ERIC EJ1135020: High Performance Education Fails in Sustainability?--A Reflection on Finnish Primary Teacher Education

2017·0.27 MB·English

by  ERIC

education
sciences
Article
High Performance Education Fails in Sustainability?
—A Reflection on Finnish Primary Teacher Education
Lili-AnnWolff1,*,PiaSjöblom2,MariaHofman-Bergholm2andIrmeliPalmberg2
1 FacultyofEducationalSciences,UniversityofHelsinki,Helsinki00014,Finland
2 FacultyofEducationandWelfareStudies,ÅboAkademiUniversity,Vaasa65100,Finland;
psjoblom@abo.fi(P.S.);mhofman@abo.fi(M.H.B.);ipalmber@abo.fi(I.P.)
* Correspondence:lili-ann.wolff@helsinki.fi;Tel.:[phone]
AcademicEditor:EilaJeronen
Received:31October2016;Accepted:17February2017;Published:1March2017
Abstract: Sustainabilityisinternationallyoftenemphasizedasanessentialaimofhighereducation,
butmoreasaprinciplethanonthepracticallevel. Thisisalsoobviousintheacademiceducation
of primary teachers in Finland. Therefore, it is a great challenge for Finnish teachers to include
sustainabilityintheirteachingandeverydaylifeinschools. Theaimofthisarticleistocritically
analyzewhytheimplementationofsustainabilityinteachereducationissointricateandtodiscuss
possiblesolutionswithFinland—acountryhighlyvaluedforitseducation—asanexample.Thearticle
reportsoutcomesfromeducationalpolicydocumentsandresearchoneducational,philosophical,
scientificandsocialaspectsofsustainability,includingevaluationofhowsustainabilityhasbeen
implemented in schools and at universities, especially among teacher educators. In addition,
thearticlebuildsonanalysesofcomprehensiveuniversitystrategiesandprimaryschoolteacher
educationprograms. WefoundthesereasonsfortheignoringofsustainabilityintheFinnishteacher
education: sustainabilityisinconflictwithoveralltrendsinsocietyandpolitics,teachereducation
takesplaceatuniversitiesandisbasedonseparateacademicdisciplines.Sustainabilityisalsointricate
becauseitisstronglyconnectedtoecologicalliteracyanditisvaluedependent. Universitiesneedto
overcometheseobstaclesandbecomeforerunnersinthesustainabilityprocess.
Keywords: higher education; university education; teacher education; primary school teachers;
sustainabledevelopment;sustainability;implementationofsustainability;sustainabilityeducation;
educationforsustainability;Finland
1. Introduction
“Wearefacedwith aparadox: Iseducationthe problemor thesolution inworkingtowarda
sustainable future? At current levels of unsustainable practice and over consumption it could be
concludedthateducationispartoftheproblem. Ifeducationisthesolutionthenitrequiresadeeper
critiqueandabroadervisionforthefuture”[1](p. 59).
Thewordsabovearefrom aUNESCOpublicationfrom2005and muchhastakenplace after
thatsince“educationforsustainabledevelopment”hasfrequentlybeenontheagendaforthelast
decade. Manyinternationaleducationpolicydocumentsfromthisdecadecontaintermsrelatedto
sustainability. OneclearreasonisthatUNESCOdeclaredthedecade2005–2014asthe“UNdecadeof
educationforsustainabledevelopment”withamissiontopromotesustainabledevelopmentatall
levelsofeducationinthememberstates. However,educationwasmentionedasakeytosustainable
developmentintheUnitedNation’sdocument“Agenda21”asearlyas1992[2],sothuswestepback
tothe1990s.
TheconceptofsustainabledevelopmenthasbeenmuchusedinpoliticssincetheUNConferenceon
EnvironmentandDevelopmentinRiodeJaneiroin1992[2]anditissincetheninterpretedinvarious
Educ.Sci.2017,7,32;doi:10.3390/educsci7010032 www.mdpi.com/journal/education
Educ.Sci.2017,7,32 2of22
ways. Inshort,thecomplexconceptdenotesasocialandeconomicdevelopmentwheretheutilization
of natural resources takes place with future generations’ analogous life opportunities in mind.
InthesocalledBrundtlandreportthatprecededtheUNCEDconference,theconceptisinterpreted
asfollows: “[S]ustainabledevelopmentisaprocessofchangeinwhichtheexploitationofresources,
thedirectionofinvestments,theorientationoftechnologicaldevelopment,andinstitutionalchange
are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and
aspirations[3](p. 46).”
Theprincipleofsustainabledevelopmentfocusesactuallyatthesametimeonhumansliving
todayandinthefuture. AccordingtoSachs[4]sustainabledevelopmentisbothaworldviewanda
methodofsolvingworldwideproblems.Besidesemphasizingthethreecommonlydefineddimensions
ofsustainabledevelopment,economic,socialandenvironmental(theenvironmentaldimensionisalso
calledtheecological,andthesocialdimensionisoftensplitintotwo:socialandcultural,seeSection3.3
below), he, therefore, also distinguishes two approaches: an analytic and an ethical. “Sustainable
developmentisbothawayoflookingattheworld,withafocusontheinterlinkagesofeconomic,
social,andenvironmentalchange,andawayofdescribingoursharedaspirationsforadecentlife,
combiningeconomicdevelopment,socialinclusion,andenvironmentalsustainability. Itisinshort
bothananalytictheoryanda‘normative’orethicalframework[4](p. XIII).”
The three (or four) dimensions of sustainable development include several different aspects.
Forexample,culturalaspectsandhealthaspectsarepartsofthesocialdimension;politicalaspectsare
mainlypartsoftheeconomicdimension,butalsooftheothertwodimensions. Thismeansthatthe
differentaspectsaswellasthedimensionsarecomplexlyinterrelated. Sustainabilityis,thus,notonly
anenvironmentalissuetobecontrolledbyscientists,itisamultifacetedandinterdisciplinarymatter
relatedtobothlocalandglobalcircumstancesandpasteventsaswellasfutureprospects.
Yet, the concept sustainable development is also problematic. Many scholars and others are
critical against using the word ‘development’ to denote indisputable belief in a steady economic
andtechnologicalprogress. Likenumerousotherauthorswe,therefore,willusethesingleconcept
of sustainability and the two word concept sustainability education in this article, with exception of
situationswheretheauthorswereferusetheconceptofsustainabledevelopmentoreducationfor
sustainabledevelopment. BysustainabilitywemeancreatingandlivingahumanlifeonEarthinaway
thatdoesnotdamagelifebutthatpreservesitsvariouslifeformsforthefuture—notonlyfuturehumanlife.
Wethusrecognizechallengesonethical,cognitiveaswellaspracticallevels.
AftertheRioconference,theconcept‘educationforsustainabledevelopment’(ESD)gradually
becamecommonineducationalpolicydocumentsandincludedthethreedimensionsofsustainable
developmentaseducationalgoals. Thereis,however,noconsensusregardingtheeducationalcontent
of ESD [5]. Already in the 1970s, the political goal of ‘environmental education’ was to change
learners’attitudes[6],andtheUNgoalforESDin2014stillfocusedoninfluencinglearners’values
andattitudes[7]. Manyeducationalresearchershaveclaimedthatthewholeconceptlimitseducation
tomerelyatoolforreachingsustainedeconomicgrowth[8,9]. Researchershavealsocriticizedthe
ideabehindtheconceptforneglectingteachersasreflectiveagents[10].
VareandScott[11],ontheotherhand,pointoutthatESDneedstobeseenastwoapproaches
thatcomplementeachother,liketheChineseconceptofyinandyang. Theauthorsdefinetheterm
ESD1aspromotingchangesinwhatpeopledo,promotingbehaviorsandwaysofthinkingthrough
alearningforsustainabledevelopment,whilethecomplementarytermESD2promoteslearningas
sustainabledevelopmentthroughthecapacitytobuildcriticalthinkingandtheexplorationofinherent
contradictions. Someresearchershavereactednegativelytothepreposition‘for’intheconceptofESD
andconsideritnormative[12,13]. Toavoidthepreposition‘for’,theconcept‘sustainabilityeducation’
hasbecomeanalternative[14,15].
When,inthisarticle,wefollowmanyforerunnersandadopttheconceptofsustainabilityeducation,
wethusmovethefocusfromthequestionofwhatteachersaresupposedtoteachtothequestion:
what is an education focusing on sustainability supposed to achieve? When first and foremost
Educ.Sci.2017,7,32 3of22
reflectingonwhattoachieve,themainfocusisonactioncompetence,criticalthinking,deliberation
and understanding of how one’s choices affect local and global societies and the entire biosphere.
VareandScott[11],ontheotherhand,emphasizethatESDisalearningprocessthatshouldbuildthe
learners’capacitytoanalyze,negotiate,questionalternativesanddeveloptheirabilitytomakesound
choices. Furthermore,theroleofsustainabilityeducationistodealwithinequalityandpowerissues
andencouragecritiqueofthesystemsofwhichthestudents’andeducators’dailylifeandeducationis
apart[12].
Whatweareaskingfor,asresearchers,isaninterdisciplinary,eventransdisciplinary,learningina
contextofdiversity[16]. Transdisciplinaryprocessesencouragecollaborationbetweenscienceand
society,andthusemphasizejointundertakingsandlearning[17],anddiversitymeansthatvarious
viewsareappreciated. Thereisagrowinginterestintransdisciplinaryapproachestothesustainability
challenge, approaches that can handle complex authentic problems and create practice-oriented
learningsituations[17].
Sustainabilityeducationischaracterizedbyaholisticapproachwhenitcomestocontentanda
pluralisticapproachwhenitcomestoteaching[18].Holismimpliesinthissensethatallthedimensions
andperspectivesofsustainabilityareintegratedintheinstruction. Pluralisticteaching,ontheother
hand,isteachingsothatdifferentviewsandperspectivesconcerningsustainabilityareacknowledged,
reflectedonanddiscussed,andtheaimistoimprovethestudent’sdemocraticactioncompetence[19].
The role of educators subsequently becomes to improve the students’ joint involvement and
participationinauthenticenvironmentalactivitiesandcriticaldiscourses[20–22]. InDenmark‘action
competence’hasbeenafavoredapproachandkeyconceptinenvironmentaleducationandhealth
educationresearchsincethe1980s[23]. Accordingtoactioncompetence,theroleofeducationisnotto
servepoliticalgoalsorpromotestronglynormativepurposes. Theapproachisbasedontheideathat
environmentalproblemsinvolvesocialconflictsofinterestsandhastobehandledbyproblem-oriented
andcross-curricularmethods. Therefore,theroleofeducationistoencouragestudentsandprovide
learningconditionsthattransformthemintocritical,politicalagents[23]. Actioncompetencerelates
totheGermanBildungconceptbasedonthecentralideathathumanbeingshaveintrinsicpossibilities
forself-development,butalsoforthejointdevelopmentofsociety[24]. Inhighereducationthismeans
thatsustainabilitybecomes“adynamicandflexiblesynergyissuefordifferentsciencesandsubjectsso
thatscience,education,artandpracticesarecombined,transformedanddeveloped”[24](p. 62).
When Bildung is an educational ideal, elementary critical questions are: where is education
headingandwhatistheultimategoalofeducation? Thesustainabilityeducationidealisaneducation
where the transformation of oneself and society is a dual task [12]. Education has to promote a
planetaryconsciousnessandavisioningofadifferentworldinacosmicperspective,accordingto
Gadotti[25], butalsoavisionofabetterselfthroughself-reflectionandauthenticity, accordingto
Wolff[12]. However,itisfruitlesstoteachpeopleaboutsustainabilityandatthesametimeignore
theunsustainabilityproblemsinaneoliberalsociety,applyingaimsthatareincontradictionwiththe
wholeideaofsustainability[8,26,27],andblamingothersfornotactingappropriately[28]. Thehistory
andthecultureofsocieties(bothlocalandglobal)transformpeopleeveryday,andwiththatinmind
themissionistocreatenewmodelsofmutuallivinginmoresustainableways[29],whichdemands
bravenessandpoliticalactioncompetence.
Inmanycountriesenvironmentalandsustainabilityissueshaveincreasedineducationonall
levelsfromnurseryschoolstouniversitiesoverthelastdecade[7,30]. Still,ithasbeenarguedthat
thedevelopmentistooslow[8,12]. IntheevaluationoftheimpactoftheDecadeofEducationfor
Sustainabledevelopment,UNESCOfoundthatinmostUNmemberstatesESDwasincreasing,but
fewstatescouldreportfullimplementationacrosseducationsystems,aswellasacrosspoliciesand
planning[7]. Moreandmorecommentatorshaveactuallyarguedthattheeducationaleffortshavenot
beenradicalenoughtoaddressthemosturgentproblemsofourtime[27,31,32]. Thereisobviously
stillmuchtodoandmanychallengestoface[33].
Educ.Sci.2017,7,32 4of22
Even if there are tasks enough for many players, teachers have for decades been cited as key
agentsinthesustainabilityprocess[3,34]. Toprepareteachersforthisimportanttask,analystshave
askedforastrongeremphasisonteachereducation[34,35]. Yet,teachereducationinmanycountries
has failed in this respect [36–41]. According to Martin and Carter [42], education settings need to
become“proactiveinsustainability”andtomakethathappen,ESDneedstobeacoreconceptinteacher
education. Sincetherearerisksofbothnormativelysteeringandnarrowingofthescope,wewould
rathersaythat“sustainability”hastobethecoreanditsimplementationobviousinpolicy,campus
practice,andlastbutnotleast,inresearch,teachingandlearning.
Inthisarticle,Finlandhasbeenusedasanexampleinidentifyinghowandwhyteachereducation,
especially primary teacher education, has failed in sustainability and what need to be changed in
teachereducationtoimprovethesituation. Evenifwefocusonprimaryschoolteachers,someofthe
studiesweuseinouranalysisincludesecondaryschools.WebeginwithanoverviewofFinnishteacher
education,includingbothinternationalandnationalpolicydocumentsconcerningtheimplementation
ofsustainabilityinteachereducation.
2. FinnishTeacherEducation
Finnishteachereducationhasaworldwidereputation,sinceFinnishstudentshaveperformed
very well in international comparisons, such as PISA (The Programme for International Student
Assessment of OECD). As one of the contributory factors behind these successful achievements,
reference has been made to the high quality of Finnish teacher education [43,44]. Finnish teacher
educationhasafairlylongacademictraditionbyinternationalstandards,enteringFinnishuniversities
inthe1970s[45,46]. OfthesixteenFinnishuniversitiesandsixregionaluniversitycentersrunning
today,eightmainuniversitiesandtwocentersprovideteachereducation.
ApartfromFinnishteachereducation’sinternationalreputation,itisalsoverypopularnationally
andmanywould-beteachersapplyeveryyear. Bothprimaryandsecondaryschoolteachereducation
leadstoahigheracademicdegree(300ECTS),andprimaryschoolteachershaveeducationastheir
majorsubject. Togetherwithmultidisciplinaryschoolsubjectstudiesthisqualifiesgraduatestoteach
ingrades1–6. Primaryschoolteachersarealsoqualifiedtoteachingrades7–9iftheytakefurther
studiesinoneormoreschoolsubjects. However, mostoftheteachingingrades7–9andinupper
secondaryschooliscarriedoutby“subjectteachers”,whohaveamajorinoneoftheteachingsubjects
and a minor in one or two other school subjects, and who also have studied education (60 ECTS),
includingteachertraining[43]. Table1showswhatqualificationsareneededforteachersinFinlandat
differentschoollevels.
Table1. Typeofschoolandteachers’qualificationsinFinland(modifiedfromJakku-Sihvonenand
Niemi[45](p.11)).
Age Typeofschool Teachers’qualification
0–6 Kindergarten Kindergartenteachers(BA)180ECTS
Kindergartenteachers(BA)or
6 Pre-school
primaryschoolteacher(MA)
7–12 Comprehensiveschool,1–6 Primaryschoolteachers(MA)300ECTS
13–15 Comprehensiveschool,7–9 Subjectteachers(MA)
16– Uppersecondaryschool Subjectteachers(MA)
16– Vocationalschool Subjectteachers(BAorMA)i
19– Highereducation Teacherswithhigheracademicdegree(Ph.D)
Notes:iIfitisnotorganizedinhighereducationcoursesinthesubjecttheyteachoriftheyhavereceivedcompetence
inotherways,theycangetexemptionfromthisrule.
Research-based teaching and learning is one of the major aims of Finnish teacher education.
By integrating theory and practice in a dialogic process, the aim is to produce reflective teachers
whowillbecomelife-longlearnerswithareadinessforprofessionaldevelopmentthroughouttheir
Educ.Sci.2017,7,32 5of22
vocations [47]. The writing of a Master’s thesis, together with studies in educational research
methodology, is an important part of this process. Integration of research when dealing with
variouschallengesinteachers’workisalsoconsideredaprerequisitefortheirfuturecareer[45,46,48].
Teachersaretrainedtodeveloptheirteachinganalyticallyandsystematicallyandcreategoodlearning
environments [48]. However, this does not guarantee that they are trained in interdisciplinary
proceduresandinhowtoteachaboutcomplexglobaldilemmas.
TeachingpracticeisacrucialpartofFinnishteachereducation,butitdoesnotnecessarilygiveany
traininginhowtoteachaboutsustainability. Muchoftheteachingpracticetakesplaceinparticular
trainingschoolsbelongingtotheteachereducationdepartmentsoftheuniversities. Theintegration
ofteachingpracticewitheducationaltheory,aswellaswithsubjectstudiesandsubjectteaching,is
essential. Thisisaccomplishedthroughathree-partpracticesupervisionincooperationbetweena
universitylecturer,ateacheratthetrainingschoolandthestudentteacher. Studentsalsocomplete
teachingpracticeinactualschools. Asthissectionshows,Finnishteachersarewelleducatedingeneral.
Yet, even if many Finnish educational policy documents and action plans include sustainability
educationandtrainingofstudentsatmanylevels[49–51],sustainabilityundeniablyplaysaminorrole
intheeducationofFinnishteachers.
3. SustainabilityinFinnishSchoolSystemsandTeacherEducation
Even if policy documents and strategies on many levels request sustainability at all levels of
education, the Finnish universities are autonomous and can therefore make their own decisions
regarding the scope of sustainability in education and practice. Therefore, there are no common
modelsofhowtointegratesustainabilityintouniversitycoursesandteachereducation. Thereisalso
greatvariationinteachereducators’knowledgeofandskillsinintegratingandteachingsustainable
issuesinhighereducation. Thesameproblemisobviousinschools;graduatedteachersdonotknow
howtoteachaboutsustainability.
3.1. SustainabilityinPolicyDocuments
Numerousambitiousinternationalandnationalpolicydocumentsandactionplansdescribegoals
andideasonhowtoimplementsustainabilityatalllevelsofeducation[37,52,53]. TheBrundtland
Report [3] and Agenda 21 in Finland [54] clearly emphasized the link between the environment
and development, as well as the importance of the human dimension in all decisions concerning
environmentallysounddevelopment.Accordingtothesedocuments,citizenshavetolearntomaintain
social,cultural,andeconomicwell-beingwithoutdepletingnaturalresourcesoroverloadingnature’s
delicatebalance. Thefaintlybehavioristicgoalssuggestthatitistheroleofeducationandtrainingto
ensurethatcitizensofallageshavetheknowledge,skills,readinessandvisionthatwillenablethem
tobuildasustainableandequitablefutureandcommittoasustainablewayoflife[55]. From2001
sustainabledevelopmentisincludedinFinnishbasiceducationaccordingtothedecreeonnational
goalsofeducationandtheBasicEducationAct: “Studentsareeducatedtotakeresponsibilityand
work together and to promote tolerance and trust between human groups, peoples and cultures.
Theteachingshouldalsosupportthedevelopmentofpupilsintoactivemembersofsociety,andthey
aregivenskillstofunctioninademocraticandequalsocietyandpromotesustainabledevelopment”[56]
(translationanditalicsbytheauthors).
Already in the core curriculum for basic education 1985 [57] “the environment and nature
protection” is one of the main aims, and in the curriculum of 1994 [58] human rights, equality,
democracy,biodiversityandculturaldiversitybuildthemainvalues. ThefollowingFinnishnational
corecurriculumforbasiceducationfrom2004[59]andthecurrentversionfrom2014[60]emphasize
sustainabilitytobeimplementedinseveralwaysineducationbutalsointheeverydaylifeinschools.
In the core curriculum from 2004, the goal of one of the cross-curricular themes is “to raise
environmentally conscious citizens who are committed to a sustainable way of life” [59] (p. 39),
and who will “learn to examine the challenges to sustainable development from several points of
Educ.Sci.2017,7,32 6of22
views”[59](p. 29). Evenifthesegoalsweresetmorethantenyearsago, theimpacthasnotbeen
particularlysignificant.
It is quite obvious that sustainability is even more important in the current curriculum for
basic education from 2014 [60]. A sustainable future is mentioned in the curriculum in the very
first paragraph, where the aim of the revision of the governance system of basic education is
described. According to this, the aim is to improve the possibilities for basic education to take
into account the changes in the world, and also to strengthen the role of education in the process
ofbuildingasustainablefuture. Overall,theconceptofasustainablefutureismentioned42times,
asustainablelifestyle45times,sustainabledevelopment40times,andsustainabilityninetimesinthe
2014corecurriculum.
Whentheundertakingofbasiceducationisdescribed,thecurrentcurriculumstatesthateducation
shallpromoteparticipationandasustainablelifestyle,andalsosupportthestudents’developmentas
membersofademocraticsociety. The“needforasustainablelifestyle”isoneofthefourheadlines
definingthebasicvaluesofthecorecurriculum[60](pp. 15–16,theauthors’translation). Theother
headlinesare“allpupilsareuniqueandhavearighttoagoodeducation”; “humanity, education,
equalityanddemocracy”;and“culturaldiversityisrichness”[60](p. 16),whichallrelatetothesocial
and cultural dimensions of sustainability. Hence, sustainability can clearly be regarded as a core
componentinthevaluesofcontemporarybasiceducationinFinland.
The current core curriculum from 2014 also strives to develop a comprehensive competence
among students. Comprehensive competence involves a unity of knowledge and skills, values,
attitudes and also both the will and the ability to use the knowledge and skills in practice.
The intention is that by applying its methods and contents every school subject contributes in its
own way to comprehensive competence. Seven sectors build up the comprehensive competence,
oneofthembeing“anabilitytoparticipate,affectandcontributetoasustainablefuture”[60](p. 24).
Othersectorsincludingissuesofsustainabilityareeverydaycompetence,digitalcompetence,and
culturalandcommunicativecompetence.
Accordingtothecurrentcurriculum,sustainabilityisalsoanintegralpartoftheworkingculture
of the school. “Responsibility for the environment and a sustainable future” [60] (p. 39) is one of
theimportantintegratedthemes. Sustainabledevelopmentisemphasizedasanexampleofanarea
within democracy education to increase the pupils’ active participation (cf. action competence in
theIntroduction). Furthermore,thecurriculumalsounderlinesthatlearningorganizationshaveto
considertheenvironmentandasustainablefuturethroughouttheirwork,concerningforexamplethe
importanceofthesustainableuseofrawmaterialandenergyandtheprotectionofbiodiversitytothe
healthofourplanetanditsecosystems.
However,manyotherpolicydocumentsalsoinfluencethecontentofthebasiceducationbesides
theschoolcurriculum. Theeducationsystemisexpectedtosupplythelabormarket,atthesametime
asschoolsareexpectedtofulfillcurriculumrequirements[61]. Successininternationalcomparisonsis
viewedasaconsequenceofgoodpolitics,thoughunfortunatelyanimportantgoaloflocaleducational
politicsistodecreasecosts[62]. Asimilarproblemofmixedsignalsisobviousinteachereducation.
Studentteachersaretrainedbyteachereducatorsintheuniversitycontextformanyyears. Ifthat
contextdoesnotenhancesustainability,whyshouldthegraduatedteachersbereadytotakesuchsteps
whentheystartworkinginschools? Intheirstudyofteachereducators,Goodwinetal.[63]found
thatteachereducatorsrealizedthattheirworkrelatestothelargercontextsinwhichitissituated.
Aquarteroftherespondentssawitaschallengingtonavigateamongagendasandpoliciesatthe
universities,sincetheseagendasareofteninconflictwiththeirownviewoftheirwork. Inaddition,
thesepoliciesmaybeinconflictwiththedemandsoftheschoolcurricula.
Theofficialprofileoftheuniversitiesisstatedintheirstrategies,and,consequently,thesestrategies
arerelevantwhenconsideringsustainabilityinteachereducation. AccordingtoHofman’s[5]study,
onecandiscernsomerhetoricalattemptsbyFinnishuniversitiestoliveuptotheMinistryofEducation
andCulture’sagreementitem“promotionofsustainabledevelopment.”In2010—2012thisagreement
Educ.Sci.2017,7,32 7of22
itemwaspartofperformanceagreementswiththeuniversitiesthattheMinistrymakeseveryfour
years [64]. Hofman’s [5] analysis of how the three dimensions of sustainable development are
acknowledged in the policy documents, study plans and strategies of three universities revealed
thatnoneoftheseuniversitiesmentionedsustainabledevelopmentmorethantwiceintheirstrategies
for2012.
When examining the role of sustainability in the strategies of the eight Finnish universities
offering teacher education programs in 2016 in comparison with earlier versions [5], it is obvious
that the emphasis on sustainability has become stronger since the previous strategies, but the
variation is still remarkable. In the strategies, which vary in length and depth, seven mention
sustainability,sixofthemasavisionorbasicfocusarea,andoneasanobjectiveinsocietalinteraction.
One university has omitted sustainability from this strategy version, and the extent to which
universities mention sustainability varies from none to eleven times. Two universities talk about
allthedimensionsofsustainabledevelopment,butonlyoneseemstohaveastrongsustainableprofile,
namelytheUniversityofLapland. InmostoftheotherFinnishuniversitiesotherinterestsaremuch
stronger. Aninternationalprofile,forexample,isverynoticeableinsevenuniversities. Otherapparent
ambitionsarecollaboration,efficiencyandhigh-quality,whereassocialequalityandculturaldiversity
is nearly absent in all but one strategy. Three of the universities are eager to become top-ranking.
Theconceptofsustainabilityisalsomentionedasmerelyaneconomicattribute,anditisremarkable
that no university mentions campus greening in its strategy. In conclusion, the strategic goals are
diverseandsustainabilitymightbedifficulttofulfillattheuniversitiesofferingteachereducation,
sinceinterestsareaimedinsomanyconflictingdirections.
3.2. SustainabilityinSchools
Currently,theaspectofsustainabilityisintegratedintoFinnishschools’practicesinmanydifferent
ways,andmoreorlessfrequently. AnexternalevaluationcarriedoutonbehalfoftheMinistryof
EducationandMinistryoftheEnvironmentin2012revealedthatonly35%ofthe917primaryand
secondaryschoolsparticipatinginthequestionnairehadprogramsforsustainabledevelopment[65].
Thisdespitethepoliticalrequestforsustainabledevelopmentprogramsineveryschool. Thesituation
on the management stage is equally diverse. Susiluoma [66] investigated the situation regarding
sustainabledevelopmentmanagementattheschoollevelinFinnishbasiceducationandgeneralupper
secondaryeducation. Oftheparticipatingschools(n=597),16%hadanenvironmentaleducation
program or plan, 20% had an environmental plan, 12% had a teacher who was responsible for
environmentaleducation,23%hadapersonresponsibleforenvironmentalissues,and19%hadan
environmentalgroup. Basedonthisinvestigationaconclusioncouldbethatenvironmentalissues
are not generally prioritized on a management level in Finnish schools. Nevertheless, plans and
responsiblestaffdonotobviouslyguaranteesustainabilityeducationintheteacher’spracticeeither.
Oneofthereasonsmightbethatprimaryschoolteachersdonothaveenougheducationinhowto
dealwithsustainabilityissuestostartsuchprograms.
InaFinnishstudyincluding442lowersecondarysubjectteachersfrom49schools, Uittoand
Saloranta[67]foundthattheteachersdidnotconsidersustainabilityissuesveryfrequentlyintheir
teaching. Well-being and social sustainability were the most common aspects, while ecological,
economic, and cultural aspects were less common. There were large differences in how teachers
teaching different major subjects used different aspects of sustainability. The results indicate that
teachersinbiology,geographyandhistoryweregenerallymoreactiveteachingthethreedimensions
ofsustainabilityinaholisticway, whileteachersinthemothertongue, religion, visualarts, crafts,
music,physicalandhealtheducationconsideredtwoorthreedimensionsofsustainability,butwere
notteachingholistically. Teachersinmathematics,physics,chemistryandlanguagescommonlyused
onlyonedimensionofsustainabledevelopment. Theseresultsstrengthentheviewthatsustainability
issuesarenotseenasacommonaspirationamongteachers.
Educ.Sci.2017,7,32 8of22
SincethereisnotmuchresearchfromFinlandabouttheimplementationofsustainabilityinthe
schoolsystemitisalsorelevanttotakeintoconsiderationhowsustainabilityhasbeenimplementedin
othercountries. SwedenisculturallymostsimilartoFinland,andthereareSwedishstudiesthathave
investigatedtheimplementationofESDinschools. Borgetal.[68]havecollecteddatafromSwedish
uppersecondaryschoolteachers(n=3229)toidentifybarrierstoimplementingESD.Fortheteachers
intheirstudyitseemstobealackofinspiringexamplesandtheabsenceofnecessaryexpertisethatare
themostcommonobstaclesforintegratingsustainabilityintoteaching. AccordingtoBorgetal.[68],
morethanhalfoftheuppersecondaryschoolteachersintheirstudyfeltunderpreparedtointegrate
sustainability. Thestudyalsoshowsthatthesubject-basedcurriculainuppersecondaryschoolsset
barriersforinterdisciplinarywork. Thishighlightstheproblemwithsubject-basedcurriculaandthe
academicdisciplinesinteachereducationaswell.
Berglundetal.[69]studiedtheeffectoftheimplementationofESDingrade12inregularschools
andingrade12inschoolswithanESDprofile(n=638). Theymeasuredthestudents’sustainability
consciousness,aconceptbuiltofknowledge,attitudesandbehaviorsinallthethreedimensionsof
sustainability. Significantbutsmalldifferenceswerefoundinsustainabilityconsciousnessbetween
students in regular schools and students in schools with an ESD profile. Furthermore, when
sustainability consciousness was analyzed dimension by dimension, it was only in the economic
dimensionwherestudentsintheESDschoolshadsignificantlyhighervalues.
Olssonetal.[70]conductedsimilarresearch,wheretheycomparedtheeffectivenessofESDin
regularandinESDschools,butingrades6and9(n=1773),andtheresultsareinlinewiththefindings
ofBerglundetal.[69]. TheeffectofimplementationofESDwasrelativelylimited. Ingrade6,there
weresignificantdifferencesinsustainabilityconsciousness. StudentsinESDschoolsscoredhigher
onknowledge,attitudesandbehaviorinalldimensionsofsustainability,thanthestudentsinregular
schools. Ingrade9thereweresmalldifferencesbetweentheregularschoolsandtheschoolswithan
ESDprofile,buttheresultsindicateanegativeeffectoftheESDprofileonthestudents’sustainability
consciousness. The social dimension was the one which contributed most to this difference.
TheauthorsdiscussthatthepossiblereasonforthiscouldbethattheschoolswithanESDprofile
havenotbeendirectedtowardanESDapproachinteaching,characterizedbyholismandpluralism.
Thesupportmighthaveonlybeenaimedattheimplementationofsustainabilityactivities.
AstudyofBoeve-dePauwetal.[18]showedthatneithertheholisticnorthepluralisticapproach
werecommonplaceinSwedishschools. Theholisticapproachwasmorecommonthanthepluralistic,
andtheseapproachesweremorefrequentinhighergradesthaninlower. Theresultsindicatethata
moreholisticapproachinsustainabilityteachingincreasesthesustainabilityknowledge,whileamore
pluralisticapproachgeneratesmoresustainableconduct. TheyconcludethatESDbasedonholism
andpluralismeffectivelyimprovesstudents’sustainabilityconsciousness. However,pluralismisnot
commonplaceinschools,theresearcherssuggestingthatthismightbetheresultofthe“normativity
paradox”[71],whichmeansthatpluralisticteachinginasenseisinconflictwiththepredefinedaims
ofsustainabledevelopment. Boeve-dePauwetal.[18]alsopointoutthatthestrongrhetoricinsteering
documentsdoesnotseemtohaveaffectedtheactualpracticeofteaching. Borgetal.[68]alsoregarded
leadershipascrucialwhenimplementingsustainabilityeducationinschools. Thisreconnectstothe
situationinhighereducationandinparticulartoteachereducation.
3.3. SustainabilityinTeacherEducation
Nocleardirectionsexistonhowtoteachfutureteachersaboutsustainability. Neitheristhere
anystrongcommitmentamongtheteachereducators. Therespondentsinastudyincludingseven
universities and ten polytechnics offering preservice training for various categories of teachers
(including vocational teachers) had no answer about how higher education could guarantee that
student teachers are prepared to teach sustainability [65]. The investigation was a part of a study
organizedbytheeducationaldivisionoftheFinnishCommissiononSustainableDevelopmentand
aimedattheeducationalorganizationsappointedasresponsiblefortheimplementationofsustainable
Educ.Sci.2017,7,32 9of22
development,suchashighereducationinstitutionsofferingteachertraining,regionalgovernmental
agencies,andNGOs[65]. Theresultsshowthatthepromotionofsustainabilityinhighereducationis
stillverymuchdependentonenthusiastickeypersons. Manyoftherespondents(administratorsand
governmentalstaff,n=45)alsohopedforstrongersteeringbytheMinistryofEducationandCulture.
However,Pathanetal.[65]highlightthatFinnishuniversitiesandhighereducationinstitutionsplay
animportantroleinensuringthatteachersareprovidedwiththenecessaryskillsandcompetenciesfor
teachingaboutsustainabledevelopment. Theyalsoconcludethattheroleofsustainabledevelopment
should be increased in teacher education, and consider the lack of commitment to be basically a
problemofleadership.
SinceFinnishprimaryteachereducationhastopreparefutureteacherstoteachprimaryschool
subjects,mostoftheeducationalstudiesconsistofcompulsorycourses. Inaddition,studentsmostly
choosetheirminorsamongthesubjectsthatarepartoftheschoolcurricula. Sustainabilityasatheme
tobeimplementedinallsubjectshasbeenachallengeforalongtimeandithasmainlybeenuptothe
teacherstoactualizeit. Thishasnotonlybeenaprobleminschools,butalsointeachereducation.
Inuniversitiesitisuptothelecturershowtoimplementthetopicofsustainabilityinvarious
coursesintheteachereducationprograms. Noneoftheuniversitiesofferingteachereducationhave
compulsory courses on sustainability for all at basic levels, according to a study from 2010 [65].
Our website analyze in 2016 showed that the number of courses on sustainability still differs
betweenhighereducationinstitutionsinFinland,andsustainabilityisseldomcompulsoryinteacher
educationprograms.
Optionalcoursesofdifferentlengthsmightwellbeoffered. Itisunusualwithextensivecourses,
butsince2015ithasbeenpossibleforstudentteachersattheUniversityofLaplandtocompletea
master in environment and nature studies, and at Åbo Akademi University a master focusing on
environmentaleducationcanbecompleted,butonlyifexternalfundingisgrantedforthecourses.
Otheruniversitiesofferbasiccoursesprovidingdifferentviewsonsustainability,whichareopento
studentsfromallfaculties,buttheymaybedifficulttocombinewiththeteachereducationprogram
forpracticalreasons. Inaddition,thetopicofthevariouscoursesmightbeverydifferentfromwhat
thetraineeteacherneeds.
As Goodwin et al. have pointed out, “Quality teacher education relies on quality teacher
educators” [63] (p. 284). Therefore it is important to investigate teacher educators’ views on
sustainability and the implementation of sustainability in their work. However, only a few
investigationshavebeencarriedoutconcerningthisaspectofteachereducators’competence,though
severalhavebeenconcernedwithotheraspects. AccordingtoastudybyHökkäandEteläpelto[48],
rather than sustainability, the most important aspects for teacher educators in general were their
professionallearningandidentity. However,forscienceteachereducatorsthemaingoalswere“to
promotemeaningfullearningofscienceconceptsandtoinspirestudents’interestinlearningabout
science” [72] (p. 121). Buchanan [73] investigated sustainability education in Australian primary
teachereducationinafocusgroupstudywithteachereducatorsrepresentingallthesubjectsinthe
curriculum of primary education. The analysis of the discussions in focus groups revealed that it
wasnoteasytocometoacommonandunambiguousunderstandingoftheconceptofsustainability
education.Socialscienceandsciencewerethesubjectswheresustainabilityissuesweremostfrequently
addressed, while these issues were only sporadically touched upon in other subjects, except for
somecross-curricularsubjects. However,thecross-curricularnatureofsustainabilityeducationisa
richness,butalsoaproblem,asfewtaketheresponsibilityforimplementingit. Limitedtimeresources
were mentioned as the major obstacle for including sustainability issues in an already crowded
curriculum. Theimplementationofsustainabilityinteachereducationwasscantyandsporadic,and
sidesteppedbecauseofalackoftimebothforteachingandpreparing. Anotherobstacleaccordingto
therespondentswasthepresenceofmanyotherurgentteachingissues.
AnationwidequestionnairebyBorgetal.[74]amongSwedishuppersecondaryschoolteachers
(n = 3229) revealed similar problems with adapting a holistic view as in Buchanan’s study.
Educ.Sci.2017,7,32 10of22
Theconceptualunderstandingofsustainabledevelopmentvarieddependentonwhichsubjectsthe
teacherswereteaching. Socialscienceteachersemphasizethesocialdimensionofsustainability,while
scienceteachersconcentrateontheecologicaldimension. Eventhoughtheteachersweregenerally
awareofthethreedimensions,theydidnothaveaholisticunderstandingoftheconceptofsustainable
development,andconsequentlydidnothavethecompetencetoteachsustainabilityissuesholistically
either. Borg et al. [74] suggest that the lack of holism in the conceptual understanding could be
explained by a lack of sustainability education related to their subjects in their teacher education
program. ComparedwithHofman’s[5]studythatwepresentbelowthisconclusionsoundsaccurate.
Hofman’s [5] study of Finnish teacher education is to our knowledge the only Finnish study
thatfocusesonteachereducators’viewofhowsustainabledevelopmenthasbeenimplementedin
their own teaching at the course level. It indicates that the whole undertaking has largely failed.
The implementation of sustainability in teacher education is more a question of political rhetoric
thanarealityatthecourselevel. Despiteelectivecoursesinenvironmentaleducationorsustainable
development,theaimsofsustainabilityhavenotbeenreached.
WeshallnowtakeacloserlookatHofman’s[5]material,summarizingtheresultsconcerning
teachereducators’viewsonsustainability. Whentherespondents(154teachereducators)wereasked
todescribehowtheypersonallyunderstandtheconceptofsustainabledevelopmentonly10percent
mentionedallthefourintegrateddimensionsofsustainabledevelopment,i.e.,ecological,economic,
cultural and social dimensions (the cultural and social dimensions are often also counted as one,
seeIntroduction). Aslightlygreaterpart(11%)toucheduponthreeofthefourdimensions,anddid
notincludeaculturalorsocialdimension.
Theecological(called“environmental”byseveraloftherespondents)dimensionwassometimes
combinedwithsomeotheraspects,likehumanwell-being,whichwasstressedbynearlyhalfofthe
teacher educators (49%). The rest of the teacher educators (30%) understood the concept in very
differentwayswithoutnaminganyofthefour(three)maindimensions. Forexample,theyexplained
thatsustainabilitywasanethicalormoralquestionorsimplytherecirculationofwasteproductsor
continuedgrowthingeneral. Asmanyas70%oftheteachereducatorsinHofman’sstudymentioned
theecologicalorenvironmentaldimension,includingthosewhorepresentedsubjectsotherthanthe
naturalsciences. Therefore,theteachereducatorsstatedthatsustainabilitydoesnotconcernthem
andtheydonotincludeitintheirteaching(18%)(sincethesustainabilityissuebelongstothenatural
scienceeducators,accordingtothem). Morethanhalfoftherespondentssaidthattheydidnotknowif
theirdepartmenthaddefinedtheconceptofsustainabledevelopmentintheirstrategiesorotherpolicy
documents. Inconclusion,Hofman’sstudyindicatesthatpolicydocumentsandrecommendations
havenothadamajoreffectonteachereducators.
Nevertheless, upto75%ofHofman’srespondentsconsideredthatsustainabilityisextremely
importantforallstudentteachers[5]. Theyalsomentionededucationandawarenessraisingasthe
bestwaysforsocietytopromotesustainabledevelopment,buttheydidnotseetheirownworkasan
importantcontributor. Thegreatmajorityoftheteachereducators(87%)hadnotreceivedanytraining
oreducationinhowtointegratesustainabilityintoallsubjects,althoughseveralpolicydocuments
maintainthatuniversitiesandteachertrainingdepartmentshavetoincorporatebasicsustainability
knowledge and that pedagogical skills should be highlighted as an important educational policy
issue in in-service training of teachers and supervisors [34,55]. Sustainability is merely rhetoric if
teachereducatorstrainingfutureteachershavenotreceivedanyeducationinsustainabilitythemselves.
Inthesectionbelowwewillpresentourinterpretationofwhythistopichasbeenaddressedinsucha
piecemealfashionuntilnow.
4. Whyisan“Excellent”EducationFailinginSustainability?
When we were searching for answers about why Finnish teacher education fails in the
implementationofsustainability,wefoundmanyfundamentalcomponentsthathinderedtheprocess.
We identified five strong elements that prevent purposeful implementation. Three of them are