Keywords

Introduction

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) promotes the development of sustainability competences (Brundiers et al. 2021; Rieckmann 2018; Lozano et al. 2017; see Chap. 4 in this book) with a view to addressing the manifold ecological, social, economic, and cultural problems in the world and effecting the necessary societal transformation (UN Environment 2019). ESD enables people to participate in sustainable development and to reflect critically on their own actions. This does not mean prescribing particular ways of thinking or behaving, but on the contrary empowering individuals to think about sustainable development issues for themselves and to find their own answers (Rieckmann 2018; Wals 2015).

Educators are powerful agents for change, delivering the educational response required to achieve sustainable development in general and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in particular (UNESCO 2017). Whether education processes and educational institutions as such can become more sustainable depends on the knowledge, competences, attitudes and values of educators, but also on their interaction with institutional frameworks and curricular structures.

Teacher education and the education and professional development of educators in general can meet this challenge by reorienting themselves towards ESD as emphasized in various international declarations and national policy papers (UNECE 2005; UNESCO 2009). Various examples of the integration of ESD into teacher education have shown how the support of teachers has been a crucial prerequisite for the successful adoption and implementation of ESD (UNESCO 2014).

However, efforts to prepare educators to implement ESD have not advanced sufficiently and more still need to be done to refocus educator support for ESD in terms of content and teaching and learning methods. This is why priority action area 3 of the UNESCO ESD for 2030 programme aims to build the capacities of educators (UNESCO 2020). This priority action area focuses on fostering the competences needed by change agents to promote ESD, and integrating ESD into the education and training of early childhood, elementary and secondary and vocational education teachers and trainers (UNESCO 2020).

This chapter deals first with competence-based education and the concept of professional competence and then goes on to describe various ESD competence frameworks. It thus locates the Rounder Sense of PurposeFootnote 1 (RSP) competence concept in the discourse on ESD competences. A systematic analysis of the different ESD competence frameworks is then undertaken. Finally, the need for further development of the competence concepts and for further research is identified.

Competences in Educational Programmes

Competences include knowledge, skills, motivation, attitudes and values systems and enable individuals to perform tasks successfully and solve problems in different situations and contexts (Vare et al. 2019; Rieckmann 2012). Competence-based education focuses on students’ learning outcomes rather than on what teachers should be teaching (see Chap. 2). “For the teacher, competences help them to become able to perform better and more effectively under different circumstances, frameworks and conditions” (Vare et al. 2019, p. 2).

Competences cannot simply be taught; they have to be developed (Weinert 2001). ESD therefore requires a transformative, action-oriented pedagogy (Rieckmann 2018; Barth 2015; see Chap. 17). This entails a twofold challenge for programmes and activities aiming to educate the educator. First, it requires a thorough understanding of the competences learners should be able to develop. Second, it calls for educators to have the competences to support the competence development of the learners and it thus raises the question of what competences are needed by educators (Brandt et al. 2019).

Frameworks that take the role of educators into account largely build on Shulman’s (1987) categories of what constitutes a competent teacher, differentiating between content knowledge (“what to teach”) and pedagogical content knowledge (“how to teach”). In an empirically tested and widely adopted approach, Baumert and Kunter (2013) designed a model for teachers’ professional competence, identifying professional knowledge, beliefs, motivation, and self-regulation as core aspects (Baumert and Kunter 2013).

Frameworks and Models of Educators’ Competences in ESD

The implementation of ESD in any kind of educational institution places high demands on educators and presupposes that they have dealt with the concepts of sustainable development and ESD. Integrating the concept of ESD into pedagogical training empowers educators to address key societal issues and to deal with them together with their students. “Educators in all educational settings can help learners understand the complex choices that sustainable development requires and motivate them to transform themselves and society” (UNESCO 2020, p. 30).

Integration of ESD enables educators to design learning processes to support the acquisition of sustainability competences in the classroom. Qualifying educators to work with the ESD concept can be expected to contribute to innovations in education and an increase in the quality of education (Barth and Rieckmann 2012). This is reiterated by UNECE, which devotes two indicators to teacher education under “equipping educators with the competence to include sustainable development in their teaching”: Sub-indicator 3.1.1: Is ESD a part of the initial educators’ training? And sub-indicator 3.1.2: Is ESD a part of the educators’ in-service training? (UNECE Expert Group 2007, p. 7).

It is widely agreed that educators need to be qualified to work with the concept of ESD and that they should acquire specific competences in order to deal with sustainable development issues and to align their pedagogical practice with this concept. “This includes understanding key aspects of each of the 17 SDGs and their interlinkages, as well as understanding how transformative actions occur and which […] transformative pedagogical approaches can best bring them about” (UNESCO 2020, p. 30). ESD can encourage educators to consider their pedagogical practice from a new perspective. In order for educators to be prepared to deliver ESD, they need to develop key sustainability competences (including knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, motivation and commitment) (Brundiers et al. 2021; Rieckmann 2018; see Chap. 4). However, in addition to general sustainability competences, they also need ESD competences, which can be defined as a capacity to support the development of sustainability competences through a range of innovative teaching and learning practices (Corres et al. 2020; Bertschy et al. 2013). With regard to the development of competences by educators, the German National Action Plan on ESD calls on the Federal State to “promote the development of ESD competence models for teacher education (school and university teachers)” and to “promote pilot projects on teacher education for sustainable development at all phases, and the interrelations between them” (National Platform ESD 2017, p. 27).

In order to integrate ESD into the classroom and to promote sustainability competences among students, educators should be able to address the challenges of sustainable development and examine their own role in this process. Issues raised by the concept should be considered in an integrative and cross-disciplinary way, and from multiple perspectives. Educators should know about sustainable development, the different SDGs and the related topics and challenges, and should reflect on the concept of sustainable development, the challenges of achieving the SGDs, the importance of their own field of expertise for achieving the SDGs and their own role in this process. They should also understand the discourse on and the practice of ESD in its local, national, and global context. In addition, educators should be able to design (formal, non-formal, and informal) learning environments that allow students to participate in and gain experience of sustainable development tasks, taking an action-oriented and transformative approach to teaching. Furthermore, they should act as change agents in a process of organizational learning that advances their educational institution towards sustainable development (UNESCO 2017).

These elements of ESD competence are described in greater detail in a number of different frameworks for educators’ ESD competences, such as the CSCT model (Sleurs 2008), the UNECE framework (UNECE 2012), the KOM-BiNE model (Rauch and Steiner 2013), and the approaches of Bertschy et al. (2013) and Timm and Barth (2021). Teacher education and any other educator training programmes should be further developed to meet these standards.

The CSCT competence model focuses on teachers as individuals, as participants in educational institutions and as members of a particular society, i.e. it refers to teachers’ personal and social behaviour as well as their professional role. It describes ESD competences through three superordinate dimensions (teaching/communicating, reflecting/visioning, networking) and five competence domains (knowledge, systems thinking, emotions, values and ethics, action) (Sleurs 2008). The shortcomings of this model relate, for example, to the fact that “the distinction between the five domains of competency is rather vague and unconvincing in parts. For example, the domain ‘emotions’ is problematic as emotions play a role as a concomitant in all the other domains […]” (Bertschy et al. 2013, p. 5069).

The UNECE framework (2012) covers all educational practitioners and includes 39 competences, presented in four domains of learning: 1. Learning to know (The educator understands...), 2. Learning to do (The educator is able to...), 3. Learning to live together (The educator works with others in ways that...), 4. Learning to be (The educator is someone who...); and with three principles: holistic approach, envisioning change, and achieving transformation. “The UNECE framework represents a significant attempt to identify competences in a systematic and comprehensive manner with the explicit aim of becoming a commonly shared reference framework” (Vare et al. 2019, p. 6).

The KOM-BiNE model (Rauch and Steiner 2013) “is not based on individuals, but on a group whose members pool their competencies for ESD in specific projects or issues and act as a team” (p. 16). It includes the following competence fields: knowing and acting, valuing and feeling, communicating and reflecting, visioning, planning and organizing, and networking. It refers to three different fields of action: instruction, participation in the design of the educational institution, and reaching out to society, to the institution’s closer and wider environment.

Bertschy et al. (2013) present a competence model for ESD-specific professional action competences for teachers in Kindergarten and Primary School. Based on Baumert and Kunter‘s (2013) model of “professional action competence for teachers”, this ESD competence model describes four aspects of competence (professional knowledge, motivation, conviction/values, self-regulation) and five fields of competence (pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, organizational knowledge, guidance knowledge).

Timm and Barth (2021) recently supplemented the discussion on theoretically based competence models with an empirical analysis giving a voice to teachers who are experienced in ESD. On the basis of interviews with teachers involved in ESD at German elementary schools, they identified two types of ESD teachers and their respective competence profiles : teachers who function as change agents by interacting with students (in-class teachers), and teachers who function as change agents by inciting institutional change (structure-focused teachers). The authors found significant differences between the two groups with regard to their level of activities, their perspective on teaching and their understanding of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Bearing these different types of change agents in mind provides a more nuanced picture of potential competence profiles and offers important pointers for educational programmes (Timm & Barth 2021).

Assuming that “the UNECE competences were abstract, complex, and repetitious, and that the total of 39 was simply unmanageable” (Vare et al. 2019, p. 6), the European project ‘A Rounder Sense of Purpose’ (RSP) “set out to develop and test a framework of educator competences that could contribute to achieving a more sustainable world” (Vare et al. 2019, p. 2; see Chap. 5). This is a conceptual framework that has been designed for all educators, working at any level, who wish to provide ESD. Educators need knowledge of innovative teaching and learning methods, but also need the competences to apply them. In addition, they need competences to support students, for example, with projects, which also implies reflecting critically on their own role as educators and seeing themselves more as facilitators of learning. Educators need to adopt a critical stance and be able to assess and evaluate students’ development in this area. It is also important to recognize that under the RSP framework ESD competences are seen as mutually supportive and therefore not in isolation. The RSP framework consists of twelve ESD competences across three domains (holistic approach, envisioning change, and achieving transformation) and four phases (integration, involvement, practice, and reflection) (Chap. 5). It can be used as the basis of an educational programme and/or to assess educators who wish to improve their ability to contribute to ESD.

Discussion

A recent systematic literature review of ESD competence frameworks and models (Corres et al. 2020) shows that most are based on or related to the UNECE framework and that competences such as Critical Thinking (“Critical contextualization of knowledge establishing interrelationships between social, economic and environmental, local and/or global problems”, Rauch and Steiner 2013, p. 19), Participation in Community (“Participation in community processes that promote sustainability”, Carracedo et al. 2018, p. 6), and Connections (“To know the main concepts and principles in connection with the Earth as a biophysical system and in connection with the relationships and interactions between society and the environment”, Álvarez-García et al. 2019, p. 4) are included in most of the frameworks. By contrast, competences such as Emotions Management (“To manage emotions and concerns: promoting reflection on one’s own emotions as a means to reach a deeper understanding of problems and situations”, Cebrián and Junyent 2015, p. 2771), Futures (“It offers ways of addressing and helping to shape the future […]. It enables individuals to recognize relations and possible evolutions between past, present, and future and envision possible or thinkable futures alternatives and their impact”, Vare et al. 2019, p. 10), and Achieving Transformation (“Related to transformation approaches in education, pedagogy and for educators and education systems in all the levels (Learning to know, Learning to live together, Learning to be, Learning to do)”, Meyer et al. 2017, p. 740) are included less frequently in the frameworks, which means that the transformative potential of ESD has not been fully realized. In addition, the review concludes that some of the frameworks and models lack clear theoretical foundation, for example, an explicit definition of the concepts of sustainability and competences.

Taking into account the frameworks described in this chapter, the question remains as to how these different approaches can be compared more systematically in order to analyse and discuss similarities and differences. One way we consider promising is to differentiate these approaches against the two descriptors of (1) target group and how specifically a target group is defined and (2) the relation between content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Using such a distinction enables an area to be mapped along two axes, in which different approaches can be placed (see Fig. 3.1).

Fig. 3.1
figure 1

Heuristics for the analysis of ESD competence frameworks and models

Full size image

In such an area, then, we can see, for example, that while the approaches developed by Bertschy et al. (2013) and similarly Timm and Barth (2021) clearly focus on specific teachers (kindergarten and primary education in the former, primary education in the latter), other frameworks take a more general approach, focusing on teacher education in general (KOM-BiNE model) or even going beyond teacher education, addressing educators in general (RSP framework).

Similarly, a distinction can be made with regard to general orientation. Here, we see frameworks such as the CSCT model, the UNECE framework and the KOM-BiNE model, which refer to more general aspects of sustainability and sustainability competences, at one end of the spectrum. These frameworks flesh out the relationship of teachers to society, their sustainability values, attitudes and behaviours, and thus their involvement in the sustainable development of society. At the other end of the spectrum is, for example, the approach of Bertschy et al. (2013), which focuses predominately on the professional context and asks what teachers can and need to know in order to be able to teach ESD. Here, however, the question may arise as to whether educators who do not develop sustainability competences themselves and relate, at least to some extent, their own attitudes and values (and behaviours) to sustainable development, are able to work with students on sustainable development issues in a credible way (see Chap. 6). The findings of Timm and Barth (2021) represent a middle ground here, taking both CK and PCK into account. This approach is also reflected in the RSP framework.

Analytical distinction of different frameworks and approaches enables them to be further compared against some key characteristics that come with consequences for educational praxis. We see three main characteristics as being of special interest here:

  • the underlying understanding of what being a change agent means,

  • the consequences for the design and implementation of educational programmes,

  • measurability versus accountability.

The underlying change agent model refers to how the frameworks conceive of the role of change agents. This differs significantly between approaches. At one end of the spectrum are frameworks that understand a change agent as someone who can influence education through a different approach to teaching and thus has a narrower understanding of the role of educators as change agents for student empowerment. At the other end of the spectrum are frameworks that take a more holistic approach and see educators as change agents if they teach differently, engage differently in their institutions, and are in general role models for sustainability.

Differences are also evident between the frameworks when it comes to their stance towards educational praxis and thus the consequences for the design and implementation of educational programmes. While some frameworks clearly set out to achieve such consequences and come with practical advice on how to implement what, others can be understood as more general frameworks with a more basic focus on objectives but little direct implications for educational praxis.

A final crucial distinction, then, can be drawn between measurability and accountability . We see most of the frameworks as general approaches that lack operationalization and do not or do not readily allow for assessment of the development of such competences. This distinction refers rather to accountability for what should be developed and pays less attention to the question of if and how such development can be justified, i.e. measured. The underlying assumption here might be that not all that counts can be measured—an understanding of competence development as emancipatory education we share. It comes, however, with limitations that need to be clearly communicated. On the other side are initial approaches providing examples that can be operationalized and used as assessment procedures to give feedback to both educators and learners. While such an approach again comes with limitations, we see it as an important addition that enables evidence-based design in educational formats to be justified.

Conclusion

Educators play an important role in the implementation of ESD. The ESD competence frameworks and approaches outlined in this chapter provide guidance on the competences that educators should have in order to meet this requirement. Teacher education and the training of educators in general should be more structured around these frameworks, but it should be borne in mind that the different frameworks are each focused on specific target groups. In addition, the relevant programme managers need to take a stand on the question of how far programmes should focus only on the development of professional competences and how far they should also focus on the development of general sustainability competences. Depending on the answer to this question, different frameworks will be more suitable. Both the approach of Timm and Barth (2021) and the RSP framework take an intermediary position here.

Further research is needed, particularly with regard to theoretical foundations and the operationalization of the competence frameworks. The latter aspect is central to ensuring the measurability of ESD competence development. In addition, a research gap can also be identified with regard to the empirical investigation of the relationship between educator competences and student performance.