When a school or organization trains its educators in a new approach, it wants to know whether learners benefit. That is harder to judge than it sounds. Training doesn't guarantee that teaching changes, outcomes can take years to shift, and students' growth may simply reflect getting older. This study followed the same students over two years to answer the question more convincingly.
The study took place at an upper secondary school in Sweden with about 900 students. All its teachers took part in a two-year training program on education for sustainable development (ESD), run by the local municipality. ESD is teaching that helps students understand and act on environmental, economic and social issues together. The training included five seminars and regular teacher team meetings supported by two colleagues. Between February 2018 and April 2019, 760 students aged 17 to 19 completed a survey up to three times. It asked how often their lessons included certain kinds of teaching, and how students rated their own action competence. Action competence has three parts: knowing ways to act, confidence that your actions make a difference, and willingness to act. The researchers also surveyed students in the same grades at the same school before the training began, as a comparison group.
The survey asked about two kinds of teaching:
- Connecting the big picture: lessons linking environmental, economic and social issues, local and global problems, and past, present and future.
- Open discussion: class discussions where different views can emerge, reading texts critically, and being encouraged to take a stand.
What they found:
- Training changed one kind of teaching but not the other. Students reported more big-picture lessons over the two years, but no increase in open discussion, even though all teachers were trained. The researchers conclude that discussion-based teaching is harder to change and takes longer.
- Students' knowledge of ways to act and willingness to act grew. Final-year students also scored higher than the comparison group, so the growth was more than students getting older.
- Students' confidence did not grow significantly over two years, although final-year students scored a little higher than the comparison group.
- Open discussion went with all three parts of action competence. Students who reported more open discussion also reported more knowledge of ways to act, more confidence and more willingness to act. Big-picture lessons went mainly with knowing more ways to act.
- The researchers conclude that change takes time. They recommend looking beyond a program's immediate effects to how learners develop over longer periods.
What this means for evaluating your programs:
- Check what learners actually experience. All teachers were trained, but only one kind of teaching increased in students' eyes. Training records or lesson plans won't tell you whether learners experience a new approach. Ask learners how often specific things happen, as this study did; for example, how often class discussions bring out different views.
- Link what happened to what learners gained. Measuring both students' experience and their outcomes showed that open discussion went with all three parts of action competence. Collecting both kinds of information lets you see which parts of your program matter.
- Measure each part of an outcome separately. Knowledge and willingness grew, but confidence did not. A single overall score would have hidden that. Break broad goals such as "readiness to act" into parts and measure each.
- Compare against a baseline group. The comparison with earlier students showed the growth was more than students getting older. If you can, survey a similar group before a change starts, so you can tell your program's effect from natural development.
- Measure more than once, over a long enough period. Students' growth showed over two years, while confidence and open discussion still hadn't shifted. The researchers recommend looking beyond immediate effects. A single survey at the end of a short program may miss or misjudge this kind of change.
RETURN TO EVALUATING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION EERESEARCH COLLECTION
The Bottom Line
Researchers surveyed students aged 17 to 19 at a Swedish upper secondary school three times over two years, while all their teachers took part in training on teaching for sustainability. One kind of teaching increased but another did not, even though every teacher was trained. Students' knowledge of ways to act and willingness to act grew beyond what age alone would explain, but their confidence did not grow significantly. Students who experienced more open discussion reported more of all three outcomes. For anyone evaluating environmental education, this shows why it pays to check what learners actually experience, measure each part of an outcome separately, compare against a baseline group and follow change over time.