Transforming Collaborative Practices for Curriculum and Teaching Innovations with the Sustainability Forum (University of Bedfordshire)

Pritchard, Diana J.; Ashley, Tamara; Connolly, Helen; Worsfold, Nicholas

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70281-0_1

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At present, studies on ESDGs recognize three levels of action, teaching (Wu and Shen, 2016), research (Karatzoglou, 2013) and sustainable management of the university (Verhulst and Lambrechts, 2015). Studies integrating all three of these dimensions systemically are still rare (Mader et al, 2013;Pritchard et al, 2018). For instance, the work of Disterheft et al (2015) documents a sample of participatory projects to develop sustainability in higher education, but these projects are far from being labelled as pedagogies because they have been developed as campus sustainability initiatives.…”

Section: Literature Review 21 Education For Sustainable Development Goals (Esdgs)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…UNESCO affirms directly that "no one discipline can claim education for sustainable development for its own" (UNESCO Education, 2005). According to Clark and Wallace (2015), there are four options: disciplinary, multi-disciplinary (Adams, 2010), interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches (Gough and Longhurst, 2018;Pritchard et al, 2018).…”

Section: Literature Review 21 Education For Sustainable Development Goals (Esdgs)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditional teaching models can be helpful in identifying the SDGs, while more sophisticated teaching techniques are needed to develop students' awareness and engagement in entering into the merit of each goal and indicator. Also, to become successful in promoting the proper mind-set to be applied in dealing with such wicked problems (Rittel and Webber, 1973), a transformative process based on the acquisition of different soft-skills is necessary (Iyer-Raniga and Andamon, 2016;Pritchard et al, 2018). Consequently, universities and higher education institutions (HEIs) might think about the opportunities for setting up transformational ESDGs learning programmes through their traditional teaching offers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Education of sustainable development goals through students’ active engagement

Cottafava

Cavaglià²,

Corazza

2019

SAMPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss and present new teaching techniques to advance the concept and the practice of education for sustainable development (SD). Due to the recently introduced 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) and owing their interlinkages and targets, an evolution of the traditional teaching techniques is needed. Design/methodology/approach With the use of a single revelatory case study, this paper presents an example of education for SD goals activity carried out at the University of Torino, focussed on merging SD with the active engagement of students. Findings The empowerment of students happens through a transformative learning experience grounded in the acquisition of managerial soft skills useful in co-creating and co-designing projects to contribute towards SDGs effectively. Practical implications The ultimate goal is to support students to become active citizens in their communities (e.g. starting within the University). Social implications Students learnt about SDGs and the complexities of sustainability, and, at the same time, they learnt valuable tools to contribute to their transformation to develop projects for the benefit of local territories and organizations. Originality/value The paper showcases how transformative learning could be applied to SDGs. Awarded as one of the best practices regarding SD by the Italian Network of Universities for Sustainable Development, the case involves students in a transdisciplinary, creative and open learning environment.

show abstract

Section: Literature Review 21 Education For Sustainable Development Goals (Esdgs)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Review 21 Education For Sustainable Development Goals (Esdgs)mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Education of sustainable development goals through students’ active engagement

Cottafava

Cavaglià²,

Corazza

2019

SAMPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, specific topics such as poverty issues, access to education of vulnerable people, environmental concerns, are strongly place-based, in the sense that the priority and the urgency of coping with a particular issue can vary within the same community and over time. Institutional legitimacy means that public universities too often take for granted their legitimacy on a specific community, developing a strong relationship capital with other relevant local institutions (such as hospitals, municipalities, big industrial partners, museums, other public institutions), completely ignoring other potential actors less institutionalized that are working on the same issue (Pritchard et al , 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-design of a stakeholders’ ecosystem: an assessment methodology by linking social network analysis, stakeholder theory and participatory mapping

Cottafava

Corazza

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The need for stakeholder theory has been widely highlighted in the literature to develop solid strategies for a large organization. However, there is still a lack of user-friendly visualization tools and no unique approach exists to identify and engage stakeholders. This paper aims to propose a general methodology to co-design the sustainability ecosystem at the local scale, to explore it and to assess the impact of a large organization within the identified ecosystem. Design/methodology/approach The methodology consists of two main processes: identifying an ontological map of the sustainability topics network and designing the local sustainability stakeholders ecosystem. Both processes are based on a nodes identification phase and a nodes prioritization phase. The identification phase was achieved by engaging 160 citizens, for the topics network and nearly 40 relevant stakeholders, for the stakeholders’ ecosystem, with a collaborative participatory mapping process. The prioritization phase was conducted because of three indicators, i.e. the closeness, the betweenness and the eigenvector centrality. Findings Betweenness centrality results to be the best indicator to assess the importance of a stakeholder with respect to the whole network, while eigenvector centrality highlights the quality of the already engaged stakeholders of an organization, as it mainly depends on the number of links of the first order neighbors. On the contrary, the closeness centrality, when applied to a small network, seems to be not appropriate to assess the centrality of a stakeholder. Research limitations/implications This approach revealed some criticalities in the mapping process, as in the weighting link procedure. Further investigations are needed to generalize the approach to a dynamic one, to allow real-time mapping and to develop a robust interconnection among centrality degrees and the power, interest and legitimacy concept of stakeholder theory. Practical implications Obtained results for a case study, i.e. the position of the University of Turin Green Office within the City of Turin sustainability ecosystem, are discussed showing how social network analysis centrality degrees can be used to quantitatively assess the role of an organization within a stakeholders’ ecosystem. Social implications Centrality analysis allows identifying emergent topics/stakeholders within a network of words/actors that, at a first sight, should not be considered by decision-makers and managers. Originality/value A new methodology for stakeholder identification and prioritization is proposed exploiting online data visualization tools, participatory mapping and social network analysis.

show abstract