Advertisement

Education for Sustainable Development and Argumentation

  • Stephanie Leder
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Education for Sustainability book series (EDFSU)

Abstract

This chapter elaborates on my approach of transformative pedagogic practice for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). I explore how ESD principles can contribute to overcome memorization and the fragmentation of knowledge by postulating network and critical thinking, student orientation and environmental action. I argue that the development of critical consciousness (Freire 1996) through the promotion of argumentation skills is one important way to work toward reflective decision-making on sustainable development. In this chapter, I develop a didactic framework for the implementation of ESD in geography education by linking the principles of ESD with an approach that emphasizes argumentation (Toulmin 2010). Firstly, I critically review the political and conceptual development of sustainable development and ESD. Secondly, I discuss the societal relevance of argumentation and its role in the Indian subcontinent. Furthermore, I examine the didactic relevance of argumentation skills and their promotion in classrooms before merging this approach to the concept of ESD for a didactic framework. Finally, I develop a refined definition of ESD as “pedagogic practice that promotes critical consciousness through argumentation to empower decision-making on sustainable natural resource use by facilitating learner-centered, problem-posing, and network-thinking teaching approaches.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W. (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 14(2), 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, R. (2009). The importance of argument in education. London: Institute of Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baccini, P. (2007). Cultural evolution and the concept of sustainable development: From global to local scale and back. In S. Reinfried, Y. Schleicher, & A. Rempfler (Eds.), Geographical views on education for sustainable development (pp. 11–26). Geographiedidaktische Forschungen.Google Scholar
  5. Bagoly-Simó, P. (2014a). Implementierung von Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung in den Fachunterricht im internationalen Vergleich [Implementation of education for sustainable development into formal education: A comparative analysis of German, Mexican and Romanian Curricula]. In M. M. Müller, I. Hemmer, & M. Trappe (Eds.), Nachhaltigkeit neu denken. Rio + X: Impulse für Bildung und Wissenschaft München: oekom verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Bagoly-Simó, P. (2014b). Tracing Sustainability: An International Comparison of ESD Implementation into Lower Secondary Education. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 7(1), 95–112.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, S. (2006). Sustainable development. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barth, M. (2011). How to deal constructively with the challenges of our times—education for sustainable development as an educational objective. Sws-Rundschau, 51(3), 275–291. <Go to ISI>: //000295428700003.Google Scholar
  9. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  10. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1995). Reflexive modernization. Politics, traditions and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Benedict, F. (1999). A systemic approach to sustainable environmental education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class and pedagogies: visible and invisible. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  13. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control. The structuring of pedagogic discourse (Vol. IV). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Bonnett, M. (1999). Education for sustainable development: A coherent philosophy for environmental education? Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brunotte, E. (2005). Nachhaltigkeit. In C. Martin, E. Brunotte, H. Gebhardt, M. Meurer, P. Meusburger, & J. Nipper (Eds.), Lexikon der Geographie Wiesbaden: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Budke, A. (2012). Ich argumentiere, also verstehe ich.—Über die Bedeutung von Kommunikation und Argumentation für den Geographieunterricht. In A. Budke (Ed.), Kommunkation und Argumentation (pp. 5–18). Braunschweig: Westermann Verlag. Geo Di 14 (KGF), Alexandras einführungsartikel ausgdruckt.Google Scholar
  17. Budke, A., & Meyer, M. (2015). Fachlich argumentieren lernen—Die Bedeutung der Argumentation in den unterschiedlichen Schulfächern. In A. Budke, M. Kuckuck, M. Meyer, F. Schäbitz, K. Schlüter, & G. Weiss (Eds.), Fachlich argumentieren lernen Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  18. Budke, A., & Uhlenwinkel, A. (2011). Argumentieren im Geographieunterricht—Theoretische Grundlagen und unterrichtspraktische Umsetzungen. In C. Meyer, R. Henry, & G. Stöber (Eds.), Geographische Bildung (pp. 114–129). Braunschweig: Westermann.Google Scholar
  19. Budke, A., Schiefele, U., & Uhlenwinkel, A. (2010). Entwicklung eines Argumentationskompetenzmodells für den Geographieunterricht. Geographie und ihre Didaktik, 3, 180–190.Google Scholar
  20. Combs, S. C. (2004). The useless-/usefulness of argumentation: The DAO of disputation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41(2), 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cotton, D. R. R., & Winter, J. (2010). It’s not just bits of paper and light bulbs: A review of sustainability pedagogies and their potential for use in higher education. In P. Jones, D. Selb, & S. Sterling (Eds.), Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practice Across Higher Education. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  22. de Haan, G. (2006). Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung—ein neues Lern- und Handlungsfeld. UNESCO heute, 1, 4–8.Google Scholar
  23. de Haan, G., & Harenberg, D. 72 (1999) ‘Expertise Förderprogramm Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung: Gutachten zum Programm’ Bund-Länder-Kommission für Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung.Google Scholar
  24. de Haan, G., Bormann, I., & Leicht, A. (2010). Introduction: the midway point of the UN Decade of education for sustainable development: Current research and practice in ESD. International Review of Education, 56(2), 199–206.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-010-9162-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  26. Ekins, P. (2000). Economic growth and environmnetal sustainability: The prospects of green growth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Fien, J., & Maclean, R. (2000). Teacher education for sustainability II. Two teacher education projects from Asia and the Pacific. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 37–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40188539.
  28. Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  29. Giroux, H. A. (2004). Critical pedagogy and the postmodern/modern divide: towards a pedagogy of democratization. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 31–47.Google Scholar
  30. Graupe, S., & Krautz, J. (2014). Die Macht der Messung. Wie die OECD mit PISA ein neues Bildungskonzept durchsetzt. COINCIDENTIA—Zeitschrift für europäische Geistesgeschichte, 4, 139–146.Google Scholar
  31. Gruenewald, D. A. (2004). A foucauldian analysis of environmental education: Toward the socioecological challenge of the earth charter. Curriculum Inquiry, 34(1), 71–107.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2004.00281.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston, Mass: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hasse, J. (2010). Globales Lernen. Zum ideologischen Gehalt einer Leer-Programmatik. In G. Schrüfer, & I. Schwarz (Eds.), Globales Lernen. Ein geographischer Diskursbeitrag. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  34. Haubrich, H. (1992). International charter on geographical education for sustainable development. Nürnberg: Hochschulverband für Geographie und seine Didaktik.Google Scholar
  35. Haubrich, H. (2007). Geography education for sustainable development. In S. Reinfried, Y. Schleicher, & A. Rempfler (Eds.), Geographical Views on Education for Sustainable Development. Geographiedidaktische Forschungen (pp. 27–38).Google Scholar
  36. Haubrich, H., Reinfried, S., & Schleicher, Y. (2007). Lucerne declaration of geographical education for sustainable development. Switzerland: Geographiedidaktische Forschungen.Google Scholar
  37. Hawkes, J. (2001). The fourth pillar of sustainability: Culture’s essential role in public planning. Victoria, Australia: Cultural Development Network.Google Scholar
  38. Hellberg-Rode, G., Schrüfer, G., & Hemmer, M. (2014). Brauchen Lehrkräfte für die Umsetzung von Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE) spezifische professionelle Handlungskompetenzen? Zeitschrift für Geographiedidaktik, 4, 257–281.Google Scholar
  39. Hoffmann, T., & Bharucha, E. (2013). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) as modern education—a glimpse on India. Accessed August 27, 2014.Google Scholar
  40. Hoffmann, K. W., Dickel, M., Gryl, I., & Hemmer, M. (2012). Bildung und Unterricht im Fokus der Kompetenzorientierung. Geographie und Schule, 195(34), 4–14.Google Scholar
  41. Hoogen, A. (2016). Didaktische Rekonstruktion des Themas illegale Migration. Argumentationsanalytische Untersuchung von Schüler*innenvorstellungen im Fach Geographie. Münster: MV-Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. Hopkins, C., & McKeown, R. (2002). Education for Sustainable Development: an international perspective. In D. Tilbury, R. B. Stevenson, J. Fien, & D. Schreuder (Eds.), Education and Sustainability. Responding to the Global Challenge (pp. 13–24). Cambridge: IUCN.Google Scholar
  43. Hornikx, J., & de Best, J. (2011). Persuasive evidence in India: An investigation of the impact of evidence types and evidence quality. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47, 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Huckle, J. (1993). Environmental education and sustainability: A view from critical theory. In J. Fien (Ed.), Environmental education: A pathway to sustainability (pp. 43–68). Geelong, Vic: Deakin University.Google Scholar
  45. Jickling, B. (1994). Why i don’t want my children to be educated for sustainable development: Sustainable belief. Trumpeter, 11(3). http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/viewArticle/325/497.
  46. Kienpointer, M. (1983). Argumentationsanalyse. Innsbruck: Verlag des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
  47. Klafki, W. (2013). Kategoriale Bildung: Konzeption und Praxis reformpädagogischer Schularbeit zwischen 1948 und 1952. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  48. Kopperschmidt, J. (1995). Grundfragen einer allgemeinen Argumentationstheorie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung formaler Argumentationsmuster. In H. Wohlrapp (Ed.), Wege der Argumentationsforschung (pp. 50–73). Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  49. Kopperschmidt, J. (2000). Argumentationstheorie. Zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.Google Scholar
  50. Kuckuck, M. (2014). Konflikte im Raum—Verständnis von gesellschaftlichen Diskursen durch Argumentation im Geographieunterricht. Münster: MV-Verlag.Google Scholar
  51. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leder, S. (2015). Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung durch Argumentation im Geographieunterricht. In A. Budke, M. Kuckuck, M. Meyer, F. Schäbitz, K. Schlüter, & G. Weiss (Eds.), Fachlich argumentieren lernen Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  53. Leder, S., & Bharucha, E. (2015). Changing the educational landscape in india by transnational policies: New perspectives promoted through education for sustainable development (ESD). ASIEN, 134, 167–192.Google Scholar
  54. Leng, M. (2009). Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung in europäischen Großschutzgebieten. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von Bildungskonzepten. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
  55. Malatesta, S., & Camuffo, M. (2007). Geography, education for sustainable development and primary school curricula: A complex triangle. In S. Reinfried, Y. Schleicher, & A. Rempfler (Eds.), Geographical Views on Education for Sustainable Development. Geographiedidaktische Forschungen (pp. 58–65).Google Scholar
  56. Mandelbaum, D. G. (1975). Society in India. Noida: Popular Prakashan.Google Scholar
  57. Mandl, H., & Gerstenmaier, J. (2000). Die Kluft zwischen Wissen und Handeln—Empirische und theoretische Lösungsansätze. Göttingen: Hogrefe-Verlag.Google Scholar
  58. Manteaw, O. O. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development in Africa: The search for pedagogical logic. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(3), 376–383. <Go to ISI>://000301698300003 http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0738059311001301/1-s2.0-S0738059311001301-main.pdf?_tid=e247c694-1df6-11e2-a864-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1351095877_200e77592eca28a76d7de4643351e023.
  59. Marrow, J. (2008). Psychiatry, modernity and family values: clenched teeth illness in North India. Chicago: ProQuest.Google Scholar
  60. McKeown-ice, R. (1994). Environmental education: A geographical perspective. Journal of Geography, 93(1), 40–42.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221349408979684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W., III. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
  62. Moore, R. (2013). Basil Bernstein: The thinker and the field. London: Routeledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mulà, I., & Tilbury, D. (2009). A United Nations Decade of education for sustainable development (2005–14). Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3(1), 87–97.  https://doi.org/10.1177/097340820900300116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong sustainability: Exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms. Bodmin: MPG Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  65. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. OECD. (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  67. Oetke, C. (1996). Ancient Indian logic as a theory of non-monotonic reasoning. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 24(5), 447–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Piaget, J. (1962). The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan.Google Scholar
  69. Raschke, N. P. (2015). Umweltbildung in China. Geographiedidaktische Forschungen: Explorative Studien an Grünen Schulen. Münster.Google Scholar
  70. Reich, K. (2007). Interactive constructivism in education. Education and Culture, 23(1), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Reich, K. (2010). Systemisch-konstruktivistische Pädagogik—Einführung in die Grundlagen einer interaktionistisch-konstruktivistischen Pädagogik. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.Google Scholar
  72. Reuber, P. (2012). Politische Geographie. Münster: Schöningh UTB.Google Scholar
  73. Rhode-Jüchtern, T. (1995). Raum als Text. Wien: Perspektiven einer konstruktiven Erdkunde.Google Scholar
  74. Rousseau, J.-J. (1979). Emil or on education. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  75. Rychen, D. S. (2008). OECD Referenzrahmen für Schlüsselkompetenzen—ein Überblick. Kompetenzen der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. In I. Bormann, & G. Haan (Eds.), Kompetenzen der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Operationalisierung, Messung, Rahmenbedingungen, Befunde (pp. 15–22). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90832-8_3.
  76. Schockemöhle, J. (2009). Außerschulisches regionales Lernen als Bildungsstrategie für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Entwicklung und Evaluierung des Konzeptes Regionales Lernen 21+ . Münster: Geographiedidaktische Forschungen.Google Scholar
  77. Schrüfer, G. (2010). Förderung interkultureller Kompetenz im Geographieunterricht—Ein Beitrag zum Globalen Lernen. In G. Schrüfer & I. Schwarz (Eds.), Globales Lernen (pp. 101–110). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  78. Sen, A. (2005). The argumentative Indian. Noida: Penguin.Google Scholar
  79. Spitzer, M. (2007). Lernen. Gehirnforschung und die Schule des Lebens. Berlin: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  80. Spivak, G. (2008). Can the subaltern speak?. Wien: Turia+Kan.Google Scholar
  81. Sriprakash, A. (2010). Child-centered education and the promise of democratic learning: pedagogic messages in rural Indian primary schools. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(3), 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Steiner, R. (2011). Kompetenzorientierte Lehrer/innenbildung für Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Kompetenzmodell, Fallstudien und Empfehlungen. Münster: MV-Verlag.Google Scholar
  83. Tilbury, D. (2007). Asia-pacific contributions to the UN Decade of education for sustainable development. Journal for Education for Sustainable Development, 1, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tilbury, D. (2011). Education for sustainable development. An expert review of processes and learning. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  85. Toulmin, S. E. (1996). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. UNESCO. (2002). Education for Sustainability. From Rio to Johannesburg: Lessons learnt from a decade of commitment. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  87. UNESCO. (2005). United Nations Decade of education for sustainable development (2005–2014): International Implementation Scheme. Paris.Google Scholar
  88. UNESCO. (2006). Water. A shared responsibility. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2. Barcelona: UNESCO, Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  89. UNESCO. (2009a). Review of contexts and structures for education for sustainable development 2009. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  90. UNESCO (2009b). UNESCO World Conference on ESD: Bonn Declaration.Google Scholar
  91. UNESCO. (2011). Education for Sustainable Development. An expert review of processes and learning. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  92. UNESCO (2012). EFA Global Monitoring Report. Youth and skills-putting education to work.Google Scholar
  93. UNESCO, & UNEP (1977). Tbilisi Declaration.Google Scholar
  94. United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (2012). The future we want. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/476/10/PDF/N1147610.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed March 10, 2013.
  95. Vester, F. (2002). Unsere Welt—ein vernetztes System. München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag.Google Scholar
  96. Voß, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (2006). Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  97. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Wals, A. E. J. (2009). A Mid-DESD Review. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3(2), 195–204.  https://doi.org/10.1177/097340820900300216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Werlen, B. (1999). Zur Ontologie von Gesellschaft und Raum. Sozialgeographie alltäglicher Regionalisierungen Bd. 1. [On the Ontology of Society and Space. Vol. 1. Social Geography of Everyday Regionalizations]. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  101. Wohlrapp, H. (2006). Was heißt und zu welchem Ende sollte Argumentationsforschung betrieben werden? In E. Grundler, & R. Vogt (Eds.), Argumentieren in der Schule und Hochschule. Interdisziplinäre Studien (pp. 29–40). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag Brigitte Narrr.Google Scholar
  102. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2014.
  103. Wuttke, E. (2005). Unterrichtskommunikation und Wissenserwerb. Zum Einfluss von Kummunikation auf den Prozess der Wissensgenerierung. Frankfurt a. M: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options