Integrating Sustainable Development in Higher Education through Experience-based Learning: Insights from Experts in Team (EiT) for Developing a Combined Theoretical Framework

Abstract

Universities are understood to play an essential role in the promotion of sustainable development. However, the recognition of sustainable development in higher education poses multiple challenges to the traditional higher education system. This article introduces a course concept called ‘Experts in Teams’ (EiT) as a new platform of learning which makes use of experience-based learning to address sustainable development in an academic context. The article investigates the ways in which these new forms of learning lead to sustainable lifestyle behavioural changes among participants. Based on the results from the case study, the article presents a combined framework for implementing sustainable development as part of a curriculum that not only provides theoretical education about the topic but also furthers a behavioural change among its participants towards more pro-environmental actions.

Keywords

Sustainable development Experts in Teams experience-based learning pro-environmental actions higher education

Introduction

The challenge for educational institutions is not simply to teach concrete facts about the environment but to create an active, transformative process of learning that allows values to be lived out and debated, and permits a unification of theory and practice. (Warton, 2003, p. 55 in Jones, Trier & Richards, 2008, p. 342)

In 2002, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly declared the period from 2005 to 2014 as the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). The UN defines ESD as ‘education that prepares people to cope with and find solutions to problems that threaten the sustainability of the planet’ (UNESCO, 2007, p. 6). It is in this light that the role of universities as higher education institutions is considered essential for the promotion of sustainable development, since the students of today are the decision makers of tomorrow. Müller-Christ et al. (2014) argue that it is an important task of universities to contribute to the growth and dissemination of knowledge that fosters societal change towards sustainability.

However, sustainability issues are still not effectively addressed at the university level (Mintz & Tal, 2014). Lozano, Lukman, Lozano, Huisingh and Lambrechts (2013, p. 11) argue that ‘reductionist, mono-disciplinary education and testing by repetition, have fostered highly individualistic, greedy and self-interested behaviours’ at the university level. In addition, the existing sustainable development initiatives at the university level mainly focus on campus operations, research, assessment and reporting but often do not address the current academic curriculum (Lozano & Lozano, 2014). The recognition of sustainable development in higher education poses multiple challenges to the traditional higher education system. Sustainable development in higher education demands a highly interdisciplinary approach. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2007), it is not the task of one single discipline to contribute to ESD, but rather a combined effort of multiple disciplines is required to fully implement ESD. Adomßent et al. (2014, p. 3) state that the difficulty lies in integrating ‘real-life issues into learning processes—which are characterized by complexity, uncertainty and interdisciplinarity’. Thus, ESD requires the use of a variety of pedagogical techniques that promote participatory learning and higher-order thinking skills (UNESCO, 2007, p. 6). Scholars suggest that educational programmes should include multiple learning outcomes such as the acquisition of knowledge, skills, abilities and attitudes (Segalàs, Ferrer-Balas, Svanström, Lundqvist & Mulder, 2009). Furthermore, ‘it is important to recognise that it is not only the curriculum content but also the pedagogical approach that determines the extent to which ESD is embedded in degree programmes’ (Jones et al., 2008, p. 342).

Azapagic, Slobodan and Shallcross (2005) conducted a worldwide study to evaluate engineering students’ knowledge of sustainable development, which indicated low levels of knowledge among the students. In order to increase the levels of knowledge, Azapagic et al. (2005, p. 14) claim that sustainability must become part of the daily life thinking of engineering students. They argue that it is often not clear how and where to integrate sustainability in the curriculum. Furthermore, most courses taught on sustainable development do not follow a systematic approach and are taught more ad hoc (ibid.).

One example for how sustainable development has been integrated at the university level presents the Sustainability Literacy Test (SULITEST). This is a free online test for graduate students and assesses their minimum knowledge on economic, environmental and social responsibility (see SULITEST, 2015). Universities can register on the page to administer the test. The test presents a good starting point but more ways of integrating the students directly in a course on sustainable development are needed. According to Cotton, Warren, Maiboroda and Bailey (2007), sustainable development can be incorporated in education in several ways. We can differentiate between education about, in and for sustainable development. The three types are characterized by different levels of agency. Education about sustainable development is mainly concerned with the ‘factual’ transmission of sustainable development without interaction by the students. Education in sustainable development allows for more agency by the course participants. The aim is to create ‘enhanced understandings and emotional connections through experiential and interactive learning processes’ (Cotton et al., 2007, p. 581). Education for sustainable development allows for even more agency by promoting values that are positive for sustainability.

This article introduces a course concept called ‘Experts in Teams’ (EiT) where students from different disciplines get the chance to be active players in sustainable development. The EiT module ‘sustainability at home—learning from the developing world’ presents a new platform of learning that not only addresses sustainable development in an academic context, but also makes use of experience-based learning and thus adds a personal perspective to teaching sustainability. The article investigates the ways in which these new forms of learning lead to sustainable lifestyle behavioural changes among their participants. Based on the results from the case study, the article presents a combined framework for implementing sustainable development as part of the curriculum that not only provides theoretical education about the topic but also enhances a behavioural change among its participants towards more pro-environmental behaviour.

The article is structured as follows: The second section presents the theoretical framework and addresses the widely discussed attitude–behaviour gap in environmental studies. The section primarily focuses on Blake’s model of ‘value–action gap’ that is applied in this article for further analysis. The third section introduces the concept of EiT and the EiT module ‘sustainability at home—learning from the developing world’. The section also looks more closely at the concept of experience learning and its application in the EiT course. The fourth section presents the methodological framework of the study and the first results. The fifth section discusses the results in terms of Blake’s value–action gap. The section concludes with a new framework for teaching students about sustainable development that combines theory and practice. The sixth section presents the concluding remarks and provides recommendations for implementing sustainable development as part of university curriculum.

The Attitude–Behaviour Gap

Pro-environmental behaviour is defined as the ‘behaviour that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural and built world’ (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002, p. 240). Individuals are considered to have a high positive impact on the environment when they change their behaviour towards more sustainable living (Klöckner, 2013). Here, education can become a key player for pro-environmental behaviour. Education in general aims to shape people’s behaviour (Hungerford & Volk, 1990, p. 257) and ESD aims to direct people towards more pro-environmental behaviour.

However, past research has shown that environmental attitudes are not sufficient precursors to pro-environmental behaviour (Bamberg, 2003). Arbuthnott (2009, p. 153) states that even though interventions might be successful in altering attitudes, they do not necessarily lead to a behaviour change.

Education must not stop at value and attitude change because considerable evidence indicates that behaviour does not flow directly from our attitudes and intentions. Rather, several contextual and personal factors influence whether or not we will act in a manner consistent with our expressed attitudes at a given moment. (ibid., p. 153)

Multiple theories from different disciplines have been developed which attempt to explain the gap between environmental knowledge and awareness, and display pro-environmental behaviour. However, there is no single theory that can explain what shapes pro-environmental behaviour (ibid., p. 240). Nevertheless, in order to find out how we can change people’s behaviour towards more pro-environmental actions, we need to understand the factors that drive actions and decisions (Klöckner, 2013).

According to Blake (1999), most of the approaches that investigate the environmental attitude–behaviour gap are based on cognitive theories and originate from social or environmental psychology. They base their argument on a rationalistic model and fail to sufficiently consider social and institutional constraints as important factors limiting pro-environmental behaviour. Blake (1999) addresses this criticism by distinguishing among three different important factors on different levels that influence pro-environmental behaviour. The first is Individuality, which captures individual factors that can limit pro-environmental behaviour such as laziness and apathy. These become very relevant for people with little environmental concern. Blake’s second dimension presents Responsibility. Responsibility can be a constraint to pro-environmental behaviour if people do not consider themselves as responsible for environmental problems or feel that they cannot contribute to change in the current situation. The last dimension is Practicality, which is typically a social and institutional constraint that prevents people from acting sustainably, independent from their environmental attitudes. This captures constraints such as lack of time, lack of money, lack of information, lack of encouragement, lack of pro-environmental facilities and lack of storage difficulties (such as for recycling).

The roles of these three constraints are considered to differ across individuals. Blake (1999) calls this approach the value–action gap. In this study, Blake’s value–action gap is applied for investigating the effects of the EiT module on students’ pro-environmental actions and to develop a combined theoretical framework for teaching students about sustainable development.

Experts in Team (EiT)

Experts in Team presents a class at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim that takes place every spring semester and which is obligatory for all master’s students enrolled at NTNU. The students can choose from a list of EiT modules (also called villages)¹ which address different relevant issues related to society and work life. The villages are offered by different departments. Each village has a maximum number of 30 students and involves one village leader and two learning assistants who facilitate the student groups. Within the villages, the students are divided into interdisciplinary groups consisting of five to six people (EiT, 2014a). These groups develop different project ideas related to the village theme and are encouraged to undertake their projects. By doing this group work, students learn co-operative skills that are necessary for their later work life. The student groups are also encouraged to work together with external co-operation partners. The major learning method of EiT is experience based, which means that students develop teamwork skills by reflecting on and learning from the group situations and tasks in their project work. This means that besides the actual project work, the students are encouraged to reflect on the processes taking place in their groups. During the course, several exercises are undertaken in the class which encourage the students to reflect on their actions within the group. The dual emphasis on project and process in EiT is also reflected in the assessment strategy of EiT. All student groups need to submit a project and process report at the end of the semester based on which they are awarded a common group grade.

EiT Village: ‘Sustainability at Home—Learning from the Developing World’

The EiT village presented here was part of the political science course offered at NTNU. The village theme is based on the claim that developed countries have followed a path of massive high consumption over the last century, which has harmed our environment and has not necessarily led to an improvement in the quality of our lives. Despite these serious consequences, the Western world is often seen as a role model for development. Developing countries aspire to the same standard of living as the developed world and if their development trajectory follows ours, the future health of our planet is threatened. Besides imparting lessons on development to developing nations, however, there is a lot that developed countries can learn from them. The village’s aim was to investigate ways of making lifestyles in Norway more sustainable by turning the tables and asking what a developed country like Norway can learn from the developing world.

Norway has been number one in the global Human Development Index (HDI) rankings several times (see UNDP, 2014). It is considered to be the richest country in the world and the best place to live. However, the country faces many sustainability issues. For example, it is a paradox that Norwegians, despite their high incomes, tend to buy the cheapest food items and that the country is far behind its neighbouring countries in terms of customers’ preferences for fair-trade and organic foods.

However, sustainability does not only address food, rather it entails various aspects (e.g., energy consumption, transport, waste). Based on individual expertise and interests, students were encouraged to choose different fields to investigate how we can make those areas more sustainable.

Furthermore, the underlying understanding of the village theme is that a change towards sustainability requires not only a technological advancement but also a rethinking of our current way of living (EiT, 2014b). In total, 19 students participated in the village, who were divided into four interdisciplinary- and gender-mixed groups. The overall aim of the teams was to develop sustainability campaigns for Trondheim. This was laid out in the form of a competition. As a mandatory part of the class, the student groups had to present their campaigns at the end before an external interdisciplinary committee, with the different campaigns ranked and awarded different prizes.

Experience-Based Learning

As mentioned earlier, the EiT educational concept is based on experience-based learning to enhance students’ teamwork skills. In the original understanding of EiT, ‘experience based’ is mainly related to the process in the teamwork. In this article, we explore how this form of teaching can actually encourage behavioural changes in students towards more sustainable lifestyle choices.

However, as a first step, we have to clarify what experience-based learning is, relative to standard forms of learning. According to Matsuo, Christina, Wong and Kee-hung (2008), experience-based learning differs from other learning methods in that the acquisition of knowledge, experience and skills is derived from one’s own experiences. Several studies argue for a more experiential learning when teaching about sustainable development. Chawla (1999) conducted interviews with Norwegian and American environmentalists to identify their motivations for protecting the environment. The interviews showed that education played a central role in their involvement in environmental protection, but only if it was actively engaged in as opposed to normal classroom teaching. Chawla (1999, p. 219) writes that ‘most significant school memories featured opportunities to take action, rather than passive classroom learning’.

Different forms of participatory learning can been developed that address sustainable development. A study by Alwi, Yusof, Hashim and Zainon (2012) investigates the effects of cooperative problem-based learning (CPBL) on environmental awareness among first-year chemical engineering students at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Alwi et al. (2012) argue that contextualization presents an important tool for teaching students about sustainable development. By contextualizing sustainable development, students become aware of the importance of theoretical and technical knowledge and potential situations in which these can be applied. In order to contextualize their knowledge, students had to act as water sustainability consultants for a well-known consultant firm in Malaysia. The study concluded that CPBL led to an increased environmental consciousness among the course participants. The learning approach applied in EiT has a similar design. As part of the study, it investigated whether similar results can be measured and if changes can be observed towards more pro-environmental behaviour. In keeping with the concept of experience-based learning, different exercises were undertaken in the EiT village that were aimed at strengthening students’ understanding and awareness of sustainability issues in their own lives.

Arbuthnott (2009, p. 155) argues that public educational efforts that address concrete pro-environmental behaviour changes (e.g., recycling) are more successful than campaigns that increase knowledge about environmental degradation. This becomes important in the context of university teaching since teaching about sustainable development at the university level is often abstract rather than addressing specific actions. The EiT village addresses this point by implementing several specific actions in the form of experiential learning, as we will see below.

The EiT village can be divided into three phases: the introductory phase, the working phase and the completion phase. In the following sections, two exercises are described that were undertaken in the introductory phase which helped enhance students’ understanding of the environment by getting some hands-on experience. This conforms to Arbuthnott (2009, p. 160) who argues that specific actions should be integrated into class exercises and assignments to enhance a behaviour change among students.

The first exercise is called the sustainability exercise. In the first 4 weeks of the class, each team had to agree on one sustainability exercise, which each individual in the team had to perform until the following week. Then in the following week, students were asked to reflect on their experiences through an in-class exercise. The exercise captured pro-environmental actions such as a meat-free day, a shopping-free day, avoiding use of plastic bags in supermarkets and taking colder and quicker showers. After the introductory phase, the student teams were free to choose whether they wanted to continue with this exercise during the following two phases.

The second exercise, called the garbage/waste exercise, was a one-time exercise in class and captured several issues at once. First, the exercise aimed to enhance the creative thinking of the students. The village leader brought different waste materials to class and the student teams were asked to design new useful items out of the waste products. The exercise combined environmental thinking with teamwork skills, as the group members had to agree on the type of products they created as well as their design. Figure 1 shows some of the products that were developed by the groups during the exercise.

In addition to these rather short exercises, the student groups had to develop their own campaigns that addressed sustainability issues in Trondheim. The teams were free to choose their topic and worked independently on their projects throughout the semester. The groups were also encouraged to collaborate with external cooperation partners. The module consisted of four groups in total. Group 1 aimed to improve the campus situation at NTNU by designing a website and a flyer for new students that suggested to them small actions they could undertake in their daily lives to be more sustainable. Group 2 developed an app based on the five Rs for sustainable lifestyles (refuse, reduce, reuse, repair and recycle) which were introduced in one of the first sessions in the class. Group 3 arranged a swapping event and developed posters, flyers and an app that established a platform for future swapping events. Group 4 developed a new design for public trash bins at bus stops in Trondheim to discourage littering, which was also tested in Trondheim. The most feasible campaigns were awarded a prize by an interdisciplinary committee at the end of the semester.

Figure 1(a)

Source: Pia Otte.

Figure 1(b)

Source: Pia Otte.

Methods and Results

Longitudinal Research Design

In order to measure potential attitude and behaviour changes among the students, the study applied a longitudinal research design. Each of the 19 students received a questionnaire at the beginning of the semester that assessed attitudes and concrete pro-environmental actions towards sustainability in general and in their private life. The same questionnaire with some additional questions was provided at the end of the semester. The second round included questions that assessed whether the students felt more informed about sustainability issues after having attended the class. The questionnaire was divided into four themes:

Personal background

About EiT village

Sustainability and personal action

Sustainability concerns in general

While sections I and II provide background information, particular emphasis was given to sections III and IV. The questionnaire included yes and no questions and questions of frequency with closed answering categories. Attitudes were measured by asking opinions where participants could state their levels of agreement using the following scale: 5 = I strongly agree, 4 = I tend to agree, 3 = I neither agree nor disagree, 2 = I tend to disagree and 1 = I strongly disagree. Changes in behaviour were measured in the second round by asking the students whether they continued with some of the pro-environmental actions from the sustainability exercise in the beginning of the class, and if so, which ones.

The codebook including the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1. In addition to the questionnaires, interviews were conducted with the four student groups at the end of the semester as part of the course outline. The original aim of these interviews (as part of the EiT course outline) was to find out how the students perceived the group work, but questions were also raised related to their experiences with the course and their environmental awareness and actions.

Limitations

Before moving to the presentation of the data, it is important to mention some of the limitations of the study. The biggest limitation lies in the fact that the data set includes only a limited number of cases. This limits the generalization of these findings to other contexts. Furthermore, all participants of the EiT village had consciously chosen this class but not every student indicated it as a first choice. However, the fact that students chose the village might indicate that they were already aware of environmental problems and concerned about the future of our planet, and thus more willing to change their behaviour. To enhance the validity of the findings, it could be interesting to conduct a similar study with a group of students who did not consciously select such a village.

Another limitation is related to time. The village started in January and the first questionnaire was distributed on 22 January. The second questionnaire was then distributed on 23 April that year (the last day of the course). This period is too short to make any statements about the long-term behaviour and attitude changes among the participants. To get a full overview and understanding of long-term changes, the questionnaire should be sent out again 1 year after completion of the village. However, this was not possible since many of the students who participated in the village left for study-abroad semesters and internships. Thus, it would be difficult to track the students and to control for external factors that might have had an impact on their environmental attitudes and behaviours due to their new living environments.

Furthermore, there is a limitation related to the content of the questionnaire. The questionnaire addresses general topics of sustainable behaviour but could have included questions more specific to the Norwegian context. For example, something that becomes very relevant here is the problem of overfishing, which is a highly discussed topic for Nordic countries like Norway whose national economy very much depends on fishing. Holm, Raakjær, Becker Jacobsen and Henriksen (2015) discuss fishing in Nordic countries in their article on the role of the three pillars of sustainable development (i.e., economic, social and environmental factors). A question related to the perception of overfishing could have been included as part of the questions related to diet and meat consumption and thus would have helped to contextualize the questionnaire.

Last but not least, the study focuses entirely on the effect of participating in the EiT village and does not address outside factors such as life paths (e.g., experiences with natural areas or pro-environmental values taught by family and friends) that can influence people’s motivation for pro-environmental behaviour (Chawla, 1999).

Results

In total, 17 of 19 questionnaires were completed and analyzed. Each questionnaire was assigned a case ID which was retained for the second round of questionnaires in order to identify individual changes in the answering process. The background information shows that we have an even distribution of gender (eight male and nine female participants). On average, the participants were between 24 and 29 years, and 10 participants were from a developing country, while seven were from the developed world. We have an interdisciplinary mixture of students (seven from the Natural Sciences and 10 from the Social and Human Sciences). Every student chose the village (Choice 1) but only eight participants stated that the village was their first choice (Choice 2). The background data are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Background

Case ID^a	Gender^b	Age^c	Study^d	Country^e	Choice1^f	Choice2^g
1	2	2	2	2	1	1
2	2	2	2	2	1	1
3	1	1	1	1	1	2
4	1	2	2	2	1	2
5	1	2	2	2	1	1
6	2	1	1	1	1	2
7	2	1	1	1	1	2
8	1	3	2	2	1	1
9	1	1	1	2	1	2
10	2	4	1	1	1	2
11	1	3	1	2	1	1
12	2	1	1	2	1	2
13	2	2	1	1	1	2
14	1	2	2	2	1	1
15	1	2	2	1	1	2
16	2	2	2	1	1	1
17	2	3	2	1	1	1

Source: Author’s own.

Notes: ^aCase number; ^b1 = male, 2 = female; ^c1 = 19–23 years, 2 = 24–29 years, 3 = 30–35 years, 4 = above 35 years; ^d1 = Natural Sciences, 2 = Human/Social Sciences; ^e1 = developed world, 2 = developing world; ^f1= yes, 2 = no; and ^g1 = yes, 2 = no.

When comparing the total number of questions of the first round with the second round, across all questions, we noted that between 29 and 70 per cent of the participants scored differently the first time (depending on the question that was asked). The highest difference was noted in the statement ‘I am very much concerned whether these clothes were produced under good working conditions’ where 70 per cent of the 17 respondents showed changes in their scores. Interestingly, the participants often indicated lower values in the second round of questioning, which implies that they were behaving less sustainably. It was originally assumed that students would score higher after having attended the class and thus show increased environmental awareness.

However, Table 2 shows that 41 per cent score differently on the item ‘Change’ and 47 per cent score differently on the item ‘Learn’. ‘Change’ captures the degree of perceived inability for changing something in the world as an individual. High values indicate that the respondent does not think that he/she can contribute to a change in our world. In the second round, 71 per cent of the participants who scored differently on ‘Change’ scored lower indicating a more positive attitude towards their perceived ability to make a change for the better.

Table 2

Changes in Scores for Change and Learn

	Case ID^a	Change 1^b	Change 2^b	Learn 1^c	Learn 2^c
	1	2	2	5	5
	2	1	2	4	5
	3	2	1	4	4
	4	1	2	4	3
	5	1	1	5	5
	6	2	2	4	4
	7	2	1	4	4
	8	3	1	5	5
	9	4	4	5	4
	10	1	1	5	4
	11	1	1	5	5
	12	4	2	5	4
	13	2	2	5	5
	14	3	3	4	4
	15	2	2	4	3
	16	2	1	4	3
	17	1	1	5	4
Change (%)^d			41		47
Higher (%)			29		13
Lower (%)			71		87

Source: Author’s own.

Notes: ^aCase number; ^b ‘I don’t think that I can really change something in the world as an individual person’, 5 = I strongly agree, 4 = I tend to agree, 3 = I neither agree nor disagree, 2 = I tend to disagree, 1 = I strongly disagree; ^c‘I think I could learn much more on how I can be more sustainable in my lifestyle’, 5 = I strongly agree, 4 = I tend to agree, 3 = I neither agree nor disagree, 2 = I tend to disagree, 1 = I strongly disagree; and ^dchange from first to second round, higher = percentage that scored higher, lower = percentage that scored lower.

Another interesting category included questions about groceries. The results show that a majority of the students have a general interest in fair-trade and organic food but that the high prices present a constraint for them. Table 3 shows that 14 out of 17 students stated during the first round that they would buy more organic food if it was more affordable. In the second round, all 17 participants stated that they strongly agree (5) or tend to agree (4) that they would buy more organic food if it was more affordable. We can see similar replies for the item ‘I would buy more fair-trade items if it was more affordable’. Here, in the first round, 13 of 17 students report that they strongly agree (5) or tend to agree (4) and in the second round, 15 of 17 students report that they strongly agree (5) or tend to agree (4).

Table 3

Importance of Affordability of Food Items

Case ID	Affordable Organic Food (Round 1)^a	Affordable Organic Food (Round 2)	Affordable Fair-trade Items (Round 1)^b	Affordable Fair-trade Items (Round 2)
1	3	4	3	4
2	5	5	5	5
3	5	4	5	4
4	5	5	4	4
5	4	5	3	4
6	5	4	4	4
7	4	5	4	5
8	4	4	4	3
9	4	4	4	4
10	4	4	3	3
11	5	5	5	5
12	5	4	5	4
13	5	5	5	5
14	3	5	3	4
15	3	5	5	5
16	5	5	5	5
17	4	4	4	4

Source: Author’s own.

Notes: ^a‘I would buy more organic food if it was more affordable’, 5 = I strongly agree, 4 = I tend to agree, 3 = I neither agree nor disagree, 2 = I tend to disagree, 1 = I strongly disagree; ^b‘I would buy more fair-trade items if it was more affordable’, 5 = I strongly agree, 4 = I tend to agree, 3 = I neither agree nor disagree, 2 = I tend to disagree, 1 = I strongly disagree.

As a next step, we move on from environmental attitudes to concrete sustainable actions. As part of the questionnaire, the students were also asked if they continued with some of the pro-environmental actions practiced in class. In Table 4, we can see that 10 out 17 participants stated that they continued with some of the sustainable actions that they undertook at the beginning of the semester. Here, the students were asked to only mention sustainable actions that they did not undertake before attending the village.

Table 4

Sustainable Actions

Case ID	Continued^a	Type of Action^b
1	1	Meat-free days
2	1	Showers, recycling
3	1	Short showers, to buy fewer things (clothes, etc.), eat more organic food, read more about sustainability issues
4	2
5	1	Checking whether the lights are switched off before leaving
6	1	Recycle
7	1	To use less electricity for entertainment and to recycle
8	1	No plastic bags
9	1	Meat-free days
10	2
11	2
12	2
13	2
14	1	Using less plastic bags as much as possible
15	1	Fewer days with meat consumption
16	1^c
17	2

Source: Author’s own.

Notes: ^a‘Have you continued with some of the sustainability exercises we experimented with in the village?’, 1 = yes, 2 = no; ^bopen coded description of the action. ^c The participant mentions that he/she does the same actions as he/she did before the class, which does not count in the original understanding since it was asked for actions that students did not undertake before they started with the village.

Discussion

Our overall research objective was to find out to what extent the EiT village, ‘sustainability at home—learning from the developing world’, and its educational method of experience-based learning led to a change among the participants towards proenvironmental behaviour. Table 2 showed that the students’ perceptions of being able to change something in the world had increased after the 3-month class. We could see that students scored lower in the second round of the survey in the ‘Change’ section, which indicates that they feel more able to contribute to making a change. With a focus on Blake’s model, this indicates that students’ own perception of responsibility had increased. They felt more able to contribute to a change in society after attending the class. However, we could also see that factors related to Blake’s concept of practicality were present and limited students’ pro-environmental behaviour. It was mentioned earlier that there are ‘social and institutional constraints that may prevent people from adopting pro-environmental action, regardless of their attitudes or intentions’ (Blake, 1999, p. 268). Based on the answers provided in Table 3, we can see that lack of money presents one major constraint to more pro-environmental behaviour for the respondents. The students show an interest in organic and fair-trade food but they have limited budgets, and food prices in Norway are among the highest in Europe (Eurostat, 2014). Prices for fair-trade and organic foods are even higher. The price difference between organic and conventional foods is exceptionally high in Norway with a 45 per cent difference, while in neighbouring Sweden, there is only a 10 per cent difference for basic foods (Forbrukerrådet in Hanss, 2012, p. 21).

While lack of money presents a constraint to some pro-environmental actions, there are other pro-environmental actions that do not cost money and even lead to economic savings which can be easily undertaken by the students (such as meat-free days and taking colder showers). Here, the personal attitudes, addressed with the term individuality in Blake’s model, become relevant. Even though there are no social and institutional barriers to take shorter and colder showers and thus save water, the participants might still not undertake these if they are outweighed by other conflicting attitudes such as laziness or comfort. We assume that students choose the actions that conflict the least with other attitudes.

The most interesting finding of this study was the curious contradiction that arose where a majority of the students had stated that they had continued with some of the pro-environmental actions that were introduced in the course, despite survey results that indicated environmental attitudes were lower after the class. This means that we have, in a way, reversed the ‘value–action gap’.

The Role of Experience-based Learning on Pro-environmental Behaviour

The study leaves us with mixed results. On the one hand, students show an increase in specific pro-environmental actions, but on the other hand, questions related to environmental attitudes did not show any positive changes. The group discussions that were conducted with each of the four teams at the end of the semester provide us with some insights that explain the mixed results. The student groups generally reported that they enjoyed the course concept and they felt that they had improved their teamwork skills. However, they also mentioned that they felt confused in the beginning of the semester because of the freedom to choose their own campaign topic and study design; this was particularly challenging for the engineering students in the class, who are more accustomed to lecture-based classes with clear guidelines and outcomes. In the beginning of the class, the module leader was asked several times whether she could provide the student groups with a fully elaborated project idea. However, during the course, the student groups developed a form of ownership over their projects along with strong motivation to make the projects work. This was expressed by student groups in supervising sessions with comments like ‘I want this to work’, and the fact that some of the teams even managed to involve external co-operation partners who supported their projects financially.

However, in the group discussion and the course evaluation, the students frequently mentioned that they wished for more lecture-based teaching to develop a common basis of understanding. The class consisted of master’s students from different fields of study, and their knowledge about sustainable development varied. The teaching method of EiT purposely denies a standard lecture-based course design in order to engage the students actively in their own project ideas from early on in the class and to learn how to work in teams. This might present a challenge for ESD with such interdisciplinary classes since it becomes relevant to build up a common basis of understanding. Thus, for future courses, the challenge is to maintain a healthy balance between freedom of teamwork, development of group ideas and theoretical lecture-based training.

What we can learn from the EiT village is that experience-based learning has a positive impact on pro-environmental behaviour, but the question that still remains is how this can be successfully implemented in higher education. A suggested framework developed on the basis of Blake’s ‘value–action gap’ model, Alwi et al.’s (2012) concept of CPBL, and the data obtained from this study are presented in Figure 2.

The framework is discussed as follows in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Source: Author’s own (based on Alwi et al.’s (2012) and Blake (1999).

As a first step in the framework, we start with the concept (1) sustainable development. Sustainable development presents a vague complex concept with different understandings primarily concerning the global level (social, economic and environmental consequences of increasing energy and food consumption and population growth). In step 1, basic concepts and theories on sustainable development are introduced to the students in the form of lectures and/or tutorials. This part covers approximately one-third of the course plan and is considered to create a common basis of understanding among the students.

However, the problem in teaching students only about the theoretical implications of sustainable development (which addresses a long-term process whose effects are distant in space and time) is that the students will most probably feel overwhelmed and unrelated to the issue and lose a feeling of responsibility for their actions (Blake, 1999). Previous studies show that students view sustainable development as something important for future generations but do not perceive a personal relevance (Azapagic et al., 2005).

The EiT village showed that sustainable development can be made more real and thus more personal by contextualizing the concept (2. Contextualization) in the form of experience-based learning. There are two forms of contextualization, which address two levels. At a group level, the student groups could be affiliated with a project that addresses sustainable development in their area (2a. Case study). They could be presented with a non-exhaustive list of relevant organizations in their region that work with sustainable projects. This can include projects related to all kinds of sustainability issues (e.g., energy, waste, transport) and depending on the interdisciplinary expertise in the group, the students can choose a relevant partner project. The student groups are chosen to assist these actors with new innovative ideas. At the individual level, we can identify different pro-environmental actions, which students can apply in their personal life and which will be practiced during the course (2b. Pro-environmental actions). However, the success of these activities is influenced by two external factors. One of them is individual attitudes (3. Individuality). For example, if a student is asked to cycle to the university instead of taking a car for 1 week as a pro-environmental activity, but the participant is not interested in cycling, then he/she will probably choose another action that conforms better to their underlying individual attitudes. The important issue is to collect different pro-environmental actions from which students can select. Furthermore, besides individual attitudes, social/institutional constraints become relevant for choosing pro-environmental actions (4. Practicality). Taking the earlier example, a person might be less interested in cycling to work as opposed to driving, if there is a lack of bicycle routes and high traffic in the target area, which has negative consequences for safety and comfort. Based on the interaction of individual and institutional/social constraints, course participants choose relevant pro-environmental actions. These are specific to each person, depending on the importance of different values. This also means that there is a specific environmental profile for each person that is the result of negotiating these values. These choices made at the local (personal) level towards more pro-environmental behaviour have the potential to reduce environmental impacts significantly at a global level as well.

Furthermore, by practicing pro-environmental actions through experience-based learning, we decrease the feeling of being overwhelmed, which is assumed to enhance people’s willingness to take responsibility (5. Responsibility) for their actions.

The design of interdisciplinary projects within the groups and the collaboration with companies and organizations in the public and private sectors provide students with the opportunity to apply their expertise to real-life projects that address sustainability. Thus, by combining personal actions with project work, we teach students about the subject-related consequences of sustainability, we train them in teamwork skills and we demonstrate how they can personally contribute to make our world a better place.

However, the question that still remains is how this framework can be utilized in universities. Müller-Christ et al. (2014) state that those universities that managed to successfully integrate sustainable development as part of their curriculum had to undergo a fundamental restructuring process. Interdisciplinary courses, such as EiT presented here, offer a perfect platform for ESD. However, what about universities who do not yet offer similar course concepts and are very disciplinary in their overall structure? How can we implement sustainable development in practice there? According to Müller-Christ et al. (2014), the fastest way is to offer elective courses on sustainable development, since incorporating sustainable development in compulsory courses requires considerable changes to the university system. However, by offering sustainable development courses as elective modules, we risk attracting only students with pre-existing interests in sustainable development, and thus miss out on addressing the broader community. Nevertheless, it can present a transition towards a long-term integration of sustainable development in the curriculum.

Conclusions

The aim of this article was to investigate the role of experience-based learning in leading to a behavioural change among students towards more pro-environmental actions and sustainable lifestyles. The article presented the EiT village ‘sustainability at home—learning from the developing world’ as a case study where students actively participated in their own sustainability campaigns over one semester. The course participants received a questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of the semester that assessed changes in their environmental attitudes and behaviour. Based on the results from the case study, a combined framework for implementing sustainable development is suggested as part of the curriculum that not only teaches students ‘theoretical’ knowledge about the topic but also enhances a behavioural change among its participants towards more pro-environmental behaviour. The core message of the framework lies in the real-life application of environmental knowledge.

However, we also saw that it is not clear how this concept can be applied in the current curriculum in universities. It seems to be very suitable for course concepts such as EiT, but it is uncertain how it can be efficiently implemented among universities that do not offer a similar course concept. Nevertheless, the combined theoretical framework presents a first step in the direction towards integrating sustainable development in higher education, though this requires further empirical testing. The presented framework argues that in order to enhance the integration of sustainable development in higher education, students should have the opportunity to work with real-life problems through which they can acquire context-embedded knowledge.

Furthermore, by being included in real-life projects, students move away from being passive consumers of knowledge and become co-creators of knowledge and drivers of change (as also suggested by Müller-Christ et al., 2014, p. 136). Thus, in order to teach students about sustainable development with real impacts on their personal lives, we need to acknowledge their agency in the course design for ESD and move away from disciplinary lecture-based course structures to interdisciplinary, participatory and interactive learning activities.

Footnotes

Codebook

Round II April 2014 (additional questions)

Code	Question	Abbreviation	Operationalization	Numerical Operationalization
	EFFECT	MORE	Do you feel more informed about sustainable actions since you attended the EiT village?	4 = yes, I feel very much more informed3 = yes, I feel a bit more informed2 = no, I don’t feel very much more informed1 = no, I don’t feel more informed at all
		ACTIONS	Which of the following sustainable actions do you apply now in your daily life, which you did not undertake before attending the village?	1 = Taking colder showers2 = Taking shorter showers3 = Using fewer or no plastic bags4 = Having a meat-free day5 = Walking or cycling instead of taking the bus or driving6 = Switching off the light when I leave the room7 = Buying more used items than new8 = Recycling9 = Having an electricity-free evening
		CONT	Have you continued with some of the sustainability exercises we experimented within the village?	1 = yes2 = no
			If yes, with which one?	Open category

Source: Author’s own.

Note

References

Adomßent

, Fischer

, Godemann

, Herzig

, Otte

, Rieckmann

, & Timm

(2014). Emerging areas in research on higher education for sustainable development—management education, sustainable consumption and perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62(Special Issue), 1–7.

Alwi

S.R.Q.

, Yusof

K.M.

, Hashim

, & Zainon

(2012). Sustainability education for first year engineering students using cooperative problem based learning. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 52–58.

Arbuthnott

K.D.

(2009). Education for sustainable development beyond attitude change. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(2), 152–163.

Azapagic

, Slobodan

, & Shallcross

(2005). How much do engineering students know about sustainable development? The findings of an international survey and possible implications for the engineering curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 1–19.

Bamberg

(2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 21–32.

Blake

(1999). Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 4(3), 257–278.

Chawla

(1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15–26.

Cotton

D.R.E.

, Warren

M.F.

, Maiboroda

, & Bailey

(2007). Sustainable development, higher education and pedagogy: A study of lecturers’ beliefs and attitudes. Environmental Education Research, 13(5), 579–597.

EiT. (2014a). Course description 2014.

10.

EiT. (2014b). Village description 2014.

11.

Eurostat. (2014). Significant differences in price levels for food, beverages and tobacco across Europe in 2012 (Barbara Kurkowiak). Retrieved 11 September 2014, from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/extensions/EurostatPDFGenerator/getfile.php?file=129.241.109.71_1410445814_56.pdf

12.

Hanss

(2012). Explaining sustainable consumption—findings from cross-sectional and intervention approaches (PhD dissertation). University of Bergen. Retrieved from https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/6239/Dr.thesis_Daniel%20Hanss.pdf?sequence=1

13.

Holm

, Raakjær

, Becker Jacobsen

, & Henriksen

(2015). Contesting the social contracts underpinning fisheries—lessons from Norway, Iceland and Greenland. Marine Policy, 55, 64–72.

14.

Hungerford

H.R.

, & Volk

T.L.

(1990). Hanging learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–22. Retrieved 12 September 2014, from http://www.elkhornsloughctp.org/uploads/files/1374624954Changing%20learner%20behavior%20-%20H%20and%20V.pdf

15.

Jones

, Trier

C.J.

, & Richards

J.P.

(2008). Embedding education for sustainable development in higher education: A case study examining common challenges and opportunities for undergraduate programmes. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 341–350.

16.

Klöckner

C.A.

(2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—a meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1028–1038.

17.

Kollmuss

, & Agyeman

(2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.

18.

Lozano

F.J.

, & Lozano

(2014). Developing the curriculum for a new bachelor’s degree in engineering for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 136–146.

19.

Lozano

, Lukman

, Lozano

F.J.

, Huisingh

, & Lambrechts

(2013). Declarations for sustainability in higher education: Becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 10–19.

20.

Matsuo

, Christina

W.Y.

, Wong

C.W.Y.

, & Kee-hung

(2008). Experience-based learning of Japanese IT professionals: A qualitative research. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(3), 202–213.

21.

Mintz

, & Tal

(2014). Sustainability in higher education courses: Multiple learning outcomes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 113–123.

22.

Müller-Christ

, Sterling

, Van Dam-Mieras

, Adomßent

, Fischer

, & Rieckmann

(2014). The role of campus, curriculum, and community in higher education for sustainable development—a conference report. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 134–137.

23.

Segalàs

, Ferrer-Balas

, Svanström

, Lundqvist

, & Mulder

K.F.

(2009). What has to be learnt for sustainability? A comparison of bachelor engineering education competences at three European universities. Sustainability Science, 4(1), 17–27.

24.

SULITEST. (2015). The sustainability literacy test. Retrieved 1 March 2015, from http://www.sulite.org/en/the_test

25.

UNDP. (2014). Human development report. Sustaining human progress: Reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. Retrieved 12 September 2014, from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf

26.

UNESCO. (2007). The UN decade of education for sustainable development (DESD 2005–2014). The first two years. Retrieved 12 September 2014, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001540/154093e.pdf