Advertisement

Communicating Education for Sustainable Development

  • Inka BormannEmail author
Chapter
  • 2.1k Downloads

Abstract

There are a number of reasons for communicating education for sustainable development (ESD). One is to use external events to demonstrate the syndrome of unsustainable development in educational contexts; another is to analyse scientific debates on the concept of ESD, including its legitimacy and function and on the political background of the concept of sustainable development. In this context a number of different concepts of ESD are discussed.

Keywords

Education for sustainable development Measurability of education Criteria and indicators Competences 

References

  1. Agenda 21 (1992). Agenda 21, New York: United Nations. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf.
  2. Anderson, J. A. (2005). Accountability in education. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U. & Bonß, W. (Eds.). (1989). Weder Sozialtechnologie noch Aufklärung? Analysen zur Verwendung sozialwissenschaftlichen Wissens. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Arieh, A., & Frønes, I. (2007). Indicators of children’s well-being – concepts, indices and usage. Social Indicator Research, 80, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biesta, G. (2007). Why ‘what works’ won’t work: evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonnett, M. (1999). Education for sustainable development: a coherent philosophy for environmental education? Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bormann, I. (2007). Criteria and indicators as negotiated knowledge and the challenge of its transfer. Educational Research for Practice and Policy, 6(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bormann, I. (2008). Fortschrittsmonitoring mittels Indikatoren - ein Beispiel. In W. Böttcher, W. Bos, H. Döbert & H. G. Holtappels, (Eds.), Bildungsmonitoring und Bildungscontrolling in nationaler und internationaler Perspektive (pp. 47-58). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  9. Bormann, I., & Haan, G. (Eds.). (2008). Kompetenzen der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (Operationalisierung, Messung, Rahmenbedingungen, Befunde). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  10. Bormann, I., & Michelsen, G. (2010). The collaborative production of meaningful measure(ment)s. In: EERJ 9 (4).Google Scholar
  11. Breiting, S., Mayer, M., & Mogensen, F. (2005). Quality criteria for ESD schools. Wien: Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson, K. M. (2010). Reporting systems for sustainability: what are they measuring? Social Indicators Research 86, online first: www.springerlink.com/content/d68n31n7385r8rt1/?p=1d1ac513dfd3474c99a79270a9de25bb&pi=12.
  13. de Haan, G. (2006). The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: a ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’-based model for education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Haan, G., Kamp, G., Lerch, A., Martignon, L., Müller-Christ, G., & Nutzinger, H. G. (2009). Nachhaltigkeit und Gerechtigkeit. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. de Vries, M. (2001). Meaningful measures: indicators on progress, progress on indicators. International Statistical Review, 69(2), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Declaration, B. (2009). Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3(2), 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitz-Gibbons, C. T., & Tymms, P. (2002). Technical and ethical issues in indicator systems: doing things right and doing wrong things. Education Policy Analysis Review 10 (6). Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n6.
  18. Frønes, I. (2007). Theorizing indicators. On indicators, signs and trends. Social Indicators Research, 83, 5–23.Google Scholar
  19. Giddens, A. (1997). The constitution of society. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  20. Goulet, D. (1992). Development indicators: a research problem, a policy problem. Journal of Socio-Economics, 21(3), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (2008). Assessment of competencies in educational contexts: state of the art and future prospects. Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  22. IRE International Review of Education (2010). Special Issue, Education for sustainable development, 56 (2–3). In Bormann, I., Haan, G. de & Leicht, A. (Eds.).Google Scholar
  23. Jude, N., Hartig, J., & Klieme, E. (2008). Kompetenzerfassung in pädagogischen Handlungsfeldern. Theorien, Konzepte und Methoden. Berlin: BMBF. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.bmbf.de/pub/bildungsforschung_band_sechsundzwanzig.pdf.
  24. Kaplan, D., & Elliott, P. R. (1997). Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 323–347.Google Scholar
  25. Klafki, W. (2007, 6.A. [1963]). Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  26. Klieme, E. (2004). Was sind Kompetenzen und wie lassen sie sich messen? Pädagogik, 56(6), 10–13.Google Scholar
  27. Klieme, E. & Leutner, D. (2006). Kompetenzmodelle zur Erfassung individueller Lernergebnisse und zur Bilanzierung von Bildungsprozessen. Antrag an die DFG zur Errichtung eines Schwerpunktprogramms.Google Scholar
  28. Lauströer, A., & Rost, J. (2008). Operationalisierung und Messung von Bewertungskompetenz. In I. Bormann & G. de Haan (Eds.), Kompetenzen der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Operationalisierung, Messung, Rahmenbedingungen, Befunde (pp. 89–103). Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyer-Drawe, K. (1999). Herausforderung durch die Dinge. Das Andere im Bildungsprozess. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 45(3), 329–336.Google Scholar
  30. Michelsen, G. (2005). Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation. Verständnis – Entwicklung – Perspektiven. In G. Michelsen & J. Godemann (Eds.), Handbuch Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation. Grundlagen und Praxis (pp. 25–42). München: Oekom.Google Scholar
  31. OECD. (2009). Green at fifteen? How 15-year-olds perform in environmental science and geoscience in PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  32. Pigozzi, M. J. (2010). Implementing the UN decade of education for sustainable development (DESD). Achievements, open questions and strategies for the way forward. International Review of Education 56. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.springerlink.com/content/b50u134666036522/?p=bc288a34a7cc467fb98cee6c05ffd1e2&pi=4.
  33. Raaij, R. van (2007). Indicators for education for sustainable development. Education for Sustainable Development 1(1). Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.bne-portal.de/coremedia/generator/pm/en/Issue__001/01__Contributions/Raaij_3A_20Indicators_20for_20Education_20for_20Sustainable_20Development.html.
  34. Radtke, F.-O. (2003). Die Erziehungswissenschaft der OECD – Aussichten auf die neue Performanzkultur? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14(27), 109–136.Google Scholar
  35. Rode, H., & Michelsen, G. (2008). Levels of indicator development for education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (Eds.). (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and well-functioning society. Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  37. Sauvé, L. (1996). Environmental education and sustainable development: a further appraisal. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 1, 7–34.Google Scholar
  38. Schecker, H., & Parchmann, I. (2003). Modellierung naturwissenschaftlicher Kompetenz. Zeitschrift der Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 12, 45–66.Google Scholar
  39. Scheerens, J., & Hendriks, M. (2004). Benchmarking the quality of education. European Educational Research Journal, 3(1), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tenorth, H. (1997). “Bildung” – Thematisierungsformen und Bedeutung in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 43, 969–984.Google Scholar
  41. Tilbury, D. (2009). Tracking our progress. A global monitoring and evaluation framework for the UN DESD. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3(2), 189–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Transfer 21a (2007). Education for sustainable development at secondary level. Justifications, competences, learning opportunities. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.transfer-21.de/daten/materialien/Orientierungshilfe/Guide_competences_engl_online.pdf.
  43. Transfer 21b (2007). Developing quality at “ESD Schools”. Quality areas, principles & criteria. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.transfer-21.de/daten/materialien/Orientierungshilfe/quality_eng_online.pdf.
  44. UNECE (2005). UNECE strategy for education for sustainable development. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.unece.org/env/documents/2005/cep/ac.13/cep.ac.13.2005.3.rev.1.e.pdf.
  45. UNECE (2007). Learning from each other: Achievements, challenges and the way forward. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.unece.org/env/documents/2007/ece/ece.belgrade.conf.2007.inf.3.e.pdf.
  46. UNECE (2009). Proposal for the establishment of an expert group on competences in education for sustainable development. Terms of Reference of the Expert Group on Competences. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.unece.org/env/esd/SC.EGC.htm#background.
  47. UNESCO (2005). International implementation scheme. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001486/148654E.pdf.
  48. Vare, P., & Scott, W. A. H. (2007). Learning for a change. Exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wals, A. E. J. (2009). A Mid-DESD review: key findings and ways forward. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3(2), 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wals, A. E. J. (2010). Between knowing what is right and knowing that it is wrong to tell others what is right: on relativism, uncertainty and democracy in environmental and sustainability education. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence. A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Phillips University of MarburgMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations