A literature review of assessment methods and impacts of education for sustainable development

The UN Sustainable Development Goals established education for sustainable development (ESD) as a critical tool for addressing social inequality and environmental challenges. There has been a global push to implement the principles and practices of ESD, along with similar educational frameworks of development education (DE) and global citizenship education (GCED). The expansion of these three educational frameworks (DE/ESD/GCED) has required administrative effort and public spending by governments and educational institutions. Using assessment methods to evaluate the impacts of DE/ESD/GCED on students is crucial for validating the allocation of resources and supporting future educational efforts. This literature review presented trends from academic papers that analyzed assessment methodologies and outcomes from DE/ESD/GCED programs.

Development education is based on the UN Sustainable Development Goals' targets to promote awareness of social inequality and the importance of economic development within environmental limits. Education for sustainable development is similar but characterized by giving students the knowledge, skills, and motivation to create a more sustainable future. Global citizenship education also encourages students to create a more sustainable future, while centering contribution to justice, inclusion, and peace.

The initial literature search used keywords to collect all research concentrated on the impacts of DE/ESD/GCED by searching electronic databases, including ERIC, EBSCO, and Scopus. A total of 243 studies were included in the initial screening but narrowed down to 44 academic papers after multiple rounds of review. The papers had to be published between 2000 and 2014, describe the type of educational program being studied, and assess the outcomes of the learning intervention. The studies could have taken place anywhere in the world but had to be published in English. The researchers classified the assessment methods in the studies and looked for trends in the intervention outcomes.

Of the 44 papers analyzed, 26 concentrated on ESD, 12 concentrated on DE and GCED, and 6 concentrated on intercultural education. A mix of ages was represented across the studies, with individual studies including students in pre-school, primary school, high school, undergraduate education, and pre-service education courses. Two other studies focused on office staff and volunteers of all ages. The most common form of learning assessment, used in 18 studies, was pre and post-intervention surveys. Researchers also used student journal reflections, interviews, evaluation of student work before and after the intervention, and other experimental ways to assess learning outcomes. Eight of the 18 studies that used pre and post-surveys reported a statistically significant result from the educational intervention, six demonstrated a statistically significant effect for some of the intervention outcomes, and four studies showed no statistically significant impact at all. Exactly half of the total studies reported a positive impact from the educational intervention. Some of the positive impacts reported were increased sustainability knowledge, profound student reflection on their values, and improvements in educator confidence in incorporating climate change content into their curriculum. The literature review found that many studies were conducted in traditional learning environments but used innovative multi-media strategies in their educational programming and assessment tools.

Although the studies could have taken place anywhere globally, the authors limited the literature review to papers published in English. This constraint was due to the researchers' language limitations, and they acknowledge that it may have left out important alternative cultural perspectives and skewed the results towards a Westernized worldview. Some of the assessment methods used in the studies were quasi-experimental, which may have impacted the validity of the studies' findings. The complexity of DE/ESD/GCED makes determining causality difficult, even while using established assessment methods, as many factors impact a student's learning. In addition, some of the studies that reported no statistically significant learning outcomes might have been investigating the wrong outcomes. In other words, students may have improved in other outcome areas from the intervention that were not test for, which highlights the importance of designing thoughtful and high-quality assessment methods.

The authors recommended using mixed methods for assessing learning outcomes to evaluate student learning and development from multiple lenses and capture a fuller picture of the impact of educational programs. Assessment methods should be chosen thoughtfully and reflect the learning outcome that the intervention is striving for. The authors also highlighted how the goals of DE/ESD/GCED are often focused on long-term changes in student behavior. They recommended creating assessment tools for the long-term impacts on students, with a focus on behaviors such as activism, political engagement, and advocacy. The researchers noted that many of the studies did not identify the authors' epistemological stance and suggested that both academic studies and educators clarify their assumptions and take a critical approach to DE/ESD/GCED. Regarding the interventions themselves, the authors lamented the dominance of traditional learning environments and emphasized the need to incorporate more active and participatory learning formats. One positive finding from the literature review, which the authors hoped will continue, was the use of innovative multi-media to conduct educational interventions and assessments.