A multi-stakeholder perspective on the development of key competencies for sustainability in Education for Sustainable Development at school

Environmental Education Research ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ceer20 A multi-stakeholder perspective on the development of key competencies for sustainability in Education for Sustainable Development at school Julia Günther, Sina Muster, Klara Kaiser & Marco Rieckmann To cite this article: Julia Günther, Sina Muster, Klara Kaiser & Marco Rieckmann (2024) A multi-stakeholder perspective on the development of key competencies for sustainability in Education for Sustainable Development at school, Environmental Education Research, 30:10, 1651-1667, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2024.2349934 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2349934 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 02 Jun 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2019 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 4 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 2024, vol. 30, no. 10, 1651–1667 A multi-stakeholder perspective on the development of key competencies for sustainability in Education for Sustainable Development at school Julia Günthera,b , Sina Mustera, Klara Kaisera and Marco Rieckmannb aimpact Evaluation, acker e.v., Berlin, Germany; bEducational sciences, university of vechta, vechta, Germany ABSTRACT A range of stakeholder groups are involved with fostering Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). It is crucial that their views on the aims of ESD are aligned. This is a prerequisite for coordinated integration of ESD into the formal education system. However, research has not explored whether stakeholder groups have similar ideas about the aims and learning outcomes of ESD. This study investigates the differences and similarities in stakeholders’ opinions on the sustainability key competencies students should develop. We conducted 15 interviews with German experts in ESD practice, policy, and science, analyzing the results deductively using Qualitative Content Analysis within the UNESCO framework of Key Competencies for Sustainability. An inductive approach was used to identify aspects and concepts of competence that went beyond this framework. Most of the competencies mentioned could be assigned to the UNESCO framework, but we identified the additional competency of participating at the political level as being important for ESD. The experts also identified several other concepts. The three stakeholder groups emphasized different competencies and concepts, probably due to their differing professional backgrounds. However, similarities predominated, and the experts largely agreed on which competencies should be developed. Structural difficulties with integrating ESD into the education system are therefore not likely to be the result of fundamental differences in perspective between the three stakeholder groups on the aims of ESD. However, their different frames of reference might lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding, which could impede integration. This aspect needs thorough examination in the future. 1. Introduction There is a broad consensus in educational discourse that the aim of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is to enable learners to contribute to sustainable development (Rieckmann 2018). ESD learning outcomes have increasingly focused on competencies over the past two decades (Bormann 2008; de Haan 2008, 2009; Redman and Wiek 2021; Rieckmann 2011, 2018; UNESCO 2017). Since the recognition of Weinert’s (2001) work, the discourse has identified the competencies to be developed by learners as the main aim of ESD, with several authors proposing competence models and compilations. While some authors focus on individual © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK limited, trading as taylor & Francis Group CONTACT Julia Günther [email protected] impact Evaluation, acker e.v., Berlin, Germany. this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the creative commons attribution-noncommercial-noderivatives license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 11 March 2022 Accepted 27 April 2024 KEYWORDS Education for Sustainable Development; key competencies for sustainability; ESD outcomes; school education; multi-stakeholder perspective; SDG 4 – quality education https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2349934 1652 J. GÜNTHER ETAL. competencies or those related to specific aspects of sustainability, others have compiled an overarching set of key competencies. One early single competence approach was that of Eggert and Bögeholz, who focused solely on socioscientific decision making in the context of sustainable development (Eggert et al. 2013; Eggert and Bögeholz 2010). Wals formulated four interdependent dimensions of sustainability competencies and associated ‘sustain-abilities’ (2015, 12). A foundational publication with a broader, more overarching perspective on competencies in ESD is de Haan (2010), in which he proposed the ‘shaping competence’ (Gestaltungskompetenz), which refers to and builds on the OECD’s key competencies model (2005). This concept was perceived, accepted and applied (in Germany) in fields far beyond the research community, including practitioners and policy makers. Other sustainability key competencies frameworks include those developed by Wiek, Withycombe, and Redman (2011, Wiek et al. 2016) and Frisk and Larson (2011). Redman and Wiek (2021) recently validated their set of key competencies in an international literature review, expanding it to include further professional and general competencies. The preliminary work by Wiek etal. on key competencies was taken up, discussed and developed by UNESCO (2017), Rieckmann (2018) and Brundiers et al. (2021), which took previous scientific work on key competencies for sustainability and made them accessible to a wider, international and not exclusively scientific audience, combining competencies with learning outcomes relating to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The question of which competencies should be fostered by ESD and developed by learners in order to enable them to contribute to sustainable transformation has also been investigated beyond the Eurocentric horizon through Delphi studies: a study conducted by Rieckmann (2012) involved experts from Chile, Ecuador, Germany, Mexico and the United Kingdom, and the Delphi study by Demssie etal. (2019) focused on Ethiopia. Rieckmann identifies the challenge of there being ‘no explicit consensus on a specific framework of key competencies in sustainability’ (2021, 14). Brundiers etal. (2021) international Delphi study with 14 experts was based on the framework proposed by Wiek, Withycombe, and Redman (2011), one of the most cited in research, and recommended that two additional competencies – intrapersonal and implementation competency – be added to the framework. In recent years, publications have increasingly focused on linking the competencies to be acquired through ESD with learning objectives set out in curricula and education plans (Charif 2022; Fekih Zguir, Dubis, and Koç 2021; Fredriksson etal. 2020; Paaske, Segura-Bonilla, and Hernandez-Milian 2021; UNESCO 2017). In Germany, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs issued the Curriculum Framework for Education for Sustainable Development (Schreiber & Siege) in 2016. Though the document is not binding, it provides recommendations for the teaching of ESD at schools and addresses competencies in the form of educational objectives. The scientific debate on ESD has also included the empirical implications for pedagogical approaches of designing suitable learning environments. A literature review by Lozano et al. (2017) identified a range of pedagogical approaches and examined their benefits for the acquisition of sustainability competencies. In the same vein, an intensifying discourse on ESD competencies, i.e. the professional competence of educators, can be observed in recent years (Vare, Lausselet, and Rieckmann 2022). Politically, the current goal is to take ESD from project to structure (Nationale Plattform Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung 2017; UNESCO 2014). The ESD for 2030 program further strengthens the relationship between education and the SDGs, encouraging the states involved to mainstream ESD in their national education systems (UNESCO 2020). A range of stakeholder groups are involved in the process of fostering ESD in the formal education system, namely educational practitioners, policy makers, and scientists. While decisions about overall direction are made at the political level, responsibility for the successful implementation of ESD falls to education practitioners. In this context, the science can provide insights and perspectives to help the other two stakeholder groups steer and implement the relevant processes. The more successfully the three stakeholder groups interact, the better the chances are likely to be that ESD will be implemented successfully. If the three groups tend to act independently or with little reference ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1653 to each other, there may be obstacles to implementation and/or miscommunication in the context of the implementation process. Interconnected action is required at a variety of levels, particularly where governance is organized through multi-stakeholder networks. In Germany, for instance, stakeholders from fields such as practice, politics, science, civil society, and business work together in more or less institutionalized bodies. Examples include the Regional Centres of Expertise (RCEs), which operate in regional contexts worldwide, and the expert forums of the National Platform advising the Federal Government of Germany on the structural implementation of ESD. One study in Germany looked at the different stakeholder groups involved in the multi-actor policy networks that are driving the implementation of ESD (Singer-Brodowski etal. 2020). The study used the lens of educational governance to investigate how the groups coordinated their actions with each other. Further studies are investigating governance processes in multi-stakeholder interfaces and networks that provide information in the context of policy research concerning ESD (Feinstein, Jacobi, and Lotz-Sisitka 2013; Lotz-Sisitka, Rosenberg, and Ramsarup 2021; Rickinson and McKenzie 2021). However, research has not yet explored whether different stakeholder groups have similar expectations as regards the aims of ESD, i.e. the competencies students should develop in the context of ESD at school. This study investigates the similarities and differences between the views of stakeholder groups in Germany on the aim of competence development within the framework of ESD, focusing on the following two research questions: (1) According to experts from ESD practice, policy, and science, what competencies should students develop in the context of ESD at school in order to be able to engage with global sustainability transformation? (2) What are the similarities and differences between the views of the three groups? We approached the questions by conducting and analyzing 15 expert interviews. We initially used the eight competencies formulated by UNESCO (2017) as a frame of reference for the comparison of the three stakeholder groups. This study is based on UNESCO's definition of competencies as ‘the specific attributes individuals need for action and self-organization in various complex contexts and situations’ (2017, 10), which in turn goes back to the preliminary work of Weinert (2001). We will introduce UNESCO’s competence framework (2017) in detail in the methods section (see 2.3). In order to draw conclusions and derive recommendation for the implementation process, we also analyzed other frames of reference and the other competencies mentioned and considered the results in the context of relevant preliminary works. This study provides insights into the perspectives of the stakeholder groups that are driving the implementation of ESD in the school sector in Germany. It provides benchmarks to assist national and international experts involved with the implementation of ESD in developing a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences between stakeholder groups’ ideas on ESD aims. We hope that this will help stakeholder groups to take a more informed and conscious approach to implementation. Our results may be especially relevant for stakeholders that are part of multi-stakeholder structures and are attempting to coordinate their activities. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Sampling design and data collection We conducted 15 semi-structured, guided expert interviews (Kaiser 2014) between May and August 2019. Interviewees were selected for the sample from a pool of 83 experts identified as being involved in ESD in Germany. The identification of experts started in March 2019 and was not complete at the beginning of data collection, as we continuously selected suitable candidates. Experts were identified as suitable through an internet search based on their professional positions. We also asked our network and the interviewees themselves for recommendations. We assume that the 83 identified experts cover the ground to a large extent, although we cannot claim the number to be exhaustive. 1654 J. GÜNTHER ETAL. We opted for a parallel sampling design, as the goal was to compare three stakeholder groups of equal level. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007) suggest a minimum of three cases per subgroup in order to ensure sufficient data and robust results. We decided to interview five experts per subgroup to achieve a satisfactory level of data saturation. We noticed signs of high data saturation after about 12 interviews. The final three interviews confirmed this impression, as they mainly contained redundant information and the new data did not provide entirely new insights with regard to the research questions (Bryman 2012). The selection of interviewees for each stakeholder group aimed to achieve maximum variation and was guided by the following criteria: gender parity, individuals involved with ESD both inside and outside schools, representatives from different German states (Bundesländer) and committees, and experts from various scientific disciplines. The final sample included five experts each from ESD practice, policy, and science. Eight women and seven men were interviewed. We chose experts from seven different German states: Seven from Berlin, three from Baden-Württemberg, and one each from Hamburg, Saarland, Hesse, Lower Saxony, and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. The experts from the field of practice included two school principals, one individual working as a teacher and teacher trainer and two ESD stakeholders from outside the classroom. The policy experts were not politicians but ESD stakeholders whose professional position or qualified involvement with state-appointed bodies meant they had an influence on political decision-making or ESD implementation in the education system. The experts from the scientific field came from the disciplines of environmental psychology (two experts), educational science (two experts), and didactics (one expert). In the spirit of ‘data minimisation’ as defined in Art. 5 (1) of the GDPR, we restricted the personal data we collected about the experts to that which was relevant to our research questions. In compliance with the further data protection provisions set out in the GDPR, we provided the experts with a declaration of consent. This informed them about the research project, the project partners involved, the legal basis of data processing, their rights, and contact persons. We assured the experts that the data collected would be anonymized. Experts’ consent to this procedure was obtained prior to interviews and confirmed by all interviewees through their signature of the declaration. The interview guide was developed by the first author in cooperation and continuous discussion with six other researchers. The guide was significantly more extensive than the questions the answers to which were relevant to the data analysis presented in this paper. However, the question ‘Which competencies are – in your opinion – essential to ESD and should be promoted in schools?’ was explicitly posed in every interview. The experts were asked to spontaneously name the competencies that they considered most relevant for children and young people to develop through ESD. These answers, as well as the experts’ explanations of the competencies they mentioned, formed the basis of the analysis. The interviews were conducted by the first author (Gläser and Laudel 2010) and lasted about one hour each; an audio recording was made of each interview. 2.2. Data analysis We decided on Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA), as developed by Gläser and Laudel (2010), because as a methodology it has three advantages over other procedures (e.g. Mayring 2015). Firstly, it puts the principle of a theory-based approach into practice, formulating the initial coding system on the basis of theoretical variables derived from the research questions. Secondly, it integrates the principle of openness, as analysis process enables the coding system to be adapted without discarding individual coding categories. This ensures ongoing correlation between the analysis process and the research questions. A third advantage of QCA according to Gläser and Laudel (2010) is that it gives all qualitative material equal weight. The first run of the analysis applies the coding system to all documents, and it can be decided whether the ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1655 information arising from each coding fits into the existing coding system or whether the system needs to be adapted or expanded. Having collected the data, we anonymized the interviews, and transcribed and summarized them. Analysis was reinforced by a process of communicative validation: decisions relating to the analysis process were taken or reconfirmed in frequent exchanges within teams of four researchers. This collaborative working ensured that decisions about data analysis processes and interpretation were subject to intersubjective validation, with the aim of increasing the reliability of the study. The analysis was undertaken using MAXQDA software according to Gläser & Laudel’s QCA methodology (2010). We describe below how we adapted the general principles of the QCA as set out in section 2.2 to facilitate analysis of our research objectives. An initial a priori coding system was created on the basis of the UNESCO framework on Key Competencies for Sustainability (2017). This framework is not strictly scientific but builds on previous work such as that of Weinert (2001), de Haan (2010), Wals (2015), Rieckmann (2012) and Wiek, Withycombe, and Redman (2011, Wiek et al. 2016). Brundiers et al. (2021) also considered the framework in their further development of the competencies presented by Wiek, Withycombe, and Redman (2011). The UNESCO framework can thus be placed in the context of the scientific ESD discourse on competencies (see also Rieckmann 2018). Moreover, it has the advantage that it reaches a wider circle of stakeholders than an exclusively scientific publication on competencies. We therefore found it particularly useful for addressing the conceptions of competencies not only of scientific stakeholders, but also of practice and policy experts. The UNESCO Key Competencies for Sustainability framework (2017) comprises eight cross-cutting competencies: systems thinking, anticipatory, normative, strategic, collaboration, critical thinking, self-awareness and integrated problem-solving competency. For a more detailed definition of each competency, see UNESCO (2017, 10, Box 1.1.). The competency definitions were used to define the a priori coding system; this was then applied deductively to the interview material. The principle of openness was also applied, in order to ensure that issues going beyond the deductive application of the UNESCO framework were considered and highlighted. New codes were thus inductively developed for relevant issues raised by the experts; these could not be considered in the deductive analysis, however. After a first run through the material, the coding system was finalized and then reapplied in a second run. Adjustments were made at the coding level only. Following coding, the experts’ differing emphases with regard to competencies were analyzed, and the possibility of systematic differentiation by group affiliation investigated. For this purpose, we calculated (1) the total number of codings per competency and group affiliation and (2) the total number of experts mentioning a competency per affiliated group. A high number of total mentions alone was not deemed to represent the focus of a group. A high number of codings might be due, for example, to one expert speaking a number of times and in depth about a single competency, while that competency might hardly be mentioned by other experts from the same field. We therefore also took into account the number of experts who mentioned a competency. We counted each expert only once in this context – i.e. whether the individual did or did not consider that the competency in question was important. This resulted in a maximum number of five where a competency was mentioned by all experts from the field. The two indicators were interpreted in relation to each other. Analysis was applied both to the individual competencies in the UNESCO framework and to the codes for competencies and competence concepts going beyond that framework. The trends that emerged for ESD practice, policy, and science were then examined to determine whether the experts had similar or different understanding of the definition of a competency. By way of example, the combination of the two indicators (number of codings and number of experts) enabled analysis of experts’ statements on the systems thinking competency. Firstly, this competency had by far the greatest total number of codings (62, see Figure 1) and thus supplied the largest volume of empirical material from which similarities and differences 1656 J. GÜNTHER ETAL. could be derived. Secondly, there were the greatest differences between groups in terms of the number of times this competency was mentioned. Some of the policy experts associated the systems thinking competency with a specific concept, which they used as a frame of reference. Subsequently, it was deemed relevant to take a closer look at the frames of reference mentioned by the stakeholder groups in interviews and discuss whether differences in prioritization could be identified. 3. Results In the following, we first present the results of the deductive analysis (section 3.1). We carried out an illustrative analysis of the systems thinking competency, finding no evidence of fundamentally differing understandings of this competency between the three stakeholder groups, even though they placed stronger emphasis on different aspects. It remains an open question as to whether there are differences regarding the understanding of the other competencies in the UNESCO framework, as there was insufficient data to enable reliable conclusions to be drawn about the groups’ understanding of these. We also present below other competence concepts used by the stakeholder groups as frames of reference. The results of the inductive analysis are dealt with in sections 3.2 and 3.3. In the context of the first research question (which competencies students should develop in ESD in schools), the experts mentioned a total of ten competencies. Beyond the eight competencies corresponding to the UNESCO framework, the experts highlighted two further competencies as relevant – namely the competency to deal with knowledge and the competency to participate. Furthermore, the experts referred to three competence models that they used as frames of reference. We will go into more detail on the competencies and competence models below and combine them directly with the results that emerged out of the second research question, in order to gain deeper insight into the similarities and differences between the three stakeholder groups. 3.1. Key competencies for sustainability 3.1.1. Differences in the number of codings for key competencies Each group referenced all the competencies from the UNESCO (2017) framework, albeit with varying intensity (Figure 1). In total, the experts referred to the framework’s eight competencies Figure 1. total number of codings (interview passages identified) referencing the unEsco framework for each expert group. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1657 in 284 passages (codings). Practitioners commented most frequently on the UNESCO framework competencies, with a total of 119 codings, 91 came from policy experts’ statements and 74 from scientists’ statements. Among the eight competencies, systems thinking was by far the most frequently mentioned, with 62 mentions. Collaboration received 45 mentions and the anticipatory competency 37 mentions. The experts focused least on the integrated problem-solving and normative competencies, which attracted 22 and 24 mentions respectively. 3.1.2. Differences in the number of experts mentioning key competencies The collaboration competency was most consistently mentioned by the experts: 14 of 15 mentioned this competency and only one person (from the field of science) did not (Figure 2). The systems thinking competency was mentioned by 13 experts. Only eleven experts spoke about integrated problem-solving and groups’ estimation of the relevance of this competency fluctuated widely: All five practitioners and four policy experts mentioned it, but only two researchers did. A similar picture emerged for the normative competency: All the practice and policy experts named it as important but only two researchers referenced it. 3.1.3. Practice The educational practice experts had the highest number of codings for mentions of the systems thinking competency (Figure 1, 24 codings). This competency was mentioned by four experts from this group (Figure 2). Codings for the normative, strategic, collaboration and integrated problem-solving competencies were lower but were mentioned by all five experts. The anticipatory competency had the lowest numbers, both of codings and of the number of experts mentioning it. The ESD practitioners mentioned all the UNESCO competencies and there was no specific emphasis on any individual competency. However, the anticipatory competency was somewhat underrepresented. 3.1.4. Policy All five experts addressed the normative and collaboration competencies (Figure 2). Of the other competencies in the UNESCO framework, all were mentioned by four experts each, giving a relatively diffuse picture of the policy experts’ priorities. There were differences in the frequency of mentions for individual competencies (Figure 1), with the self-awareness competency in first place (17 codings), closely followed by the collaboration competency (15 codings). This group Figure 2. number of experts from each expert group who mentioned a competency from the unEsco framework. 1658 J. GÜNTHER ETAL. paid least attention to integrated problem-solving (six codings) and the strategic competency (seven codings). 3.1.5. Science Clearer focal points could be identified from the statements by the ESD scientists. The systems thinking and anticipatory competencies were mentioned particularly frequently and in detail. This was supported by the total number of codings (Figure 1, 26 and 16 codings) and by the fact that these competencies were mentioned by all experts in this field (Figure 2). In contrast, the normative and integrated problem-solving competencies were mentioned least frequently (Figure 1, four and three codings respectively). These received the lowest number of codings and were each mentioned by only two of five experts. 3.1.6. Similarities and differences between stakeholder groups The three stakeholder groups largely agreed on the relevance of the systems thinking competency. The policy experts discussed this competency with less frequency (Figure 1); the other two groups demonstrated a clear interest in it. The experts also generally rated the collaboration competency as relevant for ESD; scientist emphasized it less than the other two groups, but nevertheless supported this competency. We also found similarities between the groups with regard to the critical thinking competency, although the number of mentions was in the mid-range for all three groups. The opposite tendency was evident for the anticipatory competency. The scientists had a clear focus on this competency, but the number of mentions was in the middle range among the policy experts and it was underrepresented among the education practitioners. We also found differences in the estimation of the relevance of the normative competency, which had a mid-range number of mentions by practitioners and policy experts but was underrepresented in the science experts’ group. There were further differences between the groups for the integrated problem-solving competency. This was deemed of minor relevance by the scientists and policy experts but was of greater relevance for the practitioners. Unlike the other groups, the practitioners also emphasized the strategic competency. The policy experts rated the self-awareness competency as important, while it was less frequently mentioned by the other groups. 3.2. Competencies beyond the UNESCO framework Not all competencies identified in the interviews were covered by the UNESCO framework. The experts mentioned other competencies as being important for students to develop with regard to ESD in schools. Two aspects stood out here. 3.2.1. Competency to deal with knowledge We summarized one of the issues under the umbrella term knowledge. Some experts addressed knowledge in connection with the systems thinking competency. However, there were other statements on dealing with knowledge that could not be assigned to any competency in the UNESCO framework (2017). Different aspects of knowledge appeared in the experts’ statements. We identified seven experts who talked in 15 interview passages about the competency to deal with knowledge and information. The relevance of this competency was primarily emphasized by practitioners, four of whom addressed it. The other two groups addressed it to a lesser extent, with just one policy expert and two researchers mentioning it. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1665 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Benjamin Tempel, Sonja Schaal, Steffen Schaal, Anne Overbeck and Siegmar Otto for their support in developing the interview guide. In addition, the authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding J.G., S.M. & K.K. received funding by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant number: 01JJ17112C). ORCID Julia Günther http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1370-8855 Marco Rieckmann http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1212-7346 References Biesta, G., and R. Lawy. 2006. “From Teaching Citizenship to Learning Democracy: Overcoming Individualism in Research, Policy and Practice.” Cambridge Journal of Education 36 (1): 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640500490981. Binkley, M. et al. 2012. “Defining Twenty-First Century Skills.” In: Griffin, P., McGaw, B., Care, E. (eds) Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2. Bormann, I. 2008. “Steuerungswissen‘– Kompetenzen Im Spiegel Von Indikatoren.” In Kompetenzen der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Operationalisierung, Messung, Rahmenbedingungen, Befunde, edited by I. Bormann and G. de Haan, 253–271. Wiesbaden: Springer VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Brundiers, K., M. Barth, G. Cebrián, M. Cohen, L. Diaz, S. Doucette-Remington, W. Dripps, et al. 2021. “Key Competencies in Sustainability in Higher Education—Toward an Agreed-upon Reference Framework.” Sustainability Science 16 (1): 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2. Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Charif, S. 2022. “Integration of ESD in French Primary Schools: For What Purpose, with What Form of Integration and with What Content?” Environmental Education Research 29 (8): 1072–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622. 2022.2104813. Christensen, A. S., and T. Grammes. 2020. “The Beutelsbach Consensus – The Approach to Controversial Issues in Germany in an International Context.” Acta Didactica Norden 14 (4): 19 sider. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.8349. de Haan, G. 2008. “Gestaltungskompetenz als Kompetenzkonzept der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung.” In Kompetenzen Der Bildung Für Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Operationalisierung, Messung, Rahmenbedingungen, Befunde, edited by I. Bormann and G. de Haan, 23–43. Wiesbaden: Springer VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. de Haan, G. 2010. “The Development of ESD-Related Competencies in Supportive Institutional Frameworks.” International Review of Education 56 (2–3): 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-010-9157-9. de Haan, G., ed. 2009. Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Hintergründe, Legitimation und (neue) Kompetenzen. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. De Oliveira Andreotti, V. 2006. “Soft Versus Critical Global Citizenship Education.” In Editor: Catherine Simmons Development Education: Policy and Practice. Belfast: Centre for Global Education. Vol. 3, 40–51. Demssie, Y. N., R. Wesselink, H. J. A. Biemans, and M. Mulder. 2019. “Think outside the European Box: Identifying Sustainability Competencies for a Base of the Pyramid Context.” Journal of Cleaner Production 221: 828–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.255. Eggert, S., and S. Bögeholz. 2006. “Göttinger Modell der Bewertungskompetenz – Teilkompetenz „Bewerten, Entscheiden und Reflektieren“ für Gestaltungsaufgaben Nachhaltiger Entwicklung.” Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften 12 (1): 177–199. Eggert, S., and S. Bögeholz. 2010. “Students’ Use of decision-making Strategies with Regard to Socioscientific Issues: An Application of the Rasch Partial Credit Model.” Science Education 94 (2): 230–258. https://doi. org/10.1002/sce.20358. 1666 J. GÜNTHER ETAL. Eggert, S., F. Ostermeyer, M. Hasselhorn, and S. Bögeholz. 2013. “Socioscientific Decision Making in the Science Classroom: The Effect of Embedded Metacognitive Instructions on Students’ Learning Outcomes.” Education Research International 2013:e309894. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/309894. Feinstein, N. W., P. R. Jacobi, and H. Lotz-Sisitka. 2013. “When Does a Nation-Level Analysis Make Sense? ESD and Educational Governance in Brazil, South Africa, and the USA.” Environmental Education Research 19 (2): 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.767321. Fekih Zguir, M., S. Dubis, and M. Koç. 2021. “Embedding Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and SDGs Values in Curriculum: A Comparative Review on Qatar, Singapore and New Zealand.” Journal of Cleaner Production 319: 128534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128534. Fredriksson, U., K. N. Kusanagi, P. Gougoulakis, Y. Matsuda, and Y. Kitamura. 2020. “A Comparative Study of Curriculums for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in Sweden and Japan.” Sustainability 12 (3): 1123. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031123. Frisk, E., and K. L. Larson. 2011. “Educating for Sustainability: Competencies & Practices for Transformative Action.” Journal of Sustainability Education 2 (1): 1–20. Gläser, J., and G. Laudel. 2010. Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. 4th ed. Wiesbaden: Springer VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Hasebrink, U., S. Hölig, and L. Wunderlich. 2021. #UseTheNews. Studie zur Nachrichtenkompetenz Jugendlicher und junger Erwachsener in der digitalen Medienwelt. (Arbeitspapiere des Hans-Bredow-Instituts | Projektergebnisse Nr. 55). Hans-Bredow-Institut. https://www.hans-bredow-institut.de/uploads/media/default/cms/media/tkttgbx_AP55%20 UseTheNews.pdf Kaiser, R. 2014. Qualitative Experteninterviews. Konzeptionelle Grundlagen und praktische Durchführung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Lotz-Sisitka, H., E. Rosenberg, and P. Ramsarup. 2021. “Environment and Sustainability Education Research as Policy Engagement: (Re-) Invigorating ‘Politics as Potentia’ in South Africa.” Environmental Education Research 27 (4): 525–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1759511. Lozano, R., M. Y. Merrill, K. Sammalisto, K. Ceulemans, and F. J. Lozano. 2017. “Connecting Competences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in Higher Education: A Literature Review and Framework Proposal.” Sustainability 9 (10): 1889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101889. Mannion, G., G. Biesta, M. Priestley, and H. Ross. 2011. “The Global Dimension in Education and Education for Global Citizenship: Genealogy and Critique.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 9 (3–4): 443–456. https://doi. org/10.1080/14767724.2011.605327. Mayring, P. 2015. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen Und Techniken. 12th ed. Weinheim: Beltz Verlagsgruppe. Nationale Plattform Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. 2017. Nationaler Aktionsplan Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Zarbock. https://www.bmbf.de/files/Nationaler_Aktionsplan_Bildung_f%c3%bcr_nachhaltige_ Entwicklung.pdf OECD. 2005. Definition und Auswahl von Schlüsselkompetenzen—Zusammenfassung. https://www.oecd.org/ pisa/35693281.pdf Öhman, J. 2008. Values and Democracy in Education for Sustainable Development: Contributions from Swedish Research. Malmö: Liber. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and N. L. Leech. 2007. “Sampling Designs in Qualitative Research: Making the Sampling Process More Public.” Qualitative Report 12 (2): 238–254. Paaske, D. M., O. Segura-Bonilla, and J. Hernandez-Milian. 2021. “ESD for Managers in the Danish Lower Secondary Educational Curriculum.” Journal of Work-Applied Management 13 (1): 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JWAM-10-2020-0045. Pauw, J., N. Gericke, D. Olsson, and T. Berglund. 2015. “The Effectiveness of Education for Sustainable Development.” Sustainability 7 (11): 15693–15717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71115693. Redman, A., and A. Wiek. 2021. “Competencies for Advancing Transformations Towards Sustainability.” Frontiers in Education 6: 785163. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.785163. Rickinson, M., and M. McKenzie. 2021. “The Research-Policy Relationship in Environmental and Sustainability Education.” Environmental Education Research 27 (4): 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1895973. Rieckmann, M. 2011. “Schlüsselkompetenzen für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung der Weltgesellschaft. Ergebnisse einer europäisch-lateinamerikanischen Delphi-Studie.” GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 20 (1): 48–56. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.20.1.10. Rieckmann, M. 2012. “Future-Oriented Higher Education: Which Key Competencies Should Be Fostered through University Teaching and Learning?” Futures 44 (2): 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.09.005. Rieckmann, M. 2018. “Learning to Transform the World: Key Competencies in ESD.” In Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development, edited by A. Leicht, J. Heiss, and W. J. Byun, 39–59. Paris: UNESCO. Rieckmann, M. 2020. “Emancipatory and Transformative Global Citizenship Education in Formal and Informal Settings: Empowering Learners to Change Structures. Tertium Comparations.” Journal Für International Und Interkulturell Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft 26 (2): 174–186. https://doi.org/10.31244/tc.2020.02.10. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1667 Schreiber, J.-R., and H. Siege, eds. 2016. Curriculum Framework: Education for Sustainable Development. Standing Conference of the German Ministers of Education and Culture (KMK) & German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). https://www.globaleslernen.de/sites/default/files/files/link-elements/ curriculum_framework_education_for_sustainable_development_barrierefrei.pdf Singer-Brodowski, M., J. von Seggern, A. Duveneck, and N. Etzkorn. 2020. “Moving (Reflexively within) Structures. The Governance of Education for Sustainable Development in Germany.” Sustainability 12 (7): 2778. https://doi. org/10.3390/su12072778. UNESCO, ed. 2014. UNESCO Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/roadmap_1.pdf UNESCO, ed. 2017. Education for Sustainable Development Goals. Learning Objectives. https://www.unesco.de/sites/ default/files/2018-08/unesco_education_for_sustainable_development_goals.pdf UNESCO. 2020. Education for Sustainable Development. A Roadmap. ESD for 2030. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000374802.locale=en United Nations. n.d. Goal 4 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4 Vare, P., N. Lausselet, and M. Rieckmann, eds. 2022. Competences in Education for Sustainable Development: Critical Perspectives. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91055-6. Verhelst, D., J. Vanhoof, J. Boeve-de Pauw, and P. Van Petegem. 2020. “Building a Conceptual Framework for an ESD-Effective School Organization.” The Journal of Environmental Education 51 (6): 400–415. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00958964.2020.1797615. Vierbuchen, M.-C., and M. Rieckmann. 2020. “ Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung und inklusive Bildung – Grundlagen, Konzepte und Potenziale.” Zeitschrift Für Internationale Bildungsforschung Und Entwicklungspädagogik 2020 (1): 4–10. https://doi.org/10.31244/zep.2020.01.02CC-BY-NC-ND4.0. Vodafone Foundation Germany. 2019. Alles auf dem Schirm? Wie sich junge Menschen in Deutschland zu politischen Themen informieren. Vodafone Stiftung Deutschland. https://www.vodafone-stiftung.de/wp-content/ uploads/2019/11/Vodafone-Stiftung-Deutschland_Studie_Politisches_Informationsverhalten.pdf Wals, A. E. J. 2010. “Between Knowing What is Right and Knowing That is It Wrong to Tell Others What is Right: On Relativism, Uncertainty and Democracy in Environmental and Sustainability Education.” Environmental Education Research 16 (1): 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620903504099. Wals, A. E. J. 2015. Beyond Unreasonable Doubt: Education and Learning for Socio-Ecological Sustainability in the Anthropocene. Wageningen: Wageningen University, Wageningen UR. Weinert, F. E. 2001. “Concept of Competence: A Conceptual Clarification.” In Defining and Selecting Key Competencies, edited by D. S. Rychen and L. H. Salganik, 45–65. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. Wiek, A., L. Withycombe, and C. L. Redman. 2011. “Key Competencies in Sustainability: A Reference Framework for Academic Program Development.” Sustainability Science 6 (2): 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11625-011-0132-6. Wiek, A., M. J. Bernstein, R. W. Foley, M. Cohen, N. Forrest, C. Kuzdas, B. Kay, and L. W. Keeler. 2016. “Operationalising Competencies in Higher Education for Sustainable Development.” In Editors: Barth, Matthias, Michelsen, Gerd, Rieckmann, Marco, Thomas, Ian Location: London Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development, 241–260. London: Routledge.