Introduction

When education for sustainable development (ESD) emerged as part of the educational agenda in the international arena, it was associated with significant shifts in the educational debate about the purpose and nature of education and with the need to face crises caused by the modern idea of progress. Scientists from different fields warn humanity that the current trajectory of capitalism is leading towards environmental and cultural decline and that urgent measures are required to deal with the current and emerging issues. Global financial and economic crises, poverty and inequality, climate change and environmental degradation reinforce our understanding that a collaborative effort is required in addressing the existing status quo through education. Education must play a key role in developing a planetary vision, in “securing sustainable life chances, aspirations and futures for young people” (UNESCO 2009).

The paper discusses the essence of SD and the ethics behind it. It argues for transformative education as a framework for technology education development. The paper explores current research on ESD in technology education and suggests a number of challenges that emerged for technology education as a result of the global SD agenda. They are related to policy and curriculum development, teaching and learning, and teacher training. This paper argues that current and future research on ESD in technology education must be framed by a shared vision about quality education and a society that lives in balance with Earth’s carrying capacity. The paper also explores some possible directions for further research.

The changing contexts and requests for transformative education

Since 1968 (The Biosphere Conference, UNESCO 1969) environment—development relationships have been the focus of political debates through a number of international conferences and summits with a gradual progression from a somewhat narrow, nature-oriented focus to a broader interpretation reflected in the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN 1992). This document proclaimed that environment and development are integral parts of sustainable development where economic development is considered as a contributing factor for human development, and not an end in itself. A concern for the human condition was put in the centre of the political SD agenda.

However, a stronger emphasis on development led to different ways SD has been interpreted and applied to policy formulation. There are at least two opposite perspectives within the SD field. Cartea (2005) argued that the first perspective is an attempt to validate the concept that a model of economic growth can be maintained within appropriate ecological limits. From this perspective an increase in production and capital would allow people to have resources necessary to repair environmental damage as well as prevent it in the future. SD then is associated with notions of the ‘market economy’ and linked to contemporary faith in science and technology. The second perspective identified by Cartea (2005) within the SD field is consideration of SD as a model to identify, investigate, and promote, in a range of spheres, alternatives to the existing environmental and social problems. In this approach, SD is associated with concepts of ‘equity’, ‘emancipation’ and ‘social change’. A similar view is shared by Huckle (2006) who classified SD conceptualization as linked to two different discourses: reformist and radical. The first one is associated with industrialization and the global capitalist system; the second proposes a move beyond industrialization and radical democratization of the global economy and is close to the UN’s position identified above. In this paper the second position is accepted.

Education associated with SD reflects significant shifts in the educational debate about the purpose and nature of education and the need to face crises caused by the modern idea of progress. This call to address the global issues through education has been articulated in a number of UNESCO’s documents and actions. The 1997 international conference in Thessaloniki on Environment and Society: education and public awareness for sustainability organised by UNESCO (UNESCO 1997) emphasised the transition from environmental education to education for sustainable development (ESD). This step has been viewed by many as a progressive transition in the field, as a new step in developing our understanding of environment-development relationships.

The current UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) is an attempt to “integrate the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning” (UNESCO 2005, p. 6). New directions for education and learning, and quality and inclusive education are required to address current and future challenges. The Bonn Declaration (UNESCO 2009), which marks the middle of the decade, emphasizes again the role of education in “securing sustainable life chances, aspirations and futures for young people” (p. 2, point 5).

These political discourses on ESD go in parallel with the educational debate about transformative education. The transformative nature of education required to address current global challenges has been argued by many (e.g. Bonnett 2002; Sterling 2001, 2004, 2007; Stevenson 2006; Argyris and Schön 2004; Lundegård and Wickman 2007; Peters and Gonzalez-Gaudiano 2008). It requires recognising the interconnectedness among universe, planet, natural environment, human community, and personal world through critical reflection, holistic approaches and relationships with others. It is concerned more with why we are teaching than with how or what we teach. It is rooted in a particular worldview and based on a particular educational philosophy. This why question is related to the argument that ethical development is a core business of education, the ethics that are related to valuing of the other person, moral responsibility and establishing a non-instrumental relationship with nature (Campbell et al. 1992; Parker et al. 1999). As argued by Pavlova (2009b) weak anthropocentrism, the environmental ethic that promotes the mutual flourishing of human and non-human nature, could be used as a framework for transformative education that is a foundation of ESD for technology education. It provides an answer for the why question and leads to the need to change our worldviews (or frames of referencesFootnote 1). A concern for the human condition formulated as the base principle of Respect and care for the community of life, meaning duty to care for other people and other forms of life now and in the future (IUCN, UNEP and WWF 1991) could serve as a guiding value for technology education.

These calls for transformative education based on the ethics of weak anthropocentrism form a specific framework for the research agenda in technology education.

Research in technology education

ESD research does exist in technology education; however, it is not among the mainstream topics of research agendas. That is partly related to the reasons why technology education was introduced into the curriculum of many countries. By the end of the 1980s education coupled with market reforms gained a dominant position in educational policy. Education was viewed as the source of responsiveness to technological change and as a way to increase economic competitiveness (e.g. Marginson 1993; Ball 1994, 1997; O’Neill 1995). The close association between education and the economy led to the debates about technology education in many reports undertaken by educational authorities internationally. In particular, the assumption was made about the goals of technology education—to be relevant to the economic needs of the nation and to prepare students for work and life in society. Technology education was seen as a means for developing knowledge, skills, attitudes and values which allow students to maximize their flexibility and adaptability to their future employment, mainly, and to other aspects of life as well (Pavlova 2001). This economic imperative associated with the idea of ‘progress’ was reflected in teachers’ perception of values in technology education. Research into UK teachers’ values demonstrated that at the practical level technology teachers prioritised technical, aesthetic and economic values over environmental, social, cultural, moral and political (Holdsworth and Conway 1999). These results relate to the fact that some teachers did not view certain values as relevant to technology education and technical values prevailed. However, a more recent study by Ritz (2009) on the historical development of goals that guide programs development in the US identified a shift to the social dimensions of technology from purely technical ones. 93.3 % of research participants (leaders in technology education profession in the US) gave priority to the goal that relates to knowledge of social, ethical, and environment impacts associated with the use of technology (p. 59). Although this goal reflects only the cognitive component of TE learning, it indicates significant shifts in the technology education profession’s understandings.

The historical progression of ESD ideas has been reflected in ESD research in technology education. Since early 2000 the importance of addressing ESD through technology education has been argued by a number of researchers (e.g. Elshof 2003, 2005, 2009; Miller and Pitt 2000; Wicklein 2001) and it appeared increasingly in curriculum document statements (e.g. Huckle 2006; QCA 2007a, b; QSA 2007). Studies of technology education discourse (e.g. Pavlova 2009b) demonstrate that when the concept of sustainability is discussed within technology education it is mainly focused on the ecological design of products (eco-design) with a major emphasis on limiting the environmental impacts of those products (Elshof 2003; Martin 2003), or on environmental sustainability (Stables 2009; Hill and Elshof 2007). The ways sustainability has been dealt with in technology education demonstrated a one-dimensional vision firmly embedded in environmental aspects:

One of the particular ethical areas in which [it is possible to practice ethics] is the area of sustainability. Sustainability is a value that is concerned with dealing with the natural environment and resources in such a way that we do not deprive future generations of the opportunities that we ourselves enjoy. In a more concrete way, sustainability means that we use materials and energy consciously and in a responsible way … sustainability is a value area that can really be practiced in classes without any artificiality, because saving materials and energy should be a real concern of schools. (de Vries and Dakers 2005, p. 96)

This put a focus on environmental values that could be addressed through technology education. Although this move is positive, it presents a limited view on ESD. Tools that are used by teachers to measure environmental impact (e.g. Life Cycle Analysis) are rarely applied to examine the underlying causes of environmental problems which, it is argued here, often have a social nature. Even when the social aspects are addressed within technology education discourse, they often have a limited interpretation. For example, Elshof (2003) places emphasis on justice and equity when researching the social aspect of sustainability. Concerns such as cultural diversity and intercultural understanding are omitted from this research.

A similar situation is evident when the economic aspects of ESD are considered. These often consist of one-sided examinations where economic aspects are viewed mainly in negative terms and in relation to developed countries only. These typically include: implications of short-term economic thinking, the growing wealth gap, consumption and consumerism, unintended ‘revenge’ cost of technology and ‘perverse’ economic subsidies (Elshof 2003). Economic issues that relate to poverty reduction, corporate responsibility, price formation mechanisms or alternative models of economy are not discussed.

The results of a more recent study by Pitt and Lubben (2009) in the UK that includes social aspects of sustainability indicated a shift in teachers’ perception towards SD. More than half of the teachers involved in the study reported their interest and commitment to SD even prior to their in-service training in sustainable design. The study also reports that as a result of in-service, “nine out of the twenty teachers in the sample reported considerable changes in their understanding of, and confidence in, integrating the social dimension of SD in their D&T teaching” (p. 175). Elshof (2009) argues for “advancing a culture of socially just eco-technological innovation” (p. 144) through technology education.

Although more and more academics are involved in ESD research and more emphasis is placed on the social aspects of ESD, the effort is still fragmented and the breadth of issues addressed is also limited. The results of these studies do not provide a clear answer to the question of how technology education teaching and learning could be contextualised so it contributes to improvement in the quality of human life within the earth’s carrying capacity and conservation of the earth’s vitality and diversity.

This paper identifies three broad areas of challenge that require further research to improve understanding of and practices in ESD in technology education, policy and curriculum development, teaching and learning, and teacher training. In the sections below the author refers to some of her previous studies in Australia and Russia to exemplify points under the discussion.

Policy and curriculum development

Policy and curriculum development should respond to national and, if possible, regional, economic, social and environmental trends, therefore a focus of ESD through technology education will vary from country to country. Two dimensions, natural and human capital and their relative levels of development, could be used as indicators to identify challenges specific to each country in ESD policy formulation. To measure the levels of human development and the quality of the environment, the Human Development Index (as an indicator of health, education, and standard of living) and Ecological footprint (as an instrument to measure the impact of our lifestyle on the environment) could be used. The analysis conducted by UNEP (2011) identified two groups of countries that have different challenges. Figure 1 positions different countries within these dimensions. The first group needs to reduce their per capita ecological footprint without impairing their quality of life; the second one needs to improve the well-being of their citizens without drastically increasing their ecological footprints. These challenges must be reflected in technology education policies: for developing countries—an emphasis on the social aspects of SD framed by environmental considerations need to be emphasised, for developed countries—ecological aspects (Pavlova 2011).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Sustainable development targets for developed and developing countries. Source The Ecological Wealth of Nations: Earth’s Biocapacity as a New Framework for International Cooperation. Global Footprint Network (2010), p. 13; Human Development Index data from Human Development Report 2009- Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development. UNDP (2009). Taken from: UNEP (2011)

Full size image

The essential characteristics of ESD stated in the International Implementation Scheme (UNESCO 2005, 30–31), such as life-long learning and inclusion of formal and non-formal education, interdisciplinarity, inclusion of social, environmental and economic realms and use of a variety of pedagogical techniques that promote participatory and first-hand learning, development of higher-order thinking skills, the emphasis on local needs, provision of education and capacity-building for communities should be in the policies and curriculum of all countries to ensure quality. Some strategic perspectives,Footnote 2 and the connections between them identified by the Framework for the DESD International Implementation Scheme (UNESCO 2006), could also inform policy and curriculum development in technology education.

Policy analysis conceptualised through a double challenge framework founded in the ethics of weak anthropocentrism needs to be conducted in different contexts to provide policy advice ensuring high quality transformative education. This policy research is essential for identification of the nature of ESD in technology education and for formulation of its educational goals.

Two examples of action research aimed at ESD policy formulation conducted by the author could illustrate the point. Through the work of the focus group that was composed of technology teachers, Technology Education Syllabus (Queensland, Australia) was under revision. Through the researcher’s input sustainability was introduced as one of the foundations of the course. However, despite the researcher’s effort, only the environmental aspect of sustainability was included: systems to ensure sustainability, eco-footprint, recycling, lifecycle analysis, principles of sustainable design (QSA 2007). That reflects the country’s challenges in terms of environmental issues but not the levels of human development. Environmental values were prevailing through the process of curriculum development.

The results of another action research study in a totally different context, Russia, (Pavlova 2006) demonstrated that the majority of technology education teachers involved in the study defined ESD as developing moral values and responsibilities and changing the way people think. This response is closely related to the local context as in Russia, “upbringing” (values development) has been seen as an important part of education. Teachers accepted the ideas of ESD with enthusiasm and saw them as already closely related to their practice. The areas they suggest to include in curriculum relate to four major possibilities:

  • Re-use products/packaging (students developed ideas on how to re-use plastic bottles. In their local context students can observe examples of bottle re-use);

  • Use of industrial waste (timber, textile—patchwork, toys for childcare, metal) to design and make new products;

  • Eco-technologies (alternative energy sources, interior design from natural forest materials);

  • Social and cultural aspects of sustainability (re-birth of traditional crafts). (Pavlova 2006)

These studies illustrate how different the aspects of sustainability accepted/proposed for curriculum development were in different contexts.

Research on this level is essential in formulating goals for ESD through technology education. There is no single model of SD (e.g. Robinson 2004), thus approaches to ESD are different across different countries, technology subjects and levels of education. As a result, it is impossible to have a universal definition of education for sustainable development. One example by Huckle and Sterling (2005) stated that ESD is:

a process that develops people’s awareness, competence, attitudes and values, enabling them to be effectively involved in sustainable development at local, national and international levels, and helping them to work towards a more equitable and sustainable future. (p. 1)

ESD should be defined at the policy level to prioritize embedding learning into locally and culturally appropriate contexts, emphasizing quality of life and capacity-building for communities, and addressing SD concepts.

Some research that has been conducted in technology education 10 years ago could be also revisited in the light of the ESD and new ethics. For example, research on knowledge in technology education (Pavlova 2005) identified a number of components that constitute knowledge in technology education. Values and sustainability were included in the model; however, they were not an overarching framework for knowledge conceptualisation. This research requires updating and should be revised as the why question is gaining more and more importance nowadays. Another example is research that underpins the development of Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA 2000). One of the Standards includes understanding of the relationships between technology and society and suggests to look at: the cultural, social, economic and political effects of technology; the effects of technology on the environment; and the role of society in the development and use of technology. These issues are addressed at the cognitive level only. Another important document, Technically Speaking (Pearson and Young 2002), suggests a model of technological literacy that includes three interdependent dimensions—knowledge, ways of thinking and acting, and capabilities. This approach moves beyond the purely cognitive-based technology education curriculum; however, values and ESD ethics are not present. Therefore, additional research is required on how to address values and develop attitudes through the cognitive aspects presented in the Standards.

Challenges associated with policy formulation and curriculum development specific to a particular country need to be addressed through research.

Teaching and learning

The transformative education that is argued in this paper to be an appropriate way to ‘deliver’ ESD through technology education, implies teaching and learning processes that help students to construct and appropriate new and revised meaning of experiences. Since the early 1980s research into fostering transformative learning in the classroom was based on diverse theoretical perspectives about the process of transformation. As argued by Taylor (2008) at least four main perspectives could be identified: psychocritical, psychoanalytic, psychodevelopmental and social emancipatory views. Differences in views about transformative teaching and learning relate to the goal of transformation of personal (self-actualization) or emancipatory transformation (planetary consciousnessFootnote 3). The first three perspectives give little consideration to the role of context and social change in the transformative experience. The ‘unit of analysis’ there is the individual. The fourth perspective is focused on social transformation, so the world can become a better place for all to live. It is as much about social change as individual transformation; it appreciates the role of social or cultural differences in transformative learning.

This social emancipatory view of transformative education could be the most appropriate way of teaching and learning for SD. Three teaching approaches central to fostering emancipatory transformative learning are: the critical reflection (to identify the ways their agency could transform society and students’ own reality); the liberating approach to teaching (facilitating cognition, problem-posing and discussions); and equal, horizontal student–teacher relationships (Freire and Macedo 1995).

Transformative learning can be observed in a non-Eurocentric orientation of learning that is culturally bounded, oppositional, and non-individualistic:

Traditionally, African people have had systems of education that were transformative. Rites of passage and rituals are among the many forms Africans have created to nurture the consciousness of every member of society into a greater connection with the Self, the Community, and the Universe. (Williams 2003, p. 463)

Similar approaches, for example, have been used by the Aborigines in Australia (Morrison and Carmody 1996) and by the indigenous people of the Far North of Russia (Shamaeva et al. 1995).

Currently, almost no research has been conducted in technology education concerned with transformative teaching and learning. As argued elsewhere (e.g. Pavlova 2009a) it is essential for applying ESD ideas in technology education classrooms. The nature of technology education provides a rich context that could help students to transform their worldviews and answer the important question of why we are teaching technology in schools. A transformative pedagogy should:

  • help students to recognise a situation as being ethically (morally) problematic,

  • enable students to have a voice and express their feelings and thoughts, and

  • find a solution that serves the best interests of all parties involved.

Classroom activities need to cultivate students’ responsibility where moral values serve as a reference point for analysis undertaken and decisions made by the students.

Research on values in technology education (Pavlova 2002) concludes that three components of values have to be taken into account when learning activities are designed:

  • Cognitive component provides the awareness of different values and demonstrates reasons to put moral values first.

  • Affective component establishes links between the technological task and students, feeling by putting technology into a meaningful context.

  • Behaviour component gives students an opportunity to act in accordance with their moral values.

The results of school-based research on ESD vary even within the context of one country. Pavlova and Turner (2007) found that students respond very positively to SD issues addressed through technology education and appropriate to their contexts. An example of a study at the primary school level examined the introduction of a new ESD learning activity through technology education for students in Year 3. They were designing board games to teach a friendly monster about eco-food. The duration of the project was around 15 hours over a period of 4 weeks. A number of new topics were introduced to students, including eco-food and three aspects of sustainable development: economic, social and ecological using the example of a plastic children’s slide. Students worked in groups. They drafted their games, including development of the rules, designed the boards and drew them on paper. The study found that students were very proud of the results of their work. Students’ satisfaction and feelings of pride observed by the teacher and researchers and students’ survey responses suggest that students were involved in effective ESD learning. Through active involvement in thinking and making, students understood some ESD issues, in particular, the environmental aspects of sustainable development. Although the original plan included all dimensions of ESD (social, economic and environmental), the project was adjusted, based on teacher’s advice. This led to the particular focus on the environmental issues through the cognitive, practical and aesthetics aspects of design. Students did not have enough knowledge in the social and economic aspects of sustainability, and their brief exposure to these areas was not enough for their full engagement. The study concludes that this project would assist learners to adopt new behaviours in the protection and restoration of the Earth’s ecosystems and develop the capacity to identify the root causes of threats to sustainable development, and the values, motivations and skills to address them. All three components of values were addressed and students changed the content of their lunch boxes as the project progressed. At this early age a transformation at the personal level was observed.

Another school-based study found that students were not particularly interested in sustainability issues addressed through technology education (Mooney 2006). This study introduced a 7 week project, The house that culture built. Year 9 students were asked to research, design and make a model house that represents a particular culture within the school to be assembled into a 3–dimensional mural to celebrate the school’s cultural diversity. An initial survey of ten students revealed that they did not have in-depth understanding of what a culture is. Half of the students stated that they could not define/describe the meaning of culture; five students responded that they do not relate to any culture. As a result of the project students’ understanding of this concept increased and they became better related to a particular culture. A majority of students were not familiar with the notion of sustainable development, had difficulties in relating the notion of culture to SD, and their attitudes towards the project were not very positive. A number of reasons for this were presented in the study, including a non-design-based nature of this technology program, so students found it difficult to learn about design-based approaches and new concepts of sustainable development, including culture. Teachers involved in observation of this project suggested improvements through addressing mainly environment aspects of SD in technology education, something that is more visible in society. Affective and behaviour components of students’ values had not been reached through the project.

These two studies revealed mixed students’ attitudes towards ESD learning in technology education, and emphasised the environmental aspect as being appropriate for the Australian context in these Brisbane schools. It also demonstrated the importance of cross-curricular links as in both cases students did not have enough knowledge and understanding that could be gained through other subjects to increase outcomes of students, learning in the technology education classroom. The importance of affective and behaviour components of values was also highlighted. These results support the argument that it is important to study further the types of projects and themes relevant to different ages and different contexts and an appropriate pedagogy to be applied. Both studies employed an action research methodology where researchers and teachers worked closely together.

Another study I want to refer to in this section used activity theory for analysing differences in learning that could occur in the context of a ‘typical’ developed and developing country when the students design and make toys from recyclable materials (Pavlova 2006). Activity theory is a conceptual tool developed to help in understanding the process of learning that is situated within a particular cultural-historical context (Vygotsky 1978, 1987; Leont’ev 1981; Engeström 1987, 1993, 1995, 1999). Figure 2 represents the model of human activity.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The structure of a human activity system (Engeström 1987, p. 78)

Full size image

This analysis demonstrates that differences in the object of activity are closely related to the challenges each type of country is facing. Although on the surface students could be involved in similar activities in the classroom (design and make toys from recyclable materials), the learning that would take place could be different and models of ESD, if they are to be effective, should reflect the differences. The differences are summarised as ‘ideal models’ in Table 1.

Table 1 The object of activity
Full size table

Each country, however, has a specific combination of features described by ideal types. In the Russian context (in a mid-size city) the objects of activity are, on the one hand, to reuse, recycle, manage waste, minimise the use of resources, understand the issues of limited resources and pollution, think about broader communities and increase awareness within the local community about SD issues (the ‘developed country’ model). On the other hand, they are also related to improvement of the quality of life for the local people by creating products that meet the real everyday needs of the people who may be better off saving money by not buying similar products from the shop and through the revival of traditional crafts (closer to the ‘developing country’ model).

The study revealed that differences in the object of activity in the different contexts constituted an important basis for the development of ESD teaching and learning activities and approaches. Both educational knowledge and educational policies need to re-examine assumptions behind the belief in the universal validity of approaches designed within the context of developed countries. The study concluded that students are learning about a number of similar and different aspects of sustainability and although the contribution of TE is different in different contexts, the joint effort across countries should lead to a more sustainable future of our planet.

Evidences and analysis provided by current studies identified many challenges that should be addressed through teaching and learning. Therefore, further research framed by the idea of transformative education should be undertaken to examine how the process of transformative learning can be fostered in technology education classrooms; what could the nature of technological tasks be; what are teachers and students’ roles in fostering transformative learning; what are the impacts of the results of transformative learning on learners and communities.

Teacher training

To enable transformative pedagogy teachers need to be aware of their own frames of reference and how they shape their practices. Teachers also need to transform through the process of helping students to transform. To develop a particular worldview, a particular educational philosophy developed through training would increase the likelihood of transformative learning in the classes of these teachers. Mezirow (2000) claims that change to our worldview is a process of learning that occurs in at least one of four ways: by elaborating existing frames of reference, by learning new frames of reference, by transforming points of view, or by transforming habits of mind. A systematic and holistic approach towards development of teacher training programs is required. All four approaches stated by Mezirow (2000) need to be employed through technology teacher training pedagogy.

Studies on both initial training (Pavlova 2009a) and in-service training (e.g. Pavlova 2009b; Pitt and Lubben 2009) demonstrated effectiveness of the teaching approaches used to increase teachers’ awareness and appreciation of SD issues, and readiness to implement ESD in their classroom. A coherent and multidimensional restructuring of an initial technology teacher training program has been conceptualised, implemented and analysed by Pavlova (2009a). The model for inclusion of ESD in a university training program was based on general principles such as environment-development relationships, the nature of knowledge and the eight ESD principles for universities framed by the aims of technology education for SD. The eight principles that characterise the program development approach are: integration of sustainability across the curriculum, academic research on sustainability, outreach and service to community, sustainable program operation, staff development and rewards, student opportunities, cultural inclusivity and articulation of social responsibility.

The aims of technology education for ESD include: know and understand problems/issues associated with sustainable futures, contribute towards promotion of SD and increasing awareness of sustainable development issues through projects/activities, design and make products using eco-design principlesFootnote 4 and principles of social sustainability, work in accord with SD practices, and appreciate the relationships between aesthetics and ethics for SD (Pavlova 2009b).

The coherent implementation of the model through many courses in the Bachelor of Technology Education program (classroom activities and assessment items) helped students to formulate their understanding and attitudes towards SD, and to develop teaching materials. The results of a student survey demonstrated that 21 out of 22 respondents identified SD as an issue of importance for them and 19 out of 22 students believed that they would incorporate ESD in technology education. However, this research was not focused on students’ ethical framework nor on what ethical principles student teachers would address in their teaching. Therefore, the nature of transformative teacher training is not known, nor are the ways transformative pedagogy could be taught in different contexts. Research is required that is specifically focused on the transformative nature of teacher training.

Research areas

Three areas of challenge discussed in this paper also provide three broad themes for ESD research:

  • policy and curriculum development,

  • teaching and learning practices, and

  • teacher training approaches.

Within each area a number of research programs could be developed that are specific for particular regions or countries. For example:

  • what are the most effective ways to address these challenges for the countries at different levels of economic development; what constitutes technology for sustainable development in different contexts/countries; what is the nature of ESD in technology education, its educational goals; functional effectiveness of the policies; the role of TE in transformative education; human inventiveness and design of ethical products, systems and environments.

  • what is an appropriate content knowledge associated with ESD at different levels of studies; students’ learning and assessment of ESD related learning; students’ attitudes towards SD issues; evaluation of learning, including higher order thinking skills developed through the ESD activities; effectiveness of teaching and learning to meet the goals of transformative education.

  • teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and attitudes; evaluation of effectiveness and validity of approaches used for technology teacher training and future perspectives.

This research should drawn on approaches developed by different disciplines and methods, including philosophical research and policy analysis, educational psychology and pedagogy, educational and social theories, and comparative education.

Conclusions

The analysis presented in this paper suggests that three essential areas of challenge that need to be addressed to include ESD in technology education are policy formulation, teaching and learning for SD and teacher training. The development of this argument is based on conceptualisation of technology education through the ethics of weak anthropocentrism and the need for critical (Pavlova 2009a), transformative education (Pavlova 2011).

This approach highlights the importance of contextualised approaches to technology education developments in addressing these challenges. Two main groups of countries to be acknowledged are the ones that need to reduce their per capita ecological footprint without impairing their quality of life, and those that need to improve the well-being of their citizens without drastically increasing their ecological footprints. Therefore, in some countries the main emphasis in ESD through technology education will be on ecological issues, and in the others, on social issues where the economy dimension will underpin both. Each country has a unique combination of issues to be addressed through technology education.

This paper also identifies three broad areas for research in ESD that relate to the above challenges of policy formulation, teaching and learning for SD and teacher training. This research should be framed by a shared vision about quality education and a society that lives in balance with the Earth’s carrying capacity, and one that contributes to achieving the aims of transformative education through TE.