Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is rapidly transforming education, including the ways students learn languages and experience motivation. While recent research has focused mainly on the affordances of GenAI, much less attention has been given to its potential risks for learners’ motivation and engagement. This paper addresses this gap by examining how GenAI may both enhance and undermine language learning motivation. We discuss how GenAI can affect the satisfaction or frustration of the three basic psychological needs – autonomy, competence, and relatedness – and how these effects may shift motivational orientations from intrinsic to extrinsic forms. We then explore how GenAI might reduce cognitive engagement, critical thinking, and assessment integrity when used uncritically. We also consider key methodological opportunities and challenges in researching GenAI-mediated language learning motivation. Based on this analysis, we identify key directions for future research agendas, including the balance between autonomy and dependence, sustaining motivation beyond novelty effects, rehumanizing digital learning, and redefining teachers’ roles in GenAI-rich contexts. We also call for theoretical renewal, ethical awareness, and methodological innovation in the study of GenAI-mediated motivation. A deeper understanding of these processes will allow future research and practice to harness GenAI’s potential responsibly, promoting motivation that is both sustainable and self-determined.

Socio-environmental challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss necessitate political action and transformative educational responses. Education for Environmental Citizenship (EEC) offers a promising framework for addressing these issues in school settings. However, there is a lack of reported structured teacher professional development (TPD) programmes that support EEC. This study presents a systematic literature review (SLR) of empirical studies and supranational frameworks, synthesising the results into a model for in-service TPD in EEC. The analysis identified core competencies such as critical thinking, systems thinking and global citizenship alongside with dimensions including socio-emotional and cultural-territorial competencies, which address context-specific educational needs. These are mapped to pedagogical strategies such as outdoor learning, reflective practice and community-based learning. The resulting model seeks to align global sustainability goals with local realities. This research lays the groundwork for fostering EEC by providing educators with the competencies and strategies essential to drive social and environmental change.

The rationale for including sustainability in Higher Education curriculum has been made clear, yet how to facilitate effective learning in this field has received less research attention. This article focuses on approaches to the ‘framing’ of sustainability in curriculum design as a tool for educators to contextualise sustainability concepts and practices to engage learners within traditional disciplines where sustainability studies are still relatively novel, and therefore, not embedded within existing disciplinary ‘frames’. The article draws together findings from a qualitative study of four undergraduate sustainability courses to provide initial insight into different framings of sustainability and student experiences within the courses. Drawing on an analysis of empirical data and theory, this article argues that the way sustainability is framed may assist in addressing barriers in the uptake of sustainability by teachers and students in Higher Education. Framing has the potential to support student engagement with sustainability courses and the integration of sustainability within degree programs and professional practices. The findings also indicate that framing, and its effect on learning, are shaped by both the presentation of content and also, more importantly for transformative learning, the pedagogy underpinning the curriculum design.

Within the North American public education system, institutionalised structures of schooling often prevent teachers from aligning their values with their practice when it comes to environmental education (Bowers, 1997; Weston, 2004). In response to this, this article will outline our lived experiences, as teachers and researcher, in disrupting the traditional school system as we work toward building a new culture in schooling through nature-based education. Acts of disruption that we will speak to include: going outside for learning on a regular basis, teaching for empowerment, involving families in the education, attempts to play with structural confines of schooling, and finding ways to stay empowered ourselves. Through this work, we have found that there is a rippling effect to the disruption that requires courage, grit, and resilience such that we do not slide back into conventional approaches. We have also become empowered in our practices through implementing these changes, watching our students become active stewards within their communities and beyond. We are learning deeply about the work of structural change within a public school district and offer words here as inspiration and support for others wishing to make changes within their own context.

Dempsey (this issue) has provided a commentary on our study (Carter, Stephenson, & Strnadová, 2011) examining the reported rates of use of instructional practices by Australian special educators. Examining this commentary, it is evident that on many issues we are on the same page and agree on many of the fundamental conclusions to be drawn from the study. Nevertheless, Dempsey did express concern regarding several aspects of the reporting of the study, which were suggested to have the ‘potential to mislead’ readers. In essence, these criticisms revolve around four substantive points and these will each be addressed.

This research examined the reported level of implementation of eight practices in a national sample of Australian special education teachers, replicating the North American study of Burns and Ysseldyke (2009). The 194 respondents reported extensive use of a number of evidence-based practices, such as direct instruction and applied behaviour analysis. Conversely, a number of practices that have very weak empirical foundations or can be considered disproven, such as perceptual-motor training and modality instruction, continue to be used at moderate-to-high levels. In addition, compared to their North American counterparts, Australian special education teachers used a number of evidence-based practices significantly less frequently and used perceptual-motor programs more frequently. Implications of these results are discussed.