Learner-centered sustainability education has been advocated to be used in higher education, but the pedagogy is blurry. In the discussions, also an idea of a learner-driven approach has been promoted. The aim of this study is to study how these pedagogies have been described and suggested to be used by a group of higher education students responsible for planning a teacher education course on sustainability education. This case study uses grounded theory to analyze the higher education students' beliefs about learner-centered and learner-driven sustainability education. The data was obtained from audio-recordings of the planning process and two semi-structured interviews of five students acting as course designers. The course designers showed to have beliefs about the nature of learner-centered/learner-driven pedagogy, freedom, meaningfulness, acting and making an influence in the learning environment, the nature and ownership of sustainable development knowledge, the diversity of the learners, and pedagogical support. The results indicate that the learner-centered and learner-driven approach are fundamentally different in terms of all of the categories. In conclusion, it is suggested that the terminology concerning learner-centered and learner-driven approaches should be more precise, and sustainability education should be developed towards a more transformative, learner-driven education.

No abstract

The aim of this theoretical paper is to develop and present a didaktik model that embeds chemistry education into Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE) using an eco-reflexive approach. A didaktik model is a tool to help educators make decisions and reflect on why, what, how, and/or when to teach. The model presented here is a revised version of the Jegstad and Sinnes model from 2015. It was systematically developed based on a critical analysis of the previous ESD (Education for Sustainable Development)-based model. This process is part of what is called didactic modeling. The revised model consists of the following six categories: (i) socio-philosophical framing; (ii) sustainable schooling and living; (iii) critical views on chemistry’s distinctiveness and methodological character; (iv) powerful chemical content knowledge; (v) critical views of chemistry in society; and (vi) eco-reflexivity through environmental and sustainability education. As in the model by Jegstad and Sinnes, the eco-reflexive didaktik model seeks to support chemistry educators in their sustainability-oriented educational planning and analysis, but from a more critical perspective. Based on an eco-reflexive Bildung approach, one additional category—socio-philosophical framing—was added to the revised model. This is because the previous model does not take sufficient account of worldview perspectives, cultural values, and educational philosophy. The eco-reflexive didaktik model is illustrated with boxes, and it is suggested that all categories in these boxes should be considered in holistic and eco-reflexive chemistry education. The purpose of such education is to develop students’ ChemoKnowings.

No abstract

Online professional-development courses such as massive open online courses (MOOCs) could bring relevant content to a wider base of teachers who might not otherwise have access to professional development. However, research on the relevance of such online courses is scarce. The main aim of this study is to investigate the relevance (individual, societal, and vocational) of MOOCs (mostly participatory cMOOCs) from the viewpoint of teachers now and in the future. We examined teachers’ expectations and perceptions of 10 courses before (N = 364) and after (N = 177) the courses, using an online questionnaire developed on the basis of relevance theory. According to the results, the studied teachers had positive expectations for the courses in terms of their usefulness for their prospective teaching (especially vocational relevance). Teachers’ expectations related to the usefulness of the course for the future (individual and vocational relevance) were most strongly met. Effort put into the course was connected to, for example, how the course improved the teachers’ interest. The results of this study indicate that MOOCs can serve as relevant courses for teachers’ professional development in science, mathematics, and technology education.

The aim of this study was to create an instrument to measure elementary teachers' interest in teaching chemistry. The interest in chemistry teaching instrument (ICTI) was created to measure both the affective and cognitive components of interest. After establishing the face and content validity of the instrument, the internal consistency of the instrument was verified by calculating Cronbach's alpha for the items. This was done using questionnaire data collected from 149 Finnish elementary teachers teaching chemistry in integrated chemistry and physics lessons. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify the underlying dimensions of interest. Based on the results of the factor analysis, elementary teachers' interest in chemistry teaching had two components: personal and value-related. The usefulness of the ICTI instrument was tested by conducting a correlation analysis of the measured level of interest and the reported use of teaching methods. As expected, the results indicated a positive correlation between the elementary teachers' interest measured with ICTI and the use of for example inquiry-related methods: creative problem solving and laboratory work. The ICTI may be used, for example, to evaluate and develop in-service and pre-service teacher training.

Lately STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art/aesthetics/architecture/all, mathematics) education has become a common notion. Yet, the theoretical and practical perspectives on STEAM, from its nature to classroom applications and its implementation in teacher education have unexamined potential. This special issue grew out of the International LUMAT Research Symposium “Promoting STEAM in Education” that took place at the University of Helsinki, Finland in June of 2020. With the challenges of organizing an online symposium in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, its online nature had significant advantages. The symposium drew international scholars inviting a multitude of prospective on STEAM education, while uncovering the challenges faced by educators. The issue aims at examining these challenges through a collection of papers. In this editorial, we introduce some key notions, discourses, and challenges of STEAM education, as a relatively novel concept and briefly discuss the history of STEAM and its evolution over the last decades. We also problematize STEAM and its roots through asking a question: What is “A” in STEAM representing? Then we introduce the three articles in this special issue: “Full STEAM ahead, but who has the map? – A PRISMA systematic review on the incorporation of interdisciplinary learning into schools”; Promoting STEAM learning in the early years: ‘Pequeños Científicos’ Program”; and “Promoting student interest in science: The impact of a science theatre project”. These articles challenge us to rethink STEAM education, reveal the potential of STEAM, and offer ideas for future research.

Student-led courses have been described as a promising approach to improve sustainability education. However, there is a lack of systematic studies about the benefits and challenges of such courses. This qualitative case study examines the challenges and tensions that arose in the planning of a student-led higher education course on sustainability education. The challenges were identified from the student course designers’ conversations and interviews using discourse analysis, focusing on their disagreements during planning. The identified challenges concerned sustainability and sustainability education, the course designers’ roles, and collaborative decision-making. To relate the challenges to wider discourses on these topics, five underlying tensions were recognized. These include the tension between participatory action and critical discussion approaches for sustainability education, and the tension between drive towards unanimity and agreeing to disagree in collaborative educational planning. Finally, it is discussed how, and to what degree, the challenges and tensions can and should be mitigated.