Academic teacher perception of Education for Sustainability (EfS) curriculum in Australia

Academics possess an in-depth understanding of the ecological challenges facing society. Environmental advocates claim that this knowledge positions universities as responsible for providing Education for Sustainability (EfS). Widespread adoption of EfS curriculum has not occurred yet, despite international policy objectives set by the United Nations beginning in the 1970s. To promote greater EfS inclusion across all university disciplines, this study examines perceptions of EfS. Specifically, the study's researchers sought to understand: (1) teacher conceptions and definitions of EfS, (2) teacher attitudes concerning how EfS should be carried out in higher education, (3) barriers to teaching EfS and how to overcome those barriers, and (4) how the preceding three factors differ by academic discipline.

This mixed-methods (i.e. qualitative and quantitative) study provided a questionnaire consisting of closed and open-ended questions to teaching academics at 38 Australian universities. The questionnaire was distributed to 7066 teachers—approximately one-quarter of all academic teachers in each of the country's disciplines. The demographic makeup of the 1819 academics who completely responded to the questionnaire (26% response rate) provided a statistically representative sample. Of the respondents, 81% felt that the courses they taught fell outside of environmental topics or disciplines, 16.0% felt that they did teach those subjects, and 2.5% were uncertain. Researchers aggregated respondents into five disciplinary areas: environment, science, creative, humanities, and interdisciplinary.

The researchers provided respondents with a definition of EfS as 'Building knowledge and skills to create environmentally sustainable citizens.' (p. 685). The questionnaire asked respondents to submit an alternative definition if they disagreed with the one provided. Few alternative definition were submitted, which the researchers surmised could be due to a lack of opinion on the definition or a lack of familiarity with the topic. Common response themes included 'society', 'environment', 'economy', 'knowledge' and 'skills'. In contrast to these themes, some respondents expressed frustration with the concept 'sustainability' due to overuse, misuse, or differential use in various contexts. Others cited the inappropriateness of sustainability as an academic subject or a societal goal. The researchers noted the importance of human-centric perspectives to teachers' conceptualizations of 'sustainability' in this study, in contrast to other studies that have revealed greater emphasis on environmental factors. They attributed this finding to this study's university-wide sample of teachers.

Study findings suggest that teachers support EfS curriculum, with only slight differences among the disciplinary categories. While teachers in scientific disciplines were still supportive, they were the least so of all disciplines. Beyond general support, the researchers sought to examine the relevance of EfS to teachers outside of environmental disciplines. Most commonly (41.9%), respondents felt that EfS has an indirect relevance to their discipline. Some respondents (25.4%) felt that EfS is irrelevant to their discipline, but this percentage was less than in previous studies. The researchers also investigated why teachers outside of environmental disciplines have incorporated or would incorporate EfS into their curriculum. Of the themes identified, the top five were relevance of EfS to a classroom subject, importance of EfS to a subject, teachers' beliefs, fostering critical thinking, and preparing students for careers.

From a list of potential barriers to EfS, respondents selected 'EfS is not applicable to my field,' 'overloaded curriculum,' and 'students do not see the relevance of EfS to their learning' as pressing limitations. Notably, interdisciplinary teachers commonly selected 'I have no difficulty including EfS'. When asked about solutions, top responses included themes of changing the curriculum; university policies and support; teacher training; no solution (because EfS lacks relevance to their subject); and pedagogies that incorporate critical, systems, holistic, and experiential learning approaches.

The researchers concluded that science teachers in this study would be least likely to integrate EfS in their classrooms. They surmised that science resistance to EfS—and conversely the creative disciplines' openness to EfS—reflected the level of compatibility between how 'sustainability' is conceptualized and an academic discipline's 'epistemology' or 'worldview'. The researchers situated barriers to EfS in the broader context of global competitive forces shaping academic institutions in Australia, forces which may not leave enough space in the curriculum. However, growing general public concern for environmental issues may act as a potential counteracting force. The authors recommended increases in university policies and initiatives for EfS, citing other case studies that have linked increased university action to a shift in teacher perception of EfS as more relevant. A final major conclusion of this study is that a disciplinary-specific understanding of the perceptions, barriers, and solutions surrounding EfS curriculum inclusion—coupled with attention to the individual viewpoints held by teachers—is needed as advocates develop strategies to increase EfS in universities.