Drivers and blockers: embedding education for sustainability (EfS) in primary teacher education.

Wilson, Sue

Contextualising the Research

This article presents the results of a mixed methods research project that investigated the current extent of Education for Sustainability (EfS) in primary pre-service teacher education at a university in the Australian Capital Territory, and examined factors that might impact on embedding EfS across the Bachelor of Education (BEd) course. The study aimed to explore the perspectives of participants in the course and collect empirical data through analysis of documents, surveys, focus groups and interviews.

The research was part of an Australian Research Institute of Education for Sustainability (ARIES) project that aimed to identify models for mainstreaming EfS into pre-service teacher education. The article presents the results of one of five teams investigating the implementation of EfS in teacher education as part of a broader ARIES project (Steele, 2010). The overarching ARIES project used participatory collaborative action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000). It built on previous research that developed a systems model of change incorporating action research (Ferriera, Ryan & Tilbury, 2006).

The term 'EfS' encompasses environmental, socio-cultural and economic-political dimensions (Littledyke, Taylor, & Eames, 2009). The ARIES study referenced the Australian Government documents (Department of the Environment and Heritage [DEH], 2005, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts [DEWHA], 2009) and viewed EfS as including environmental, social, economic and political sustainability. The policy of the Australian government is set out in the National Action Plan on Education for Sustainability--'Consistent with the systemic approach to sustainability in schools adopted by AuSSI [the Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative], the Australian Government will work with state and territory governments to ensure sustainability is appropriately embedded in policies, programs, procedures and systems' (DEWHA, 2009, p. 20).

EfS is an educational philosophy based on the idea of social change, including concepts of citizenship, peace, health, multiculturalism, global human rights and antiracist education, with central themes concerned with integrating knowledge, critical thinking, values analysis, skills development, and active citizenship (Huckle & Stirling, 1996). According to Holdsworth, Wyborn, Bekessy, and Thomas (2008), addressing environmental and social problems faced by the global community requires a way of educating our students 'that empowers them with the capabilities and skills to seek out and examine their own frameworks for thinking', and EfS 'differs from traditional approaches to education in its structure, content and pedagogy' (p. 133). Sterling describes transformative learning as 'a quality of learning that is deeply engaging, and touches and changes deep levels of values and belief' (2010, p. 512). Thus, EfS can be seen as a catalyst for educational change that will allow for more meaningful transformative learning to emerge in our schools and universities.

'Mainstreaming' refers to the inclusion of EfS in pre-service teacher education so that it becomes part of its core focus and activity, embedded in practices and policies. It goes beyond the addition of sustainability into the curriculum, to the broad-scale adoption and re-orientation of the entire system (Ferreira, Ryan, Davis, & Cavanagh, 2009).

The aim of this project was to provide data on the extent to which EfS was already addressed in the course, and gather preliminary data to inform further studies. It investigated the current situation by identifying the principles and content of EfS included in units, lecturer understandings of sustainability, and issues involved in embedding EfS in the course. In particular, it identified perceived enablers and obstacles to the embedding of EfS across the BEd as a whole. It also gauged primary pre-service teachers' responses to teaching strategies which built on existing relationships with community groups, including the Education section of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO Education), AuSSI and Engineers without Borders (EwB).

A Focus on Sustainability

The focus on issues of sustainability has increased, both internationally and nationally. The growing emphasis on sustainability in school curricula in Australia reflects international trends in education. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) views universities as places of learning and research about sustainability. The United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014) aims for educators at all levels to include sustainable development concerns and goals in their curricula (UNESCO, 2004).

Teachers make a vital contribution to understanding important societal issues. Hopkins and McKeown (2002) provide an international perspective and highlight the contribution of teachers to sustainability issues. Although they state that education is an essential tool for achieving sustainability, they emphasise that formal education is only one means to encourage sustainability, and cannot carry the sole responsibility for people's learning of sustainability. The Bonn Declaration (2009) also stresses the need to involve local and scientific communities in approaches to EfS (UNESCO, 2009).

The concept of EfS had dimensions beyond those of environmental education, but according to Littledyke, Taylor, and Eames (2009) the connectedness is often lost. Primary and secondary teachers have a limited understanding of EfS. Some are reluctant to deal with EfS because of controversial topics (Summers, Corney, & Childs, 2004) with possible impacts on students (Cross, 1998). Researchers have expressed concerns that levels of primary teachers' knowledge are inadequate for teaching about sustainability (Cutter-Mackenzie & Smith, 2003). This lack of teacher knowledge can impede the implementation of EfS in the curriculum (Spork, 1992).

Australian government initiatives have recognised the need to support educators to address issues of EfS (DEH, 2005; DEWHA, 2009) and AuSSI, which places emphasis on a whole-school approach to EfS, and provides support and guidance for schools. In Australia, recent curriculum documents have emphasised sustainability. The Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2012) has identified sustainability as one of three cross-curriculum perspectives. In the new curriculum, integrated curricula such as Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE, also termed Human Society and Its Environment [HSIE], in some states) will be replaced by separate Geography and History curricula. It is intended that issues of sustainability will be addressed across the whole curriculum.

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Curriculum, Every Chance to Learn, was introduced into ACT schools in 2008. In this, EfS is relevant to the essential learning achievement: The student acts for an environmentally sustainable future (ACT Department of Education and Training, 2007, p. 196), included under the science learning area. This is consistent with the Australian Curriculum, where sustainability still receives its greatest emphasis in the science curriculum.

These curriculum developments have consequences for teacher education courses, as university courses are required to align with developments in school education. Teacher education is considered a vital strategy for the incorporation of EfS in school curricula, and its importance globally is emphasised by the UNESCO Reorienting Teacher Education towards Sustainability initiative (UNESCO, 2005). Although teacher education is widely recognised as a key strategy for embedding EfS in schools, researchers claim that is yet to be effectively utilised and that 'mainstreaming sustainability in Australian schools will not be achieved without the preparation of teachers for this task' (Ferreira et al, 2009, p. 1). Thus, further research in teacher education is crucial.

Pre-service teachers (PST) develop their educational practices in relation to sustainability during their course. Prospective primary teachers come to teacher education courses with a range of beliefs. They need a strong sense of efficacy before they try to apply what they have learnt or try to learn new things. Bandura's theory of self-efficacy indicates the significance of teachers' beliefs in their own capabilities for student learning and achievement. He defines self-efficacy as 'people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives', and states that 'self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave' (1994, p. 71). In a study of their perceived efficacy in teaching environmental education, Sia (1992, p. 7) reported negative self-efficacy due to insufficient knowledge and skills and that PST did not feel able to answer questions and would not welcome questions from students. Thus, pre-service teachers' beliefs about their own ability are a significant factor in their approach to teaching EfS, and it is important that this is addressed in teacher preparation.

EfS in Teacher and Higher Education

The expectations of the role that universities will play in the education of their students about sustainability issues have increased. The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee in 2006 declared a commitment to undertaking research that will strengthen education for sustainable development, embedding a study of sustainability in their academic programs, and striving to ensure that universities are major drivers to society's efforts to achieve sustainability (AVCC, 2006). In spite of this, Holdsworth et al. (2008) reported that even though a high number of Australian universities had signed sustainability declarations, including commitments to developing sustainability literacy for both students and staff, there was minimal evidence of professional development (PD) programs for academics to support them in educating students about sustainability issues. PD is important to enhance academics' concepts of sustainability and provide them with capacity to undertake curriculum change, with specific materials and guidance with how these might best be used.

In reference to teacher education, Wals (2009, p. 51) reports that:

   The whole school approach is on the rise in primary and secondary
   education, it is hardly mentioned in the context of teacher
   education and professional development. The emergence of these new
   forms of learning is likely to have implications the teacher
   education and educated professional development in the years to
   come.

Educators play a key role in developing and presenting the values associated with sustainability, hence it is critical that they have the understanding and capacity to impart this knowledge. Sustainability knowledge and content is important, but so too is the pedagogy associated with individual teaching practices (Holdsworth et al., 2008). It is vital that the capacity of teacher educators to fulfill these roles is enhanced, as researchers have reported instances where 'prospective teachers' preparedness in environmental education is diluted by their teacher education experience' (Miles, Harrison, & Cutter-Mackenzie, 2006).

Researchers have reported that issues such as lack of time, lack of resources, and lack of teacher knowledge and skills hamper EfS in schools (Spork, 1992; Cutter Mackenzie & Smith, 2003; Kennelly, Taylor, & Maxwell, 2008). In particular, past research shows time as a repeated barrier (Spork, 1992; Cutter-Mackenzie & Smith, 2003). Hargreaves (1994) sees time as a scarce resource 'enhancing or inhibiting preferred educational changes which affect the character and orientation of teachers' work' (p. 97). This connects to the nature of teachers and teacher education, which Nias (1989) characterised as demanding 'but also shifting and elusive' (p. 194). She found that professional identity also impacts on teachers' ability to cope with change. Teachers reported the nature of teaching involving 'ongoing professional demands' and 'constant change' impacts on their willingness to undertake professional learning (Cutter & Smith, 2001, p. 54).

Similar factors linked to the nature of teaching as work are identified in studies of higher education institutions, overseas and in Australia. The report of the United Kingdom Higher Education Academy on sustainable development in higher education identified four 'major barriers to the successful of embedding ESD [education for sustainable development] into many of the subject disciplines. These were:

1. Overcrowded curriculum

2. Perceived irrelevance by academic staff

3. Limited staff awareness and expertise

4. Limited institutional drive and commitment' (HEA, 2005, p. 5).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Moore (2005) identified four main barriers to sustainability education at a Canadian university. They were:

1. The organisation structure was tied to discipline boundaries;

2. The competitive environment and perceived prestige of disciplines;

3. University evaluative structures were not coordinated; and

4. Unclear priority-setting and decision-making.

Holdsworth et al. (2008) summarised the boundaries to integrating sustainability into curricula in Australian universities as limited time, crowded curriculum, traditional discipline, and academic culture. According to their report, academic staff members are sympathetic to sustainability education, but constraints include lack of leadership and training and lack of information about integration into curricula.

These three studies identify factors outside the teaching and learning spaces, hence, change will involve more than change in curricula. It will require the capability and drive to reorient teaching and organisational structures. Universities need to address sustainable development issues and according to Scott and Gough (2007) this will involve institutional change. Such change will relate particularly to:

* how the university presents its role through vision and mission statements;

* how its estates and resources are managed;

* what (and how) it teaches to its students;

* how that teaching is managed (p. 108).

Conceptual Framework

To incorporate aspects beyond the curriculum, the structure (see Figure 1) informed the project. It is based on the national environmental education statement for Australian Schools (DEH, 2005), which was developed for sustainability, not for course development in universities. However, as Scott and Gough (2007) emphasise, incorporating EfS involves more than just changing the written curriculum.

Methodology

The research involved a mixed methods approach. In accordance with the ethics guidelines, data were gathered through mapping principles of EfS across unit outlines, interviews with lecturers, student focus groups, lecturer focus groups, and lecturer reflections on discussions with community members. The researcher kept a reflective journal during the time of the project. The study used the conceptualisation of EfS in the Australian government documents to analyse the unit outlines and identify any gaps.

The main limitation on the research was the short timeline of the project. Research was conducted over one semester and there was a time frame of 4 months to complete the study and submit the report.

Participants and Location

The study was located on a small ACT campus of a multi-campus university. Six lecturers were involved in surveys and focus groups. PST who participated in this project were studying a second semester unit in Science and Technology. Twenty-two students (43% of the cohort) volunteered to be surveyed at the end of their science and technology unit, to collect data on student efficacy, and 13 students participated in focus groups.

Audit of Units

The unit audit was carried out at two levels: a broader analysis to identify principles of EfS in all units, and a more detailed audit to identify EfS content in three units. The principles and key concepts from the Australian government documents were used as indicators of EfS in the audit of units and in the lecturer survey.

The BEd course unit outlines for second semester were audited with respect to the principles of EfS to map its current extent across the whole course. All lecturers of second semester units were asked to submit unit outlines for audit. The initial audit comprised 11 unit outlines from a possible 15. The audit identified the principles of EfS (DEWHA, 2009, p. 9).

Then a more detailed study was completed of three units: Science and Technology; SOSE; and Religious Education (RE); to audit EfS content terms (DEH, 2005, pp. 16-17). These three units were studied in more detail as these lecturers identified a specific focus on EfS, and SOSE units may be replaced in response to the discipline emphasis of the new Australian curriculum, so it is important to identify the content currently covered. The more detailed audit of content terms mapped the nature and depth of EfS in these units.

Lecturer Survey (Science & Technology, and SOSE)

A survey of lecturers in Science & Technology and SOSE identified relevant documents and specific pedagogical practices used in class, to analyse the content and teaching of their units in more depth.

Student Survey and Focus Groups

The project investigated pre-service teachers' learning and experiences, by means of a student survey and open-ended focus group questions. Participants were surveyed to collect data on student efficacy at the end of their Science & Technology unit, and participated in focus groups. The unit included formal and informal learning of knowledge and skills for sustainability, studying innovative technologies and practices with respect to energy production and consumption, conservation, and waste management. It presented EfS in terms of ecological, social, economic and political sustainability, by making connections to community groups to include social, economic and political issues.

The student survey was based on an existing science efficacy survey (Riggs & Enochs, 1990). The student survey measured the extent to which the teaching of EfS enhanced the learning experience of students and gave them opportunities to develop knowledge and competence, and enabled capacity-building. Students in focus groups were encouraged to describe how they felt about their future role as a teacher and its contribution to sustainability. This provided the student perspective on EfS outcomes in the course.

Lecturer Focus Groups

All lecturers teaching the course were invited to take part in focus groups about implementing EfS in units across the BEd program. Six lecturers participated, spanning six different teaching areas. It was difficult to find times to engage all lecturers in this study, as part-time staff were available at limited times, and some sessional staff had completed their contracts.

Focus group interviews were carried out using a semistructured interview protocol. Questions identified academic staff members' current understandings of sustainability, how EfS was addressed in the units they taught, and the perceived barriers and enablers for embedding EfS across the course. Lecturers were asked what changes would be necessary to implement more EfS in individual units. In addition, the researcher maintained a reflective journal throughout the project to record issues, possibilities that would drive the implementation of EfS in teacher education, and the problems that might block this.

The focus groups aimed to raise awareness and stimulate professional conversations among lecturers, to begin the process of identifying 'best practice' in EfS, to develop skills of participants to interpret sustainability, and actions and practice towards sustainable living. Teacher educators' understandings of sustainability, current practices and perception of factors that impacted on embedding EfS across courses were analysed.

Research Findings

The audit of unit outlines and lecturer survey demonstrated a foundation of EfS principles across the course. The principles of EfS and almost all the content concepts were included in the teaching of existing units. However, these teachings are discrete, and not coordinated. The biggest challenge will be achieving deeper understandings by integrating and connecting, instead of teaching in discipline silos. Mapping of existing EfS links between Science & Technology and SOSE teacher education units started this process. A more detailed analysis is needed to identify ways to make connections with and enhance existing practice.

Pre-service primary teachers studied sustainability concepts in Science & Technology and SOSE. The Science & Technology unit involved PST in specific discussions of sustainability as an environmental and social issue, and the vital role of education and its contribution to sustainability. Students reported that enhancing partnerships and building networks were important. In Science & Technology, students networked with community colleagues with experience in EfS, such as the ACT AuSSI coordinator and a team from EwB. Students responded enthusiastically to a hands-on technology design project with a sustainability focus, developed in conjunction with CSIRO Education. The involvement of community groups and other stakeholders strengthened existing partnerships, and provided enriching experiences for students.

Students exhibited a wide range of experiences of sustainability (see Table 1). A majority of students demonstrated positive attitudes towards the teaching of sustainability, and a level of confidence in their ability to engage and teach their students. Although only 73% (n = 16) of students felt they would be able to answer their students' questions, the fact that 95% (n = 21) of students would still encourage questions to be asked, differs from the findings of Sia (1992) and is evidence of their commitment to sustainability education.

Students confirmed the importance of the issues regarding sustainability, that they had improved their understanding, emphasised that education is essential, and felt that they had developed ideas that would support their teaching (see Table 2). Most students engaged in sustainable practices. Students said that sustainability applied to more than one discipline area, and they would teach it within an integrated unit. Students' comments illustrate the positive impact of engaging with the wider community on their learning outcomes:

* 'Yes, it has broadened my understandings of sustainability.'

* 'It has been good to see EfS at a larger scale in the community. Also raising awareness of EfS.'

* 'It has made me more willing to teach EfS. Promoted my learning, they're great organisations.'

* 'It was very helpful and interesting because these are people dealing directly with the issues and with schools.'

* 'Made us active learners in looking at ways to improve/design concepts to further help the education of sustainability.'

The student feedback on units will allow lecturers to identify connections that will lead to greater integration of EfS into the B.Ed. course, as a transformative approach through which students develop skills and competencies for partnership, participation and action.

Lecturers acknowledged that the Faculty of Education is supportive of the teaching of EfS; the campus has made a commitment to the sustainable use of resources, and some lecturers participate in local sustainability activities. Their perception was that these were important factors underpinning the teaching of sustainability. The lecturers exhibited a range of understandings of sustainability and perception of the issues involved in EfS. Not all lecturers were aware of the scope of EfS. Some had not realised that they already addressed some of the principles and concepts in their units, as their perception was that EfS was limited to environmental sustainability (see Table 3).

At the university a high proportion of the education lecturers were sessional lecturers, and this was seen as an issue in coordinating unit offerings. A range of EfS principles and content were addressed by existing units; however, there was no organisational framework, and individual lecturers were not fully aware of the principles and content of EfS covered by other lecturers. Lecturers saw a need for tracking of students' exposure and engagement with EfS, to ensure that it was coordinated, and that students' experiences in lectures or assessment tasks were connected to ensure that students received a cohesive picture to direct their EfS learning. Current practices do not involve such detailed tracking.

Lecturers valued the professional conversations stimulated by the questions, and appreciated the opportunity to contribute. Lecturer feedback emphasised that they were keen to continue the discussions and enhance their understanding of EfS. The results supported some of the findings of the HEA (2005) report, in that staff acknowledged the impact of the overcrowded curriculum and raised concerns about limited staff awareness and expertise; but in contrast to the HEA report, they did not perceive the issue as irrelevant, and perceived the university as supportive.

The researcher journal reflected on the issues and effective strategies that would lead to improved student learning outcomes. The involvement of community groups and other stakeholders in the units built new partnerships and strengthened existing partnerships, and provided enriching experiences for students. Community groups provide:

   understanding that broadening from environmental education to EfS
   is a broadening of perspective. The value to PST of the direct
   involvement of AuSSI and other collaborators is that it can model a
   whole school approach for these PST. Advocating adding a few
   generic principles to other units may not really promote whole
   school thinking. (Researcher reflective journal notes)

Discussion

Modelling sustainable practices in institutions demonstrates a commitment to the fundamentals of EfS. When tertiary institutions manage, conserve and recycle natural resources, and adopt energy and environment design measures, they model sustainable values and practices for PST. Developing teachers skilled in identification of sustainability concerns and with appropriate knowledge and skills will contribute to the upskilling of the potential teacher workforce. This will depend on the development of relevant and appropriate understandings of teacher educators.

The drivers of change include the need to align with societal changes and address the demands of the new Australian curriculum. The timing of the project was strategic, providing background research to inform the coordination of existing disparate and fragmented efforts into a coordinated course. The major blocker of lack of time was found in other ARIES projects undertaken at the same time (Steele, 2010) and was identified by previous researchers (Kennelly et al., 2008). There is no prospect of decreasing the demands on lecturers, so strategies must be found to work within time constraints and heighten the priority given to EfS across the course. This will require a change in attitudes and the culture of the way that lecturers work together, particularly the increased inclusion of part-time and sessional staff. The high proportion of sessional staff was not reported as a factor in other ARIES in other studies, and this may have a greater impact because of the small campus.

This project built on existing relationships with colleagues at CSIRO Education, AuSSI and EwB to develop a learning community that will support and contribute to pre-service teacher education courses in the ACT. Community networks have been enhanced, as partnerships between the university, schools, government agencies, AuSSI, EwB, and the CSIRO have been strengthened. Involvement of the broader community can boost knowledge of sustainable practices and ultimately give ownership of solutions and strategies to learners and the community, which have been identified as important (Hopkins & McKeown, 2002; UNESCO, 2009).

Conclusion and Recommendations

The primary recommendation from this preliminary study is that lecturers are supported to build on these findings and sustain reflection on mechanisms for enabling EfS in the pre-service teacher courses. An important strategy for this is targeted PD for teacher educators, to increase their knowledge of the key role EfS plays as a tool for sustainable living and to support interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability education. Second, it is recommended that the community EfS communication network be extended to support lecturers in participatory action research to explore practices in EfS in all units. Collaboration with partner organisations will provide a challenge for them to reflect upon their experience, learn from others, and take action to improve their practice, and hence contribute to lecturer learning and change. This will enable them to identify their aspirations for increasing EfS within PST education. The extension ofexisting support networks is especially important on a small campus with a high turnover of sessional staff.

The voice of PST was an important contribution to the project, and the evaluation of student understandings about sustainability in teacher education units must be used to inform strategies to further develop students' knowledge and competence in EfS. Developing and extending community partnerships will allow student access to mentors who will encourage sustainability values and principles, and promote social inclusion.

Future studies should build on the foundation of this project to investigate the utilisation of flexible delivery modes, including e-learning, onsite delivery and the integration of formal and informal learning to allow more units addressing EfS to be offered. Proposed developments include the introduction of a new elective focusing on EfS. Understanding the change process that PST undergo will lead to the design of better continuing PD for teachers. This would enhance and inform the inservice context and offer teachers opportunities to increase their skills.

doi10.1017/aee.2012.5

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Amy Cutter-Mackenzie for her insightful comments and advice regarding draft versions of this article.

The project is part of the ARIES 'Mainstreaming Education for Sustainability in Pre-service Teacher Education' project, and was funded by the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

References

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). Australian Curriculum: Science v3. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum. edu.au/Science/Curriculum/F-10#level=6

ACT Department of Education and Training. (2007). Every chance to learn: Curriculum framework for ACT schools. Canberra, Australia: Author.

Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. (2006). AVCC Policy on Education for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/ documents/publications/policy/statements/Policy-on-Education-for-SustainableDevelopment-Aug2006.pdf

Bandura, A. (1994). Self efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.

Cross, R.T. (1998). Teachers' views about what to do about sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 4(1), 41-52.

Cutter, A., & Smith, R. (2001). Gauging primary school teachers' environmental literacy: An issue of'priority'. Asia Pacific Education Review, 2(2), 45-60.

Cutter-Mackenzie, A., & Smith, R. (2003). Ecological literacy: The 'missing paradigm' in environmental education (part one). Environmental Education Research, 9(4), 497-524.

Department of the Environment and Heritage. (2007). Caring for our future: The Australian Government strategy for the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 2005-2014. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov. au/education/publications/pubs/caring.pdf

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. (2009). Living sustainably: The Australian Government's National Action Plan for Education for Sustainability. Canberra, Australia: Author.

Ferreira, J., Ryan, L., Davis, J., Cavanagh, M., & Thomas, J. (2009). Mainstreaming sustainability into pre-service teacher education in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Prepared by the Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability for the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Ferreira, J., Ryan, L., & Tilbury, D. (Eds.) (2006). Whole-school approaches to sustainability: A review of models for professional development in pre-service teacher education. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage and the Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES).

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell.

Higher Education Academy (HEA). (2005). Sustainable development in higher education: current practice and future developments. York, UK: Author. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/tla/sustainability/ sustdevinHEfinalreport.pdf

Hopkins, C., & McKeown, R. (2002). Education for sustainable development: An international perspective. In D. Tilbury, R. Stevenson, J. Fien, & D. Schreuder (Eds.), Education and sustainability: Responding to the global challenge. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN Commission on Education and Communication.

Holdsworth, S., Wyborn, C., Bekessy, S., & Thomas, I. (2008). Professional development for education for sustainability: How advanced are Australian universities? International Journal for Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(2), 131-146.

Huckle, J., & Stirling, S. (1996). Education for sustainability. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567-606). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Littledyke, M., Taylor, N., & Eames, C. (2009). Education for sustainability in the primary curriculum: A guide for teachers. Melbourne, Australia: Palgrave Macmillan.

Miles, R., Harrison, L., & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2006). Teacher education: A diluted environmental education experience. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 49-59.

Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teachers' science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625-638.

Kennelly, J., Taylor, N., & Maxwell, T. (2008). A student teacher's personal pathway to education for sustainability. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 24, 23-33.

Nias, J. (1989). Primary teachers talking: A study of teaching as work. London: Routledge.

Scott, W., & Gough, S. (2007) Universities and sustainable development: The necessity for barriers to change. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 11(4), 107-115. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~content= a782944283~fulltext=713240930

Sia, A. (1992, October). Preservice elementary teachers' perceived efficacy in teaching environmental education: A preliminary study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ECO-ED North American Association for Environmental Education Toronto, Canada.

Spork, H. (1992). Environmental education: A mismatch between theory and practice. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 8, 147-166.

Steele, F. (2010). Mainstreaming Education for Sustainability in pre-service teacher education: Enablers and constraints. Canberra, Australia: Prepared by the Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability for the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Sterling, S. (2010). Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education. Environmental Education Research, 16(5-6), 511-528.

Summers, M., Corney, G., & Childs, A. (2004) Student teachers' conceptions of sustainable development: the starting points of geographers and scientists. Educational Research, 46(2), 163-182.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2004). United Nations decade of education for sustainable development: Draft International implementation scheme 2005-2014. Paris: Author.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2005). Guidelines and recommendations for reorienting teacher education to address sustainability (UNESCO Education for Sustainable Development in Action, Technical Paper No. 2, prepared by UNITWIN/UNESCO Chair on Reorienting Teacher Education to Address Sustainability and the International Network of Teacher Education Institutions). Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0014/001433/143370e.pdf

Wals, A. (2009). Review of contexts and structures for education for sustainable development 2009. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/ justpublisheddesd2009.pdf

Sue Wilson

Australian Catholic University, Australia

Address for correspondence: Sue Wilson, Australian Catholic University, 223 Antill Street, Watson ACT 2602, Australia. Email: Sue.Wilson@anu.edu.au

Sue Wilson is a lecturer in Science & Technology Education and Mathematics Education at the Canberra Campus of the Australian Catholic University. Sue's research interests include Education for Sustainability and using bibliotherapy to address mathematics anxiety in pre-service teachers. She is the Deputy Hub Cap and Science Coordinator of SiMERR ACT, the ACT Coordinator of the Interest and Recruitment in Science (IRIS) study, and the Coordinator of the ACT Education for Sustainability in Pre-service Teacher Education project, and a Council member of local (CMA, SEA*ACT, COACTEA) and national (APTA) Professional Teaching Associations, and has forged many links with community and professional science organisations. Sue is a member of PermaBlitz ACT.

TABLE 1: EfS Student Survey Results

       Question                                 % A
                                                and SA

1.     Will find better ways to teach EfS       86
2.     Will teach EfS as well as teach          32
         other subjects
3,4.   Will teach EfS effectively               45
6.     Understand concepts to be                60
         effective in teaching EfS
10.    Able to explain science experiments      27
         involving environmental topics
11.    Able to answer students' EfS questions   73
13.    Able to help students understand         73
         EfS concepts
14.    Will welcome students' EfS questions     95
15.    Know how to engage students in EfS       55

TABLE 2: EfS Student Focus Group Questions--Summary

What understandings of sustainability have you gained
from this unit?
Students reported the importance of the issues regarding
  sustainability (88%), that they had improved their
  understanding (80%), emphasised that education is essential
  (56%) and they had developed ideas that would support their
  teaching (72%).
How has the involvement of community groups (CREST, AuSSI, EwB)
  in the teaching of this unit assisted you with your
  understanding of Education for Sustainability?
Most students (88%) were enthusiastic about the contribution
  involvement of groups from the community made to their
  learning.
What do you consider are the key issues in Education for
  Sustainability?
Students ranged in their perceptions of the issues, some (44%)
  thinking more globally and the remainder starting from a local
  perspective.
In the primary classroom, where does teaching sustainability
  fit?--In science? SOSE? RE or values education? Integrated unit?
  Please give your reason.
All students said that sustainability applied to more than one
  discipline area. Most students (88%) said they would teach it
  in an integrated unit.
Which curriculum documents and other resources have informed your
  answer to question 4 and how have they done so?
Most students (80%) referred to the state and territory curriculum
  documents. Several students had used the AuSSI resources to
  inform their learning.
How do you see yourself as a teacher of sustainability? How
  confident do you feel about teaching it?
Students expressed a wide range of feelings about their confidence
  to teach sustainability, from very (16%) to not confident (24%),
  but all students intended to teach it.
What sustainable practices do you engage in? How has this unit
  assisted you with these?
Most students (72%) listed recycling as part of their current
  practice. A small number of students (16%) did not engage in
  any sustainability practices.
Any other comments?

TABLE 3: Summary of Lecturer Focus Group

Drivers

Societal
Social                 widespread emphasis on sustainability
Melbourne              Melbourne declaration on educational
  declaration            goals for young
                         Australians (2008) "sense of global
                         citizenship" (p. 4)
Values                 Society's values support EfS
Education policies
and documents
National               DEWHA documents available--established
                          models National curriculum

State and territory    Current ACT curriculum--emphasis
                         on sustainability
University sector

Administration         Sustainable practices in the
                         workplace
Faculty                Push for integration--Dean
                         enthusiastic and supportive
Lecturers

Commitment             Commitment of lecturers with a
                         passion for sustainability
Collegiality           Staff welcomed the opportunity
  Curriculum             to discuss issues
Existing curriculum    Existing links to sustainability
                         can be extended
Crowded curriculum     Crowded curriculum means no more
                         units so one possibility is
                         cross-disciplinary integrated unit
Students

Engagement             Student response to hands-on activities
  Schools                and projects
AuSSI in schools-      Pre-service teachers need to connect to
                         community before they leave because so
                         many schools involved with AuSSI

Blockers

Societal
Attitudes              Thinking that individuals can't
                         make a difference
Complexity of          Increasing amount of information
  subject matter         available--and misconceptions
Universities
Constraints of the     Complexity of universities
  current system
Priorities             Multiple priorities, scattered
                         efforts
Curriculum

Complexity and         Complexity of subject matter
  crowded                Increasing amount of
  curriculum             information to cover
State and territory    ACT documents to address
  syllabuses
Discipline-based       Disciplines in silos, separate units.
                         Need for mapping across units
Attitudes              Conservative thinking of what is
                         possible in a curriculum
Staffing
Impact of              Not knowing what other lecturers are
  increasing             units. Turnover of lecturers, doing
  sessionalisation       makes it hard to embed across
  of staff in            and innovations not continued by
  universities           incoming staff

Lecturers

Knowledge and          Knowledge, understanding and skills
  skills                 that teacher educators need to
                         teach sustainability and help
                         students make connections

Resistance             Resistance to change
Students
Student resistance     Varying student attitudes
Student                Subject matter and the scientific
  understanding          principles which
                         underpin sustainability
Prior knowledge        Presumption of prior knowledge
                         of students coming
                         into primary teaching

Time

Communication          Lack of time for discussions with
                         colleagues
Overcrowded            Impacts on time for innovations
  curriculum
Schools                Time needed to make connections
                         to schools
Money and resources
Funding                Limited budgets
Responsibility and     Who takes responsibility for
  evaluation of          resources
  resources