School Development and Education for Sustainable Development

  • Liza Centrone
Conference paper


OECD (2003) has developed a set of six scenarios for schooling in the future up to 2020. They have been clustered into three main categories: Scenarios 1a and 1b “Attempting to Maintain the Status Quo”, 2a and 2b “Re-schooling”, and 3a and 3b “De-schooling”. The scenarios describe in a somewhat “pure form” how schooling in general might take place in about fifteen years. In reality, of course, one would expect complex mixes to emerge between these different possible futures, rather than one or the other. By sharpening the alternatives, however, they provide an opportunity to think about what we want and do not want, and how probable the more or less desired choices are in terms of on-going trends and policies.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. (2).
    Gergen K. J. (1995), Social Construction and the Educational Process, in L. P. Steffe e J. Gale (eds.), Constructivism in Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp.17–40.Google Scholar
  2. (3).
    Glaserfeld, E.v.: Radikaler Konstruktivismus. Frankfurt am Main 1996. Foerster, H.v. /Pörsken, B.: Wahrheit ist die Erfindung eines Lügners. Heidelberg 1998. Siebert, H.: Konstruktivismus. Frankfurt am Main 1998.Google Scholar
  3. (4).
    Goodman N. (1978), Vedere e costruire il mondo, Bari, Laterza.Google Scholar
  4. (5).
    Goody J. (1989), Il suono e i segni, Milano, Mondadori.Google Scholar
  5. (6).
    Gough A., and Fien J. (1996) Environmental Education, Studying Society and Environment, Macmillan Education Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  6. (7).
    Gould S. J., Intelligenza e pregiudizio, Editori Riuniti, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. (8).
    Groppo M., Locatelli M.C. (1993), Corpo, mente, cultura nella società tecnologica, Milano, ISU.Google Scholar
  8. (10).
    Grunwald, A., Technikfolgenaschätzungeine Einführung. Berlin, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. (11).
    Heinrichs, H. in Peter H. Feindt, Newig, J., (Hrg), Partizipation, Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, Nachhaltigkeit, Marburg, 2005. Jonassen D. H. (1991), Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do we need a New Philosophical Paradigm? in “Educational Technology Research and Development”, 39, 3, pp.5-14.Google Scholar
  10. (12).
    Jonassen D. H.(1999), Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. (13).
    Jonassen D. H., Peck K. L., Wilson B. G., Pfeiffer W. S. (1998), Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. (14).
    Jonassen D.H. (1994), Thinking technology, toward a costructivistic design model, in “Educational technology”, XXXIV, Aprile, pp.34–37.Google Scholar
  13. (15).
    Jonassen D.H. (1994), Thinking technology. Toward a Constructivist Design Model, in “Educational Technology”, April 1994, pp.34–37.Google Scholar
  14. (16).
    Jonassen D.H. (1995), Supporting Communities of Learners with Technology: A Vision for Integrating Technology with Learning in Schools, in “Educational Technology”, July-August 1995, pp.60–63.Google Scholar
  15. (17).
    Lanzara G.F., Capacità negativa. Competenza progettuale e modelli di intervento nelle organizzazioni, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. (18).
    Larh, R., Pardo, A. General Evalutation of the School Action for the Environment Project. Spain, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. (19).
    Lewin, K., I conflitti sociali, F. Angeli, Milano 1980, pp. 248–249.Google Scholar
  18. (20).
    Ligorio B. (1994), Community of learners, in “Tecnologie Didattiche”, n 4, pp.22, 39.Google Scholar
  19. (21).
    Lipari D., Progettazione e valutazione nei processi formativi, Edizioni Lavoro, Roma, 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Tsinghua University Press, Beijing and Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liza Centrone
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BressanoneBressanoneItalia

Personalised recommendations