MDGs) are eight international principles for building a just,
development goals that all United sustainable, and peaceful global society
Nations member states have agreed to in the twenty-first century; started as a
achieve by the year 2015 United Nations initiative and finalized
and launched in 2000
Poverty and hunger, primary education, Respect and care for the community of
gender equality; child mortality; life; ecological integrity; social and
maternal health, HIV/AIDS, malaria, economic justice; democracy, non-
and other diseases; environmental violence, and peace
sustainability; global partnerships
United Nations (2008) Earth Charter Initiative (2008)
e.g., Brunton (2006), King (2009) e.g., Clugston (2010), Gruenewald
(2004)
Table 2 Education for sustainable development (ESD) in academic
journals
Journal title First Issues
issue p.a.
Journals dedicated to ESD by title
International Journal of Sustainability in 2000 4
Higher Education
Journal of Education for Sustainable 2007 2
Development
Journal of Sustainability Education 2010 2
Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability 2007 2
Journals dedicated to ESD by aims and scope
Applied Environmental Education and 2000 4
Communication
Australian Journal of Environmental Education 1985 2
Environmental Education Research 1995 6
International Journal of Environmental and 2006 4
Science Education
Sustainability: The Journal of Record 2008 6
Collaboration and Learning for Sustainable Innovation’’ or
the ‘‘International Conferences on Sustainability in Higher
Education’’] and the stronger emphasis on ESD in related
conferences (e.g., World Conference on Environmental
Education).
All these different developments indicate that ESD has
matured into a well-established field not only of learning
and teaching, but also of research. Based on a study of
ESD research publications, Wright and Pullen (2007) list
the following main focus areas: developing understand-
ings of ESD definitions (e.g., Gómez 2005; McKeown
and Hopkins 2007), policy (Sauvé et al. 2005; Wright
2004), curriculum (Gough and Scott 2001; Sterling 2001;
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
Table 3 Priority list of research themes (Wright 2007)
Priority list of research themes
Impacts of teaching and learning methods
University and community linkages
Mainstreaming sustainability
Institutional culture and organizational/governance structures
Evaluating educational approaches
Case study analysis
Legitimizing HES research and practice
Leadership and management
Transformative learning
Thomas 2009), and theory (Gough and Scott 2007).
Cutting and Cook (2009) as well as Reid and Scott
(2006) give a similar account of research interests in
published work.
At the same time, other approaches concerned them-
selves not only with existing research questions and
projects, but tried to identify those research questions that
seemed to be the most important (McKeown 2007). In a
comprehensive Delphi survey with 35 ESD experts,
Wright (2007) explored the development of research
priorities in higher education for sustainability and iden-
tified 19 main areas. Table 3 shows the research areas that
at least 50 % of the experts rated as among the ten most
important issues.
A research agenda is, thus, laid out both for on-going
research in different fields and for setting priorities for
future scientific exploration. In short, ESD has proved to be
a mature field of not only learning and teaching, but also of
research.
Contributions of education to sustainability science
As outlined above, sustainability is a concept that not
only influences educational practices and the on-going
development of ESD within educational science, but also
invites disciplinary contributions from a broad range of
disciplines to research within sustainability science.
Thus, the question remains as to how and to what extent
the various sciences and educational science in particular
can contribute to sustainability science in terms of an
inside-out approach. In the following sections, three
distinct areas of research and the unique contribution
will be discussed that educational science can make to
them. Table 4 gives an overview of the areas, educa-
tional key contributions, and their applications. Examples
of how educational concepts in these areas have been
applied to sustainability will shed light on practical
issues.
109
Individual action and behavior change
The first field of educational science’s potential contribu-
tion refers to the role that the individual plays in the pro-
cess of transformation toward sustainability. This is
explicitly acknowledged by sustainability science in its
searches for ways that can most effectively improve the
social capacity to guide interactions between nature and
society toward more sustainable trajectories (Kates et al.
2001). Consequently, research explores the preconditions
and influencing factors of (un)sustainable behavior, the
processes that can lead to change, and the aspirational
aspects of changed behavior. Such an examination of
individual action and behavior raises a wide range of issues
that are considered in various social science disciplines,
ranging from anthropology and philosophy to economics,
sociology, and psychology.
Learning is seen as a key process that enables long-term
changes in the behaviors of individuals and education is
consequently acknowledged as an important means to
support and guide learning processes. However, far too
often, education is only allotted a severely reduced role,
i.e., that of an instrument for behavioral change (Künzli
David and Kaufmann-Hayoz 2008). In educational science,
such a narrow understanding is rejected and the individ-
ual’s empowerment for critical self-reflection and informed
decisions in the societal context are instead seen as crucial.
It is precisely in terms of reflexive and responsible actions
in changing contexts that the educational concept of key
competencies can make valuable contributions by offering
an alternative to the focus on distinct behavior and
underlying cognitive dispositions.
The notion of competence is arguably one of the most
commonly used words in education nowadays. It refers to a
wide range of new challenges, introduced by societal
change as well as the progress of technology and global-
ization (Rychen and Salganik 2001). However, while there
is agreement on the importance of competencies, defining
the nature of (key) competencies is far from easy. A ten-
tative definition would see competencies as dispositions to
self-organization that encompass internal structures such as
cognitive, emotional, and motivational factors and realize
themselves context-specifically in specific actions or
activities. Furthermore, it seems useful to employ the term
key competence as it represents a qualitative extension that
highlights the special significance of certain competencies.
Key competencies are relevant across different spheres of
life and for all individuals (Rychen and Salganik 2003) but
do not replace domain-specific competencies, which are
necessary for successful action in certain situations and
contexts.
In the context of key competencies, the question remains
as to how they can be learnt or taught. Considering key
123
110 Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119

Table 4 Educational contributions in sustainability science: an overview

Individual action and behavior Organizational change and social Inter- and transdisciplinary
change learning collaboration

Educational concept Development of key competencies
Focus Definition and operationalization
of competencies
Process of competence
development
Assessment of competencies
Major claims Rationale for and description of
key competencies
Key competencies as the interplay
of cognitive and non-cognitive
components
Competence development as
increased ‘mental complexity’
and value interiorization
Consequences Supports the development of
appropriate objectives
Helps to design formal learning
settings
Offers a way to evaluate the
successful change in the
individual
Applications in Barth et al. (2007)
sustainability science Eggert and Bögeholz (2010)
Wals (2010a)
Wiek et al. (2011b)
Social learning, higher-order
learning
Collaborative aspects of learning
Organizational learning
Learning is linked to social action
Social learning is a process of
iterative reflection
Close links to communication
Learning as a process of constant
negotiation
Focus on learning rather than
teaching
Need for learning environments
that support informal learning
Fernandez-Gimenez et al. (2008)
Muro and Jeffrey (2008)
Pahl-Wostl (2006)
Wals (2007)
Situated learning and communities
of practice
Focus on interactive construction
of understanding
Learning as a form of ‘legitimate
peripheral participation’
Offers opportunity to consider
inter- and transdisciplinary
collaboration as an opportunity
for learning rather than a
problematic situation that has to
be managed
Deconstruction of difficulties in
communicating across
disciplines and between
researchers and practitioners
Deconstruction of method-
conflicts between different
disciplines
Haythornthwaite (2006a)
Jones et al. (2010)

competencies as the interplay of cognitive and non-cognitive
components, at least two different explanatory approaches to
competence development should be considered.
The first emphasizes their underlying cognitive struc-
tures, with competence development being seen as
increased ‘mental complexity’ that can be traced as the
development of higher stages of consciousness (Kegan
1994, 2001). In Kegan’s (1994) ‘Evolutionary Model of the
Complexification of Mind’, increasing consciousness is
directly related to increasingly complex demands the
individual has to deal with. Acquiring new knowledge in
response to those experiences that do not fit in the given
structures initiates the building of new and more complex
mental models (Seel 1997). The second approach explains
the acquisition of non-cognitive components by the con-
cept of value interiorization, i.e., competence acquisition
may be understood as the learning of values. This
approach, thus, assumes interiorization processes, i.e., the
production and reproduction, reception, and communica-
tion of values to be central points in value acquisition
(Erpenbeck and Heyse 1999). The learning individual must
be enabled to discover and to analyze his/her own value
system and to revise it with a view to its adequacy to
reality. To impart competencies successfully, those meth-
ods are increasingly necessary that involve an affective
component, since they break through established patterns
of action and lead to a re-evaluation of action possibilities
(Lovat 2011). Based on these two approaches, the central
characteristics of competence development would seem to
be the support of self-organization, the enhancement of
reflexivity, and perturbation, as well as multiple contexts.
Such an educational science-driven understanding of
key competencies offers an alternative approach toward
setting out the goals necessary for a transition toward
sustainability. To apply this concept in the sustainability
context offers at least three instructional and practical
strategies for individual action.
First, it helps to derive systematically an alternative set
of objectives for change processes that respects both indi-
vidual autonomy and societal necessities. Instead of aiming
at a certain behavior or action, it focuses on the develop-
ment of the individual and the capabilities necessary to
participate actively in such transformation processes in
different contexts. Wiek et al. (2011a) synthesized a

123
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
framework for sustainability research and problem-solving
competence consisting of five key competencies that shows
how such an approach can be used to inform work in the
sustainability context: it helps to design and revise aca-
demic programs in general and to formulate more specific
learning outcomes in specific learning settings.
Second, an understanding of the development of key
competencies will guide processes of competence acqui-
sition. It promotes the design of formal learning settings
that are learner-centered and offers ways to engage in
‘wicked’ sustainability problems to gain not just knowl-
edge but the ability to act in a meaningful way (Wals
2010a; Wiek et al. 2011b) and guide activities to support
informal learning as a crucial part of competence devel-
opment (Barth et al. 2007; Blewitt 2004).
Finally, the concept of key competencies offers alter-
native opportunities to evaluate the successful change in
the individual, instead of focusing solely on cognitive
knowledge acquisition or behavior. Educational approa-
ches that have been adopted for the sustainability context
make use of competence assessment measures (Eggert and
Bögeholz 2010), explications of mental models (Plate
2010; Burandt 2011), and detailed analyses that deal with
the role of motivational as well as normative aspects of key
competencies (Corbett 2005; Lind 2008).
In conclusion, the focus on key competencies offers
an alternative approach to addressing the individual’s
contribution to a transformation toward sustainability.
Unlike approaches that deal directly with the behavior
of individuals, it aims at the dispositions necessary to act
successfully in different contexts, and relates them sys-
tematically to relevant cognitive and non-cognitive pro-
cesses. Basic (pre-)conditions that support competence
development can be identified and educational science
contributes specific models of implementation. In the sus-
tainability contexts, this development helps to define spe-
cific learning outcomes, to guide the design of learning
settings, and to evaluate the successful change in the
individual.
Organizational change and social learning
The focus of the second area is on societal change, as a
transformation toward sustainability not only needs indi-
vidual contributions but also a broader and more systematic
change on the societal level. The key concept in this con-
text is organizational change, which is addressed in a
multitude of disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches
(see Armenakis and Bedeian 1999 as well as van de Ven
and Poole 1995 for a review and typology of the literature).
Within sustainability science, organizational change to
sustainability is treated by a number of different disci-
plines: among them are policy-oriented studies, focusing
111
inter alia on the influence and constraints of legislative
influences (Brown 2008); economic studies, which analyze
market incentives and the relation between organizational
change and economic success (Rennings 2000); and
sociological studies on systems and cultural aspects (Geels
2004). Interestingly, the notion of learning as an important
prerequisite for successful change processes is variously
articulated as ‘organizational learning’ (Siebenhüner and
Arnold 2007), ‘social learning’ (Schneider et al. 2009), or
‘societal learning’ (Kates et al. 2001). However, little is
said about how such learning takes places, what constitutes
its ‘social’ character, and how it can be supported. This is
precisely where educational science and its work on social
learning can make a contribution by furnishing approaches
which explain certain aspects of such learning processes
and identify key factors that support such learning.
The term social learning itself conceals great diversity,
and two basic understandings can be distinguished: the first
sees social learning as learning by individuals that is either
socially conditioned or at least takes place in social set-
tings, while the second understanding emphasizes the
collaborative aspects of social learning and defines it as the
collective action and reflection in and between groups that
leads to individual and collective competence development
(Reed et al. 2010). Another distinction is introduced by
Glasser (2007), who differentiates between passive and
active forms of social learning, with the latter relying on
collaboration between at least two individuals that is
characterized by communication and continuous exchange
of information.
For what concerns the objective of organizational
change, it is active social learning that seems to be crucial.
To analyze this kind of learning, four main characteristics
have been isolated (Wildemeersch 2007; Keen et al. 2005).
First, social learning is always linked to processes of social
action, triggered both by a need motivation and a set of
capabilities shared by a group of learners. Second, social
learning is a process of iterative reflection inside and out-
side of the social system, exploring how the context in
which learning takes place affects our knowledge, values,
and action. Third, learning is closely linked to communi-
cation processes inside and outside the social system,
which are both motives and drivers of social learning.
Fourth, learning is related to processes of constant nego-
tiation between learners. What is seen as a precondition for
generating new knowledge is a dialogue in which are
addressed conflicts over ideas, values, and practices, as
well as the tension between consensus and dissent.
Learning has been isolated as crucial for organizational
change and a transition toward a more sustainable future.
However, learning as such is a neutral process that can
either keep a system stable or enable it to change—it
certainly does not automatically lead to sustainable
123
112
development (Sterling 2007). What is needed to achieve
organizational change is higher-order learning that is built
upon reflection and contributes to a system-wide change.
Such learning requires a critical review of values, princi-
ples, and strategies in use, as it is only through a recon-
sideration of the normative assumptions which underlie
existing practices that the intended transformation can be
achieved (Cramer and Loeber 2007). Based on Bateson’s
theory of learning and change (Bateson 2000), a number of
theories have been developed that make conceptual dis-
tinctions between different forms of learning, such as sin-
gle- versus double-loop learning (Argyris 2009; Argyris
and Schön 1996) or first- versus second-order learning
(Ison and Russell 2000).
An understanding of organizational change and social
learning as both second-order and active social learning has
certain consequences for an educational approach. First,
the focus lies on facilitating and moderating learning pro-
cesses, rather than on teaching them. Second, as such
learning is informal in nature and happens outside certain
structures, educational science does not need to concern
itself with providing formal learning approaches, but
should concentrate, rather, on meaningful learning envi-
ronments that support such learning. Thus, it is three crit-
ical aspects of such learning environments that need to be
considered in particular: (1) informal learning as a driver of
organizational change that needs supportive educational
framing (Marsick and Watkins 2001); (2) reflection on
occasions, when daily organizational routines are pertur-
bated and, hence, a deeper understanding of relevant
processes can be gained (Brooks 1999); (3) the use of
existing communication structures, to support collaborative
knowledge management (Skule 2004).
Experiences, especially from the field of resource
management, give an insight into how the concept of social
learning can be applied in the sustainability context (Fer-
nandez-Gimenez et al. 2008; Muro and Jeffrey 2008; Pahl-
Wostl 2006). Pahl-Wostl (2006) has developed a concep-
tual framework for social learning in resource management
with a special emphasis on the relational practices of
information processing and social exchange. This shed new
light on management processes as ‘‘learning together to
manage together’’. At the same time, the role of higher-
order learning to facilitate transformation processes has
been explored in more detail as ‘‘sustainability learning’’
(Hansmann 2010) or ‘‘resilience learning’’ (Fazey 2010).
To support such social learning for sustainable trans-
formation, key aspects can be listed that facilitate suc-
cessful learning processes and define necessary
preconditions. Thus, participatory methods such as group
model building or role-playing and the involvement of
stakeholders in participation processes are of prime
importance to enable social learning, as they are based on
123
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
relational practices (Plummer and FitzGibbon 2008). Sec-
ond, through constant reflection and the facilitation of
feedback loops, learning can positively impact the learner,
the collaborator, and the wider social context in which
learning takes place (Armitage et al. 2008; Barab and Roth
2006). Third, knowledge is created in collaborative group
processes in which the learner contributes to the entire
process as an active participant (Pahl-Wostl 2006).
Now, to support social learning in group processes,
learning cycles should be provided as a crucial and
acknowledged part. Here, educational science can help in
two ways by offering practical knowledge. First, it can
design educational programs to support social learning
approaches and to contribute to efforts to enhance higher-
order learning (Krasny et al. 2009). Second, it can design
learning environments that support informal learning in
decision-making through a focus on framing and reframing
and reflective practices.
In sum, organizational change can be understood from
an educational perspective as active social higher-order
learning. Educational science’s contribution to the dis-
course about organizational change toward sustainability
then consists of approaches to develop supportive learning
environments for social learning. Such a contribution not
only offers opportunities to describe and analyze organi-
zational change systematically, but it also enriches the
methodological portfolio employed in action research
(Argyris 1993; Huber 1991).
Inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration
The third and final field to be explored in greater detail is
that of inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration. This is a
key criterion of sustainability science, and we want to
underline the importance of inter- and transdisciplinary
approaches for the analysis of increasingly complex prob-
lems that are beyond the scope of a single discipline
(Latour 1998; Klein 1996). There are, however, certain
barriers to such a shift from discipline-based knowledge
production to more integrated forms. These barriers are
disciplinary, institutional, and cultural in nature, and can
lead to structural, methodological, and communicative
problems in collaboration (Carter and Spash 2000; Franks
et al. 2007).
At least three areas of research on inter- and transdis-
ciplinarity can be distinguished. The first concerns the
relation between disciplines and inter- and transdiscipli-
narity, and explores the influence of and on disciplinary
cultures (Castán Broto et al. 2009; Karlqvist 1999). Pro-
cesses of knowledge integration, the second research focus,
are analyzed using different explanatory models which
bear on communication theories (Clark and Brennan 1991),
as well as on approaches coming from social (Farh et al.
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
2010; Levine and Moreland 1991) and cognitive psychol-
ogy (Klimoski and Mohammed 1994; Mathieu et al. 2000)
(see Godemann 2008 for a more detailed overview). A
third line of research investigates the management of
transdisciplinary research processes, where the analysis
concerns the methods and instruments of project manage-
ment, as well as certain aspects of process management
(Hirsch-Hadorn et al. 2008; Loibl 2000). Also considered
are the development of specific methods and instruments
and evaluation aspects (Blackstock et al. 2007; Späth 2008;
Walter et al. 2007).
Undertaking inter- and transdisciplinary research
regards learning as a prerequisite, and focuses on relevant
knowledge and competencies to participate successfully in
inter- and transdisciplinary settings and on the implemen-
tation of adequate formal learning settings (Costanza 1990;
Klein 2008). Accordingly, contributions from educational
science highlight structures and pedagogies for the support
of learning processes in inter- and transdisciplinary settings
(Haythornthwaite 2006b; Ivanitskaya et al. 2002; Lattuca et
al. 2004). However, a broader view of collaboration as a
way of learning offers a different understanding of some of
inter- and transdisciplinary key mechanisms. By consid-
ering such processes as learning situated in social practice
and by using the framework of ‘Communities of Practice’
for its analysis, educational science may offer an alterna-
tive contribution for an insight into the practice of inter-
and transdisciplinary collaboration.
The idea of situated learning is that learning should not
be thought of as a purely cognitive process. Rather,
learning must be recognized as something grounded in
cultural practice and social contexts (Lave and Wenger
1991). Consequently, situated learning promotes a shift
away from more traditional learning theories, which had
conceptualized learning as a discrete cognitive process that
largely ignored its meaning in the ‘life-world’, toward an
understanding of knowledge as socially mediated and
constructed (Fuller et al. 2005). From the situative per-
spective, all activity arrangements provide situations and
practices in which learning occurs, and all learning is
related to specific situations. Thus, the situative perspective
emphasizes the interactive construction of understanding
and people’s engagement in activities (Greeno 1998).
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of situated learning
as ‘Communities of Practice’ (CoP) offers a framework for
the understanding of learning processes in situated learn-
ing. The community’s shared social practice is a sort of
mini-culture that binds its members together, and learning
takes place in this community both individually and col-
laboratively, with the CoP as the natural social structure for
the ownership of knowledge (Wenger 1999). Learning
in that sense occurs as a form of ‘legitimate peripheral
participation’. Based on the approach of cognitive
113
apprenticeship (Collins et al. 1989), the learning process is
understood as a constant exchange between novice and
master or layman and expert. Novices participate in the
beginning only to a certain degree and do not yet take full
responsibility for the progress of the group, and while this
is explicitly tolerated by the group, the novices’ range of
action and responsibility grow over time. Learning is
shaped by the relation of novice with master and that
between novices, as well as their shared ground and arte-
facts (Rogoff 1991). At the end of the learning process—a
process of enculturation—the novice is ideally fully inte-
grated into the community. Based on the topic or specific
problem that the community deals with, an individual may
be an expert in one topic but a layman in another. The CoP
approach offers a way to think and conceptualize learning;
it is not about teaching and must not be misunderstood as a
form of instructional design. Rather, the educational chal-
lenge is to acknowledge emerging CoPs, nurture their
development, and create supportive learning environments.
When the findings of this research into inter- and
transdisciplinary collaboration are applied to sustainability
science, a number of shared features can be noted; above
all, mutual engagement, constant negotiations. and the
shared repertoire of such a CoP. This approach not only
allows a new way of analyzing this kind of collaboration,
but may also involve a shift away from considering it a
problem that needs to be managed somehow to a new view
of it as an opportunity for learning that should be wel-
comed and taken advantage of.
Two aspects of collaboration seem to be of special
interest for such learning. First, difficulties in communi-
cating across disciplines and between researchers and
practitioners have been singled out as a major drawback of
inter- and transdisciplinarity (Castán Broto et al. 2009;
Godemann 2008). The CoP approach, however, takes a
different view on such communication processes and
understands interdisciplinary communication as a step-wise
development of knowledge in a field in which no former
expertise existed. Thus, from an educational science per-
spective, inter- and transdisciplinary communication pro-
cesses need to be designed in a way that they allow for
learning to take place by facilitating reflection and the
further development of existing mental models, as well as
the explication of individual mental models that can be
compared and discussed for the collaborative development
of shared understandings.
Second, conflicts arise when different methods and ways
of problem-solving are experienced and shared approaches
have to be found (Lang et al. 2012). From a CoP per-
spective, this is, again, a learning process in which the
concepts of participation and reification are crucial. Par-
ticipation refers to the necessarily social dimension of
learning, while reification describes the process in which
123
114
shared abstract understandings (‘‘boundary objects’’) of
collaborative experiences are established. The educational
contribution is, thus, to offer learning environments in
which such shared understandings can be developed
collaboratively.
In educational science, learning environments have been
developed and analyzed that support learning in CoPs
(Brown and Campione 1994). From the very beginning,
such approaches have focused on interdisciplinary settings
across formal structures (Haythornthwaite 2006a; Silvers et
al. 2007). Furthermore, the role of learning for inter- and
transdisciplinary processes has been analyzed in the sus-
tainability context and consequences for formal learning
settings have been derived (Jones et al. 2010). The concept
of CoPs has been applied to facilitate meaningful learning
environments and it is here that the management of col-
laboration can benefit from insights into such processes.
Conclusion
The objective of this paper has been two-fold, the first of
which was to demonstrate how sustainability has become
an influential concept in research and practice in the unique
field of education for sustainable development (ESD). The
second aim was to argue for potential contributions by
educational science to the sustainability discourse. By
introducing the concepts of competence development,
social and organizational learning, and situated learning in
Communities of Practice (CoPs), the benefits of such an
educational contribution were demonstrated and applica-
tions in the sustainability context provided tangible con-
tributions. For the on-going discourse within sustainability
science, this offers new insights into the understanding of
both individual as well as social transformation processes
and broadens the variety of disciplinary contributions. By
doing so, educational science might be able to play a more
significant role among the contributing disciplines than has
been the case so far.
To explore how the dialogue between educational and
sustainability science can be further facilitated, it seems
important to consider that the educational view of sus-
tainability science as a shared learning process comes
along with an appraisal of certain aspects of this process.
Of these, we want to mention at least three here:
1. Failure as part of the learning process Learning takes
place when new experiences cannot be integrated in
existing mental models and makes the individual
reflect on existing routines. Thus, failure is an
important part of the learning process: new learning
outcomes will only come about if we accept to fail in
our existing approaches, reflect on them, and seek for
123
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
new ways of problem-solving. Although that seems to
be commonplace enough, we see a tendency for ‘best
practice’ approaches and ‘success stories’ that often
neglect the existence of failure and only second-best
solutions. Accepting failure as a natural and necessary
part of the learning process is a dual process of
accepting the failure of specific approaches as a result
also worthy to be reported and, second, of accepting
such reporting as a respectable contribution to the
shared learning process. Ways need, therefore, to be
found to reduce the social and personal costs still often
associated with such failure and to provide incentives
for such research that is prepared to leave well-trodden
paths and deal with uncertain outcomes.
2. Diversity as a precondition of reflective learning As
learning happens in the constant comparison of
different approaches and ways of problem-solving,
diversity is a crucial factor. The more heterogeneous a
group is in which learning takes place, the greater the
variety of solutions as learning outcomes. To facilitate
such learning in the research process means favoring
inter- and transdisciplinary settings with a great variety
of different disciplines and actors and an openness
even to unusual combinations. While such a setting
favors deep learning, it also comes at some cost:
certain aspects of group dynamics and power relations
become influential and need to be dealt with if a ‘safe
learning space’ is to be provided (McTaggart 1991;
Vangen and Huxham 2003).
3. Process—instead of output—orientation Research
processes traditionally focus on the output, i.e.,
specific products or answers to certain research
questions. A learning-oriented view instead focuses
on the process not only as a means to an end, but as a
value in its own right. While the end is still a goal to
strive for, the process toward it is taken into account
more explicitly and both individual and social learning
is considered. Such a view is in line with recent
developments in participatory sustainability research
practices and supports the shift in focus in research
projects (e.g., Blackstock et al. 2007).
Considering these aspects and acknowledging sustain-
ability science as a shared learning endeavor not only
contributes to the way we understand and facilitate this
type of research, but also represents a paradigm shift that is
not easily carried out. It needs not just the commitment of
the individual but also necessitates certain changes in the
academic system. This can be easily illustrated with the
example of inter- and transdisciplinary research, which,
though acknowledged as a conditio sine qua non in sus-
tainability research, is, however, at the same time, disin-
centivized by the existing fragmentation of disciplines and
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
the discipline-oriented modes of quality assessment and
tenure granting (Castán Broto et al. 2009; Lau and Pasquini
2008). Without incentives that favor problem–solution, as
well as work that is oriented toward inter- and transdisci-
plinary research, the necessary social learning process will
be difficult to achieve. We see, however, first steps in this
direction, witness, for example, a growing number of
research programs and journals, and, thus, remain opti-
mistic that such a form of sustainability science will
become an indispensable part of the academy with educa-
tional science as a strong contributor.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of the
article. The writing of the article was supported for the corresponding
author by a fellowship in the Postdoc Programme of the German
Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
References
Argyris C (1993) Knowledge for action: a guide to overcoming
barriers to organizational change. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Argyris C (2009) On organizational learning, 2nd edn. Blackwell,
Malden
Argyris C, Schön DA (1996) Organizational learning II: theory,
method, and practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Arima A (2009) A plea for more education for sustainable develop-
ment. Sustain Sci 4(1):3–5
Armenakis AA, Bedeian AG (1999) Organizational change: a review
of theory and research in the 1990s. J Manag 25(3):293–315
Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R (2008) Adaptive co-manage-
ment and the paradox of learning. Global Environ Change
18(1):86–98
Ascher W (2007) Policy sciences contributions to analysis to promote
sustainability. Sustain Sci 2(2):141–149
Bandura A, Walters RH (1965) Social learning and personality
development. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
Barab SA, Roth W-M (2006) Curriculum-based ecosystems: support-
ing knowing from an ecological perspective. Educ Res 35(5):3–
13
Barth M (2011) Den konstruktiven Umgang mit den Herausforder-
ungen unserer Zeit erlernen: Bildung für nachhaltige Entwick-
lung als erziehungswissenschaftliche Aufgabe. [How to deal
constructively with the challenges of our times—education for
sustainable development as an educational objective]. SWS
Rundschau 51(3):275–291
Barth M, Godemann J (2006) Study programme sustainability—a way
to impart competencies for handling sustainability? In: Adomß-
ent M, Godemann J, Leicht A, Busch A (eds) Higher education
for sustainability: new challenges from a global perspective.
VAS, Frankfurt, pp 198–207
Barth M, Rieckmann M (2009) Experiencing the global dimension of
sustainability: student dialogue in a European–Latin American
virtual seminar. Int J Dev Educ Global Learn 1(3):22–38
Barth M, Godemann J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U (2007)
Developing key competencies for sustainable development in
higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(4):416–430
Bateson G (2000) Steps to an ecology of mind, 2 edn. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago
Biggs J (1996) Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment.
High Educ 32(3):347–364
115
Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and
applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for
sustainability. Ecol Econ 60(4):726–742
Blewitt J (2004) Sustainability and lifelong learning. In: Blewitt J,
Cullingford C (eds) The sustainability curriculum: the challenge
for higher education. Earthscan, London, pp 24–42
Bormann I, Michelsen G (2010) The collaborative production of
meaningful measure(ment)s: preliminary insights into a work in
progress. Eur Educ Res J 9(4):510–518
Boud D, Feletti G (1997) The challenge of problem-based learning,
2nd edn. Kogan Page, London
Bransford JD, Sherwood RD, Hasselbring TS, Kinzer CK, Williams
SM (1990) Anchored instruction: why we need it and how
technology can help. In: Nix D, Spiro RJ (eds) Cognition,
education, and multimedia: exploring ideas in high technology.
Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 115–141
Bredo E (2006) Philosophies of educational research. In: Green JL,
Camilli G, Elmore PB (eds) Handbook of complementary
methods in education research, 3rd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, pp 3–32
Bridges D (2006) The disciplines and discipline of educational
research. J Philos Educ 40(2):259–272
Brooks AK (1999) Critical reflection as a response to organizational
disruption. In: Marsick VJ, Volpe M (eds) Informal learning on
the job. Academy of Human Resource Development, Baton
Rouge, pp 66–79
Brown RR (2008) Local institutional development and organizational
change for advancing sustainable urban water futures. Environ
Manage 41(2):221–233
Brown AL, Campione JC (1994) Guided discovery in a community of
learners. In: McGilly K (ed) Classroom lessons: integrating
cognitive theory and classroom practice. MIT Press, Cambridge,
pp 229–270
Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the
culture of learning. Educ Res 18(1):32–42
Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in real-world
sustainability research: vision and implementation. Innovat High
Educ 36(2):107–124
Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL (2010) Real-world learning
opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into the real
world. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(4):308–324
Brunton K (2006) Education for sustainable development: principles
for curriculum development in business subject areas. Investig
Univ Teach Learn 3(2):36–46
Burandt S (2011) Effects of an educational scenario exercise on
participants’ competencies of systemic thinking. J Soc Sci
7(1):51–62
Burandt S, Barth M (2010) Learning settings to face climate change. J
Clean Prod 18(7):659–665
Carter C, Spash CL (2000) Encouraging interdisciplinary research
and debate. In: Häberli R, Scholz RW, Bill A, Welti M (eds)
Transdisciplinarity: joint problem-solving among science, tech-
nology and society. Haffmans Sachbuch Verlag, Zürich, pp 166–
169
Castán Broto V, Gislason M, Ehlers M-H (2009) Practising interdis-
ciplinarity in the interplay between disciplines: experiences of
established researchers. Environ Sci Pol 12(7):922–933
Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. PNAS
104(6):1737–1738
Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in communication. In:
Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley SD (eds) Perspectives on
socially shared cognition. American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp 127–149
Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging
research program. PNAS 100(14):8059–8061
123
116
Clugston R (2010) Earth charter education for sustainable ways of
living. J Educ Sustain Dev 4(2):157–166
Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2009) Research methods in
education, 6th edn. Routledge Falmer, London
Collins A, Brown JS, Newman SE (1989) Cognitive apprenticeship.
In: Resnick LB (ed) Knowing, learning, and instruction.
Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 453–494
Connell WF (1980) A history of education in the twentieth century
world. Culture and curriculum series. Curriculum Development
Centre, Canberra
Corbett JB (2005) Altruism, self-interest, and the reasonable person
model of environmentally responsible behavior. Sci Commun
26(4):368–389
Corney G, Reid A (2007) Student teachers’ learning about subject
matter and pedagogy in education for sustainable development.
Environ Educ Res 13(1):33–54
Cörvers R, de Kraker J (2009) Virtual campus development on the
basis of subsidiarity: the EVS approach. In: Stansfield MH,
Connolly TM (eds) Institutional transformation through best
practices in virtual campus development: advancing e-learning
policies. Information Science Reference, Hershey, pp 179–197
Costanza R (1990) Escaping the overspecialization trap. In: Clark
ME, Wawrytko SA (eds) Rethinking the curriculum: toward an
integrated, interdisciplinary college education. Greenwood Press,
New York, pp 95–106
Cotton DRE, Warren MF, Maiboroda O, Bailey I (2007) Sustainable
development, higher education and pedagogy: a study of
lecturers’ beliefs and attitudes. Environ Educ Res 13(5):579–597
Cramer J, Loeber A (2007) Learning about corporate social respon-
sibility from a sustainable development perspective: a Dutch
experiment. In: Wals AEJ (ed) Social learning towards a
sustainable world: principles, perspectives, and praxis. Wagen-
ingen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 265–278
Cremin LA (1990) American education: the metropolitan experience,
1876–1980, vol 3. Harper & Row, New York
Cutting R, Cook R (2009) The World Environmental Education
Congress 2007: a critical appraisal. Environ Educ Res
15(2):177–187
de Haan G (2006) The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: a
‘Gestaltungskompetenz’-based model for education for sustain-
able development. Environ Educ Res 12(1):19–32
Eggert S, Bögeholz S (2010) Students’ use of decision-making
strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: an application of
the Rasch partial credit model. Sci Educ 94(2):230–258
Elias D, Tilbury D, Bacha J, Janousek S, Wheeler K, Martin-Mehers
G (2007) Asia-Pacific guidelines for the development of national
ESD indicators. UNESCO Asia and Pacific Region Bureau for
Education, Bangkok
Erpenbeck J, Heyse V (1999) Die Kompetenzbiographie. Strategien
der Kompetenzentwicklung durch selbstorganisiertes Lernen und
multimediale Kommunikation. Waxmann, Münster
Farh J-L, Lee C, Farh CIC (2010) Task conflict and team creativity: a
question of how much and when. J Appl Psychol 95(6):1173–
1180
Fazey I (2010) Resilience and higher order thinking. Ecol Soc 15(3):9
Fernandez-Gimenez ME, Ballard HL, Sturtevant VE (2008) Adaptive
management and social learning in collaborative and commu-
nity-based monitoring: a study of five community-based forestry
organizations in the western USA. Ecol Soc 13(2):4
Fien J (1997) Learning to care: a focus for values in health and
environmental education. Health Educ Res 12(4):437–447
Fischer D (2010) Sustainable consumption—mapping the terrain: an
exploratory review of contested themes and their representation
in consumer education. Int J Environ Cult Econ Soc Sustain
6(3):207–226
123
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
Franks D, Dale P, Hindmarsh R, Fellows C, Buckridge M, Cybinski P
(2007) Interdisciplinary foundations: reflecting on interdisci-
plinarity and three decades of teaching and research at Griffith
University, Australia. Stud High Educ 32(2):167–185
Fuller A, Hodkinson H, Hodkinson P, Unwin L (2005) Learning as
peripheral participation in communities of practice: a reassess-
ment of key concepts in workplace learning. Br Educ Res J
31(1):49–68
Furlong J, Lawn M (2010) Disciplines of education and their role in
the future of educational research: concluding reflections. In:
Furlong J, Lawn M (eds) Disciplines of education: their role in
the future of education research. Routledge Falmer, New York,
pp 173–187
Gallopı́n GC, Funtowicz S, O’Connor M, Ravetz J (2001) Science for
the 21st century: from social contract to the scientific core. Int
Soc Sci J 53(168):219–229
Geels FW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-
technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from
sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy 33(6–7):897–920
Glasser H (2007) Minding in the gap: the role of social learning in
linking our stated desire for a more sustainable world to our
everyday actions and policies. In: Wals AEJ (ed) Social learning
towards a sustainable world: principles, perspectives, and praxis.
Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 35–62
Godemann J (2008) Knowledge integration: a key challenge for
transdisciplinary cooperation. Environ Educ Res 14(6):625–641
Gómez J (2005) In the name of environmental education: words and
things in the complex territory of education–environment–
development relations. Pol Futures Educ 3(3):260–270
Gough SR, Scott WAH (2001) Curriculum development and sustain-
able development: practices, institutions and literacies. Educ
Philos Theor 33(2):137–152
Gough SR, Scott WAH (2007) Higher education and sustainable
development: paradox and possibility. Routledge Falmer,
London
Grant CA, Zeichner KM (1984) On becoming a reflective teacher. In:
Grant CA (ed) Preparing for reflective teaching. Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, pp 103–114
Greeno JG (1998) The situativity of knowing, learning, and research.
Am Psychol 53(1):5–26
Gruenewald DA (2004) Why the Earth Charter matters to (multi)cul-
tural educators everywhere: a rejoinder. Curric Inq 34(2):241–
250
Gustavsen B (2003) New forms of knowledge production and the role
of action research. Action Res 1(2):153–164
Hansmann R (2010) ‘‘Sustainability learning’’: an introduction to the
concept and its motivational aspects. Sustainability 2(9):2873–
2897
Haythornthwaite C (2006a) Building social networks via computer
networks: creating and sustaining distributed learning commu-
nities. In: Renninger KA, Shumar W (eds) Building virtual
communities: learning and change in cyberspace. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 159–190
Haythornthwaite C (2006b) Learning and knowledge networks in
interdisciplinary collaborations. J Am Soc Inform Sci
57(8):1079–1092
Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenb-
acher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds)
(2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer,
Dordrecht
Hoare A, Cornell S, Bertram C, Gallagher K, Heslop S, Lieven N,
MacLeod C, Morgan J, Pickering A, Wells S, Willmore C (2008)
Teaching against the grain: multi-disciplinary teamwork effec-
tively delivers a successful undergraduate unit in sustainable
development. Environ Educ Res 14(4):469–481
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes
and the literatures. Organ Sci 2(1):88–115
Ison RL, Russell DB (2000) Agricultural extension and rural
development: breaking out of knowledge transfer traditions; a
second-order systems perspective. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Ivanitskaya L, Clark D, Montgomery G, Primeau R (2002) Interdis-
ciplinary learning: process and outcomes. Innov High Educ
27(2):95–111
Jickling B (1992) Why I don’t want my children to be educated for
sustainable development. J Environ Educ 23(4):5–8
Jones P, Selby D, Sterling S (2010) More than the sum of their parts?
Interdisciplinarity and sustainability. In: Jones P, Selby D,
Sterling SR (eds) Sustainability education: perspectives and
practice across higher education. Earthscan, London, pp 17–38
Kajikawa Y (2008) Research core and framework of sustainability
science. Sustain Sci 3(2):215–239
Kajikawa Y, Ohno J, Takeda Y, Matsushima K, Komiyama H (2007)
Creating an academic landscape of sustainability science: an
analysis of the citation network. Sustain Sci 2(2):221–231
Karlqvist A (1999) Going beyond disciplines: the meanings of
interdisciplinarity. Policy Sci 32(4):379–383
Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy
JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin
GC, Grübler A, Huntley B, Jäger J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE,
Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B 3rd, O’Riordan T,
Svedin U (2001) Sustainability science. Policy forum: environ-
ment and development. Science 292(5517):641–642
Keen M, Brown VA, Dyball R (2005) Social learning in environ-
mental management: towards a sustainable future. Earthscan,
London
Kegan R (1994) In over our heads: the mental demands of modern
life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Kegan R (2001) Competencies as working epistemologies. In:
Rychen DS, Salganik LH (eds) Defining and selecting key
competencies. Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, pp 192–204
Keiner E (2010) Disciplines of education: the value of disciplinary
self-observation. In: Furlong J, Lawn M (eds) Disciplines of
education: their role in the future of education research.
Routledge Falmer, New York, pp 159–172
Kemmis S (2004) Action research. In: Keeves JP (ed) Educational
research, methodology, and measurement: an international
handbook, 2nd edn. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 177–190
King K (2009) Education, skills, sustainability and growth: complex
relations. Int J Educ Dev 29(2):175–181
Klein JT (1996) Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and
interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville
Klein JT (2008) Education. In: Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H,
Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C,
Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds) Handbook of transdisciplinary
research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 399–410
Klimoski R, Mohammed S (1994) Team mental model: construct or
metaphor? J Manag 20(2):403–437
Krasny ME, Tidball KG, Sriskandarajah N (2009) Education and
resilience: social and situated learning among university and
secondary students. Ecol Soc 14(2):38
Künzli David C, Kaufmann-Hayoz R (2008) Bildung für eine
Nachhaltige Entwicklung—Konzeptionelle Grundlagen, didakti-
sche Ausgestaltung und Umsetzung. Umweltpsychologie
12(2):9–28
Künzli C, Di Giulio A, Kaufmann-Hayoz R (2000) Skills or content?
How to prepare students for interdisciplinary and transdisciplin-
ary research and practice. In: Häberli R, Scholz RW, Bill A,
Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem-solving among
science, technology and society. Haffmans Sachbuch Verlag,
Zürich, p 619
117
Lang D, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P,
Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in
sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges.
Sustain Sci 7:25–43
Latour B (1998) From the world of science to the world of research?
Science 280(5361):208–209
Lattuca LR, Voigt LJ, Fath KQ (2004) Does interdisciplinarity
promote learning? Theoretical support and researchable ques-
tions. Rev High Educ 28(1):23–48
Lau L, Pasquini M (2008) ‘Jack of all trades’? The negotiation of
interdisciplinarity within geography. Geoforum 39(2):552–560
Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral
participation. Learning in doing. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Le Grange L (2004) Against environmental learning: why we need a
language of environmental education. South Afr J Environ Educ
21:134–140
Levine JM, Moreland RL (1991) Culture and socialization in work
groups. In: Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley SD (eds) Perspec-
tives on socially shared cognition. American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC, pp 257–281
Lind G (2008) The meaning and measurement of moral judgment
competence. In: Fasko D, Willis WA (eds) Contemporary
philosophical and psychological perspectives on moral develop-
ment and education. Hampton Press, Cresskill, pp 185–220
Loibl MC (2000) Group dynamics in transdisciplinary research. In:
Häberli R, Scholz RW, Bill A, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity:
joint problem-solving among science, technology and society.
Haffmans Sachbuch Verlag, Zürich, pp 131–134
Lovat TJ (2011) Values education and holistic learning: updated
research perspectives. Int J Educ Res 50(3):148–152
Marsick VJ, Watkins KE (2001) Informal and incidental learning.
New Dir Adult Contin Educ 89:25–34
Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA
(2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process
and performance. J Appl Psychol 85(2):273–283
McCulloch G (2002) ‘Disciplines contributing to education?’ Educa-
tional studies and the disciplines. Br J Educ Stud 50(1):100–119
McKeown R (2007) Setting the stage for a strategic research agenda
for the UNDESD. J Educ Sustain Dev 1(1):91–96
McKeown R, Hopkins C (2007) Moving beyond the EE and ESD
disciplinary debate in formal education. J Educ Sustain Dev
1(1):17–26
McMichael AJ (1997) Global environmental change and human
health: impact assessment, population vulnerability, and research
priorities. Ecosyst Health 3(4):200–210
McTaggart R (1991) Principles for participatory action research.
Adult Educ Q 41(3):168–187
Mihelcic JR, Crittenden JC, Small MJ, Shonnard DR, Hokanson DR,
Zhang Q, Chen H, Sorby SA, James VU, Sutherland JW, Schnoor
JL (2003) Sustainability science and engineering: the emergence
of a new metadiscipline. Environ Sci Technol 37(23):5314–5324
Mills D, Jepson A, Coxon T, Easterby-Smith M, Hawkins P, Spencer
J (2006) Demographic review of the UK social sciences.
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Swindon
Muro M, Jeffrey P (2008) A critical review of the theory and
application of social learning in participatory natural resource
management processes. J Environ Plan Manag 51(3):325–344
National Research Council (2002) Scientific research in education.
National Academies Press, Washington, DC
O’Donoghue R, Lotz-Sisitka H (2006) Situated environmental
learning in Southern Africa at the start of the UN Decade of
Education for Sustainable Development. Aust J Environ Educ
22(1):105–113
Pahl-Wostl C (2006) The importance of social learning in restoring the
multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecol Soc 11(1):10
123
118
Plate R (2010) Assessing individuals’ understanding of nonlinear
causal structures in complex systems. Syst Dyn Rev 26(1):19–33
Plummer R, FitzGibbon JE (2008) Connecting adaptive co-manage-
ment, social learning, and social capital through theory and
practice. In: Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (eds) Adaptive
co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level gover-
nance. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, pp 38–61
Quental N, Lourenço J, da Silva F (2011) Sustainability: character-
istics and scientific roots. Environ Dev Sustain 13(2):257–276
Rapport DJ (2007) Sustainability science: an ecohealth perspective.
Sustain Sci 2(1):77–84
Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J,
Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer LC (2010) What is
social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4):r1
Reid AD, Scott WAH (2006) Researching education and the
environment: retrospect and prospect. Environ Educ Res 12(3–
4):571–587
Rennings K (2000) Redefining innovation—eco-innovation research
and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecol Econ
32(2):319–332
Rogoff B (1991) Social interaction as apprenticeship in thinking:
guidance and participation in spatial planning. In: Resnick LB,
Levine JM, Teasley SD (eds) Perspectives on socially shared
cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington,
DC, pp 349–364
Ryan KE, Cousins JB (eds) (2009) The SAGE international handbook
of educational evaluation. Sage Publications, Los Angeles
Rychen DS, Salganik LH (eds) (2001) Defining and selecting key
competencies. Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle
Rychen DS, Salganik LH (2003) A holistic model of competence. In:
Rychen DS, Salganik LH (eds) Key competencies for a
successful life and a well-functioning society. Hogrefe & Huber,
Cambridge, pp 41–62
Sauvé L, Brunelle R, Berryman T (2005) Influence of the globalized
and globalizing sustainable development framework on national
policies related to environmental education. Pol Futures Educ
3(3):271–283
Schneider F, Ledermann T, Fry P, Rist S (2009) Social learning
processes in Swiss soil protection—the ‘From Farmer–To
Farmer’ project. Hum Ecol 37(4):475–489
Scholz RW, Mieg HA, Weber O (1995) Mastering the complexity of
environmental problem solving by case study approach. Work-
ing Paper Nr. 7, Zürich
Scholz RW, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Walter AI, Stauffacher M (2006)
Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability
learning: historical framework and theory. Int J Sustain High
Educ 7(3):226–251
Seel NM (1997) Educational diagnosis of mental models: assessment
problems and technology-based solutions. J Struct Learn Intel
Syst 14(2):153–185
Segalàs J, Ferrer-Balas D, Svanström M, Lundqvist U, Mulder KF
(2009) What has to be learnt for sustainability? A comparison of
bachelor engineering education competences at three European
universities. Sustain Sci 4(1):17–27
Siebenhüner B, Arnold M (2007) Organizational learning to manage
sustainable development. Bus Strategy Environ 16(5):339–353
Silvers P, O’Connell J, Fewell M (2007) Strategies for creating
community in a graduate education online program. J Comput
Teach Educ 23(3):81–87
Skule S (2004) Learning conditions at work: a framework to
understand and assess informal learning in the workplace. Int J
Train Dev 8(1):8–20
Späth P (2008) Learning ex-post: towards a simple method and set of
questions for the self-evaluation of transdisciplinary research.
GAIA 17(2):224–232
123
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
Stauffacher M, Walter AI, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2006)
Learning to research environmental problems from a functional
socio-cultural constructivism perspective: the transdisciplinary
case study approach. Int J Sustain High Educ 7(3):252–275
Sterling S (2001) Sustainable education: re-visioning learning and
change. Green Books, Foxhole
Sterling S (2007) Riding the storm: towards a connective cultural
consciousness. In: Wals AEJ (ed) Social learning towards a
sustainable world. Principles, perspectives, and praxis. Wagen-
ingen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 63–82
Sterling S (2010) Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner?
Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable
education. Environ Educ Res 16(5):511–528
Sutheimer S, Pyles J (2011) Integrating sustainability and service
learning into the science curriculum. In: McDonald T (ed) Social
responsibility and sustainability: multidisciplinary perspectives
through service learning. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, pp 21–34
The Earth Charter (2008) The Earth Charter Initiative Handbook.
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/
Handbook%20ENG.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2012
Thomas E (2009) Sustainable development: the challenges and
prospects for a sustainability curriculum. In: Fien J, Maclean R,
Park M-G (eds) Work, learning and sustainable development:
opportunities and challenges. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 77–92
Tilbury D (2004) Environmental education for sustainability: a force
for change in higher education. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds)
Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: problemat-
ics, promise, and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 97–112
Tilbury D, Janousek S (2007) Asia-Pacific contributions to the UN
Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. J Educ
Sustain Dev 1(1):133–141
United Nations (2002) World Summit on Sustainable Development.
WEHAB framework papers. http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/
documents/wehab_papers.html. Accessed 2 Aug 2012
United Nations (2008) The Millennium Development Goals Report.
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress
2008/MDG_Report_2008_En.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) (1997) Education for a sustainable future: a trans-
disciplinary vision for concerted action. UNESCO, Paris
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) (2009) Bonn Declaration. UNESCO World Con-
ference on Education for Sustainable Development, Bonn,
Germany, 31 March to 2 April 2009. http://www.esd-world-
conference-2009.org/fileadmin/download/ESD2009_BonnDeclaration
080409.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2012
van de Ven AH, Poole MS (1995) Explaining development and
change in organizations. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):510–540
Vangen S, Huxham C (2003) Nurturing collaborative relations:
building trust in inter-organizational collaboration. J Appl Behav
Sci 39(1):5–31
Vare P, Scott WAH (2007) Learning for a change: exploring the
relationship between education and sustainable development. J
Educ Sustain Dev 1(2):191–198
Wagner P, Wittrock B (1990) States, institutions, and discourses: a
comparative perspective on the structuration of the social
sciences. In: Wagner P, Wittrock B, Whitley R (eds) Discourses
on society: the shaping of the social science disciplines. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 331–357
Wals AEJ (ed) (2007) Social learning towards a sustainable world.
Principles, perspectives, and praxis. Wageningen Academic
Publishers, Wageningen
Wals AEJ (2010a) Mirroring, Gestaltswitching and transformative
social learning: stepping stones for developing sustainability
competence. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(4):380–390
Sustain Sci (2013) 8:103–119
Wals AEJ (2010b) DESD we can? Some lessons learnt from two mid-
DESD reviews. Glob Environ Res 14(2):109–118
Wals AEJ, Blewitt J (2010) Third-wave sustainability in higher
education: some (inter)national trends and development. In:
Jones P, Selby D, Sterling SR (eds) Sustainability education:
perspectives and practice across higher education. Earthscan,
London, pp 55–74
Walter AI, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2007) Measuring
societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and
application of an evaluation method. Special detection: ethics in
evaluation. Eval Program Plan 30(4):325–338
Wenger E (1999) Communities of practice: the key to a knowledge
strategy. Knowl Dir 1(2):48–63
Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011a) Key competencies in
sustainability: a reference framework for academic program
development. Sustain Sci 6(2):203–218
Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman C, Mills SB (2011b) Moving
forward on competence in sustainability research and problem
solving. Environment 53(2):3–12
119
Wildemeersch D (2007) Social learning revisited: lessons learned
from North and South. In: Wals AEJ (ed) Social learning
towards a sustainable world: principles, perspectives, and praxis.
Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 117–132
Wright T (2004) The evolution of sustainability declarations in higher
education. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education
and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise, and
practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 7–20
Wright T (2007) Developing research priorities with a cohort of
higher education for sustainability experts. Int J Sustain High
Educ 8(1):34–43
Wright T, Pullen S (2007) Examining the literature: a bibliometric
study of ESD journal articles in the Education Resources
Information Center Database. J Educ Sustain Dev 1(1):77–90
Young MF (1993) Instructional design for situated learning. Educ
Technol Res Dev 41(1):43–58
123