Introduction
The concept of education for sustainable development (ESD) was introduced in 1992 as a part of Agenda 21 (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992). Its ambition has been to promote sustainable development and improve the capacity of individuals and societies to deal with principal global issues within their environmental, social and economic context (Boeve-de Pauw, Gericke, Olsson & Berglund Reference Boeve-de Pauw, Gericke, Olsson and Berglund2015) or, as Kidman et al. (Reference Kidman, Chew-Hung and Wi2019) state, to motivate and engage people in creating sustainable futures. It was further developed by UNESCO (2005), which launched the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, running from 2005 to 2014 (UNESCO, 2014a), and subsequently linked ESD with the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015). Furthermore, the Muscat Agreement (UNESCO, 2014b) placed education for sustainable development at the top of the global development agenda for the period of 2015–2030. Nevertheless, the concept has been developed on the basis of older ideas, including the educational theories of John Dewey, the eco-centric ethics of Aldo Leopold, Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, Reference Freire1970), works such as Silent Spring (Carson, Reference Carson1962), The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., Reference Meadows, Meadows, Randers and Behrens1972) or Our Common Future (Brundtland, Reference Brundtland1987), and also the long tradition of environmental education (EE) development, elaborated within the UN Stockholm conference (United Nations, 1972), the Belgrade Charter (UNESCO, 1976) or the Tbilisi Declaration (UNESCO-UNEP, 1977) (Agbedahin, Reference Agbedahin2019; Zhang & Wang, Reference Zhang and Wang2022). Simultaneously with the development of policies fostering ESD, academia has also actively discussed ESD and attempted to provide a general concept of ESD (Zhang & Wang, Reference Zhang and Wang2022). For example, Orr (Reference Orr1992) emphasised ecological literacy as the key goal for ESD; Huckle and Sterling (Reference Huckle and Sterling1996) stressed the awareness and attitudes of individuals needed to make decisions about the social, economic and environmental aspects of global issues; Barraza et al. (Reference Barraza, Duque-aristiza and Rebolledo2003) viewed ESD as a political driver, which should move towards participatory practice; or Vare and Scott (Reference Vare and Scott2007) emphasised building capacity to think critically about the dilemmas and contradictions inherent in sustainable living as a necessary complementary approach to the promotion of informed and skilled behaviours. Regarding the linkage of EE and ESD, EE originated as an educational trend targeting environmental protection and cultivating the relationship of human beings with nature, whereas ESD was conceived primarily as a formal UN policy commitment with a wider scope including human rights, health and gender education (Acosta Castellanos & Queiruga-Dios, Reference Acosta Castellanos and Queiruga-Dios2022). However, the interconnectedness of EE and ESD has been growing, and their relationship has been viewed in various ways (Eilam & Trop, Reference Eilam and Trop2010), from perceiving EE and ESD as separate fields only partially overlapping (Breiting et al., Reference Breiting, Mayer, Mogensen, Jucker and Mathar2005; Tilbury et al., Reference Tilbury, Stevenson, Fien and Schreuder2002) to considering ESD a field that absorbed EE and expanded its boundaries (Eilam & Trop, Reference Eilam and Trop2010), or using the two terms interchangeably, merging them into a single current or even confusing them (Acosta Castellanos & Queiruga-Dios, Reference Acosta Castellanos and Queiruga-Dios2022). The study of Acosta Castellanos and Queiruga-Dios (Reference Acosta Castellanos and Queiruga-Dios2022) showed that regarding the global and national educational policies and strategies, ESD has been increasingly prevalent, although it is not a definite, widely accepted concept, and some environmental educators oppose this transfer and regard it as an abandonment of EE (Blum, Nazir, Breiting, Goh & Pedretti Reference Blum, Nazir, Breiting, Goh and Pedretti2013).
The longstanding unresolved debate about the entanglement of EE and ESD has been recently expanded by including the concept of climate change education (CCE), as CCE has been promoted as an integral part of ESD and is regarded as one of its key thematic priorities (UNESCO, 2017, 2019). As Blum et al. (Reference Blum, Nazir, Breiting, Goh and Pedretti2013) argue, the situation is further complicated by the fact that “multiple meanings of EE, ESD and CCE coexist in many countries, used simultaneously by various individuals and organisations at a range of governmental and geographic scales” (Blum et al., Reference Blum, Nazir, Breiting, Goh and Pedretti2013, p. 208). Some authors view CCE rather as an integral part of the ESD framework, promoting the concept of “climate change education for sustainable development” and emphasising that ESD comprises pedagogical approaches needed to engage critically and productively with the complex issue of climate change (Blum et al., Reference Blum, Nazir, Breiting, Goh and Pedretti2013; Mochizuki & Bryan, Reference Mochizuki and Bryan2015; UNESCO, 2010). Others see CCE as an emerging independent concept with its own agenda, strategies and methodologies, although with many overlaps with EE and ESD (Cutter-Mackenzie & Rousell, Reference Cutter-Mackenzie and Rousell2019; Kagawa & Selby, Reference Kagawa and Selby2010), suggesting that the urgent, highly sensitive and politically charged topic of climate change needs a specialised approach, potentially different from other environmental issues (Monroe et al., Reference Monroe, Plate, Oxarart, Bowers and Chaves2017).
Most recently, some authors have attempted to critically evaluate and reimagine the concepts of EE and ESD, using the perspective of the Anthropocene as a new epoch with potentially catastrophic consequences for the planet and the sustainability of human civilisation (Ribó, Reference Ribó2024). As Cole and Malone state (Reference Cole and Malone2019), the Anthropocene’s dramatic context should allow us to move beyond predefined boundaries and reconfigure the fundamental concepts of ESD/EE. For example, Ribó (Reference Ribó2024) proposes to overcome the anthropocentric pedagogies with a new paradigm of denizenship, displacing the human from its central position in education and acknowledging the complex relations of humans and nonhumans. The need to overcome the dominant human-centred world-understanding is stressed also by Paulsen (Reference Paulsen2020) in his concept of “posthuman” education. Similarly, Gienger et al. (Reference Gienger, Nursey-Bray, Rodger, Szorenyi, Weinstein, Hanson-Easey, Fordham, Lemieux, Hill and Yoneyama2024) note the emerging innovative educational strategies aiming to raise young learners’ “ontological reflexivity” of human-nature entanglement in order to combat their sense of impending doom. Several authors point out the impossibility of solving the environmental crisis and achieving sustainability within the current socioeconomic setting. Kalsoom (Reference Kalsoom2024) recommends to break through the authority of capitalism and shift from “having” to “being” mode as the focus of ESD. Cole (Reference Cole2024) calls for a novel approach to EE/ESD through reflecting the Capitalocene (as an offshoot of the Anthropocene), whose capital-driven processes are responsible for the current environmental crisis. Or Kopnina (Reference Kopnina2020) criticises SDGs and the prevalent approaches to ESD for contributing to maintaining the growth-oriented paradigm and suggests alternatives as indigenous learning or ecocentric education. Finally, Boxley (Reference Boxley2019) proposes a radical synthesis of Marxist anthropocentrism and biocentrism of Deep Ecology (introducing the concept of Red Biocentrism), which should eliminate the distinction between Anthropos and Bios and enable developing biocentric consciousness in education through Marxist-feminist and ecosexual theories. In a more formal and mainstream way, within PISA and OECD strategic documents, the perspective of the Anthropocene has been reflected by a recently developed concept of agency in the Anthropocene (White et al., Reference White, Ardoin, Eames and Monroe2023, Reference White, Ardoin, Eames and Monroe2024), which presents a vision of building young people’s efficacy and hope based on systems thinking, interdisciplinary practises and a transformative, solution-based approach and promotes competencies crucial for engaging in action.
ESD principles, methodologies, competencies and frameworks
Over the past 30 years, ESD has evolved into a global movement with a growing body of research and diverse implementation formats (Hopkins, Reference Hopkins2012). ESD research has brought results, which synthesised fundamental approaches to ESD content and implementation. Since ESD covers very diverse and complex topics, ESD literature emphasises employing a “holistic approach” to the ESD content: the necessity to include all three dimensions (environmental, social, economic) in their local, regional and global context and to focus on their interrelationships (Boeve-de Pauw et al., Reference Boeve-de Pauw, Gericke, Olsson and Berglund2015; Dale & Newman, Reference Dale and Newman2005; Vare & Scott, Reference Vare and Scott2007). However, as research shows, this requirement is often difficult to fulfil, and both teachers and students tend to recognise and focus on the environmental perspective (Sinakou et al., Reference Sinakou, Donche, Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem2019; Walshe, Reference Walshe2013).
Furthermore, as the complexity and potential conflicts of interest accompanying sustainability issues make it impossible to teach ready-made solutions, ESD should apply a “pluralistic approach” to teaching and learning. Pluralism is understood as acknowledging and engaging different perspectives, views and values (Boeve-de Pauw et al., Reference Boeve-de Pauw, Gericke, Olsson and Berglund2015; Lijmbach et al., Reference Lijmbach, Margadant-Van Arcken, Kris Van Koppen and Wals2002; Rudsberg & Öhman, Reference Rudsberg and Öhman2010).
Building on the growing research body, recent ESD literature states that ESD pedagogy should be based on learner-centred, action-oriented, exploratory and transformative approaches (UNESCO, 2014a; White et al., Reference White, Ardoin, Eames and Monroe2023). As Sinakou et al. (Reference Sinakou, Donche, Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem2019) state, the objective of ESD is not a planned behavioural change but rather the “development of skills such as participatory and active citizenship skills, cooperative skills and autonomous thinking and learning so that students are capable of dealing with the complex and changeable reality” (Sinakou et al., Reference Sinakou, Donche, Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem2019, p. 3). The need for focusing on action as the desired educational output of ESD was emphasised by Sass et al. (Reference Sass, Boeve-de Pauw, Olsson, Gericke, De Maeyer and Van Petegem2020), who argue that ESD should move beyond raising learners’ awareness and developing their attitudes, but rather aim at developing people’s action-competence.
The concept of competence or competency in sustainability and ESD has been developed and widely discussed in ESD literature (UNESCO, Reference Leicht, Heiss and Byun2018; Vare et al., Reference Vare, Lausselet and Rieckmann2022). Several competence frameworks have emerged, for example, Wiek’s key competencies in sustainability (Wiek et al., Reference Wiek, Withycombe and Redman2011), de Haan’s ESD-related competencies (de Haan, Reference de Haan2010), the sustainability competence framework of Wals (Reference Wals2015), UNESCO’s key competencies in ESD (UNESCO, Reference Leicht, Heiss and Byun2018) and, more recently, the GreenComp competencies outlined by Bianchi et al. (Reference Bianchi, Pisiotis, Cabrera, Punie and Bacigalupo2022) or competencies for agency in the Anthropocene (White et al., Reference White, Ardoin, Eames and Monroe2023) developed within the PISA 2025 Science Framework (OECD, 2023). The current ESD literature agrees on several key sustainability competencies such as critical and system thinking, collaboration or anticipatory, normative and strategic competencies (Rieckmann, Reference Rieckmann2018). Additionally, educators’ competencies in sustainability and ESD have also been conceptualised (Corres et al., Reference Corres, Rieckmann, Espasa and Ruiz-Mallén2020; Rieckmann, Reference Rieckmann2019; UNECE, 2012). A competence-oriented educational approach enables focusing on the output, in contrast with conventional approaches concentrating on the input. In other words, the development of ESD-related competencies focuses on what strategies, concepts and abilities students and educators need to effectively engage in addressing socioecological challenges.
Also, there have been attempts to provide guidelines and frameworks for ESD curricula development, programmes’ design and their implementation. One of the first guidelines for the implementation of ESD in practice was developed by McKeown (Reference McKeown2006). Furthermore, Eilam and Trop (Reference Eilam and Trop2010) provided one of the first identifications of the crucial components of ESD implementation. According to them, ESD should be based on “natural learning,” encompassing a multi/cross-disciplinary approach, multidimensional and emotional learning, assuming student-centred, hands-on learning and active participation. These ideas resonate with other authors and publications (Monroe et al., Reference Monroe, Salazar, Sullivan, Odom and Ireland2022; UNESCO, 2012, Reference Leicht, Heiss and Byun2018). Gericke and Torbjörnsson (Reference Gericke and Torbjörnsson2022) used several case studies of implementing ESD programmes to outline effective strategies for preventing potential pitfalls, such as identifying the capacity-building capital or preparing a strategy for responding to various external pressures.
This study will be based on applying the “action-oriented ESD framework” (AESDF) introduced by Sinakou et al. (Reference Sinakou, Donche, Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem2019), which summarised many models, frameworks and approaches mentioned above and identified five key components essential for designing and implementing ESD programmes:
-
1. Action-taking, that is, motivating “conscious actions” through involving students in solving real-world issues (Jensen & Schnack, Reference Jensen and Schnack1997; Jensen, Reference Jensen2002; Monroe et al., Reference Monroe, Salazar, Sullivan, Odom and Ireland2022).
-
2. Students’ leadership in their learning activities, that is, providing students with an opportunity to participate in decision-making (Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Boeve-de Pauw, Goldman and Simonova2019a; Eilam & Trop, Reference Eilam and Trop2010; Wals, Reference Wals2007).
-
3. Peer interaction, that is, supporting cooperation and working in groups.
-
4. Community involvement, that is, taking part in community-based projects, which helps students to engage in civic activities and decision-making processes and to develop a strong sense of responsivity related to issues in the community (Agyeman & Angus, Reference Agyeman and Angus2003; Monroe et al., Reference Monroe, Salazar, Sullivan, Odom and Ireland2022; Uzzell, Reference Uzzell1999).
-
5. Interdisciplinarity, that is, revealing all sorts of environmental, economic and social interactions, making students consider sustainability issues from plural perspectives and encouraging action orientation of ESD programmes (Borg, Gericke, Höglund & Bergman Reference Borg, Gericke, Höglund and Bergman2012; Eilam & Trop, Reference Eilam and Trop2010).
In the case of our study, the AESDF’s clearly outlined principles proved to be an effective tool for evaluating an ESD programme’s content, implementation and compliance with the ESD latest trends.
ESD implementation issues and barriers
Despite the declared importance of ESD (Jickling & Wals, Reference Jickling and Wals2008; UNESCO, 2017, Reference Leicht, Heiss and Byun2018), its integration into teacher training, professional development and curricula has been slow (Borg et al., Reference Borg, Gericke, Höglund and Bergman2012; Hopkins, Reference Hopkins2012; Hume & Barry, Reference Hume and Barry2015; Sinakou et al., Reference Sinakou, Donche, Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem2019). For example, in their extensive analysis of ESD implementation in Germany, Holst et al. (Reference Holst, Singer-Brodowski, Brock and de Haan2024) revealed that the level of implementation is low for all evaluated indicators, with the training of educators being the most deficient aspect. Furthermore, several studies show that merely conducting an ESD programme does not inevitably translate into a positive impact on its participants — it is the employed educational approaches and targeted competencies that are crucial (Berglund et al., Reference Berglund, Gericke and Chang Rundgren2014; Boeve-de Pauw & van Petegem, Reference Boeve-de Pauw and van Petegem2011; Olsson et al., Reference Olsson, Gericke and Chang Rundgren2016). Therefore, an in-depth understanding of implementation procedures of ESD programmes seems essential to identify the gaps between ESD theory and practice, as ESD is a very dynamic and complex field, which produces various interpretations and approaches (Karaarslan-Semiz, Reference Karaarslan-Semiz2022). Considering the complex and dynamic ESD principles, approaches and strategies, as well as the lack of methodological support and training, it can be quite challenging for educators and schools to implement ESD programmes successfully. When identifying barriers to ESD implementation, Borg et al. (Reference Borg, Gericke, Höglund and Bergman2012) mention the controversial and conflicting nature of sustainability issues, teachers’ lack of holistic knowledge and pedagogical skills for dealing with plurality, time deficiency or differences in how teachers from different disciplines deal with social or ethical issues. Furthermore, there is a lack of representative large-scale studies on ESD impacts and effectiveness (Boeve-de Pauw et al., Reference Boeve-de Pauw, Gericke, Olsson and Berglund2015), and the procedure for designing and implementing effective ESD programmes is still not sufficiently understood (Sinakou et al., Reference Sinakou, Donche, Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem2019). There have been few studies focusing on evaluating ESD programmes and investigating their impacts (Araneo, Reference Araneo2024; Morales, Reference Morales2024; Schauss & Sprenger, Reference Schauss and Sprenger2019). Furthermore, studies, which use key ESD competencies or frameworks mentioned above as the foundation and criteria for the evaluation process and reporting, are even rarer (Gey et al., Reference Gey, Pellaud, Blandenier, Lepareur, Massiot, Shankland and Gay2023; Morales et al., Reference Morales, Segalás and Masseck2024).
The aim of this study and research questions
This study analysed the implementation of a year-long, place-based, climate-change-themed ESD programme, “School for Sustainable Life” (SSL), within a multiple-case study of three participating schools, and chose the AESDF principles as the main structure of the analysis. The SSL programme was selected for this study as the authors were asked to conduct the programme’s long-term external evaluation and were able to obtain relevant data. The SSL programme proved to be suitable for utilising the AESDF as the main analysis template, because the SSL programme theory explicitly includes all the AESDF components (see the programme’s description below). The main aim of the study was to investigate in depth whether there is a gap between the programme’s theory and its real-life practice (represented by the three case studies) and whether (and to what extent) the three school teams were successful in implementing the AESDF’s five principles.
This study explored the following research questions:
-
(1) How did the SSL programme’s implementation in the three school teams comply with the AESDF’s five components?
-
(2) Were any of the five AESDF principles less feasible and more demanding to implement and comply with (within the programme’s implementation in the three school teams)?
Materials and methods
This study was based on the case study approach (Yin, Reference Yin2018). It was conducted as an exploratory multiple-case study (Yin, Reference Yin2018) with three SSL-participating schools defined as individual cases. The cases (examples of the SSL implementation) were used to investigate in depth how the AESDF principles were implemented by the SSL participants within their real-world context, then to make cross-case conclusions and finally, to use the evidence from the multiple-case study and generalise theoretical implications for SSL and other ESD programmes. The holistic design of a multiple-case study was chosen (Yin, Reference Yin2018), in which the results of each school were interpreted as individual cases and were subsequently used for cross-case analysis. This research design was suitable for analysing and describing the various manifestations of the studied phenomena in individual cases within their contexts (Yin, Reference Yin2018). The study employed the AESDF as the theoretical blueprint and the qualitative method of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006; Neuman, Reference Neuman2002; Patton, Reference Patton2015) as the method for data analysis: each case (school team) was analysed through thematic analysis of transcribed interviews with the participants (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006; Neuman, Reference Neuman2002; Patton, Reference Patton2015). The thematic analysis utilised mostly a deductive approach (Bowen, Reference Bowen2009; Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006; Crabtree & Miller, Reference Crabtree and Miller1999), employing a template of main themes derived from the AESDF components. For a subsequent, more in-depth analysis of the transcribed interviews, a hybrid method was chosen (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, Reference Fereday and Muir-Cochrane2006), which incorporated both the deductive approach with the AESDF principles as the main themes and the data-driven inductive approach (Boyatzis, Reference Boyatzis1998). This research design allowed the AESDF to be the integral structure to the process of thematic analysis in accordance with the research questions, but it also enabled more partial and nuanced subthemes and codes to emerge directly from the data using inductive open coding.
Additionally, in order to present the individual cases in a structured, detailed and comprehensive form, this study employed the method of narrative analysis (Neuman, Reference Neuman2002) as a way of interpreting and presenting data: the transcribed interviews and their coded segments were used for creating narratives of the programme’s implementation in each case (school team).
The “School for Sustainable Life” programme description
The SSL programme was created in 2019 by the environmental centre SEVER, a Czech non-profit organisation offering EE programmes for students and educators. It is a well-established programme that has involved hundreds of primary and secondary schools. The programme aims to develop students’ competencies for sustainable life and to help them create and complete projects that contribute to sustainable life within their community. The programme’s methodology is based on place-based education principles (Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Valesova, Krepelkova, Simonova and Kroufek2019b; Sobel, Reference Sobel2005) and ESD principles mentioned earlier (for the detailed programme’s content, see Supplementary Material 1). The SSL’s programme theory explicitly includes all the AESDF components:
-
1. The programme is action-oriented, as students are supposed to be actively engaged in a community-based action.
-
2. The programme focuses on peer interaction, and many of the programme’s tasks strive to develop team collaboration.
-
3. The programme encourages community involvement, as fostering place attachment of participants and encouraging their community involvement is a key principle of SSL.
-
4. The programme applies an interdisciplinary approach, it aims to allow participants to reflect on local issues from different perspectives, and it encourages teachers to overcome subject divisions.
-
5. The programme’s guidelines explicitly emphasise a participatory approach (student leadership) in which teachers should not instruct students what to do, but they are supposed to act as facilitators.
Data collection
The qualitative data were collected through interviews with student focus groups and teachers (Neuman, Reference Neuman2002; Patton, Reference Patton2015). The interview design involved questions concerning students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the programme, their chosen projects, the level of students’ autonomous programme implementation, community involvement, peer interaction and decision-making. The interviews with focus groups and teachers were conducted online, and the collection of qualitative data was fully anonymous.
Participants
This study investigated the SSL participants of the 2021−2022 school year. Although the original research design supposed collecting data from six schools, due to a long delay in completing the proposed projects at most participating schools, only three school teams had completed the programme by the official deadline and could be included in this study. The study analysed data collected from three school teams (N = 18, students from the 6th to the 8th grade, aged from 11 to 14) and their teacher tutors (N = 5).
Data analyses
For the analysis of the qualitative data collected from the focus groups, the interviews with students and teachers were recorded and transcribed. The initial analysis applied a deductive thematic approach (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006), and the main themes were driven and defined from the AESDF. The results of each school were interpreted as individual cases within the holistic multiple-case study approach. The initial analysis of individual cases revealed the need to look at the programme’s implementation and compliance with the AESDF principles in specific detail, which would enable a subsequent cross-case analysis of the complexities and heterogeneousness emerging from the individual cases. Therefore, further subthemes and codes were identified and defined in the process of open coding of the data segments collected from the focus groups. The coding procedure was carried out separately by two programme evaluators, who conducted the interviews, and the authors of this study. The results were compared to ensure the reliability of the AESDF dimensions as a template for the deductive coding and to confirm the trustworthiness and accuracy of the subthemes and codes identified during the inductive open coding (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006; Krippendorff, Reference Krippendorff2004). The resulting coding frame can be seen in Supplementary Material 2.
Furthermore, as participation of students in educational activities is often quantified (Križ & Skivenes, Reference Križ and Skivenes2017; Perry-Hazan & Bauml, Reference Perry-Hazan and Bauml2023; Warming, Reference Warming2011; Wetzelhütter & Bacher, Reference Wetzelhütter and Bacher2015), using models and levels of participation (Hart, Reference Hart1992; Shier, Reference Shier2001), we decided to utilise Hart’s (Reference Hart1992) “Ladder of Participation” classification (manipulation, decoration, tokenism, assigned but informed, consulted and informed, adult-initiated and shared decision with children, children-initiated and directed, child-initiated and shared decision with adults) for additional specification of the “Students’ leadership” implementation level.
Subsequently, the transcribed interviews and their coded segments were used to create narratives of how each school team implemented the SSL programme with an emphasis on compliance with the AESDF principles. These narratives “tell a story” around the specific individuals (school teams) and their roles in the specific events (SSL implementation) (Neuman, Reference Neuman2002).
Results
The hybrid approach to analysing the qualitative data from the focus group interviews, utilising both the deductive thematic analysis and the subsequent inductive coding, revealed a detailed picture of the programme’s implementation and its impacts, showing that various aspects influenced the individual stories of the school teams and their perception of the programme. Below, we present the results of data analyses in two steps:
-
1. the results of the narrative analysis — narratives of how each school team implemented the programme and the AESDF principles, accompanied by quotations (segments from the interviews that were coded as illustrations of a certain implementation aspect);
-
2. the results of the thematic analysis of the individual cases and cross-case comparison conclusions.
Narrative analysis of the SSL programme implementation
School 1
In School 1, the team consisted of students from the 8th grade and one teacher tutor; the whole class was required to join the programme. During the school year, they managed several smaller projects (planting greenery, promoting sustainable mobility, implementing measures supporting biodiversity), and they mostly worked on the project after school. The team members began by preparing a list of climate adaptation measures based on their walks around the town. Afterwards, they presented the list to the mayor. However, after hearing comments and objections from the mayor, they had to reduce the list to a few measures, some of which had to be modified. Even though the meeting at the municipal office was friendly, the students were dissatisfied because they had invested considerable time in preparing the ideas, and many were rejected.
I have proposed many things that would cost nothing, like cleaning a spring in the forest, it would take a day’s work. But that didn’t get done. (Student 4, School 1)
Throughout the interview, the students criticised the involuntary nature of the programme. Many of them did not feel fully incorporated into the team and its activities, yet they were still forced to participate, often after school. For some, it meant less time for homework. Another issue raised by the students was that the project activities focused on the town where the school is located, but many of the students live in other towns and commute to school.
I thought some of the activities were too crazy. And it bothered me that they just told us it was going to be done, and I’d rather do school stuff. Then I had problems keeping up with schoolwork. (Student 6, School 1)
They also reported being frustrated due to a low level of autonomy and participation in decision-making, which gradually decreased their motivation. Because of a delay in the project, there had not been enough class negotiations to decide on important issues, resulting in some students feeling ostracised and leading to conflicts. As the students mentioned, it was the teacher who made the final decision about which activities would be chosen for realisation, and some students did not accept them or were not convinced about their benefits.
Sometimes we had an idea and our teacher said we weren’t going to do it. Sometimes she explained why, and sometimes she just said we weren’t going to do it. (Student 2, School 1)
The realisation of the project’s activities was continuously complicated by a lack of time; some activities were forgotten or unfinished. Even during the interview, the students were not able to agree on the project’s outputs. They expressed mixed feelings about their participation in the project. They appreciated some positive outputs (e.g. new flower beds), but they were unsure about the programme’s positive impact on their class, and mostly, they were dissatisfied with the constant lack of time, being forced to participate in the project’s activities, the lack of team cooperation, the unclear and unimpressive project outputs, and the participation and autonomy issues described above. Several students mentioned that they would not want to participate in a similar programme in the future; others would participate only if they were able to make important decisions.
I have learned only one particular thing — three months of discussing something and not doing anything practical, that’s going nowhere. (Student 4, School 1)
The teacher acknowledged her lack of teaching experience and problems with the programme’s implementation. She mentioned the lack of time and disorganisation as the main issues. She also felt that many students were not motivated enough, and she tried to motivate them by stressing the meaningfulness of the project. She admitted that often she made important decisions, but she did not realise that this conflicted with the programme’s principles. In contrast with the students’ comments, the teacher was satisfied with the project’s outcomes and was convinced about its positive impact on the students, mentioning increased climate-related knowledge, place attachment, empowerment for dealing with civic issues and community involvement.
I think they left the meeting with the mayor happy. Me too. (Teacher, School 1)
I think the kids did well during the project. It wasn’t always perfect, but they understood that it was worthwhile. (Teacher, School 1)
School 2
In School 2, the team consisted of students from the 6th grade and two teacher tutors; the whole class was required to join the programme. They decided to work on several smaller projects (sustainable mobility day, reducing food waste, adaptation measures in the school garden, a fair selling garden products). They worked on the project during school hours within several subjects. The team started by preparing a map of their municipality and discussing possible projects they could work on. The initial decision-making process did not include the teachers, and there were many negotiations among the students. The proposed ideas were subsequently presented to municipality representatives and parents. After hearing the adults’ comments, the final decisions were again negotiated only by the students and reached by a collective vote. Some of their proposals were compromised, but they accepted the adults’ arguments thanks to a non-hierarchical debate. In some cases, the students were able to creatively modify their proposals in reaction to the mentioned barriers (e.g. they changed the location or the procedure).
If we put the drinking fountains in the square, someone could break them, so we put them in the school garden. (Student 1, School 2)
The students were also actively involved in the implementation of their ideas. For example, they made and installed drinking fountains for animals in the school garden; they prepared a questionnaire about favourite meals in the school canteen, analysed the collected data and helped the canteen manager modify the meal offer to reduce food waste. They also prepared a lecture about waste sorting and presented it to their schoolmates. They organised and promoted a “Day without cars.” They organised a school fair where they sold plants they had grown and collectively decided that the collected money would be used for buying gardening equipment.
We held a vote when all students wrote down what their rating was for cafeteria meals. And then we got together with the cafeteria manager, and we put together a new menu so that everybody would eat most meals and they would be healthy at the same time. So there won’t be so much food waste. (Student 2, School 2)
The students acknowledged that the interaction with adults was very important, because it helped them realise things they had not considered themselves. However, they enjoyed a high level of control over planning and implementing their projects (e.g. arranging a visit with the mayor and discussing their ideas with her or making public announcements on the municipal PA system). As they declared, the teachers helped them only when the students asked for it.
We were the ones who were asking adults questions. We presented our project on the municipal radio. We went to see the mayor. (Student 3, School 2)
The students unanimously praised the benefits of the SSL programme (development of social skills, action competence and environmental awareness). They agreed that they would like to participate in a similar programme again and would recommend the SSL programme to other schools.
Now, after the final project presentation, everyone started to talk to each other much more, thanks to the project. Even to the new guys. (Student 4, School 2)
Both teacher tutors declared that they conscientiously followed the SSL methodological guidelines and instructions given during the residential stay. It helped them become aware of the crucial role of students’ participation and engagement in decision-making. As one of the teachers mentioned, letting the students decide, plan and carry out tasks on their own means that the implementation of the chosen projects does not always go as planned or ends up unfinished, but that will not diminish the benefits gained from realising the projects autonomously. Both teachers also acknowledged the development of climate change knowledge, communicative and social skills, place attachment and action competence of the team members. They saw themselves primarily as observers ready to help, sometimes as facilitators of discussions, and sometimes as consultants for more complex activities.
I tried to leave the project up to the kids, sometimes it went fine, and sometimes it was worse. But they did an awful lot on their own — presenting, inviting the mayor, realising activities. (Teacher 1, School 2)
School 3
In School 3, the team consisted of students from the 6th and 7th grades and two teacher tutors, and all students from both classes were required to join the programme. They decided to work on a project of designing and building a small pond in the school garden. They worked on the project during their science classes. First, the team drew a town map and identified places that needed improvements and could be used in their project. After discussing initial ideas, students voted to build a small pond in the schoolyard. This idea had been circulating at the school for some time, and the older team members lobbied for it. Additionally, students were discouraged from the other, initially more preferred ideas by the adults who pointed out various technical and financial barriers to their implementation.
Dealing with the pond was easier, because it was going to be on the school grounds. We were told that replacing the pavement would be too expensive. (Student 4, School 3)
However, during the interview, the students repeatedly returned to the activities they were originally considering. For example, they proposed replacing the surface pavement on a part of municipal land, from which water and mud run off during heavy rains. They saw great importance in it and understood its negative impact. However, this project would be significantly more expensive, it would be on municipal land, and officially, there was nothing wrong with that place.
They told us that the block pavement is a permeable surface. But it doesn’t work properly. The sand lets water through, but then it gets caked with mud, so it’s dirty and clogged. When the drain gets clogged, there are muddy puddles all over the road. (Student 2, School 3)
During the meeting at the municipal council, the representatives listened to the students and decided to help them with their project. However, they took over the original idea and modified it, while the children lost the possibility of their own initiative (e.g. it was decided by the mayor that the pond would be dug out by an excavator, instead of the original idea of digging by the students themselves). The students were also not able to participate in the final stages of the pond construction, which was conducted by the municipality, and they were only allowed to watch.
The mayor arranged the whole thing. He just told us that the excavator would come on this day and that the teachers would come for us. (Student 1, School 3)
As a result, some students felt frustrated and even discouraged by the end of the project. Some of them lost track of the project’s progress and were unsure about the pond’s function and benefits. The team members from the 6th grade also felt dominated by the students from the 7th grade and expressed disillusionment from the interaction in the project team and the distribution of project tasks and power. Some students declared that they would not join a similar project under the current conditions. As the biggest obstacles to joining a similar project, the children cited low perceived self-control over the project and doubts regarding the meaning and impact of the selected measures.
It seemed to me that the pond was located in a place with no real problems. (Student 4, School 3)
If we did it independently without teachers, I would love to do a project like this. In a place where it’s badly needed. (Student 5, School 3)
However, the teachers were unaware of the problems and reported their complete satisfaction with the project’s implementation and results. They praised the collaboration among various stakeholders (municipality, school management, local companies and some parents) and did not realise that the interaction of the stakeholders was mainly conducted without the students. They were convinced that the programme developed the students’ climate-related knowledge, place attachment, civic involvement and also their interpersonal skills such as communication and team collaboration.
I was the one who led them by the hand. I was giving them tasks and activities. (Teacher 2, School 3)
It was nice to see how the external cooperation worked. When we needed something, it worked. We knew who to go to. (Teacher 1, School 3)
Thematic analysis of the interviews
While all the participating school teams were supposed to implement the programme according to the same guidelines, the level of implementation and the utilised strategies varied. As the deductive thematic analysis applying the AESDF framework and the subsequent open coding showed (see Table 1), the schools significantly differed in the way the programme’s tasks were implemented, most notably in the way they provided students with an opportunity to participate in decision-making and peer interaction.
Table 1. Analysis of the AESDF implementation in the selected school teams
Note: AESDF = action-oriented ESD framework. *Levels of participation according to Hart (Reference Hart1992).
All teams focused on direct collective actions in the public sphere or in the school surroundings, and their projects aimed to solve local problems. However, in the case of School 3, a planned direct action shifted to indirect action as the team lost control over the pond construction, which was conducted by the municipality.
All three teams utilised peer interaction (teamwork), an inherent component of the SSL assignments, and thus formally implemented this principle. However, the nature and impact of teamwork activities varied considerably among the interviewed teams. In School 2, peer interaction distribution among all team members was monitored and encouraged by the teachers, and several groups with specialised roles and tasks were formed, with students conducting the division into groups. Conversely, in Schools 1 and 3, several students reported not being integrated into the team activities. Interviews revealed that some students dominated the project implementation process and, in some instances, decision-making processes as well. In School 3, the domination of a few students was exacerbated by merging the 7th and 6th-grade classes into one team, leading to a situation where older students felt superior.
Community involvement and interdisciplinarity principles were implemented by all three teams according to the programme’s requirements. They were tasked with presenting and discussing their proposals with municipal offices and collaborating with local actors. Regarding interdisciplinarity, the environmental perspective was represented by the overarching theme of climate change adaptation, and the teams also had to address social (local policy, social interactions) and economic (budgeting, economic feasibility) factors related to their projects. As revealed by the focus group interviews, the most differentiated implementation occurred within the principle of students’ leadership, particularly concerning students’ participation in decision-making during the programme’s implementation. The level of student engagement in deciding which activities to pursue and their involvement in conducting these activities varied considerably among the three teams, as described above in the narratives and shown in Table 1, which depicts the level of SSL implementation in the three school teams, using the AESDF principles and the coding frame (resulted from the inductive coding).
Discussion
This study was designed to analyse how the principles of the AESDF can be implemented within an ESD programme’s real-life context.
Our individual cases and their cross-case comparison suggest that the implementation of some AESDF principles can be motivated and secured by the programme’s methodological guidelines and the design of its tasks. On the other hand, implementing other principles seems to be strongly influenced by teachers’ roles in the team, the approach they utilise for the programme’s implementation and their teaching experience. In the case of SSL, the principles of action-taking, community involvement and interdisciplinarity are imprinted in the design of the programme, and the character of the programme’s tasks and their assignment leave participating teams and teachers with practically no room for straying from the programme’s goals related to these principles.
However, while the programme guidelines explicitly assume that students will get an opportunity to actively participate in decision-making and the realisation of the programme’s activities, the actual implementation seems to be highly influenced by teachers’ approach to the programme’s implementation and, as a result, varies from a very low to considerably high level of students’ participation. The challenging nature of reaching a high level of student leadership and engagement in decision-making is stated by Sinakou et al. (Reference Sinakou, Donche, Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem2019) and other authors (Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Boeve-de Pauw, Goldman and Simonova2019a; Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Valesova, Krepelkova, Simonova and Kroufek2019b; Sass et al., Reference Sass, De Maeyer, Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem2023). Following similar studies (Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Boeve-de Pauw, Goldman and Simonova2019a; Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Valesova, Krepelkova, Simonova and Kroufek2019b; Cincera & Krajhanzl, Reference Cincera and Krajhanzl2013), this study confirms the critical role of student engagement in decision-making for ensuring a positive impact of an ESD programme on its participants and their satisfaction with the programme. Participants from School 2, who controlled the decision-making process and the implementation of their project, reported feeling empowered for future community involvement (increasing their action competence) and a high level of satisfaction with the programme. In the case of Schools 1 and 3, where the teachers and the municipality conducted the decision-making process, most students declared discouragement and dissatisfaction with the programme and its outcomes. Although all the teams were assigned to the programme by their teachers without involving the students in this decision, it was the level of engagement in decision-making during the programme implementation that mattered most to the students. As the case of School 2 shows, no students complained about being assigned to the programme by the teacher, because they were given full control of important decisions and the implementation of their project, which increased their autonomous motivation (Roth et al., Reference Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon and Kaplan2007), their action competence and their satisfaction.
As in previous studies (Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Boeve-de Pauw, Goldman and Simonova2019a; Sass et al., Reference Sass, Boeve-de Pauw, Olsson, Gericke, De Maeyer and Van Petegem2020; Wals et al., Reference Wals, Geerling-Eijff, Hubeek, van der Kroon and Vader2008), our findings show that the teachers’ approach (instrumental in School 1 and 3, emancipatory in School 2) to the programme’s implementation and their readiness to utilise the programme’s methodological guidelines and recommendations proved to be decisive for engaging students in decision-making. In addition, their ability and willingness to stimulate students’ participation in decision-making were connected to the level of their teaching experience, work overload and time deficiency. Our findings also confirm the results of the previous SSL evaluation (Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Valesova, Krepelkova, Simonova and Kroufek2019b) that teachers’ perception of the level of students’ autonomy and participation can substantially differ from the students’ perception and that teachers often overestimate the level of students’ participation and engagement in decision-making, not being used to and not having skills for diagnosing and evaluating students’ decision-making (Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Valesova, Krepelkova, Simonova and Kroufek2019b; Garrecht et al., Reference Garrecht, Bruckermann and Harms2018).
Our main conclusion, suggested by the findings, is that even a well-designed programme intended to enable students to participate in dealing with community projects may be inadequate without an elaborated methodological support and training of teachers (prior to, during and after a programme). Such support should likely focus on developing teachers’ competence in a participatory approach. However, the participatory approach required by the programme may contradict the prevailing teaching style of the involved teachers. Not being able to leave the prevalent instrumental approach (and not having teaching skills and methodological support to do so) has been identified as one of the critical barriers to ESD implementation (Borg et al., Reference Borg, Gericke, Höglund and Bergman2012; Smith, Reference Smith2007) and was also reflected by the programme’s coordinating institution (SEVER, 2019). Professional teacher development should also include training on increasing students’ action competence and their agency (Jensen & Schnack, Reference Jensen and Schnack1997; Mogensen & Schnack, Reference Mogensen and Schnack2010; Sass et al., Reference Sass, Boeve-de Pauw, Olsson, Gericke, De Maeyer and Van Petegem2020, Reference Sass, De Maeyer, Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem2023; White et al., Reference White, Ardoin, Eames and Monroe2023, Reference White, Ardoin, Eames and Monroe2024) and enhancing competencies for team collaboration (Varela-Losada et al., Reference Varela-Losada, Vega-Marcote, Pérez-Rodríguez and Álvarez-Lires2016; Wals & Rodela, Reference Wals and Rodela2014; Wals, Reference Wals2007), as they are fundamental elements of ESD principles. Based on this, we conclude that short-term teacher training and recommendations in programmes’ methodological guidelines are very likely inadequate to meet these goals and should be supplemented by long-term support (e.g. coaching, supervising and long-term training) and post-programme reflection procedures enabling expert, peer and self-evaluation.
An interesting issue emerging from the results is the way teachers supported peer interaction of their students. In School 2, peer interaction was encouraged by the teacher tutors, and another crucial factor for balanced peer interaction was the formation of groups with specialised roles and tasks. The decisions about dividing team members into specialised groups were negotiated by the students themselves, which strengthened balanced teamwork and communication. On the other hand, in Schools 1 and 3, several students reported not being fully integrated into the team activities, and some students dominated the implementation of the project. As critical decisions in both teams were made by the teachers and the municipality (or older students), only the eager students fully accepted these decisions and were motivated to act upon them. In the end, the teachers communicated mostly with the active students who became leaders and gained control over their team’s project. This caused further demotivation of some students, who felt marginalised. The same effect of an unbalanced distribution of control over the project among students was reported by previous studies (Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Boeve-de Pauw, Goldman and Simonova2019a; Cincera & Kovacikova, Reference Cincera and Kovacikova2014), and this deficiency is also intertwined with the fact that teachers still lack skills for enabling effective social learning and a balanced distribution of power within a team (Borg et al., Reference Borg, Gericke, Höglund and Bergman2012; Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Boeve-de Pauw, Goldman and Simonova2019a; Cincera & Kovacikova, Reference Cincera and Kovacikova2014). This supports the aforementioned argument for sufficient methodological support and training of teachers. While the study is situated within the ESD field, it could be argued that its findings are relevant to the closely related fields of EE and CCE and the recent educational framework of agency in the Anthropocene. The tendency to misinterpret the programme theory, reduce student participation or experience differences in programme perceptions between students and teachers may represent critical issues across all these discourses. Moreover, it can be argued that the theory-practice gap, highlighted by various studies throughout the history of environmental and sustainability education (Robottom & Hart, Reference Robottom and Hart1993; Cebrián & Junyent, Reference Cebrián and Junyent2015; Cincera et al., Reference Cincera, Johnson and Kroufek2020), remains a significant issue. Regardless of the quality of its theoretical foundation, a programme may reproduce outdated teaching patterns and, as a result, fail in its ambition to develop students’ competencies. To address this, a deeper understanding of the processes influencing the implementation of ESD/EE/CCE programmes is required. Further research on the theory-practice relationship could provide valuable insights and greatly benefit the field.
Limitations
Due to the programme’s organisational issues, the study is based on a relatively small sample. As a result, the study may not represent the broader population of the programme’s participants. Furthermore, as the study relies on self-reported data from students and teachers, it can be vulnerable to bias, as participants may overestimate their engagement or the programme’s effectiveness.
In light of this, the study should be interpreted as a multiple-case study, and its findings can be generalised only with caution. Future research could benefit from a larger and more diverse sample, both in terms of geographic location and demographic characteristics, to enhance the generalizability of the findings.
Conclusion
The study applied the AESDF by Sinakou et al. (Reference Sinakou, Donche, Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem2019) to analyse the gaps between the programme theory and its implementation in the specific context of a Czech ESD programme for primary schools. While the programme was successfully implemented in some ESD dimensions (action-taking, community involvement, interdisciplinarity), its implementation in other categories (peer interaction, students’ leadership) varied among the analysed cases. The critical aspect seems to be how the teachers interpreted the need for students’ involvement in decision-making about their project selection and implementation. The results also suggest that the low level of students’ leadership may dramatically decrease their interest in the project and, consequently, compromise the effects of the programme on their learning. As the study argues, students’ agency and their opportunity to participate in decision-making in an ESD programme are crucial preconditions for its effectiveness. Therefore, future in-service and pre-service teacher training should focus on these aspects of students’ leadership.
Furthermore, the study verified the effectiveness of the AESDF as a tool for both programme design and evaluation. However, the study also suggests ideas for a more detailed elaboration of the framework, notably in the area of students’ leadership. The practical application of the framework warrants investigation through representative studies with large samples, opening many possibilities for further research. The study also helped to understand the tentative relationship between the theory and practice of ESD programmes. While situated in the ESD discourse, it may be argued that its findings are transferable to related areas, like EE or CCE and the concept of agency in the Anthropocene. It points out that — whatever discourse or terminology is used, we cannot expect that a sound programme theory itself may be automatically considered the sole precondition of effective programmes; it is the programme implementation that ultimately matters. Finally, the results of the study call for more case studies focused on the theory-implementation gap in the field of ESD, EE or CCE.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2025.26.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the colleagues at SEVER who helped us with the data collection, and the participants of the focus group interviews. In addition, we would like to thank the Department of Environmental Studies (Faculty of Social Sciences) at the Masaryk University for the funding that supported the research.
Financial support
The submitted manuscript has been financially supported by the project Specifický výzkum — podpora studentských projektů/Specific research — support for student projects.
Ethical standards
The data collection was fully anonymous, all respondents were informed about the research goals, their participation was voluntary and they were able to refuse to participate at any point of data collection.
Author Biographies
Miloslav Kolenatý is a lecturer at Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem (Czech Republic) and a PhD candidate at Masaryk University in Brno (Czech Republic). The theme of his dissertation thesis (under the supervision of Jan Činčera) is climate literacy of Czech pupils. He has been working in the field of climate change education for several years, as an educator and recently as a researcher.
Jan Činčera, PhD, is an associate professor at the Department of Environmental Studies, Faculty of Social Studies at Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. He focuses on environmental education theory, research and instructional strategies. His main interest lies in analysing instructional strategies that help achieve the goals of environmental education. He is the author of a set of nationally certified guidelines for programme evaluation. In 2019–2020, he carried out a representative survey of the environmental literacy of secondary school students, which also included a survey of attitudes towards climate change.
Open access
