Sustainability education has become an integrative part of educational systems globally. Home Economics teachers view sustainability education as essential, although there are variations in how they emphasize the topic in their teaching. Studies have shed light on how they practice sustainable food (e.g., Gelinder et al., 2019, Gisslevik, et al. 2019) and textile and clothing education (Kuusisaari et al., 2024), as well as how they emphasize cultural sustainability in food education (Bohm, 2023). Although Finnish Home Economics teachers' beliefs about ICT use have been explored recently (Sundqvist, 2023), this perspective has not yet been applied to sustainability education. Van Driel et al. (2007) have pointed out that less scientific attention has been given to teachers' subject-specific beliefs than to educational beliefs in general. Thus, we examine the subject-specific beliefs of Home Economics teachers regarding sustainability education, specifically focusing on how they integrate cultural and social sustainability into their classroom practices. Our data was gathered through semi-structured interviews with Finnish Home Economics teachers working in basic education (n=13). Teachers view social and cultural sustainability as interconnected with the themes of consuming, housing, clothing, and food. Teachers emphasize that to promote social and cultural sustainability, they enhance students' critical thinking, information seeking, collaboration, and intercultural skills, as well as teach them to appreciate equality, Finnish customs and traditions. By examining Finnish teachers' views and beliefs about sustainability education, we contribute to the understanding of the multifaceted aspects of sustainability in Nordic educational research.
References
Bohm, I. (2023). Cultural sustainability: a hidden curriculum in Swedish home economics?. Food, Culture & Society, 26(3), 742–758. DOI: 10.1080/15528014.2022.2062957
Gelinder, L., Hjälmeskog, K.& Lidar, M. (2019). Sustainable food choices? A study of student’s actions in a home and consumer studies classroom. Environmental Education Research, 26(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1698714
Gisslevik, E., Wernersson, I. & Larsson, C. (2019). Pupils’ participation in and response to sustainable food education in Swedish home and consumer studies: A case-study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,63(4), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1415965
Kuusisaari, H., Campbell, M., & Autio, M. (2024). Home Economics Teachers' Endeavors to Engage Students in Sustainability Thinking Through Clothing and Fashion: A Transformational Teaching Approach. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. Forthcoming.
Sundqvist, K. (2023). Digitalisation Meets Home Economics Teachers: A Mixed-Methods Study of the Conditions Related to Finnish Home Economics Teachers’ Use of Information and Communication Technologies. Åbo Akademi. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-12-4316-5
Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M., & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationships between teachers' general beliefs about teaching and learning and their domain specific curricular beliefs. Learning and instruction, 17(2), 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.010
Sustainability is now a significant topic across various fields, including language education and research, but its importance in language teaching has not yet been thoroughly explored. Language education offers tremendous potential for implementing Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), as the pedagogical processes of language teaching and ESD are complementary to each other, but while researchers have recognised this potential (e.g. de la Fuente, 2021; Kwee, 2021; Maijala et al., 2024), it has yet to be exploited. Studies show that in-service and pre-service language teachers hold positive attitudes towards promoting ESD in language teaching but lack knowledge and skills related to its practical implementation (e.g. Laine et al., 2022 Maijala et al., 2023). Our study will quantitatively and qualitatively analyse questionnaire data to determine the extent to which Finnish language teachers (N=30) apply ESD in language classes. The goal is to develop a large-scale survey on this basis of this pilot study. We expect that language instructors teach aspects of sustainability without recognising their role in sustainable development. Following prior studies, we also assume that language teachers who incorporate ESD are personally dedicated to the objectives of sustainable development (e.g. Fischer & Hänze, 2020). The extent to which various aspects of sustainable development are highlighted appears to be influenced by teachers’ knowledge of teaching methods and their perception of their preparedness to teach sustainability topics (Maijala et al., 2023). The results will be relevant to Nordic educational research by increasing knowledge of ESD implementation in Finnish language education and enabling international comparisons.
References
De la Fuente, M. J. (Ed.). (2021). Education for sustainable development in foreign language learning. Routledge.
Fischer, E., & Hänze, M. (2020). How do university teachers’ values and beliefs affect their teaching? Educational Psychology, 40(3), 296–317.
Kwee, C. T. T. (2021). I want to teach sustainable development in my English classroom: A case study of incorporating sustainable development goals in English teaching. Sustainability, 13(8), 4195.
Laine, P., Kuusalu, S.-R., Maijala, M., & Mutta, M. (2022). Kestävä kehitys kieltenopetuksessa: Kieliaineiden opettajaopiskelijoiden käsityksiä kestävyysaiheista kielten oppitunneilla. In T. Seppälä, S. Lesonen, P. Iikkanen, & S. D’hondt (Eds.), Kieli, muutos ja yhteiskunta—Language, Change and Society. AFinLA Yearbook 2022 (pp. 109–132). Jyväskylä.
Maijala, Minna, Gericke, Niklas, Kuusalu, Salla-Riikka, Heikkola, Leena Maria, Mutta, Maarit, Mäntylä, Katja & Rose, Judi (2024). Conceptualising transformative language teaching for sustainability and why it is needed. Environmental Education Research, 30(3), 377–396, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2023.2167941
Maijala, M., Laine, P., Mutta, M., & Kuusalu, S.-R. (2023). Kestävä kehitys yliopistojen kieltenopetuksessa [Sustainable language teaching at university]. Yliopistopedagogiikka, (2)2023. https://lehti.yliopistopedagogiikka.fi/2023/12/22/kestava-kehitys-yliopistojen-kieltenopetuksessa/
Internationally, education systems are implementing sustainability education (SE) into second-level schools and as is often the case, initial teacher education (ITE) is seen as one mechanism to help these efforts. Previous attempts at SE inclusion in ITE have highlighted that the social dimension of sustainability requires further investigation (Borg et al., 2014). In my presentation I will detail my ongoing journey as a developing teacher educator of navigating SE challenges within ITE including the personal and systemic complexities of the social dimension of sustainability. Research has highlighted reasons behind the social dimension of sustainability being overlooked, namely it is challenging to quantify (Borg et al., 2014; Goosen & Cilliers, 2020), lack of agreed upon definition (Elander & Gustavsson, 2019; Wolff & Ehrström, 2020) and hyperfocus on the environmental dimension (Borg et al., 2014). These challenges with the social dimension add to existing challenges that teacher educators encounter with SE like policy mandates (Evans et al., 2017), personal interests, overloaded ITE curricula (Christie et al., 2015) and lack of support for teaching SE (Wolff et al., 2017). Using self-study methodology, this ongoing research will address the following: (1) How I have attempted to create conditions for SE inclusion in ITE and (2) How I have worked within the social dimension to bring focus to the personal and systemic barriers within SE. I engage with Depth Education (Machado de Oliveira, 2021) throughout this exploration to maintain critical reflexivity on my own practices as well as the conditions and context I am working within. Findings and insights from this journey with SE and Depth Education will be shared and how when combined, may offer a different kind of hope for sustaining society and the planet.
References
Borg, C., Gericke, N., Höglund, H. O., & Bergman, E. (2014). Subject- and experience-bound differences in teachers’ conceptual understanding of sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 20(4), 526-551. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833584
Christie, B. A., Miller, K. K., Cooke, R., & White, J. G. (2015). Environmental sustainability in higher education: What do academics think? Environmental Education Research, 21(5), 655-686. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.879697
Elander, I., & Gustavsson, E. (2019). From policy community to issue networks: Implementing social sustainability in a Swedish urban development programme. Environment and planning. C, Politics and space, 37(6), 1082-1101. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418820077
Evans, N., Stevenson, R. B., Lasen, M., Ferreira, J.-A., & Davis, J. (2017). Approaches to embedding sustainability in teacher education: A synthesis of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 405-417. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.013
Goosen, Z., & Cilliers, E. J. (2020). Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third Places: A Theory-Based Framework. Social indicators research, 150(3), 835-866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02350-7
Machado de Oliveira, V. (2021). Hospicing modernity: facing humanity's wrongs and the implications for social activism. North Atlantic Books.
Wolff, L.-A., & Ehrström, P. (2020). Social sustainability and transformation in higher educational settings: A utopia or possibility? Sustainability, 12(10), 4176.
Wolff, L.-A., Sjöblom, P., Hofman-Bergholm, M., & Palmberg, I. (2017). High Performance Education Fails in Sustainability? —A Reflection on Finnish Primary Teacher Education. Education sciences, 7(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010032