Environmental Education Research

ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Insights into the value of a ‘stand‐alone’ course for

sustainability education

Kathryn Hegarty , Ian Thomas , Cathryn Kriewaldt , Sarah Holdsworth &

Sarah Bekessy

To cite this article: Kathryn Hegarty , Ian Thomas , Cathryn Kriewaldt , Sarah Holdsworth &
Sarah Bekessy (2011) Insights into the value of a ‘stand‐alone’ course for sustainability education,
Environmental Education Research, 17:4, 451-469, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2010.547931

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.547931

Published online: 06 Jul 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 840

View related articles

Citing articles: 27 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
Environmental Education Research
Vol. 17, No. 4, August 2011, 451–469

Insights into the value of a ‘stand-alone’ course for

sustainability education
Kathryn Hegarty*, Ian Thomas, Cathryn Kriewaldt, Sarah Holdsworth and Sarah
Bekessy

School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
(Received 3 September 2009; final version received 8 December 2010)
Taylor and Francis
CEER_A_547931.sgm

Environmental
10.1080/13504622.2010.547931
1350-4622
Original
Taylor
02011
00
Dr.
kathryn.hegarty@rmit.edu.au
000002011
KathrynHegarty
&Article
Francis
(print)/1469-5871
Education Research
(online)

Education for sustainability (EfS) is emerging as an urgent imperative and

challenge for higher education. But what exactly does it mean to put sustainability
into higher education? How do we bring sustainability themes into university
curriculum, across the enormous diversity of academic disciplines? This paper
describes the experience of teaching a large ‘stand-alone’ EfS subject which sits
within the professional contexts of the large first-year cohort undertaking it. We
describe the themes, architecture and approach to sustainability education taken in
this course and evaluate the learning and assessment activities offered to students.
We conclude with reflections on the student experience and feedback, which
suggests that while academics build towards a deeply embedded sustainability
ethic in higher education, specialist parallel courses have a valuable role to play in
the transition to sustainable futures.
Keywords: education for sustainability; triple bottom line (TBL); learner-centered
pedagogy; transferable skills; sustainable futures

Introduction
Recently, there has been an urgent call for universities to engage with sustainability
education. The Australian Commonwealth Government ‘National Action Plan on
Education for Sustainability’ is based on the following principles (Department of the
Environment 2009):

● transformation and change,

● education for all and lifelong learning,
● systems thinking,
● envisioning a better future,
● critical thinking and reflection,
● participation and
● partnerships for change.

The many pressures of climate chaos and injustice and peak resources have resulted
in acknowledgement of the needs for graduates to have appropriate skills, knowledge
and empowerment to respond, both to mitigate the coming crises and to build renewed

*Corresponding author. Email: kathryn.hegarty@rmit.edu.au

ISSN 1350-4622 print/ISSN 1469-5871 online

© 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2010.547931
http://www.informaworld.com
452 K. Hegarty et al.

futures which are broadly sustainable and deliverable. Consequently, the range of
professional positions that focus specifically on environmental and/or sustainability
issues has become quite broad (Thomas et al. 2007). Considerable literature exists on
introducing and, ideally, embedding sustainability principles in university curriculum
(Barth et al. 2007; Cocklin 2008; Down 2006; Fenner et al. 2005; Kühtz 2007; Kumar
et al. 2005; Lourdel et al. 2005; Sipos and Kurt 2008; Stibbe and Villiers-Stuart 2009).
This growing field is variously known; our preferred identifier is that of ‘education for
sustainability’(EfS), which gives primacy to best practice in learning and teaching as
the point of entry to sustainability skills and knowledge.
The EfS field is not characterised by any particular definition of sustainability.
This paper, and the approach to educating for sustainability contained herein, is under-
pinned by an understanding of sustainability as a process.
Sustainability means that as a society we are aware of the impact of our actions on
others and on the planet that we take responsibility for these actions and are transpar-
ent in our processes (adapted from the definition of sustainability from Sustainable
Living Festival, Melbourne 2007).
The UN Decade on Education for Sustainable Development (UNESCO 2007) and
other international initiatives, such as the Talloiries Declaration (ULSF 2008), have
provided directions for universities to revise their approach to campus operations and
curriculum to give emphasis to sustainability issues. The EfS project has endured
some frustration in seeking to deeply embed principles of sustainability in curriculum,
especially on the ‘front line’ of undergraduate studies (Hegarty 2008a; Thomas 2004).
The exhortation that all disciplines must engage with sustainability, as it is locally
understood by them, has been only variously acknowledged. Yet, our communities’
futures depend on the active endorsement of sustainability by all professional fields
and disciplines.
The best means to embed and distil sustainability studies into higher education has
been the subject of an ongoing debate within EfS. One aspect of this debate relates to
the important, but inevitably longitudinal, goal of leading academics in all disciplines
to situate their teaching and curriculum within a sustainability framework. This
aspiration requires nothing less than a transformation in the organisational cultures of
universities (Moore et al. 2005). While much work is ongoing within universities to
lead and exhort academics to take up the sustainability challenge, equally we must
progress EfS where traction for change already exists. Thus, one of the key discus-
sions within the EfS project relates to the value of so-called ‘bolt on’ or ‘stand-alone’
courses/subjects. By these we refer to courses taught by staff with expertise in, and
likely a strong ethical commitment to, sustainability; ethical and philosophical
commitments are inherent principles of sustainability (Barth et al. 2007; Gudz 2004;
Martin 2005; Timmerman and Metcalfe 2009). Such courses often exist in parallel to
the students’ core studies or major sequences. Discussion about the value of stand-
alone courses versus the integration of sustainability across all courses of a degree
programme has proceeded for more than a decade (Barth et al. 2007; Sterling and
Thomas 2006). Obviously, deep integration of EfS is crucial as we seek to build
sustainable futures. But part of the necessary change process must be that sustainabil-
ity scholars find ways to introduce EfS principles into their courses and perhaps into
elements of those of colleagues, as we seek to build the change that will lead to
integration. The literature on EfS demonstrates the only too well the significant
cultural change required for whole of university embedding to occur (Sterling and
Huckle 1996).
 Environmental Education Research 453

While we fully recognise that stand-alone courses are far from ideal, we equally
appreciate that they can be quickly developed and run. Presumably, this is why there
are examples of these courses across a range of disciplines (Fenner et al. 2005; Kumar
et al. 2005; Thomas et al. 2007). We argue here for multidisciplinary approach, which
recognises the ideal of deeply embedded sustainability curriculum, while continuing
to build capability by whatever means currently works.
This paper will explore some elements of the development of a ‘stand-alone’
sustainability course for professional degree programmes focusing on a course devel-
oped at RMIT University (Australia). These elements, developed over iterations of
sustainability teaching, have been defined by us as central to an effective ‘stand-alone’
curriculum for sustainability, as we understand and practise it. We will explore the
many challenges involved in leading on, and gaining traction for, such a course. We
will consider the student experience, and reception, of this course through a series of
focus groups conducted with students completing the course in 2008. Finally, we will
consider some emergent research points for future enquiry.

Points of entry to development of the stand-alone course

It is widely accepted that academics understand the world primarily through their
own discipline or field framework (Becher and Trowler 2001; Blättel-Mink and
Kastenholz 2005; Hegarty 2009; Shulman 2004). Shulman (2004) has particularly
noted that classroom teaching is framed by academics through their key content
knowledge. Such cultural norms must be well understood by those seeking to change
and transform universities. Equally, we well know that experiential, integrated
learning experiences and activities are those most likely to develop graduates who
are lifelong, active learners and can readily transfer skill sets and recognise their
value in new, challenging situations (Barrie 2004; Boyer 1990; Dearing 1997;
Hegarty 2009; Kolb 1984; Moon 2004; Shulman 2004). This is a considerable chal-
lenge for the sustainability scholar. We understand that often the amorphous and
intangible nature of this notion, sustainability, requires that it be deeply situated in
local disciplinary meanings and set against the key concerns which characterise each
field. Equally, we are fully aware that if the disciplines do not model a high value for
the relevance of sustainability to their field, students will internalise that subtext and
rightly take their lead from the senior scholars in their fields. Our experience in
research on the integration of sustainability across two disciplinary programmes
confirmed the importance of teaching sustainability issues within the context of the
discipline and profession (Holdsworth, Bekessy, and Thomas 2009). So, with the
pressing global crises of sustainability bearing down on us and with employers
exhorting us to produce graduates whose skills equip them for the contemporary
world, what are we do to? Our previous researches demonstrate the commitment to
finding appropriate strategies and drivers to persuade all academic and professional
disciplines to take up sustainability and embed it in their core training. But our
curriculum models offer insight into a more immediate response to an urgent
problem. We can run our own courses, which inform and sit alongside professional
training, and often seek to build synergies and map common issues, but which are
taught by expert sustainability staff outside the disciplines represented amongst the
student cohort. The EfS literature reveals a number of examples of ‘stand-alone’
courses (Adomssent et al. 2006; Barth et al. 2007; Eisen and Barlett 2006), and the
course described in this paper shares many characteristics. Critically, it offers useful
454 K. Hegarty et al.

learnings for those academics seeking to find a point of entry for sustainability
studies within their institution.

Key elements of the stand-alone course

Sustainability: Society and Environment (SSE) is a first-year undergraduate course
run in our school, Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, at RMIT University.
It was first run in 2004 and is compulsory for seven professional degree programmes1
but is delivered outside their core courses. In addition, the course is available as a
‘Student Elective’ and can be chosen by any undergraduate in the university. In 2008,
there were approximately 25 elective enrolments, including small cohorts from
disciplines such as international studies and business: entrepreneurship.
Made up of these various cohorts, SSE’s annual enrolment is around 470–520
students. The 12-week course is delivered through a lecture and a tutorial/workshop
format comprising three contact hours per week, supported by an online learning hub.
A team of nine tutorial staff conducts the weekly workshops; these tutors are selected
through a rigorous assessment process which focuses on the tutors’ capacity to teach
from a learner-centered (LC) pedagogy, demonstrating the integration of content with
specific skill development.
Tutors are aligned with disciplines in which they have either academic background
or other direct experience. This expertise enables tutors to draw links with those fields
and the specific application of sustainability principles.
Of central concern to the EfS field is the mechanism for determining the content
knowledge and skills, which best enable the application of sustainability literacy.
Application and its scholarship are notions exemplified by Boyer, which simply
means the capacity to mesh technical knowledge with transferable skills, to create a
whole which can be used in changing settings (Boyer 1990). Sustainability literacy is
a contemporary notion, defined by Stibbe and Villiers-Stuart as:

Indicat[ing] the skills, attitudes, competencies, dispositions and values that are necessary
for surviving and thriving in the declining conditions of the world in ways which
mitigate that decline as far as possible. (2009, 10–11)

This set of skills and knowledge informs the curriculum and learning activities which
are taught and fostered during the 12-week programme, with a focus on applied
professional contexts. This course takes a ‘triple bottom line (TBL)’, or ‘three pillars’
approach to the presentation of sustainability (Goldie, Douglas, and Furnass 2005),
highlighting the highly interdependent, often contradictory, relationship of the three
elements of sustainability: society, environment and economy.
Figure 1 exemplifies this relationship (Maryland 2007).
As a result of researches in the field of EfS, and reflection and insight gained from
Figure 1.

student feedback in previous semesters, SSE was revised for 2008 to emphasise the
importance of integration of content knowledge and transferable skills. The Boyer
Model has enshrined the importance of demonstrably integrating all aspects of learn-
ing activities, to show their interrelation and relevance to the learning context; this is
a model of the deep learning outcomes sought by Moon (Boyer 1990; Moon 2004). In
the reiteration of SSE, the coordinators sought to foreground that integration in the
weekly themes and delivery of both content knowledge and preparation for assess-
ment. The themes reflected our shared approach to demonstrating an intermeshed
 Environmental Education Research 455

Figure 1. Visual integration of the TBL (Maryland 2007).

TBL model of sustainability. We were particularly conscious that in previous semes-

ters, many students had expressed a perception that they were being ‘preached at’; that
personal responsibility and even feelings of being ‘blamed’ were experiential
outcomes of the course. We explored a means of reframing the weekly themes in order
to foster insight into notions such as ‘hope’ and ‘empowerment’. The specific content
themes were grouped across the first two-thirds of semester, reflecting social and
environmental challenges, under two notions:

● impacts and emerging solutions and

● hope, empowerment and vision.

The intention was to foreground a sense of shared responsibility for solution-

responses, highlighting another key element of EfS: the multidisciplinary nature of
sustainability practice. These first weeks were divided between consideration of major
social and environmental issues; some examples include poverty and injustice locally
and globally, climate chaos and rising sea levels, food bowl yield and the interface of
sustainability with human ecology, including western consumption levels and social
and community well-being. Throughout the presentation of these themes, and the
skills taught to explicate solutions, was a continuing emphasis on the different points
of entry for each professional field.
The remaining four weeks were devoted to application of concepts within field-
specific frameworks, grouped under the following headings:

● professional contexts and the imaginary and

● personal contexts and the imaginary.
456 K. Hegarty et al.

In these weeks, guest speakers from the fields of the students offered professional
mini-case studies. The students were then asked, in both lecture and tutorial settings,
to apply the key concepts of the course thus far, through their growing professional
lens, in direct relation to the syllabus in the respective discipline subjects. The course
coordinators offered a model of this in the lecture, seeking to demonstrate the integra-
tion of TBL sustainability concepts, the skills of the course and the role of each profes-
sional field in linking the total knowledge to identify approaches to problems. The
final fortnight of the course asked the students to develop and articulate visions of
‘local’ and ‘global’, personally defined applications of sustainability.
What were the determining objectives? As SSE is a first-year course, there are a
number of pedagogical principles which must be reflected in addition to the topic of
sustainability, so the following elements were prioritised:

● developing key academic and transferable skills for transition from first semes-
ter first year to the broader university learning environment,
● enabling the recognition of complex situated problems as significant in the
application of sustainability knowledge,
● highlighting the role of a wide range of values and belief systems in measuring
and evaluating decision-making for sustainable futures and
● emphasising the relationship of the sustainability studies course to the profes-
sional field of each student.

The assessments devised for the course reflected these priority elements. In order to
deliver a professionally situated, integrated curriculum which builds baseline skills,
we identified three key components to assessment (Table 1).
The preferred mechanisms for communication of core content and skill enhance-
ment activities were determined through the lens of the chosen pedagogy. The course
was taught through a LC philosophical framework. The LC model highlights the need
to meaningfully situate concepts and skills for each learner (Kieke, Moroz, and Gort
2007; Shulman 2004). It is crucial for effective learning in universities, as it recogn-
ises implicitly the unique make-up of individual students and allows each student to
bring their specific knowledge to bear on new material (Domask 2007; Eisen and
Barlett 2006). The practice of LC teaching involves giving over the application of
content knowledge to students themselves, whereby they will apply that knowledge in

Table 1. Key learnings and recommendations.

Assessment task Content objectives
Critical analysis of Key academic skills: critical reading, evaluation of 10 + 20%
article × 2 evidence, development of argument (content
knowledge of article relates to key themes of course/
degree).
Ecological footprint Content knowledge on energy, carbon emissions and 20%
calculator impacts; experiential and personally located (LC)
Highlights values and priorities/beliefs’ reflection on
behaviour and change/responsibility.
Field-specific problem ‘Problem’ situated in students’ disciplines academic, 50%
analysis (PBL) professional and transferable skills identified for
students fostered critical decision-making and
reflective practice.
 Environmental Education Research 457

ways unique to each individual. Each LC engagement requires the creation of experi-
ential, three-dimensional learning spaces, using key concepts in undergraduate class-
rooms for application as group activities. This allows the students to move through
new concepts in their own way while using their personal knowledge frames. A singu-
lar didactic presentation is avoided, through the exhortation to students to view these
concepts with their own values and through their shared professional lens. The course
has continually emphasised the valued-based contestation which attends discussions
of sustainability and the move to sustainable futures. Such an approach is particularly
important when teaching in highly diverse environments. A high proportion of RMIT
university students are drawn from ‘non-school leaver’ populations; many are aged
over 21 and have often had varied pathways to higher education. Such students bring
a very different prior knowledge set to their studies than do recent school graduates.
The LC model allows us to situate the curriculum content and learning objectives
meaningfully for each participant.

Devising curriculum for key EfS objectives

Our analysis of the course is considered in the light of our key objectives for EfS.
These elements include:

● sustainability literacy and situated complex problems;

● highlighting the role of values and belief systems;
● emphasising the relationship of the sustainability studies course to the profes-
sional field of each student; and
● the development of key academic and transferable skills.

A considerable literature exists which recognises the applied nature of sustainability

and its dependence on what are often called ‘soft skills’ for realisation in real-world
settings (Barth et al. 2007; de la Harpe and Thomas 2009; Hegarty 2008b; Sterling and
Thomas 2006). Stibbe and Villiers-Stuart (2009) refer to sustainability literacy as
including values and dispositions. These elements demonstrate our understanding of
EfS as a pedagogy and a practice of lifelong learning. This framework allows us to
meaningfully situate the various content and disciplinary knowledge within the
professional contexts brought by our students.

The development of key academic and transferable skills

The EfS field has long recognised that primary skills for sustainability are those trans-
ferable skills which allow knowledge to be developed and applied in new and
constantly changing contexts (Eisen and Barlett 2006; Moore 2005; Sterling and
Thomas 2006). Disciplinary knowledge alone cannot possibly remain pertinent for the
three to four years of undergraduate studies. Therefore, the emphasis in our courses
must be on skills to constantly adapt, update and continue to learn, regardless of the
shifting contexts, imperatives and resources which inform the situated issues facing
our graduate community.
In the context of SSE, we were also very conscious of the role of the course in a
successful transition to university, and the first-year experience more generally. Fortu-
nately, a LC pedagogy best equips students for their transition to university learning
environments, just as it does for sustainability studies (Coombes and Danaher 2006;
458 K. Hegarty et al.

Shulman 2004). In specific terms, this involved building into all assessment tasks an
explicit map of the skills sought (research skills, basic critical analysis, team work and
task management) along with the development of a culture of conscious, self-aware
learning practice. This reflective skill has long been valued by the lifelong learning
project (Hegarty 2008b); equally, reflective practice is commonly emphasised in human
service degrees, such as social work and psychology. However, the explicit focus on
reflective learning practice is relatively new to many undergraduate environments. It
allows a slow, incremental shift of responsibility for learning to the student, propor-
tioned to the growth of their confidence and self-awareness. Such skills are highly
valued within the EfS project, even where their identification is tacit at best (Fenner
et al. 2005; Geli de Ciurana and Filho 2006; Kumar et al. 2005; Moore et al. 2005).
What professional knowledge, then, was fostered through the use of these transfer-
able frameworks? In SSE, we were charged with linking the relevance and imperative
of a TBL (or ‘three-pillar’ model) to the disciplinary and professional fields enrolled
in the course. Therefore, context knowledge is understood as the relationship between
the key concerns of the various professional programmes, such as social work, youth
work and so on, in relation to elements of TBL sustainability. For example, the envi-
ronmental science and humanities students were asked to identify ways in which
conservation and socio-economic goals might contradict each other, co-exist or even
converge. The role of biodiversity in human futures is recognised, as is the necessity
of aspiration and hope for human communities. Such recognition allows us to lead the
students to think in terms of convergence, rather than constructing the TBL model as
merely parallel lines.
To illustrate the vast breadth of relevance and application of sustainability in these
professional areas, we drew heavily on Maslow’s pyramid of human needs, visually
represented in Figure 2 (Maslow 1998).
This visual and conceptual model allows us to present through lived experiences
Figure 2.

the interrelated elements of the TBL; it is very clear to students that where basic, or
safety, needs remain unmet; communities are unlikely to concern themselves with the

Figure 2. Maslow’s pyramid of human needs (Maslow 1998).

 Environmental Education Research 459

purchase of solar cells. Equally, students recognise that higher-order human needs, for
connectedness and self-expression, may well manifest through environmental and
social service and activism. This model allowed us to reference a range of key profes-
sional learning, both discipline-specific and more generic, such as presenting the role
of public policy formation and development in responding to complex conundrums.
The use of Maslow’s pyramid offered a helpful legitimacy with students from
programmes such as social work and psychology, as their own disciplines’ (and
concomitant) key concerns were presented as enabling sustainable futures. This
insight into the enfranchising of disciplines, which may resist the relevance or
applicability of sustainability, is extremely helpful and offers a useful model for the
engagement of disciplines in new areas more generally.
One of the many values of a stand-alone course for sustainability is evident here.
Opportunities to apply professional knowledge are created for students in such a way
as is less likely to occur within the discipline. Students are asked to converge their two
growing skill sets; their professional identity along with key knowledge of sustainabil-
ity; this is not easily created within their home programme. This is a valuable approx-
imation of the real world of work for professionals.

Sustainability literacy and situated complex problems

Sustainability problems are complex, interrelated problems. They do not come in ‘neat
disciplinary packets’ (Matchett 2008). Here we see an example of the great potential
of stand-alone courses that we can approximate a range of professional learning beyond
either sustainability studies or singular field-specific learning. Our reliance on the use
of complex problems for students to begin to interrogate and apply sustainability tool-
kits really does approximate work processes and settings in the kinds of environments
to which our graduates will be drawn. Overwhelmingly, sustainability requires a multi-
disciplinary approach to its implementation (Blättel-Mink and Kastenholz 2005; Hall
et al. 2006; Hegarty 2009; Moore 2005). This insight informed much of our curriculum
development for SSE. Historically, much of university practice has occurred in deep
disciplinary silos; this is unhelpful to students who will need to learn quickly to value
the knowledge sets of diverse others (Baines 2006). Our large multidisciplinary courses
allow us to recognise the challenge involved in investigation with multiple ways of
applying knowledge; students are asked to actively engage the possible range of
responses and put themselves and their view into proposed solutions, reflecting as they
go on the various implications of the options available. The role of the developing
professional self is highlighted.
Equally, complex problems have many potential starting points. The challenge lies
often in determining the ‘back story’ of a problem. What do students need to know to
progress their enquiry? What is needed to begin to respond and set parameters for a
response? Who are the stakeholders, and how is this determined? How is a consensus
solution identified, let alone implemented? What governance structures exist and
apply? While the complexity often discomforts students, the recognition that such
complexity is inherent and unavoidable is a key learning, as is the need for multidis-
ciplinary teams to offer any hope of meaningful, enduring responses.
A problem-based learning (PBL) approach offers a meaningful and rigorous
toolkit to address many of the imperatives of EfS. The Center for Problem-Based
Learning (2006) notes that PBL has a 30-year history and was developed to provide a
student-centered and interdisciplinary approach to educating medical students. An
460 K. Hegarty et al.

overview of PBL is provided by Kendler and Grove (2004, 348) who note ‘the instruc-
tor’s role is to serve only as a facilitator, providing guidance, but not to provide the
solution.’ This view is supported by Creedy (1992, 71) who also identifies the need
for a ‘focus on concepts, not content per se’ to allow student space to explore and gain
understanding through experience (Creedy 1992; Kendler and Grove 2004).
Increasingly, EfS curriculum will include PBL modules, and this is reflected in a
number of sustainability initiatives currently underway, especially in engineering facul-
ties (Fenner et al. 2005). However, we would wish to stipulate that even where formal
PBL is not undertaken, EfS mandates the need to present content knowledge in the
context of the complex, situated forms through which sustainability must be understood.

Highlighting the role of values and belief systems

As part of our reflections on the development and evolution of SSE, we undertook a
qualitative research project with completing students and coordinating staff. Staff
were interviewed, individually, and asked to reflect on their guiding rationales for
various components of the curriculum. Completing students were invited to join focus
groups and offer feedback on key aspects of the course identified by the course coor-
dinators. As students were invited to take part, we were unable to affect the sample,
in order to gain participation which represented course enrolments. Five focus groups
were conducted with students, with a mix of disciplines, the majority of whom were
environmental studies students. The smallest focus group had six participants; the
largest, 14. Clearly, the potential for bias is significant. However, it is not our intention
to draw hypotheses from student responses, but rather, to deeply evaluate students’
own reflections on their learning experience.
Both researches were informed by a grounded theory approach, chosen for its
capacity to enable the emergence and capture of locally driven, experiential insights
(Marquardt 2004). Semi-structured questions and minimal prompts were used in both
research environs to ensure local understandings emerged in the discussion.
The literature which underpins the EfS field posits considerable debate about the
role of values and belief systems in any engagement with ‘sustainability’; it is our
argument that the growth of EfS from one of its many, and debatable, parent disci-
plines: environmental education (EE), necessarily positions us with an explicit
commitment to a set of social and environmental values (Fisher 2004; Orr 1994;
Sterling and Huckle 1996). Interestingly, a number of early projects which sought to
introduce and embed EfS in curriculum resulted in the students themselves engaging
and seeking to debate the values and beliefs which necessarily emerge whenever they
vision sustainable futures (Fenner et al. 2005; Kumar et al. 2005). However, as the
TBL model recognises and enshrines the interplay between economy, society and
environment, we will regularly be confronted by sectors of the community which
resist sustainability precisely because they decry the values which are commonly
associated with it.

We [academics] have to deal in accountabilities because we are in such a powerful posi-

tion … The [curriculum] philosophy has to be grounded in an ethic. It has to be grounded
in a set of values. (SSE Course Coordinator 2008)

This sensitivity creates a particular challenge for the tertiary teacher. Human services,
along with science and engineering programmes are often characterised by their own
 Environmental Education Research 461

(tacit) belief systems and may use existing values to resist new ones or to argue against
those seen as contradictory; for example, social and youth work students often
dismissed sustainability studies as having too much emphasis on environmental
factors and perceived a lack of social empathy. Equally, as we engaged the Maslow
framework, thereby positioning the course in relation to human needs, we highlighted
the role of values and beliefs in determining human choices. As the individual reaches
Maslow’s higher levels, they seek to express themselves and create something which
has personal meaning (Fenner et al. 2005; Kumar et al. 2005; Maslow 1998). For
many in the western world, such meaning is increasingly sought and obtained through
changed behaviours such as reduced consumption, energy and water use, conservation
of biodiversity and ecosystem services and an increased intrinsic value for the natural
world.
In this way, reflection on values and beliefs formed a key component of the course,
both in terms of explicit curriculum content, and as a process skill, where students
were asked to recognise and reflect on their own values and on the role of beliefs,
more generally in determining social and environmental outcomes. Helping students
foster insight into the role beliefs might play in our individual and social lives allows
us as teachers to move away from the fraught ground of ‘politicisation’. We may
recognise that insight into values is a key professional skill; we cannot really make
sense of the world or human actions without this insight. At the heart of this compo-
nent of the course is the recognition that projects under the heading ‘sustainability’
seek change in the world and that all such change is inherently political in nature. The
following student quotes demonstrate a range of responses to the various politics
inherent in sustainability debates, and therefore, in the course material:

not everyone always agreed with views put forth in tutes but that was good as not every-
one has the same viewpoint, which is what it’s like in the real world/workforce. (Focus
Group 1)

[I] would prefer it to be like that [confronting] than dry. (Focus Group 2)

There was more heart in these lectures and the course itself than anything else we stud-
ied. (Focus Group 2)

I was already into the ideals of the course. Some guys into economics with pre-conceived
notions didn’t like it. (Focus Group 4)

Emphasising the relationship of the sustainability studies course to the professional

field of each student
One of the goals of the amended SSE subject was to:

[Develop] a stronger interface with its [sustainability] applicability to all the program
areas in the room. Sustainability academics need to be able to show that connection to
the disciplines reflected in the room, and show how it is both theoretical and practice
knowledge for those disciplines. (SSE Course Coordinator 2008)

Historically, there has been a varied response to this course by students in disciplines
which rarely engage explicitly with sustainability concepts, or which often decry the
relevance of such studies. The course coordinators have encountered dismissive
attitudes to sustainability studies in some staff whose students undertake SSE. This
462 K. Hegarty et al.

debate is ongoing, with some degree programmes seeking to withdraw the course
from their core curriculum, due to their doubts about its relevance to their disciplines.
Smyth (2006) believes a barrier to achieving a fundamental educational reform
required for EE is the disciplinary structure of most post-primary formal education
(quoted in Hurlimann 2009, 647).
This challenge occurs across the western world, and a number of stand-alone
courses, and programmes, have been developed in response to the disengagement of
certain disciplines from sustainability (Adomssent et al. 2006; Fenner et al. 2005;
Moore et al. 2005; Newell-Jones 2007). Decisions about common undergraduate stud-
ies are taken at various committee levels; the environmental studies programme
designed and owns SSE. It has been a desire of the various coordinators of the course
over recent years to seek to address this difficulty through the direct and effective
engagement of the students and the demonstration through curriculum and situated
activities of the direct relevance of the course to all disciplines and fields. This is in
part driven not only by student feedback, but also by programme advisory groups and
the EfS literature itself; situated application of knowledge is a key objective of the EfS
project more generally.
Relating the course to the disciplines and fields proved surprisingly easy. By 2008,
the relationship between society and environment was well understood within the
government and community sectors and, to a lesser extent, the media. The push for
more organisations to become carbon neutral had resulted in whole new sectors seek-
ing environmental expertise in position descriptions.2 Providing examples to students
from legal studies, social and youth work, and even psychology, was straightforward.
We identified a model of using the key selection criteria (KSC) in a range of position
descriptions, reflecting all the professional fields present within the class. This
provided a rich opportunity as the KSC often highlighted the need to apply environ-
mental or social knowledge in the other contexts; the KSC were loaded with evidence
that transferable skills are in high demand. The translation of the concerns through
these professional lenses proved compelling to some of the most resistant students in
the class. It has become clear that providing such evidence-based rationales for learn-
ing objectives and curriculum content works profoundly with students as it frames
such content directly through their chosen professional paradigm.

In psychology, the need for objectivity clashed with the subjectivity of different
morals and viewpoints in SSE and other classes, which created a tension. (Focus
Group 1)

I found relevance in the course, especially towards the end. (Focus Group 4)

What we believe affects how we treat the environment. Such as intergenerational

equity and where people live affect different views and values. It’s relevant profession-
ally to working in dispute resolution, looking at the different values of developers,
homeowners, park users, etc. and how decisions affect what they value. (Focus Group 4)

Student reception of the course

Delivery of SSE taught us a great deal about how to present and unfold the key
objectives identified for the course. There was wide-ranging feedback, both highly
positive and negative, in relation to a number of objectives of the course as delivered
in 2008.
 Environmental Education Research 463

When they related it, it’s not just the environment, it’s everything. (Focus Group 2)

Two students: [We] initially thought it was irrelevant, but PBL changed that perception.
Adapting it to the discipline made it relevant with psych. (Focus Group 1)

We were not always successful with students; a small number of students, from two
programmes in particular, offered feedback that they did not see the relevance for their
particular futures or even their professional field.

I couldn’t see that sustainability was relevant to Youth Work at all. Half the time I wasn’t
there as I couldn’t see the point of coming. (Focus Group 4)

This was dispiriting but must be seen in the wider context of the values of LC practice.
Not all students will seek to fully engage with every learning opportunity offered;
there are many variables involved, and some of them are outside the control of even
the best teachers. Equally, the professional lens is not the only means by which many
students understand themselves and their work. At first level, many students have not
yet happened upon the right undergraduate degree and are rightly incredulous about
much they are asked to confront in classrooms.
The overarching response to the course pedagogy was very positive. The course
evaluation process revealed strong sentiments about the role of PBL as a learning
experience, much of which protested the complexity and daunting ownership of learn-
ing experienced by students. More than half of the respondents indicated that once
they emerged from that stage of learning, they could see the strengths gained in skills
and application of knowledge. These views were similarly expressed in the focus
groups. Fundamentally, the view of students was that the curriculum was effective at
challenging their thinking; this significant shift from previous years reflects, in our
view, that engaging students directly in approach to learning and teaching strongly
enfranchises them. Our approach explicitly highlights the accountabilities of teaching
staff to a range of stakeholders and demonstrates the execution of such accountabili-
ties in a map of skills and learning activities. We clearly emphasised that we are
accountable to employers, the client groups on whom our graduates will practise, and
most especially, to the communities into which they graduate. This was in part
evidenced by the high ‘good teaching score’ obtained in the course evaluation
survey.3 Equally, students offered positive, highly reflective feedback on their learn-
ing in the qualitative sections of the CES. These were echoed in the focus groups.

I found the (general) assessment (tasks) pretty enlightening when looking at possible
solutions … and looking at sustainability concepts such as social capital. (Focus
Group 1)

At the start (of PBL), I felt having little direction unhelpful but then realised that being
forced to be more resourceful (to respond to the problem) meant more was learnt overall.
(Focus Group 1)

Clear rationales were offered for all components of the course. Even where student
resistance was high, the rationales were effective at persuading students to the
evidence-based approach to curriculum and skill sets included in the course.
The use of a PBL inquiry as an assessment task gained the most intense and contra-
dictory feedback from students. It is important to note at the outset that the model of
PBL draws on a wholly LC approach. With hindsight, we would suggest modification
464 K. Hegarty et al.

of that approach with first-year learners. A mix of teacher- and learner-centered

approaches is crucial to support students as they transition to tertiary studies. A
number of criticisms, especially by school-leavers, reflect some of the anxiety which
results from the dramatic differences in learning and study practice which was
required of them for assessments in SSE.
Finally, the anecdotal and qualitative feedback received related directly to the key
objectives we formed for this course. A moderate number of students testified to feel-
ing a sense of personal transformation, of being empowered to face major challenges,
of being increasingly hopeful for the future, and most importantly to us as educators,
of having a sense of efficacy and control over their direction and that of the worlds in
which they will work. The criticisms of the PBL assessment were often contradicted
by acknowledgement of the learning which occurred. This is wholly consistent with
the literature on the experience of leading PBL assessment.

Our learnings
Many significant learnings were gained from the redevelopment and delivery of SSE;
a table of learnings and resulting recommendations for curriculum practice is offered
(see Table 2). Primarily, the role of integration of curriculum was made clear that we
must map for students the rationales for our content, assessment and learning objec-
tives, to show them why we made the choices we did from an evidence base that links,
in large part, to their professions.
Another learning relates to one of the key elements of the course: the clear articu-
lation to students of the socio-emotional processes of learning in higher education.
The context-setting which occurred early in the course, around the cognitive experi-
ence of transitioning to first year, was very well received by students and both focus
groups, and course evaluation feedback attests to this.
We did receive some correctives; not all students were comfortable with the overt
naming by the lecturers of value positions, although they did acknowledge that such
positions were based in evidence. There was some fascinating debate amongst
students about the extent to which we were overt, which in part reflects the transition
experience. Equally, the PBL assignment was described by a majority of students as
simply too large, in spite of the many positive learning experiences which resulted. On
this basis, the task was substantially revised and tightened for 2009.
Student feedback on SSE is consistent with much of the literature, both on PBL
and in current trends in higher education more generally (Kieke, Moroz, and Gort
2007; Yeo 2005).
In the light of this research and the experience of developing and teaching SSE,
many ideas have emerged for its iteration. These include modifying the PBL assess-
ment to a more appropriate level for first-year students. We are developing a research
project to follow up this cohort of students in their final year of studies.

Conclusion

The fact that it’s not just about environmental sustainability, but economic and social
sustainability ties it together. It’s about people. Relevant to everyone. (Focus Group 1)

The ‘value’ of a ‘stand-alone’ course for sustainability is very clear. The situated
challenges, which confront our transition to sustainable futures, require an urgent,
 Environmental Education Research 465

Table 2. Learnings from the stand-alone course.

EfS learnings
Effective EfS curriculum must be fully
integrated with TBL principles, learning
objectives of subject and professional
context.
Professional vocation students need EfS to To approach EfS curriculum design and delivery
be meaningfully and explicitly situated
in their particular discipline/field, to
create a sense of ownership over new
learning. Generic/transferable skills
must also be situated in this context.
The socio-emotional and cognitive
contexts of learning must be identified
and situated for first-year (FY) students.
Values and ideological/political positions Curriculum design for FY or undergraduate EfS
on issues related to sustainability are an
inherent but fraught component of
curriculum and learning.
PBL is most effective for FY students
when the level of student-led learning is
achieved gradually with considerable
educator support over the course of a
semester.
Recommendation
Curriculum design for EFS to include direct links
in all material with: TBL principles, rationales
for the inclusion of content and the direct
relationship of skills taught to the application of
new knowledge.
as preparation for multidisciplinary practice,
including identifying the role/contribution of
each discipline/field to action on ‘wicked’
sustainability problems, and the ‘generic’ skills
which enable that action.
Curriculum delivery to include identification of
the relationship of self-awareness and reflection
to effective learning and the need to recognise
and understand emotional responses to
academic and professional learning challenges.
This links strongly to EfS objectives related to
the social element of the TBL.
must carefully address the ways in which values
conversations and considerations are
introduced; this allows us to demonstrate in situ
the role played by ‘world view’ in the
assessment of world problems and challenges.
The development of a staged PBL curriculum for
EFS, which is initially teacher-led in part, and
builds the level of student-led learning over the
course of the learning period.

immediate response. While the EfS project must lead academics to embed sustainabil-
ity in all fields and disciplines, this clearly requires a major, longitudinal culture
change in universities. ‘Stand-alone’ courses, such as SSE, add a wide range of value
to the goals of universities. Such courses foster crucial, transferable skill sets; they
seek to locate new knowledge within disciplinary spheres and situate their learning
objectives in complex, real-world contexts. Stand-alone courses support the EfS
project by ensuring future scholars will already understand the accountability shared
by all of higher education, to lead the world to sustainable futures.
SSE took as its design principle the importance of situated settings which equip
students to develop and grow the tools and skills for any context. Effects were varied,
and much resistance and discomfort was evident amongst students. In many ways, this
approximates the immense challenges that confront us. The vision of empowerment
and hope is intended to shape students’ sense of possibility about the future of the
world and their efficacy in it.

Notes
1. The programmes are environment, legal and disputes studies, psychology, planning youth
work and social science. The double-degree environment/environmental science students
466 K. Hegarty et al.

take the course as core in their second year. Students from social work must choose
between SSE and psychology. The international studies programme students may choose
SSE as an elective. For two double-degree programmes, in urban design, and social work/
psychology, SSE is not core.
2. We located advertisements in major Australian daily newspapers during the period of the
course (March–May 2008). We chose positions advertised across the professional fields
enroled in the course.
3. The ‘good teaching score’ (GTS) is an aggregate based on 14 specific questions in the
course evaluation survey, distributed each semester; GTS questions relate to specific issues
around the learning experience and the role teaching staff played in it, particularly in rela-
tion to commitment to student learning, availability of staff for consultation, detailed feed-
back on assessment and so on. The GTS for SSE in 2008 was 82.4 (out of 100). This is a
particularly high score in the context of undergraduate courses generally, particularly in
large first-year courses. The overall course score was 78; this number includes responses
on questions related to physical environment, classrooms, library materials and so on.

Notes on contributors
Kathryn Hegarty is a lecturer in environment and planning in the School of Global Studies,
Social Science and Planning, at RMIT University, where she has worked since 1995. Until
2005, Kathryn also worked as a secondary English, social studies and careers teacher, in
Victorian government secondary schools and in the Department of Corrections. Kathryn’s
professional roles have involved organisational change projects in relation to university learn-
ing and teaching, widening participation in higher education, theorisations of academic identity
and subjectivity, research training practice and university governance. She received her
doctoral degree (in cultural studies) in 2004. Her current research focuses on curriculum
development and educational design, graduate skills and attributes, professional education,
assessment practice and the role and purpose of universities in social democratic states. Her
current research includes projects on the development of learning activities and materials to
foster urgent skills for the transition to a low-carbon economy and devising drivers for the
diffusion of sustainability studies in higher education programmes.

Ian Thomas is an associate professor at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. He teaches

undergraduate and postgraduate environmental policy programmes and has written on envi-
ronmental impact assessment and environmental management systems. In his research, Ian has
investigated the issues of embedding environmental education and sustainability education in
the curricula of universities, examined the status of tertiary environmental programmes and
investigated employment of graduates from these programmes. His recent research has
focused on capacity building of academics to support curriculum change across a range of
disciplines, and the graduate capabilities sought by employers, to embed EfS into university
curricula.

Cathryn Kriewaldt has taught in RMIT’s stand-alone Sustainability, Society and Environment
course since inception, including three years as co-course-coordinator. She is responsible for
first-year transitions in the social science common courses in RMIT’s School of Global
Studies, Social Science and Planning and has a strong interest in international development,
subsistence farmer movements and food sovereignty. She is involved in some community
organisations, including as president of Cultivating Community Inc., on the CoM of Friends of
the Earth, Melbourne, and delivered climate change awareness workshops in conjunction with
the Bangladesh Krishok Federation.

Sarah Holdsworth is a lecturer in the School of Property Construction & Project Management
(PCPM), at RMIT. Sarah has a Bachelor of Education degree (secondary/environmental
science) from the University of Melbourne, majoring in environmental science, biology/ecol-
ogy and education and a Master’s degree in environmental science from Monash University,
with a major in physical geography (soil science and hydrology), environmental management,
systems theory and team dynamics. Sarah recently completed her PhD thesis on academic
 Environmental Education Research 467

development and sustainability education. Her teaching experience at RMIT covers courses in
sustainability, ecological planning, economics, environmental management, work practice and
professional communication. Her experience has provided her with an understanding of a wide
range of environmental tools and their application in companies and other organisations, the
community consultation process and the workings of both the private and the public sector in
relation to environmental issues. Her interests lie in the development of long-term strategies
based on substantial changes to social and technological paradigms to develop pathways
towards sustainability. Her main research focus is the identification of key mechanisms
required to turn sustainability innovations into embedded practice in a university context.

Sarah Bekessy is a senior lecturer in environmental studies at RMIT University, Australia.

Sarah specialises in the emerging field of sustainability science, which seeks to understand the
fundamental character of interactions between society and our environment. She is involved in
an interdisciplinary range of research projects, including two Australian Research Council
projects: ‘Reimagining the Australian Suburb: Biodiversity planning in urban fringe land-
scapes’, and ‘Building Capacity for a Sustainable Future: Embedding education for sustainabil-
ity into universities’. She is also involved in the Applied Environmental Decision Analysis
research facility that seeks to develop and test tools to support transparent decision-making for
environmental management (www.aeda.edu.au).

References
Adomssent, M., J. Godeman, A. Leicht, and A. Busch, eds. 2006. Higher education for
sustainability: New challenges from a global perspective. Waldkirchen: UNESCO.
Baines, J. 2006. Integrating sustainable development principles into professional practice.
Environmental Scientist, September–October: 11–13.
Barrie, S. 2004. A research based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher
Education Research and Development 23: 261–75.
Barth, M., J. Godemann, M. Rieckmann, and U. Stoltenberg. 2007. Developing key compe-
tencies for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustain-
ability in Higher Education 8, no. 16: 416–30.
Becher, T., and P. Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and
the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: SHRE and Open University Press.
Blättel-Mink, B., and H. Kastenholz. 2005. Transdisciplinarity in sustainability research:
Diffusion conditions of an institutional innovation. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology 12: 1–12.
Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Center for Problem-Based Learning. 2006. Background of problem-based learning. http://
pbl.cqu.edu.au/content/online_resources.htm (accessed January 2009).
Cocklin, W.S.C. 2008. Teaching sustainability to business students: Shifting mindsets.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 9: 206.
Coombes, P., and G. Danaher. 2006. From the margins to the centre: The power of transfor-
mative learning in Australia. Teaching and Teacher Education 22: 6.
Creedy, D. 1992. Developing PBL facilitation skills: A workshop. Problem-based learning in
education and training. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Dearing, R. 1997. Higher education in the learning society – The National Committee of
Inquiry into higher education. Secretaries of state for education and employment. London:
UK Government.
De La Harpe, B., and I. Thomas. 2009. Curriculum change in universities: Why education for
sustainable development is so tough. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development
3, no. 11: 75–85.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2009. Living sustainably: The
Australian government’s national action plan for education for sustainability. Canberra:
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
Domask, J. 2007. Achieving goals in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education 8: 17.
468 K. Hegarty et al.

Down, L. 2006. Addressing the challenges of mainstreaming education for sustainable devel-
opment in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
7: 390.
Eisen, A., and P. Barlett. 2006. The Piedmont Project: Fostering faculty development towards
sustainability. Journal of Environmental Education 38, no. 12: 25–36.
Fenner, R., C. Ainger, H. Cruickshank, and P. Guthrie. 2005. Embedding sustainable
development at Cambridge University Engineering Department. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 6: 13.
Fisher, F. 2004. Ecoliteracy and metaresponsibility: Steps to an ecology of mind. Paper
presented at the conference on Effective Sustainability Education, Linking Research and
Practice, February 18–20, in University of Sydney, Sydney.
Geli de Ciurana, A.M., and W.L. Filho. 2006. Education for sustainability in university stud-
ies: Experiences from a project involving European and Latin American universities.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7: 81–93.
Goldie, J., B. Douglas, and B. Furnass. 2005. An urgent need to change direction. In In
Search of sustainability, ed. J. Goldie, B. Douglas, and B. Furnass, 25. Collingwood:
CSIRO.
Gudz, N. 2004. Implementing the sustainable development policy at UBC: An analysis of the
implications for organisational learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education 5: 156–68.
Hall, J., L. Bainbridge, A. Buchan, and A. Cribb. 2006. A meeting of minds: Interdiscipli-
nary research in the health sciences in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal
175: 9.
Hegarty, K. 2008a. Shaping the self to sustain the other: Mapping impacts of academic identity
in education for sustainability. Environmental Education Research 14, no. 11: 681–92.
Hegarty, K. 2008b. Sustaining learning, learning to sustain: Educating to envisage sustainable
futures. In – 5th International Lifelong Learning Conference, ed. D. Orr, P. Danaher, G.
Danaher, and R. Harrevald, 207–13. Yeppoon: Central Queensland University Press.
Hegarty, K. 2009. Sustaining collegiality through the imperative of interdisciplinary practice.
London Review of Education 7: 83–90.
Holdsworth, S., S. Bekessy, and I. Thomas. 2009. Evaluation of curriculum change at RMIT:
Experiences of the BELP project. Reflecting Education 5: 51–72.
Hurlimann, A. 2009. Responding to environmental challenges: An initial assessment of higher
education curricula needs by Australian planning professionals. Environmental Education
Research 15: 643–59.
Kendler, B.S., and P.A. Grove. 2004. Problem-based learning in the biology curriculum. The
American Biology Teacher 66: 348–54.
Kieke, M., K. Moroz, and A. Gort. 2007. The transformation to a learner-centred community
as a result of university-wide assessment. On the Horizon 15: 10.
Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
London/New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kühtz, S. 2007. Adoption of sustainable development schemes and behaviours in Italy;
barriers and solutions – What can educators do? International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 8: 155.
Kumar, V., K. Haapala, J. Rivera, and M. Hutchins. 2005. Infusing sustainability principles
into manufacting/mechanical engineering curricula. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 24:
215.
Lourdel, N., N. Gondran, V. Laforest, and C. Brodhag. 2005. Introduction of sustainable
development in engineers’ curricula: Problematic and evaluation methods. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 6, no. 254: 11.
Marquardt, M.J. 2004. Optimizing the power of action learning: Solving problems and build-
ing leaders in real time. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Martin, S. 2005. Sustainability, systems thinking and professional practice. Systemic Practice
and Action Research 18: 163–71.
Maryland, U.O. 2007. Campus sustainability at the university of maryland. http://
www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=sustai.
Maslow, A. 1998. Toward a psychology of being. New York: Wiley.
 Environmental Education Research 469

Matchett, S. 2008. New voice has plenty in reserve. The Australian, July 16, p. 26, Higher
Education Supplement.
Moon, J. 2004. A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Moore, J. 2005. Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the university
level: A guide for change agents. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education 6, no. 14: 326–33.
Moore, J., F. Pagani, M. Quayle, and M. Robinson. 2005. Recreating the university
from within: Collaborative reflections on the University of British Columbia’s engage-
ment with sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 6:
65–80.
Newell-Jones, K. 2007. Global skills and lifelong learning: Future challenges. London:
Development Education Association (DEA).
Orr, D. 1994. Earth in mind: On education, environment and the human prospect. Covelo,
CA: Island Press.
Shulman, L. 2004. The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning and learning to
teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Sipos, Y.B., and B.G. Kurt. 2008. Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging
head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 9: 68.
Sterling, S., and J. Huckle, eds. 1996. Education for sustainability. London: Earthscan.
Sterling, S., and I. Thomas. 2006. Education for sustainability: The role of capabilities in
guiding university curricula. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Devel-
opment 1: 349–70.
Stibbe, A., and P. Villiers-Stuart, eds. 2009. The handbook of sustainability literacy: Skills for
a changing world. Totnes: Green Books.
Thomas, I. 2004. Sustainability in tertiary curricula: What is stopping it happening? Interna-
tional Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 5: 33–47.
Thomas, I., R. Lane, L. Ribon-Tobon, and C. May. 2007. Careers in the environment in
Australia: Surveying environmental jobs. Environmental Education Research 13: 97–117.
Timmerman, N., and A. Metcalfe. 2009. From policy to pedagogy: The implications of
sustainability policy for sustainability pedagogy in higher education. Canadian Journal of
Higher Education 39, no. 1: 45–60.
ULSF (University Leaders For a Sustainable Future). 2008. Talloires Declaration. Association
of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. http://www.ulsf.org/
programs_talloires.html (accessed February 8, 2010).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2007. Educa-
tion for sustainable development United Nations decade 2005–2014. Paris. http://
portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=27234&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html
Yeo, R. 2005. Problem based learning: Lessons for administrators, educators and learners.
International Journal of Educational Management 19: 541–55.