Int J Technol Des Educ (2013) 23:733–748

DOI 10.1007/s10798-012-9213-9

Teaching and learning for sustainable development: ESD

research in technology education

Margarita Pavlova

Published online: 15 June 2012

 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract When education for sustainable development (ESD) emerged as part of the
educational agenda in the international arena, it was associated with significant shifts in the
educational debate about the purpose and nature of education and with the need to respond
to crises caused by the modern idea of progress. Scientists from different fields warn
humanity that the current trajectory of capitalism is leading towards environmental and
cultural decline and that urgent measures are required to deal with the current and
emerging issues. Global financial and economic crises, poverty and inequality, climate
change and environmental degradation reinforce our understanding that a collaborative
effort is required in addressing the existing status quo through education. These changing
contexts require transformative education that must play a key role in developing a
planetary vision, in ‘‘securing sustainable life chances, aspirations and futures for young
people’’. This paper refers to the essence of SD and the ethics behind it, explores current
research on ESD in technology education (TE) and suggests a number of challenges that
emerged for technology education as a result of the global SD agenda. They are related to
policy and curriculum development, teaching and learning, and teacher training. This paper
argues that current and future research on ESD in technology education must be framed by
a shared vision about quality education and a society that lives in balance with Earth’s
carrying capacity. The paper concludes with suggestions for further directions for research
associated with the areas of challenge.

Keywords Education for sustainable development
Research in technology education

Transformative education
Policy and curriculum development
Teaching and learning

Teacher training

M. Pavlova (&)
Griffith Institute for Educational Research, School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith
University, M15_ 3.03, Science Education Building, Mt Gravatt Campus, 176 Messines Ridge Road,
Mt Gravatt, QLD 4122, Australia
e-mail: m.pavlova@griffith.edu.au
URL: http://www.griffith.edu.au/education/school-education-professional-studies/staff/academic-staff/
margarita-pavlova

123
734 M. Pavlova

Introduction

When education for sustainable development (ESD) emerged as part of the educational
agenda in the international arena, it was associated with significant shifts in the educational
debate about the purpose and nature of education and with the need to face crises caused by
the modern idea of progress. Scientists from different fields warn humanity that the current
trajectory of capitalism is leading towards environmental and cultural decline and that
urgent measures are required to deal with the current and emerging issues. Global financial
and economic crises, poverty and inequality, climate change and environmental degra-
dation reinforce our understanding that a collaborative effort is required in addressing the
existing status quo through education. Education must play a key role in developing a
planetary vision, in ‘‘securing sustainable life chances, aspirations and futures for young
people’’ (UNESCO 2009).
The paper discusses the essence of SD and the ethics behind it. It argues for transfor-
mative education as a framework for technology education development. The paper
explores current research on ESD in technology education and suggests a number of
challenges that emerged for technology education as a result of the global SD agenda. They
are related to policy and curriculum development, teaching and learning, and teacher
training. This paper argues that current and future research on ESD in technology edu-
cation must be framed by a shared vision about quality education and a society that lives in
balance with Earth’s carrying capacity. The paper also explores some possible directions
for further research.

The changing contexts and requests for transformative education

Since 1968 (The Biosphere Conference, UNESCO 1969) environment—development

relationships have been the focus of political debates through a number of international
conferences and summits with a gradual progression from a somewhat narrow, nature-
oriented focus to a broader interpretation reflected in the principles of the Rio Declaration
on Environment and Development (UN 1992). This document proclaimed that environ-
ment and development are integral parts of sustainable development where economic
development is considered as a contributing factor for human development, and not an end
in itself. A concern for the human condition was put in the centre of the political SD
agenda.
However, a stronger emphasis on development led to different ways SD has been
interpreted and applied to policy formulation. There are at least two opposite perspectives
within the SD field. Cartea (2005) argued that the first perspective is an attempt to validate
the concept that a model of economic growth can be maintained within appropriate eco-
logical limits. From this perspective an increase in production and capital would allow
people to have resources necessary to repair environmental damage as well as prevent it in
the future. SD then is associated with notions of the ‘market economy’ and linked to
contemporary faith in science and technology. The second perspective identified by Cartea
(2005) within the SD field is consideration of SD as a model to identify, investigate, and
promote, in a range of spheres, alternatives to the existing environmental and social
problems. In this approach, SD is associated with concepts of ‘equity’, ‘emancipation’ and
‘social change’. A similar view is shared by Huckle (2006) who classified SD conceptu-
alization as linked to two different discourses: reformist and radical. The first one is
associated with industrialization and the global capitalist system; the second proposes a

123
Teaching and learning for sustainable development 735

move beyond industrialization and radical democratization of the global economy and is
close to the UN’s position identified above. In this paper the second position is accepted.
Education associated with SD reflects significant shifts in the educational debate about
the purpose and nature of education and the need to face crises caused by the modern idea
of progress. This call to address the global issues through education has been articulated in
a number of UNESCO’s documents and actions. The 1997 international conference in
Thessaloniki on Environment and Society: education and public awareness for sustain-
ability organised by UNESCO (UNESCO 1997) emphasised the transition from environ-
mental education to education for sustainable development (ESD). This step has been
viewed by many as a progressive transition in the field, as a new step in developing our
understanding of environment-development relationships.
The current UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) is an
attempt to ‘‘integrate the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development into
all aspects of education and learning’’ (UNESCO 2005, p. 6). New directions for education
and learning, and quality and inclusive education are required to address current and future
challenges. The Bonn Declaration (UNESCO 2009), which marks the middle of the dec-
ade, emphasizes again the role of education in ‘‘securing sustainable life chances, aspi-
rations and futures for young people’’ (p. 2, point 5).
These political discourses on ESD go in parallel with the educational debate about
transformative education. The transformative nature of education required to address
current global challenges has been argued by many (e.g. Bonnett 2002; Sterling 2001,
2004, 2007; Stevenson 2006; Argyris and Schön 2004; Lundegård and Wickman 2007;
Peters and Gonzalez-Gaudiano 2008). It requires recognising the interconnectedness
among universe, planet, natural environment, human community, and personal world
through critical reflection, holistic approaches and relationships with others. It is concerned
more with why we are teaching than with how or what we teach. It is rooted in a particular
worldview and based on a particular educational philosophy. This why question is related
to the argument that ethical development is a core business of education, the ethics that are
related to valuing of the other person, moral responsibility and establishing a non-instru-
mental relationship with nature (Campbell et al. 1992; Parker et al. 1999). As argued by
Pavlova (2009b) weak anthropocentrism, the environmental ethic that promotes the mutual
flourishing of human and non-human nature, could be used as a framework for transfor-
mative education that is a foundation of ESD for technology education. It provides an
answer for the why question and leads to the need to change our worldviews (or frames of
references1). A concern for the human condition formulated as the base principle of
Respect and care for the community of life, meaning duty to care for other people and
other forms of life now and in the future (IUCN, UNEP and WWF 1991) could serve as a
guiding value for technology education.
These calls for transformative education based on the ethics of weak anthropocentrism
form a specific framework for the research agenda in technology education.

Research in technology education

ESD research does exist in technology education; however, it is not among the mainstream
topics of research agendas. That is partly related to the reasons why technology education

1
These frames are comprised of two elements: a habit of mind (the assumptions we receive and assume
from our culture) and a resulting point of view (one’s actions) (Mezirow 2000).

123
736 M. Pavlova

was introduced into the curriculum of many countries. By the end of the 1980s education
coupled with market reforms gained a dominant position in educational policy. Education
was viewed as the source of responsiveness to technological change and as a way to
increase economic competitiveness (e.g. Marginson 1993; Ball 1994, 1997; O’Neill 1995).
The close association between education and the economy led to the debates about tech-
nology education in many reports undertaken by educational authorities internationally. In
particular, the assumption was made about the goals of technology education—to be
relevant to the economic needs of the nation and to prepare students for work and life in
society. Technology education was seen as a means for developing knowledge, skills,
attitudes and values which allow students to maximize their flexibility and adaptability to
their future employment, mainly, and to other aspects of life as well (Pavlova 2001). This
economic imperative associated with the idea of ‘progress’ was reflected in teachers’
perception of values in technology education. Research into UK teachers’ values dem-
onstrated that at the practical level technology teachers prioritised technical, aesthetic and
economic values over environmental, social, cultural, moral and political (Holdsworth and
Conway 1999). These results relate to the fact that some teachers did not view certain
values as relevant to technology education and technical values prevailed. However, a
more recent study by Ritz (2009) on the historical development of goals that guide pro-
grams development in the US identified a shift to the social dimensions of technology from
purely technical ones. 93.3 % of research participants (leaders in technology education
profession in the US) gave priority to the goal that relates to knowledge of social, ethical,
and environment impacts associated with the use of technology (p. 59). Although this goal
reflects only the cognitive component of TE learning, it indicates significant shifts in the
technology education profession’s understandings.
The historical progression of ESD ideas has been reflected in ESD research in tech-
nology education. Since early 2000 the importance of addressing ESD through technology
education has been argued by a number of researchers (e.g. Elshof 2003, 2005, 2009;
Miller and Pitt 2000; Wicklein 2001) and it appeared increasingly in curriculum document
statements (e.g. Huckle 2006; QCA 2007a, b; QSA 2007). Studies of technology education
discourse (e.g. Pavlova 2009b) demonstrate that when the concept of sustainability is
discussed within technology education it is mainly focused on the ecological design of
products (eco-design) with a major emphasis on limiting the environmental impacts of
those products (Elshof 2003; Martin 2003), or on environmental sustainability (Stables
2009; Hill and Elshof 2007). The ways sustainability has been dealt with in technology
education demonstrated a one-dimensional vision firmly embedded in environmental
aspects:
One of the particular ethical areas in which [it is possible to practice ethics] is the
area of sustainability. Sustainability is a value that is concerned with dealing with the
natural environment and resources in such a way that we do not deprive future
generations of the opportunities that we ourselves enjoy. In a more concrete way,
sustainability means that we use materials and energy consciously and in a
responsible way … sustainability is a value area that can really be practiced in
classes without any artificiality, because saving materials and energy should be a real
concern of schools. (de Vries and Dakers 2005, p. 96)
This put a focus on environmental values that could be addressed through technology
education. Although this move is positive, it presents a limited view on ESD. Tools that are
used by teachers to measure environmental impact (e.g. Life Cycle Analysis) are rarely
applied to examine the underlying causes of environmental problems which, it is argued

123
Teaching and learning for sustainable development 737

here, often have a social nature. Even when the social aspects are addressed within
technology education discourse, they often have a limited interpretation. For example,
Elshof (2003) places emphasis on justice and equity when researching the social aspect of
sustainability. Concerns such as cultural diversity and intercultural understanding are
omitted from this research.
A similar situation is evident when the economic aspects of ESD are considered. These
often consist of one-sided examinations where economic aspects are viewed mainly in
negative terms and in relation to developed countries only. These typically include:
implications of short-term economic thinking, the growing wealth gap, consumption and
consumerism, unintended ‘revenge’ cost of technology and ‘perverse’ economic subsidies
(Elshof 2003). Economic issues that relate to poverty reduction, corporate responsibility,
price formation mechanisms or alternative models of economy are not discussed.
The results of a more recent study by Pitt and Lubben (2009) in the UK that includes social
aspects of sustainability indicated a shift in teachers’ perception towards SD. More than half
of the teachers involved in the study reported their interest and commitment to SD even prior
to their in-service training in sustainable design. The study also reports that as a result of in-
service, ‘‘nine out of the twenty teachers in the sample reported considerable changes in their
understanding of, and confidence in, integrating the social dimension of SD in their D&T
teaching’’ (p. 175). Elshof (2009) argues for ‘‘advancing a culture of socially just eco-
technological innovation’’ (p. 144) through technology education.
Although more and more academics are involved in ESD research and more emphasis is
placed on the social aspects of ESD, the effort is still fragmented and the breadth of issues
addressed is also limited. The results of these studies do not provide a clear answer to the
question of how technology education teaching and learning could be contextualised so it
contributes to improvement in the quality of human life within the earth’s carrying capacity
and conservation of the earth’s vitality and diversity.
This paper identifies three broad areas of challenge that require further research to
improve understanding of and practices in ESD in technology education, policy and cur-
riculum development, teaching and learning, and teacher training. In the sections below the
author refers to some of her previous studies in Australia and Russia to exemplify points
under the discussion.

Policy and curriculum development

Policy and curriculum development should respond to national and, if possible, regional,
economic, social and environmental trends, therefore a focus of ESD through technology
education will vary from country to country. Two dimensions, natural and human capital
and their relative levels of development, could be used as indicators to identify challenges
specific to each country in ESD policy formulation. To measure the levels of human
development and the quality of the environment, the Human Development Index (as an
indicator of health, education, and standard of living) and Ecological footprint (as an
instrument to measure the impact of our lifestyle on the environment) could be used. The
analysis conducted by UNEP (2011) identified two groups of countries that have different
challenges. Figure 1 positions different countries within these dimensions. The first group
needs to reduce their per capita ecological footprint without impairing their quality of life;
the second one needs to improve the well-being of their citizens without drastically
increasing their ecological footprints. These challenges must be reflected in technology
education policies: for developing countries—an emphasis on the social aspects of SD

123
738 M. Pavlova

Fig. 1 Sustainable development targets for developed and developing countries. Source The Ecological
Wealth of Nations: Earth’s Biocapacity as a New Framework for International Cooperation. Global
Footprint Network (2010), p. 13; Human Development Index data from Human Development Report 2009-
Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development. UNDP (2009). Taken from: UNEP (2011)

framed by environmental considerations need to be emphasised, for developed countries—

ecological aspects (Pavlova 2011).
The essential characteristics of ESD stated in the International Implementation Scheme
(UNESCO 2005, 30–31), such as life-long learning and inclusion of formal and non-formal
education, interdisciplinarity, inclusion of social, environmental and economic realms and
use of a variety of pedagogical techniques that promote participatory and first-hand
learning, development of higher-order thinking skills, the emphasis on local needs, pro-
vision of education and capacity-building for communities should be in the policies and
curriculum of all countries to ensure quality. Some strategic perspectives,2 and the con-
nections between them identified by the Framework for the DESD International Imple-
mentation Scheme (UNESCO 2006), could also inform policy and curriculum development
in technology education.
Policy analysis conceptualised through a double challenge framework founded in the
ethics of weak anthropocentrism needs to be conducted in different contexts to provide
policy advice ensuring high quality transformative education. This policy research is

2
Human rights, Peace and human security, Gender equality, Cultural diversity and intercultural under-
standing, Health, HIV/AIDS, Governance, Natural resources (water, energy, agriculture, biodiversity),
Climate change, Rural development, Sustainable urbanisation, Disaster prevention and mitigation, Poverty
reduction, Corporate responsibility and accountability, and Market economy (UNESCO 2006, 18–20).

123
Teaching and learning for sustainable development 739

essential for identification of the nature of ESD in technology education and for formu-
lation of its educational goals.
Two examples of action research aimed at ESD policy formulation conducted by the
author could illustrate the point. Through the work of the focus group that was composed
of technology teachers, Technology Education Syllabus (Queensland, Australia) was under
revision. Through the researcher’s input sustainability was introduced as one of the
foundations of the course. However, despite the researcher’s effort, only the environmental
aspect of sustainability was included: systems to ensure sustainability, eco-footprint,
recycling, lifecycle analysis, principles of sustainable design (QSA 2007). That reflects the
country’s challenges in terms of environmental issues but not the levels of human
development. Environmental values were prevailing through the process of curriculum
development.
The results of another action research study in a totally different context, Russia,
(Pavlova 2006) demonstrated that the majority of technology education teachers involved
in the study defined ESD as developing moral values and responsibilities and changing the
way people think. This response is closely related to the local context as in Russia,
‘‘upbringing’’ (values development) has been seen as an important part of education.
Teachers accepted the ideas of ESD with enthusiasm and saw them as already closely
related to their practice. The areas they suggest to include in curriculum relate to four
major possibilities:
• Re-use products/packaging (students developed ideas on how to re-use plastic bottles.
In their local context students can observe examples of bottle re-use);
• Use of industrial waste (timber, textile—patchwork, toys for childcare, metal) to design
and make new products;
• Eco-technologies (alternative energy sources, interior design from natural forest
materials);
• Social and cultural aspects of sustainability (re-birth of traditional crafts). (Pavlova
2006)
These studies illustrate how different the aspects of sustainability accepted/proposed for
curriculum development were in different contexts.
Research on this level is essential in formulating goals for ESD through technology
education. There is no single model of SD (e.g. Robinson 2004), thus approaches to ESD
are different across different countries, technology subjects and levels of education. As a
result, it is impossible to have a universal definition of education for sustainable devel-
opment. One example by Huckle and Sterling (2005) stated that ESD is:
a process that develops people’s awareness, competence, attitudes and values,
enabling them to be effectively involved in sustainable development at local,
national and international levels, and helping them to work towards a more equitable
and sustainable future. (p. 1)
ESD should be defined at the policy level to prioritize embedding learning into locally
and culturally appropriate contexts, emphasizing quality of life and capacity-building for
communities, and addressing SD concepts.
Some research that has been conducted in technology education 10 years ago could be
also revisited in the light of the ESD and new ethics. For example, research on knowledge
in technology education (Pavlova 2005) identified a number of components that constitute
knowledge in technology education. Values and sustainability were included in the model;
however, they were not an overarching framework for knowledge conceptualisation. This

123
740 M. Pavlova

research requires updating and should be revised as the why question is gaining more and
more importance nowadays. Another example is research that underpins the development
of Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA 2000). One of the Standards includes
understanding of the relationships between technology and society and suggests to look at:
the cultural, social, economic and political effects of technology; the effects of technology
on the environment; and the role of society in the development and use of technology.
These issues are addressed at the cognitive level only. Another important document,
Technically Speaking (Pearson and Young 2002), suggests a model of technological lit-
eracy that includes three interdependent dimensions—knowledge, ways of thinking and
acting, and capabilities. This approach moves beyond the purely cognitive-based tech-
nology education curriculum; however, values and ESD ethics are not present. Therefore,
additional research is required on how to address values and develop attitudes through the
cognitive aspects presented in the Standards.
Challenges associated with policy formulation and curriculum development specific to a
particular country need to be addressed through research.

Teaching and learning

The transformative education that is argued in this paper to be an appropriate way to

‘deliver’ ESD through technology education, implies teaching and learning processes that
help students to construct and appropriate new and revised meaning of experiences. Since
the early 1980s research into fostering transformative learning in the classroom was based
on diverse theoretical perspectives about the process of transformation. As argued by
Taylor (2008) at least four main perspectives could be identified: psychocritical, psycho-
analytic, psychodevelopmental and social emancipatory views. Differences in views about
transformative teaching and learning relate to the goal of transformation of personal (self-
actualization) or emancipatory transformation (planetary consciousness3). The first three
perspectives give little consideration to the role of context and social change in the
transformative experience. The ‘unit of analysis’ there is the individual. The fourth per-
spective is focused on social transformation, so the world can become a better place for all
to live. It is as much about social change as individual transformation; it appreciates the
role of social or cultural differences in transformative learning.
This social emancipatory view of transformative education could be the most appro-
priate way of teaching and learning for SD. Three teaching approaches central to fostering
emancipatory transformative learning are: the critical reflection (to identify the ways their
agency could transform society and students’ own reality); the liberating approach to
teaching (facilitating cognition, problem-posing and discussions); and equal, horizontal
student–teacher relationships (Freire and Macedo 1995).
Transformative learning can be observed in a non-Eurocentric orientation of learning
that is culturally bounded, oppositional, and non-individualistic:
Traditionally, African people have had systems of education that were transforma-
tive. Rites of passage and rituals are among the many forms Africans have created to
nurture the consciousness of every member of society into a greater connection with
the Self, the Community, and the Universe. (Williams 2003, p. 463)

3
See Pavlova (2009a) for discussion on planetary consciousness.

123
Teaching and learning for sustainable development 741

Similar approaches, for example, have been used by the Aborigines in Australia
(Morrison and Carmody 1996) and by the indigenous people of the Far North of Russia
(Shamaeva et al. 1995).
Currently, almost no research has been conducted in technology education concerned
with transformative teaching and learning. As argued elsewhere (e.g. Pavlova 2009a) it is
essential for applying ESD ideas in technology education classrooms. The nature of
technology education provides a rich context that could help students to transform their
worldviews and answer the important question of why we are teaching technology in
schools. A transformative pedagogy should:
• help students to recognise a situation as being ethically (morally) problematic,
• enable students to have a voice and express their feelings and thoughts, and
• find a solution that serves the best interests of all parties involved.
Classroom activities need to cultivate students’ responsibility where moral values serve
as a reference point for analysis undertaken and decisions made by the students.
Research on values in technology education (Pavlova 2002) concludes that three
components of values have to be taken into account when learning activities are designed:
• Cognitive component provides the awareness of different values and demonstrates
reasons to put moral values first.
• Affective component establishes links between the technological task and students,
feeling by putting technology into a meaningful context.
• Behaviour component gives students an opportunity to act in accordance with their
moral values.
The results of school-based research on ESD vary even within the context of one
country. Pavlova and Turner (2007) found that students respond very positively to SD
issues addressed through technology education and appropriate to their contexts. An
example of a study at the primary school level examined the introduction of a new ESD
learning activity through technology education for students in Year 3. They were designing
board games to teach a friendly monster about eco-food. The duration of the project was
around 15 hours over a period of 4 weeks. A number of new topics were introduced to
students, including eco-food and three aspects of sustainable development: economic,
social and ecological using the example of a plastic children’s slide. Students worked in
groups. They drafted their games, including development of the rules, designed the boards
and drew them on paper. The study found that students were very proud of the results of
their work. Students’ satisfaction and feelings of pride observed by the teacher and
researchers and students’ survey responses suggest that students were involved in effective
ESD learning. Through active involvement in thinking and making, students understood
some ESD issues, in particular, the environmental aspects of sustainable development.
Although the original plan included all dimensions of ESD (social, economic and envi-
ronmental), the project was adjusted, based on teacher’s advice. This led to the particular
focus on the environmental issues through the cognitive, practical and aesthetics aspects of
design. Students did not have enough knowledge in the social and economic aspects of
sustainability, and their brief exposure to these areas was not enough for their full
engagement. The study concludes that this project would assist learners to adopt new
behaviours in the protection and restoration of the Earth’s ecosystems and develop the
capacity to identify the root causes of threats to sustainable development, and the values,
motivations and skills to address them. All three components of values were addressed and

123
742 M. Pavlova

students changed the content of their lunch boxes as the project progressed. At this early
age a transformation at the personal level was observed.
Another school-based study found that students were not particularly interested in
sustainability issues addressed through technology education (Mooney 2006). This study
introduced a 7 week project, The house that culture built. Year 9 students were asked to
research, design and make a model house that represents a particular culture within the
school to be assembled into a 3–dimensional mural to celebrate the school’s cultural
diversity. An initial survey of ten students revealed that they did not have in-depth
understanding of what a culture is. Half of the students stated that they could not define/
describe the meaning of culture; five students responded that they do not relate to any
culture. As a result of the project students’ understanding of this concept increased and
they became better related to a particular culture. A majority of students were not familiar
with the notion of sustainable development, had difficulties in relating the notion of culture
to SD, and their attitudes towards the project were not very positive. A number of reasons
for this were presented in the study, including a non-design-based nature of this technology
program, so students found it difficult to learn about design-based approaches and new
concepts of sustainable development, including culture. Teachers involved in observation
of this project suggested improvements through addressing mainly environment aspects of
SD in technology education, something that is more visible in society. Affective and
behaviour components of students’ values had not been reached through the project.
These two studies revealed mixed students’ attitudes towards ESD learning in tech-
nology education, and emphasised the environmental aspect as being appropriate for the
Australian context in these Brisbane schools. It also demonstrated the importance of cross-
curricular links as in both cases students did not have enough knowledge and under-
standing that could be gained through other subjects to increase outcomes of students,
learning in the technology education classroom. The importance of affective and behaviour
components of values was also highlighted. These results support the argument that it is
important to study further the types of projects and themes relevant to different ages and
different contexts and an appropriate pedagogy to be applied. Both studies employed an
action research methodology where researchers and teachers worked closely together.
Another study I want to refer to in this section used activity theory for analysing
differences in learning that could occur in the context of a ‘typical’ developed and
developing country when the students design and make toys from recyclable materials
(Pavlova 2006). Activity theory is a conceptual tool developed to help in understanding the
process of learning that is situated within a particular cultural-historical context (Vygotsky
1978, 1987; Leont’ev 1981; Engeström 1987, 1993, 1995, 1999). Figure 2 represents the
model of human activity.
This analysis demonstrates that differences in the object of activity are closely related to
the challenges each type of country is facing. Although on the surface students could be
involved in similar activities in the classroom (design and make toys from recyclable
materials), the learning that would take place could be different and models of ESD, if they
are to be effective, should reflect the differences. The differences are summarised as ‘ideal
models’ in Table 1.
Each country, however, has a specific combination of features described by ideal types.
In the Russian context (in a mid-size city) the objects of activity are, on the one hand, to
reuse, recycle, manage waste, minimise the use of resources, understand the issues of
limited resources and pollution, think about broader communities and increase awareness
within the local community about SD issues (the ‘developed country’ model). On the other
hand, they are also related to improvement of the quality of life for the local people by

123
Teaching and learning for sustainable development 743

Fig. 2 The structure of a human activity system (Engeström 1987, p. 78)

Table 1 The object of activity

The object of Developed country The least developed country
activity

Economic Reuse, recycle, waste management Mainly reuse

(reasons)
Social To minimise the use of resources; Have no other resources or materials;
importance Understand an issue of limited resources Improve the quality of life for the local
(reasons) and pollution, think about broader people by creating a toy that meets the
communities, increase awareness of the real need (mainly social aspect)
local community (mainly ecological
aspect)
Personal High, enjoy High, enjoy
importance
(reasons)
Environmental Among the major reasons Almost a side-effect of the activity
(reasons)

Source Pavlova (2006), p. 46

creating products that meet the real everyday needs of the people who may be better off
saving money by not buying similar products from the shop and through the revival of
traditional crafts (closer to the ‘developing country’ model).
The study revealed that differences in the object of activity in the different contexts
constituted an important basis for the development of ESD teaching and learning activities
and approaches. Both educational knowledge and educational policies need to re-examine
assumptions behind the belief in the universal validity of approaches designed within the
context of developed countries. The study concluded that students are learning about a
number of similar and different aspects of sustainability and although the contribution of
TE is different in different contexts, the joint effort across countries should lead to a more
sustainable future of our planet.
Evidences and analysis provided by current studies identified many challenges that
should be addressed through teaching and learning. Therefore, further research framed by
the idea of transformative education should be undertaken to examine how the process of
transformative learning can be fostered in technology education classrooms; what could
the nature of technological tasks be; what are teachers and students’ roles in fostering

123
744 M. Pavlova

transformative learning; what are the impacts of the results of transformative learning on
learners and communities.

Teacher training

To enable transformative pedagogy teachers need to be aware of their own frames of

reference and how they shape their practices. Teachers also need to transform through the
process of helping students to transform. To develop a particular worldview, a particular
educational philosophy developed through training would increase the likelihood of
transformative learning in the classes of these teachers. Mezirow (2000) claims that change
to our worldview is a process of learning that occurs in at least one of four ways: by
elaborating existing frames of reference, by learning new frames of reference, by trans-
forming points of view, or by transforming habits of mind. A systematic and holistic
approach towards development of teacher training programs is required. All four
approaches stated by Mezirow (2000) need to be employed through technology teacher
training pedagogy.
Studies on both initial training (Pavlova 2009a) and in-service training (e.g. Pavlova
2009b; Pitt and Lubben 2009) demonstrated effectiveness of the teaching approaches used
to increase teachers’ awareness and appreciation of SD issues, and readiness to implement
ESD in their classroom. A coherent and multidimensional restructuring of an initial
technology teacher training program has been conceptualised, implemented and analysed
by Pavlova (2009a). The model for inclusion of ESD in a university training program was
based on general principles such as environment-development relationships, the nature of
knowledge and the eight ESD principles for universities framed by the aims of technology
education for SD. The eight principles that characterise the program development approach
are: integration of sustainability across the curriculum, academic research on sustainability,
outreach and service to community, sustainable program operation, staff development and
rewards, student opportunities, cultural inclusivity and articulation of social responsibility.
The aims of technology education for ESD include: know and understand problems/
issues associated with sustainable futures, contribute towards promotion of SD and
increasing awareness of sustainable development issues through projects/activities, design
and make products using eco-design principles4 and principles of social sustainability,
work in accord with SD practices, and appreciate the relationships between aesthetics and
ethics for SD (Pavlova 2009b).
The coherent implementation of the model through many courses in the Bachelor of
Technology Education program (classroom activities and assessment items) helped stu-
dents to formulate their understanding and attitudes towards SD, and to develop teaching
materials. The results of a student survey demonstrated that 21 out of 22 respondents
identified SD as an issue of importance for them and 19 out of 22 students believed that
they would incorporate ESD in technology education. However, this research was not
focused on students’ ethical framework nor on what ethical principles student teachers
would address in their teaching. Therefore, the nature of transformative teacher training is
not known, nor are the ways transformative pedagogy could be taught in different contexts.
Research is required that is specifically focused on the transformative nature of teacher
training.

4
See for example, Ecodesign Tools and 10 Golden Guidelines, http://www.pre.nl/ecodesign/ecodesign.htm.

123
Teaching and learning for sustainable development 745

Research areas

Three areas of challenge discussed in this paper also provide three broad themes for ESD
research:
• policy and curriculum development,
• teaching and learning practices, and
• teacher training approaches.
Within each area a number of research programs could be developed that are specific for
particular regions or countries. For example:
• what are the most effective ways to address these challenges for the countries at
different levels of economic development; what constitutes technology for sustainable
development in different contexts/countries; what is the nature of ESD in technology
education, its educational goals; functional effectiveness of the policies; the role of TE
in transformative education; human inventiveness and design of ethical products,
systems and environments.
• what is an appropriate content knowledge associated with ESD at different levels of
studies; students’ learning and assessment of ESD related learning; students’ attitudes
towards SD issues; evaluation of learning, including higher order thinking skills
developed through the ESD activities; effectiveness of teaching and learning to meet
the goals of transformative education.
• teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and attitudes; evaluation of effectiveness and validity of
approaches used for technology teacher training and future perspectives.
This research should drawn on approaches developed by different disciplines and
methods, including philosophical research and policy analysis, educational psychology and
pedagogy, educational and social theories, and comparative education.

Conclusions

The analysis presented in this paper suggests that three essential areas of challenge that
need to be addressed to include ESD in technology education are policy formulation,
teaching and learning for SD and teacher training. The development of this argument is
based on conceptualisation of technology education through the ethics of weak anthro-
pocentrism and the need for critical (Pavlova 2009a), transformative education (Pavlova
2011).
This approach highlights the importance of contextualised approaches to technology
education developments in addressing these challenges. Two main groups of countries to
be acknowledged are the ones that need to reduce their per capita ecological footprint
without impairing their quality of life, and those that need to improve the well-being of
their citizens without drastically increasing their ecological footprints. Therefore, in some
countries the main emphasis in ESD through technology education will be on ecological
issues, and in the others, on social issues where the economy dimension will underpin both.
Each country has a unique combination of issues to be addressed through technology
education.
This paper also identifies three broad areas for research in ESD that relate to the above
challenges of policy formulation, teaching and learning for SD and teacher training. This
research should be framed by a shared vision about quality education and a society that

123
746 M. Pavlova

lives in balance with the Earth’s carrying capacity, and one that contributes to achieving
the aims of transformative education through TE.

References

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (2004). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. In W. Scott &
S. Gough (Eds.), Key issues in sustainable development and learning: A critical review (pp. 63–68).
London: Routledge Falmer.
Ball, S. J. (1994). Educational reform: A critical and post structural approach. Buckingham: Open Uni-
versity Press.
Ball, S. J. (1997). Policy sociology and critical social research: A personal review of recent education policy
and policy research. British Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 257–274.
Bonnett, M. (2002). Education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Environmental Education Research,
8(1), 9–20.
Campbell, W. J., McMeniman, M. M., & Baikaloff, N. (1992). Visions of a desirable future for Australian
society. New Horizons in Education, 87, 17–39.
Cartea, P. Á. M. (2005). In praise of environmental education. Policy Futures in Education, 3(3), 284–295.
De Vries, M., & Dakers, J. R. (2005). Editorial. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
15(2), 95–97.
Elshof, L. (2003). Teacher’s interpretation of sustainable development. In J. Dakers & M. J. de Vries (Eds.),
PATT-13 international conference on design and technology educational research (pp. 45–51).
Glasgow, UK: Faculty of Education University of Glasgow.
Elshof, L. (2005). Teacher’s interpretation of sustainable development. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 15(2), 173–186.
Elshof, L. (2009). Towards sustainable practices in technology education. International Journal of Tech-
nology and Design Education, 19(2), 133–147.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research.
Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies on work as a testbench of activity theory. In S. Chaiklin & J.
Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1995). Objects, contradictions and collaboration in medical cognition: An activity-theo-
retical perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 7, 395–412.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R.
Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. P. (1995). A dialogue: Culture, language, race. Harvard Educational Review, 65,
377–402.
Hill, A. M., & Elshof, L. (2007). Sustainable practices as an aspect of technological literacy: Research
findings from secondary school teachers’ and their classrooms. In J. Dakers, W. Dow, & M. de Vries
(Eds.), Teaching and learning technological literacy in the classroom: The PATT-18 international
conference on design and technology educational research (pp. 241–250). Glasgow: University of
Glasgow Print Unit.
Holdsworth, I., & Conway, B. (1999). Investigating values in secondary design and technology education.
The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 4(3), 205–214.
Huckle, J. (2006). Education for sustainable development: A briefing paper for the training and development
agency for schools. http://john.huckle.org.uk/download/2708/Education%20for%20Sustainable%20
Development,%20a%20briefing%20paper%20for%20the%20Teacher%20Training%20Agency.doc.
Huckle, J., & Sterling, S. (2005). Education for sustainability: An invitation to join a debate. http://
john.huckle.org.uk/publications_downloads.jsp.
International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for
the study of technology. Reston, Virginia: The author.
IUCN, Unep, & WWF. (1991). Caring for the earth: A strategy for sustainable living. Switzerland: IUCN.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.
Lundegård, I., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Conflicts of interest: An indispensable element of education for
sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 13(1), 1–15.
Marginson, S. (1993). Education and public policy in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

123
Teaching and learning for sustainable development 747

Martin, M. (2003). Significance of sustainability issues for design and technology education: Rhetoric,
reality and resources. In J. Dakers & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), PATT-13 International conference on
design and technology educational research (pp. 165–169). Glasgow, UK: Faculty of Education
University of Glasgow.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformative theory. In J. Mezirow
(Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Miller, C., & Pitt, J. (2000). Live Well! Live wisely! Technology for sustainable development. London:
Intermediate Technology.
Mooney, B. (2006). Facilitating Socio-cultural learning within technology education. Unpublished Honours
dissertation supervised by M. Pavlova. Griffith University: Brisbane.
O’Neill, M. H. (1995). Introduction. In D. S. G. Carter & M. H. O’Neill (Eds.), International perspectives on
educational reform and policy implementation (pp. 1–11). London: Falmer Press.
Parker, W. C., Ninomiya, A., & Cogan, J. (1999). Educating world citizens: Toward multinational curric-
ulum development. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 117–145.
Pavlova, M. (2001). Theorising knowledge in technology education: Policy analysis of four countries.
Unpublished PhD Thesis. La Trobe University: Melbourne.
Pavlova, M. (2002). ‘‘Teaching’’ values in technology education: a critical approach for the theoretical
framework. In H Middleton, M. Pavlova and D. Roebuck (Ed), Learning in Technology Education:
Challenges for the 21st Century, Proceedings of the 2nd Biennial International Conference on Tech-
nology Education Research (pp.96 –102).Brisbane: Griffith University.
Pavlova, M. (2005). Knowledge and values in technology education. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 15(2), 127–147.
Pavlova, M. (2006). Technology education for sustainable futures. Design and Technology Education: An
International Journal, 11(2), 41–53.
Pavlova, M. (2009a). Conceptualisation of technology education within the paradigm of sustainable
development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 109–132.
Pavlova, M. (2009b). Technology and vocational education for sustainable development: Empowering
individuals for the future. Dordrecht: Springer.
Pavlova, M. (2011). ESD through technology education: contextualisation of approaches. African Journal of
Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(3), 41–55.
Pavlova, M., & Turner, S. (2007). It’s never too early: education for sustainable development. The Inter-
national Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 2(7), 69–76.
Pearson, G., & Young, A. T. (Eds.). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more
about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Peters, M. A., & Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E. (2008). Introduction. In E. González-Gaudiano & M. A. Peters
(Eds.), Environmental education: Identity, politics and citizenship (pp. 1–11). Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Pitt, J., & Lubben, F. (2009). The social agenda of education for sustainable development within Design &
Technology: The case of the sustainable design award. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 19(2), 167–186.
QCA. (2007a). New secondary national curriculum. Retrieved October 21, 2007, from http://www.qca.org.
uk/libraryAssets/media/D-and-T_KS3_PoS.pdf.
QCA. (2007b). GCE AS and A level subject criteria for design and technology (September 2006).Retrieved
October 21, 2007, from http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/qca-06–2845_design_technology.
pdf.
QSA. (2007). Technology studies syllabus. Brisbane: The State of Queensland.
Ritz, J. M. (2009). A new generation of goals for technology education. Journal of Technology Education,
20(2), 50–64.
Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological
Economics, 48, 369–384.
Shamaeva, M. I., Semenova, V. D., & Sitnikova, N. V. (1995). Didakticheskii material ‘Natsional’no –
regionalnuj component na urokah anglijskogo jazuka’’ [Teaching materials ‘‘National – regional
component for English lessons’]. Yakutsk: Bitchik.
Stables, K. (2009). Educating for environmental sustainability and educating for creativity: Actively
compatible or missed opportunities? International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
19(2), 199–219.
Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable education, re-visioning learning and change. Dartington: Green Books.
Sterling, S. (2004). Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Schumacher Briefings no. 6.
Devon: Green Books, Ltd.

123
748 M. Pavlova

Sterling, S. (2007) From the push of fear, to the pull of hope: Learning by design. Southern African Journal
of Environmental Education, 24, 30-34. Retrieved 12 March 2010, from http://www.eeasa.org.
za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64:southern-african-journal-of-environmental-
education-volume-24-2007&catid=45:journals&Itemid=72.
Stevenson, R. B. (2006). Tensions and transitions in policy discourse: Recontextualizing a decontextualized
EE/ESD debate. Environmental Education Research, 12(3–4), 277–290.
Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
119, 5–15.
UN. (1992, June). Rio declaration on environment and development. Presented at the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. http://www.un.
org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.
UNEP (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication.
Access from www.unep.org/greeneconomy on June 2011.
UNESCO. (1969). Final report.I Intergovernmental conference of experts on the scientific basis for rational
use and conservation of the resources of the biosphere, Paris, 4-13 September 1968. Document SC/
MD/9. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000172/017269eb.pdf.
UNESCO. (1997) Educating for a Sustainable Future: A Transdisciplinary Vision for Concerted Action.
Prepared for International Conference on Environment and Society: Education and Public Awareness
for Sustainablity. Thessalonika (Greece), 8-12 December 1997. Document EPD-97/CONF.401/CLD.1.
Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2005). United Nations decade of education for sustainable development 2005–2014. UNESCO
Education Sector: International implementation scheme. Paris.
UNESCO. (2006). Framework for the DESD international implementation scheme. Paris: UNESCO Edu-
cation Sector. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001486/148650E.pdf.
UNESCO. (2009, March-April). Bonn Declaration on Education for Sustainable Development. UNESCO
World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development, Bonn, Germany. Bonn: German
Commission for UNESCO.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. New York: Plenum.
Wicklein, R. (Ed.). (2001). Appropriate technology for sustainable living. 50th yearbook of the Council on
Technology Teacher Education. VA: ITEA.
Williams, S. H. (2003). Black mama sauce: Integrating the theatre of the oppressed and afrocentricity in
transformative learning. In C. A. Wiessner, S. R. Meyer, N. L. Pfhal, and P. G. Neaman (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Transformative Learning, (cited in Taylor, 2008).

123
Copyright of International Journal of Technology & Design Education is the property of
Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.