Authors argue education for sustainability teaches a more sustainable vision of the future than STEM education

Education for sustainability (EfS) is one of many nascent conceptualizations of environmental education that have emerged out of necessity to address the role that continued economic growth plays in environmental degradation. This thought-piece compared EfS to traditional STEM (science, mathematics, engineering, and technology) education in regards to how each field approachs environmental education. Education for sustainability is critical of economic growth and recognizes that continued resource extraction cannot continue on a finite planet. The authors argued that STEM education, on the other hand, often approaches environmental issues with the mindset that continued economic growth and reduced environmental degradation is simultaneously possible when aided by technological innovation. In this piece, the authors compared and contrasted EfS and STEM and called attention to the limitations of STEM education.

This study examined education in Australia. The authors compared the literature around EfS and STEM and outlined the principles of EfS and compared them with STEM. They also provided examples from the literature to support their argument.

The authors explained that EfS links environmental, social, cultural, and economic spheres and emphasizes social justice; thus, it is rooted in the idea that education must transform the way people think and act toward the environment to create a more just society. This transformation would involve limiting our current consumption habits by recognizing that infinite economic growth is not possible. The authors argued that STEM, on the other hand, is limited because it is influenced by modern day economic thinking, specifically neoliberalism. Neoliberalism champions economic growth, increased productivity, and free markets, which can oftentimes contradict sustainability. The authors supported their argument that STEM is rooted in neoliberalism by pointing toward statements made by Australia's current Chief Scientist and Prime Minister. In the statements the Chief Scientist and Prime Minister expressed that science and technology play an important role in furthering economic prosperity. The authors argued that because STEM education is influenced by neoliberalism, it contradicts EfS's approach to the environmental sustainability that continued growth is not possible; thus, STEM education is unable to provide the necessary transformation in education for students to learn how to live sustainably.

The authors explained that while EfS is critical of technology as an end-all solution to environmental degradation, the field does acknowledge that technology is important in education. On the other hand, the authors argued that STEM's focus on technology as a solution to environmental degradation abets in continued economic growth rather than changing our current habits of consumption. The authors contended that EfS therefore promotes a more sustainable approach to environmental issues in the long term. However, they noted that the effectiveness of EfS in schools is hard to maintain because STEM education, as the traditional educational approach to teaching about the environment, often edges it out. They concluded that because STEM is the primary way of teaching about the environment in schools, EfS in schools will be dependent on individual schools or teachers' efforts to include non-traditional ways of conceptualizing environmental education.

This study had limitations. It does not conduct a direct study of people but rather is a critique of STEM education made by the authors based on their personal beliefs and assumptions. Also, the authors focused on the implications of EfS and STEM in Australian education and may not apply to other areas of the world.

The authors promoted the use of EfS rather than STEM education for teaching students about long-term and feasible sustainability solutions. They also suggested that if STEM education cannot be replaced by EfS, then the Arts should be integrated into STEM (STEAM) to allow for STEM to be more closely aligned with principles of EfS. Including the Arts would enable teachers to engage in creative and critical thinking that the authors argue is inherent in EfS and lacking in STEM.