Experiencing Sustainability Education: Insights from a Living and Learning Programme

Abstract

This article reports findings from the preliminary assessment of the Sustainable Living and Learning Community (SLLC) Programme, a yearlong and sustainability-focused living and learning programme. Using a multimethod approach that triangulates its findings based on quantitative and qualitative analysis of surveys, pre- and post-programme questionnaires and reflective journals, we found that a majority of students in the SLLC programme not only developed more nuanced understandings of the terms sustainability and consumption but also acknowledged their own roles in perpetuating unsustainable forms of consumption. Furthermore, 75 per cent of SLLC students modified their habits and behaviours with sustainability in mind and developed a deeper sense of agency that led some students to view sustainability as a form of activism.

Keywords

Education for sustainable development sustainability education experiential education first-year education living and learning programmes liberal arts

Introduction

Sustainability is a popular topic in higher education circles. As scholars and practitioners alike grapple with the challenges brought about by a rapidly changing world, transitioning to a more sustainable way of living is no longer an option; it is now an imperative. The role of higher education in this transition is a significant one as colleges and universities play a central role in shaping the knowledge, values and actions of the world’s future leaders (Emanuel & Adams, 2011; Fischer, 2011; Gombert-Courvoisier, Sennès, & Ribeyre, 2014). As a result, sustainability-oriented programmes proliferate on college campuses around the world. In the United States, institutions of higher education are making marked advancements in sustainability planning, operations, curriculum and campus engagement. Some of the academic and co-curricular programmes leading the way are faculty professional development and incentive programmes that support the integration of sustainability education into the curriculum, student educator programmes (commonly known as EcoReps), sustainability degree programmes and general education requirements, and the use of a campus as a living laboratory model.

The emergence of sustainability as a key focus of higher education is also accompanied by a concomitant rise in scholarship concerning how to most effectively engage students in conversations about (un)sustainability in all its complexity. Education for sustainable development (ESD) constitutes one of the most productive threads of research in this area to date. Scholars and practitioners in this field seek to affect change in institutions of higher education so that students can be transformed into leaders who are equipped with the requisite knowledge, skills and motivations needed to forge a different and more sustainable path towards our common future (Medrick, 2013; Shepard, 2008). To achieve this ambitious goal, researchers advocate for sustainability education to: (a) focus more on transformation (than transmission), (b) teach ‘how’ to think (rather than ‘what’ to think) and (c) embrace learning as a process that involves the whole person (and not only one’s mind) (Barth, Godemann, Rieckmann, & Stoltenberg, 2007; Savage, Tapics, Evarts, Wilson, & Tirone, 2015; Thomas, 2009). In other words, ‘sustainability—if it is to exist—has to be felt and practiced’ (DeLind & Link, 2004, p.124; see also Evans, 2015).

For such a vision of sustainability education to come to fruition requires ‘a change in education culture’ (Sterling, 2001, p. 26) to embrace the fact that developing a sustainability-oriented frame of mind requires a more holistic (Kokkarinen & Cotgrave, 2013; Savage et al., 2015; Sherman & Burns, 2015; Wiek, Withycombe, & Redman, 2011; Winter & Cotton, 2012), future-oriented (Adomβent et al., 2014; Barth et al., 2007; Howlett, Ferreira, & Blomfield, 2016; Medrick, 2013; Savage et al., 2015; Wiek et al., 2011; Winter & Cotton, 2012) and interdisciplinary (Barth et al., 2007; Howlett et al., 2016; Kokkarinen and Cotgrave, 2013) approach to teaching/learning in sustainability education. Moreover, to be effective at engaging students in such long-term and often abstract thinking, sustainability education should rely on transformative learning experiences that allow students and faculty alike to confront the core assumptions and values underlying sustainability as both an idea and a practice (Howlett et al., 2016; Savelyeva & McKenna, 2011; see also Evans, 2015). In other words, the efficacy and relevance of sustainability education is tied to its ability to encourage more than just knowledge acquisition (Djordjevic & Cotton, 2011); it aims to provide opportunities for personal growth and an evolution in one’s thoughts and mind-set toward adopting a more sustainable lifestyle (Savage et al., 2015). Research suggests that all undergraduate students need more sustainability education (Bryson, 2014; Hovarth, Stewart, & Shea, 2013). Moreover, as Sibbel (2009) argues, tertiary students ‘are at a formative stage when they can be encouraged to experiment with ideas to find creative solutions to problems’ (p.74). First-year students, in particular, will likely benefit substantially from such educational interventions, as they are often ready and more willing to explore their values and identities upon matriculating to college (Messineo, 2012).

More often than not, sustainability education involves teaching students ‘to slow down, observe carefully, and think critically, deeply and holistically’ (Evans, 2015, n.p.). Of the various pedagogical approaches available, experiential learning stands out as fostering opportunities for transformative experiences. According to Barth et al. (2007), experiential learning is characterized by its engagement with individuals on both an intellectual and affective level (see also Shepard, 2008). Meanwhile, Brower and Inkelas (2010) remind us that learning occurs in all settings across college campuses, so it is important for educators to incorporate reflection into their pedagogical approaches (Barth et al., 2007; Howlett et al., 2016; Medrick, 2013; Savageau, 2013). One arena in which experiential learning can be particularly effective for teaching students about sustainability is consumption (Adomβent et al., 2014; Grauerholz & Bubriski-McKenzie, 2012). Unlike the nebulous concept of sustainability that often feels distant to many students (Emanuel & Adams, 2011; Savageau, 2013), consumption is a more tangible idea to wrestle with as each of us consumes something on a daily basis (Grauerholz & Bubriski-McKenzie, 2012; Savageau, 2013). Therefore, an explicit focus on consumption offers learners the chance to unpack and reflect upon the values and beliefs that motivate their individual, as well as others’, habits and behaviours so that they may gain further insight into the (un)sustainability of their attitudes and practices (Grauerholz & Bubriski-McKenzie, 2012; Savageau, 2013).

In this study, we address the need to develop and assess first-year programmes concerning sustainability and consumption. In the next section, we provide a brief overview of our programme and its goals. We then describe our research design before turning to an integrated discussion of our findings and their significance. We then close with a discussion of the major takeaways from this study and outline future pathways for enhancing sustainability education on college campuses.

Programme Overview

The SLLC Programme is a unique two-semester (year-long) sustainability-focused living-learning programme (LLP) for first-year students at Hobart and William Smith Colleges (HWS), a small liberal arts college in upstate New York. Motivated by research suggesting that LLPs are a cost-effective, high impact educational practice that fosters critical thinking and civic engagement while simultaneously facilitating first-year students’ transition to college (Brower & Inkelas, 2010; Rohli & Rogge, 2012), the SLLC Programme was launched in the fall of 2014. A partnership between the Environmental Studies Programme and the Office of Student Affairs, the programme focuses on sustainability education and community building using a linked pod model. Four sections totalling 56 students, taught by an interdisciplinary team of four faculty members (Figure 1), investigate the intersection between sustainability and consumption, with a particular emphasis on the relationship between local, individual actions and global, collective outcomes in an attempt to ‘deepen students' understandings of sustainability and encourage interdisciplinary solutions to real world problems’ (Stewart, 2010). A fusion between traditional academics and co-curricular engagement, our programme design showcases one avenue for innovation concerning sustainability education.

Figure 1

Source: Lewis & Barile (2016)

The year-long SLLC Programme (a first-year seminar in the fall linked to an introductory environmental studies course in the spring) allows for undergraduate students to live and learn together in a recently renovated co-ed residence hall located next door to the environmental studies offices. This living/learning space includes three classrooms on the floors in the residence hall where the students live to provide space for both academic discussions and community-building experiences. Each of these living/learning spaces allows for us to capitalize on the reported benefits of LLPs, including increased levels of peer interaction (Brower & Inkelas, 2010) and student engagement (Pike, 1999), enhanced critical thinking skills and civic engagement (Brower & Inkelas, 2010; Rohi & Rogge, 2010), more frequent and higher quality interactions with faculty and staff (Zhao & Kuh, 2004), and the promotion of an academic and socially supportive environment (Inkelas & Weissman, 2003; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Classes meet in the residence hall twice a week for 85-minute individual section instruction and then come together in a larger campus space for a 165-minute shared weekly ‘lab’ experience (see Table 1 for example curricular programming).

The programme activities guide the students in a holistic examination of sustainability through the lens of consumption. The primary themes covered are waste, food, sense of place, global trade, climate, energy and water, with emphasis on ethical and social justice aspects (Table 1). The programme model includes four core-learning pathways with associated assignments and activities:

Classroom: Reading assignments (Table 1), reading responses, skill activities, film screenings, research papers, presentations, group lectures (spring semester only), reflective journals, and exams (spring semester only)

Experiential: Personal sustainability experiments, Instagram photojournalism assignments (fall semester only), and problem-based collaborative learning (spring semester only) (Table 1)

Field-Based: Campus and local field trips; food preparation; and, farm work (Table 1)

Co-Curricular: Complementary on-campus sustainability lectures and activities (Table 1)

Table 1

Readings and Activities for Each Thematic Unit of the SLLC Programme

Curricular
Theme	Reading(s)	Experiential	Field Trips
Waste	Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash (Royte, 2005)	Personal waste collection, cataloguing, and tracking experiment (1 week)	Ontario County Landfill and Material Recycling Facility (MRF) tour
Food	Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life (Kingsolver, 2007)	Food log (3 days) and goal-setting experiment; high tunnel construction; weeding of campus farm gardens	Local farmer’s market; food preparation (e.g., pickles, cheese, salsa, and squash soup)
Sense of place	Wolves and Honey: A Hidden History of the Natural World (Brind Morrow, 2004)	Sketching and haiku writing at the campus farm	National apple germplasm collection at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station
Trade	The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy (Rivoli, 2009)	Presentation from local t-shirt company	–
Climate change	Climate Change Evidence & Causes (The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, 2014); Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) WG II and WG III (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014)	Campus Sustainability Intervention Projects; Leadership Development Workshops	–
Energy	Under the Surface: Fracking, Fortunes, and the Fate of the Marcellus Shale (Wilber, 2012)	–	Fracking fieldtrip
Water	Chasing Water: A Guide for Moving from Scarcity to Sustainability (Richter, 2014)	–	–
Co-Curricular
Sustainable Community Development (SCD) Lecture Series; Earth Week; Food Week; Residence Hall Programming

Source: Lewis, Kenerson, Sorrentino, and Rowse (2019).

The spring term provides students with an opportunity for leadership development and place-based experiential learning through a semester-long campus sustainability intervention project (Table 1). This series of assignments asks SLLC students to identify a sustainability issue on the HWS campus and then engage in problem-based learning (Thomas, 2009) that involves the collection and analysis of primary and/or secondary data concerning the roots of the issue and proposing (and ideally implementing) an evidence-based intervention to redress their selected issue. Placing the intervention projects in the second semester provides the students with a strong foundation in sustainability on which to draw as they research and enhance campus sustainability actions or processes. Additionally, the intervention projects create an opportunity for students to look beyond their own role in sustainable consumption and engage with the broader systemic challenges we face when trying to living more sustainably.

Given that collaboration between academic and student affairs is central to the success of LLPs (Messineo, 2012), institutional support for the SLLC programme and its students is substantial and diverse. In addition to the four faculty members who teach the courses, our programme team includes a number of undergraduate student leaders who serve as role models and mentors (Figure 1). These undergraduate peer mentors work alongside the Environmental Studies faculty and Residential Education staff to foster sustainability-oriented co-curricular and residential environments (Figure 1). The programme also receives support from the Area Coordinator responsible for the first-year residential neighbourhood and the Director of Residential Education (Figure 1), both of whom meet monthly with the faculty to discuss student life, community development and programmatic endeavours.

In terms of learning objectives, the SLLC programme focuses on: (a) increasing sustainability knowledge and levels of awareness concerning the relationship between sustainability and consumption, (b) facilitating an internalization of these ideas and encouraging ownership over our individual and collective responsibilities in forging a more sustainable future and (c) fostering a sense of agency that allows for informed action and activism on both individual and group levels.

Research Design

Study Population

For the purposes of this study, we sampled only first-year students who matriculated to HWS in August 2014. According to the HWS Office of the Registrar, the class of 2018 included 650 individuals with slightly more female-identifying students (51.4 per cent) than male-identifying students (48.6 per cent). Of these 650 first-year students, 7.5 per cent were international, while 16.3 percent were domestic students who identified as a person of colour. Sixty-one per cent and 39 per cent of the first-year class attended a public high school and a private or parochial high school, respectively. Notably, the demographics of the class of 2018 are similar to those of other HWS cohorts, suggesting our study population is likely representative of the broader student body.

Data Collection

This study responds to previous calls for mixed method approaches to assessing sustainability education programmes and their outcomes (Horhota, Asman, Stratton, & Halfacre, 2014; Koehn & Uitto, 2014). Using methodological triangulation to increase the rigour of our study, we combine survey research with document analysis in order to illuminate a richer picture of the impact of the SLLC programme on first-year students. Between August 2014 and May 2015, we administered a series of surveys concerning first-year students’ knowledge and valuation of different sustainability concepts, as well as how these students report to practise sustainability in their daily lives. These surveys included a sustainability literacy survey administered to approximately 63 per cent of the first-year class and a series of two programme-based questionnaires administered to only those students enrolled in the SLLC programme. Both surveys were developed using examples from previous studies (e.g., Sustainability at UNC, 2015), with permission, and in consultation with SLLC programme faculty and staff.

In order to obtain a representative sample of the class of 2018, we employed a criterion-based sampling strategy. For our sustainability literacy survey, we asked the faculty teaching first-year seminars if we could visit their classes during the first month of the fall 2014 semester. We administered this pre-survey in two-thirds of the first-year seminars offered (including the four seminars taught by faculty in the SLLC programme), querying 410 first-year students about their knowledge of sustain-ability concepts and their self-reported sustainability practices and behaviours. The follow-up (post-) survey administered at the close of the academic year had a low response rate (3.7 per cent), so it was, therefore, not possible for us to study changes in sustainability literacy, values and self-reported behaviours over the course of the year as we initially planned. Instead, we primarily used the sustainability literacy data to understand how SLLC students compared to non-SLLC students prior to beginning our programme in August 2014.

Students in the SLLC programme completed a pre- and post-survey related to the programmatic objectives, which was administered at the beginning and end of the 2014–2015 academic year. These surveys asked students to provide further information on their level of concern related to sustainability topics/issues, as well as the frequency with which they perform common sustainability behaviours. In these programme-based assessments, SLLC students were also asked to define sustainability and consumption in their own words, and provide their perspective on the degree to which the SLLC programme will change/changed their perspective on the relationship between sustainability and consumption. Our response rate on the pre-survey (administered using Baseline/Campus Labs) was 78.6 per cent, whereas the post-survey (administered on paper) had a response rate of 98.1 per cent.

We also employed document research as a means to garner further insight into how our students came to understand and act on their perceptions of the relationship between sustainability and consumption. This aspect of our research focused on the 11 reflective journals produced by students over the course of our two semesters together. As advocated by Kokkarinen and Cotgrove (2013), utilizing reflective texts in assessments of the impacts of sustainability education programmes such as SLLC allows researchers to analyse student experiences as described ‘in the individual’s own words’ (p.57) rather than by reproducing the researchers’ own viewpoints on these learning experiences. It is from the journal data that we refine our analysis of our students’ performance relative to the three programmatic learning objectives of the SLLC programme.

Data Analysis

We analysed our data using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques (see also Koehn & Uitto, 2014; Sherman & Burns, 2015). All statistical analyses, which were primarily Pearson chi-square tests (Χ²), were completed using SPSS 22.0. With regard to the sustainability literacy data, our statistical analysis focused on a comparison of SLLC students’ responses with those of the rest of the first-year class. Meanwhile, our statistical analysis of the SLLC programmatic data centred on the changes in aggregate (rather than individual) survey responses from pre to post, with a focus on frequency distributions and tests of independence for aggregate observations.

Simultaneous to our statistical analyses, we employed thematic analysis in order to contextualize and expand upon our quantitatively based findings (Koehn & Uitto, 2014). Our thematic analysis focused primarily on identifying the presence and absence (using manual coding) of programme-related keywords and themes in our survey data. The majority of our codes were developed by the two professor co-authors ahead of our analysis and reflected those concepts we intentionally included in the SLLC curriculum, while others emerged from the student co-authors’ open coding approach, which was rooted in the tenets of grounded theory (see also Evans, 2015; Savage et al., 2015; Sherman & Burns, 2015).

Study Limitations

There are several limitations to our study worth noting: (a) case study, (b) preliminary data, (c) small sample size and (d) student self-reporting. First, when compared to other research methodologies, case studies are argued to be less rigorous, objective, and/or generalizable due to their more exploratory nature (Rowley, 2002). We, therefore, use methodological triangulation in an effort to increase the rigour of our study while simultaneously acknowledging that the findings we present here are specific to our programme/context. Moreover, we also avoid making any definitive claims about the generalizability of our findings and instead focus on offering suggestions about how future studies might refine their research designs to address any perceived shortcomings. Second, the arguments presented in this article are based on our analysis of the first year of data in a multi-year longitudinal study. Thus, the results we offer should be considered preliminary and will be refined further as our programmatic assessments continue. Third, our statistical analyses are limited due to constraints imposed by the small size of our SLLC student sample in particular (e.g. chi-square testing concerns in terms of low cell counts). We accounted for this potential limitation by pairing our statistical analyses with qualitative analyses. Finally, we acknowledge that self-reported behaviours are often shaped by the social norms of the communities of which individuals are a part (Heeren et al., 2016), as well as other contextual factors such as habits (Arbuthnott, 2009) and real or perceived barriers (Horhota, Asman, Stratton, & Halfacre, 2014). It is, therefore, possible that some of our students reported practicing particular sustainability behaviours at a higher rate than could be recorded through direct observation (Arbuthnott, 2012; Djordjevic & Cotton, 2011; Horhota, 2014; Mosher & Desrochers, 2014), suggesting a response-shift bias may exist in our dataset (Schroer, Lowman, & Just, 2015).

Results and Discussion

Baseline Sustainability Literacy

The results from our sustainability literacy survey suggest that, at the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year, SLLC students were generally as knowledgeable about sustainability concepts as the rest of the first-year class (Table 2). This finding suggests that SLLC students did not necessarily enter our programme with any notable content-related advantages.

Table 2

Sustainability Literacy Survey Comparison—SLLC Versus Non-SLLC: Knowledge. Shading Indicates Concepts Where SLLC Students Showed More Knowledge on Average

Concept Assessed	Percentage of Students Who Answered Correctly (%)
Concept Assessed	SLLC	Non-SLLC
Carbon footprint	85.7	86.1
Seasonal eating	94.0	89.0
Life cycle assessment	35.4	40.3
Renewable resource	52.9	60.7
Sustainability and natural resources	61.2	73.7
Greenhouse gases	18.0	25.4
Water footprints and foods	14.3	24.6
Ecosystem services	10.2	13.9
American waste production *	42.9	24.5
Household water use	36.7	34.0

Source: Lewis, Kenerson, Sorrentino, and Rowse (2019).

Note: * Indicates a statistically significant difference at 95% CI.

When queried about their level of concern for various sustainability issues, SLLC students generally expressed more concern than the rest of the first-year class (Table 3). Of particular concern to SLLC students were issues such as water use, health and wellness, waste and education. Notably, SLLC students ranked climate change (p = 0.015), waste (p = 0.027) and water use (p = 0.023) as being important to them at a statistically significant higher frequency than non-SLLC students. By comparison, non-SLLC students identified health and wellness, education, unemployment and water use as being of greatest concern. Of particular note in the non-SLLC students’ rankings was their assessment of the significance of climate change. While nearly 60 per cent of SLLC expressed moderate to great concern for this topic, only 40.1 per cent of non-SLLC students concurred. We interpret these findings as suggesting that SLLC students entered the programme with more interest in sustainability issues such as climate change than non-SLLC students, who instead displayed a greater sense of apathy (or, at minimum, neutrality) toward these same topics.

Table 3

Sustainability Literacy Survey Comparison—SLLC Versus Non-SLLC: Level of Concern for Topics/Issues Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 = Not at All Concerned; 5 = Extremely Concerned)

SLLC Students (%)			Topic/issue	Non-SLLC Students (%)
Less concerned ( ≤ 2 )	Neutral ( 3 )	More concerned ( ≥ 4 )	Topic/issue	Less concerned ( ≤ 2 )	Neutral ( 3 )	More concerned ( ≥ 4 )
Direct Relationship with Sustainability
8.2	32.7	59.2	Climate change *	23.2	36.7	40.1
18.4	26.5	55.1	Energy use	9.3	33.9	53.7
18.4	22.4	59.2	Food production	17.3	32.3	50.4
14.3	26.5	59.2	Local economy/local business	13.9	38.0	48.0
14.3	22.4	63.3	Resource consumption	12.5	36.5	51.0
8.2	20.4	71.4	Waste *	16.4	32.5	51.1
8.2	14.3	77.6	Water use *	14.1	28.8	57.1
Indirect Relationship with Sustainability
9.3	20.4	71.4	Education	9.3	22.9	67.8
8.2	16.3	75.5	Health & wellness	7.4	22.1	70.5
16.3	44.9	38.8	Inflation	19.8	43.8	36.4
18.4	12.2	69.4	Security & safety *	18.1	28.2	53.7
12.1	22.4	65.3	Unemployment	18.1	24.0	57.9

Source: Lewis, Kenerson, Sorrentino, and Rowse (2019).

Note: * Indicates a statistically significant difference at 95% CI.

SLLC and non-SLLC students also differed in how they prioritized sustainability-related activities and choices prior to matriculating to HWS. SLLC students reported that they practiced 18 of 23 behaviours at a higher frequency than non-SLLC students (Figure 2). More than two-thirds of SLLC students indicated that they exercised regularly, turned off lights when not in use, reduced/reused/recycled, used a reusable water bottle and washed clothes in warm or cold water. Interestingly, non-SLLC students reported buying locally grown, seasonal foods, reading product labels before purchasing items, turning off lights when not in use and turning down the heat when not at home or in their room at a higher frequency than SLLC students. The only statistically significant differences in the frequencies at which SLLC and non-SLLC students reported to practice particular behaviours emerged with regard to participation in student organizations (p = 0.017) and use of double-sided copies and print jobs (p = 0.039). These findings highlight the fact that, while both SLLC and non-SLLC students reported to practise a subset of sustainability behaviours at fairly comparable rates, SLLC students entered the programme at least moderately aware of some things they could personally do to address sustainability in their day-to-day lives.

Figure 2

Source: Lewis, Kenerson, Sorrentino, and Rowse (2019).

Enhancing Understanding and Awareness

Over the course of our year together, the majority of SLLC students developed more nuanced understandings of the terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘consumption’, and many students began to think more critically and concretely about our own roles and responsibilities in (re)shaping the relationship between sustainability and consumption. Similar to findings reported by Sherman and Burns (2015), our students’ understandings of the concept of sustainability evolved from externally focused and distanced to more complex and more explicitly self-reflective as the year proceeded. Initially, the majority of students defined sustainability as being overtly related to the idea of management of natural resources by humans. As one student put it, ‘sustainability is being able to balance the consumption of natural resources with the rebound of the resources’, while another student argued that ‘sustainability is using our resources in ways such that they will not be depleted or that they will last as long as possible’. Sentiments like these suggest that at least a portion of SLLC students entered the programme articulating a primary focus on natural resource management themes with less emphasis on our own role in shaping this issue. By comparison, students’ definitions at the end of the year demonstrated a marked shift away from stressing sustainability as solely tied to natural resource management to emphasizing the role we ourselves play vis-à-vis sustainability. For instance, one student came to describe sustainability as ‘the little things a person does in their daily life that helps make the world a [healthier] place to live in’. Similarly, another student asserted that sustainability ‘means making choices that consider the outcomes and consequences of your actions’. Thus, in terms of sustainability, many of our students progressed from defining the term in a way that distanced the issue from our own lives toward a heightened sense of the role individuals and groups can play in shaping our common future.

Similarly, SLLC students began to define consumption in a way that stressed the everyday nature and implications of consumption in their own lives. At the beginning of the year, many students’ definitions of consumption stressed the notion of human beings using resources in a way that leads to their depletion. As one student put it, ‘consumption to me means the depletion and exhaustion of something’. By the end of the year, this sense of consumption as ‘using something up’ remained present in the students’ definitions but this sentiment became overshadowed by the notion that consumption is a practice in which everyone engages on a daily basis. In fact, the number of times SLLC students used the terms ‘daily’ or ‘everyday’ in their definitions doubled between the pre- and post-survey. One student stated that, ‘I [now] think “consumption” means everything I use in my daily life’, while another student reported that, ‘consumption is what we use every day’. Other students took this argument a step further in asserting that these daily practices are so ubiquitous that we tend toward overconsumption without even realizing it. As one student articulated, ‘Consumption is everywhere; it is all around us, all the time. It is normal and necessary to consume, but where we have gone wrong is by overconsuming, and it has left our Earth unable to naturally replenish itself’. Participation in the SLLC programme allowed many of our students to recognize that consumption, like sustainability, is not just someone else’s problem. Instead, our students came to view consumption as a much more active process in which each of us takes part on a daily basis.

Furthermore, in (re)considering the relationship between sustainability and con-sumption, nearly all of our students came to realize that the first step towards living a more sustainable lifestyle is being more knowledgeable about these topics. This point is particularly evident in our students’ responses to the question of ‘Do you believe that your participation in the SLLC Programme will change/has changed your perspective on the relationship between sustainability and consumption? Why or why not?’ The percentage of students who expressed feeling ‘more aware’ (or a similar sentiment) reached nearly 100 per cent by the end of the programme. As one student put it, ‘the [SLLC] Programme has opened my eyes to the many things I have not put much thought into previously. By being more aware of the issues surrounding our everyday lives I have a new perspective on the relationship between sustainability and consumption’. Increased awareness of what it takes to consume more responsibly is often an important first step towards forging a more sustainable future, yet simply knowing how we should or should not behave does not always translate into us adopting a more sustainable lifestyle (Armstrong et al., 2016; Emanuel & Adams, 2011; Heeren, Singh, Zwickle, Koontz, Slagle, & McCreey, 2016; Sammalisto, Sundström, von Haartman, Holm, & Yao, 2016). Instead, it is essential that this new knowledge is internalized so that we can take responsibility for our individual and collective roles in promulgating unsustainable forms of consumption.

Internalizing the Problem and Accepting Responsibility

In addition to attaining a higher level of awareness concerning the relationship between sustainability and consumption, three-quarters of SLLC students also articulated a clear sense that (un)sustainable consumption was indeed our problem too. As one student noted, ‘I know a lot more about how my consumptive habits affect how sustainable I am from day-to-day’. Meanwhile, another student reported, ‘I am so much more aware of the impacts consumption can have, and it has changed many of my daily routines. I think about sustainability so much more now’. This sense of knowledge modifying one’s daily consumption decisions is reiterated by yet another student who reported that, ‘After taking this course and living in a community focused on sustainability, I have slowly changed my daily habits by becoming more conscious of my carbon footprint and my impact on the environment’. From remarks such as these, it is clear that the SLLC programme allowed many students to unravel the complexity of this relationship through an iterative (re)consideration of the meaning of sustainability and consumption in our own lives. This process resulted in a notable shift away from sustainability, as just a collective challenge towards students recognizing their roles and responsibilities results in achieving a more sustainable future.

Increased evidence of internalization was accompanied by signs that some SLLC students had begun to accept more responsibility for their role in (un)sustainable consumption. Initially, many of our students expressed a sense of disbelief and/or shock when reflecting on how they lived their lives (see also Savageau, 2013). One student, in expressing the challenges of accepting their role in unsustainable patterns of consumption, reported late in the fall semester that, ‘occasionally I will go back to the trash, take out the water bottle I threw away and move it into the recycling bin. It’s sad to think that after a month of learning about the effects our waste ha[s] on the environment, I still struggle with remembering to throw things out properly’. While many students voiced a similar sense of self-reflection and recognition of the need to change one’s habits and behaviours, other students expressed a greater sense of complacency about what they were learning and whether it was enough to lead them to developing a more sustainable lifestyle. As one student put it, ‘so far this class has opened my eyes, but it may take more time and more discussion to increase my willingness and passion to help the issues in society, on campus, and in my daily life’. These examples show the myriad ways in which our students started to critically examine their consumptive behaviours, as well as their sustainability values and attitudes, and how challenging (and often daunting) taking on such responsibilities can be for undergraduate students (for more on this topic, see Armstrong et al., 2016).

Building Agency for Action and Activism

Assessing and modifying their own habits and behaviours with sustainability in mind also led our students to develop a deeper sense of agency that facilitated action and, for some students, a transformation toward viewing sustainability as a form of activism (see Evans, 2015). Upon internalizing a heightened sense of responsibility for sustainability, the vast majority of SLLC students reported changes in their own daily practices in an effort to mitigate and/or reduce the impacts of their consumption habits. Our earliest indications that our students were beginning to act upon the knowledge gained from the SLLC Programme emerged in their fall 2014 journals. By our second week together, one student reported, ‘I bought myself a Turvis in the bookstore to put tea and coffee in instead of using the paper cups [provided by the school] and I started using my Nalgene more often. I realized that by just taking these easy steps every day I cut down a significant amount of my waste’. Similarly, another student documented how their practices changed by stating, ‘When I was shopping in the supermarket, I paid more attention to…packag[ing]. I would choose stuff with simple wrappers. At the same time, I decreased [my] use [of] plastic bottles through bringing my glass bottle when I went out’. Yet another student reiterated these same sentiments in recalling that, ‘I have made it a point to always flip the switch on my way out of my room and the bathroom. Little changes like these have occurred in every aspect of my life from making an effort to turn off water when I’m soaping my hands’. While such reported changes in behaviours were not universally reported, we nevertheless interpret this finding as suggesting the SLLC programme encouraged some students to act with sustainability in mind.

The fact that SLLC students began taking steps to mitigate and/or reduce their impacts is further reiterated by data from our pre- and post-surveys when we asked the students to rate their level of agreement with the following statement: ‘My daily behaviours reflect a concern about sustainability issues’. While only a little over half of our students selected agree or strongly agree on the pre-survey, the percentage of students who did so on the post-survey was 83.0 per cent (Table 4). This suggests that more than one-third of our students made strides in modifying their own daily behaviours to reflect their growing concerns about sustainability. Further analysis of the programmatic survey data revealed that many of our students were practising sustainability on a more regular basis. While recycling remained the most frequently reported behaviour, a higher percentage of SLLC students reported on the post-survey that they always or usually conserved water, minimized purchases that are not environmentally friendly and used alternative transportation (Table 5). Interestingly, while SLLC students almost universally documented their attempts to minimize their waste production in their journals, our survey results suggest otherwise. In fact, the percentage of students who indicated they always or usually took steps to minimize their waste production decreased by 7.1 per cent between the pre- and post-survey (Table 5). Yet, the percentage of students who sometimes minimize their waste increased by 10.9 per cent, suggesting that, as our students became more aware of their own waste habits, they may have modified their behaviours in ways that indicates a heightened sense of awareness of the actual levels of waste they produce (Table 5). After all, it is not uncommon for students to overestimate their attitudes, skills and behaviours in studies that rely on pre-test/post-test assessments of educational interventions such as ours (Schroer et al., 2015).

Table 4

SLLC Programmatic Assessment Survey Comparison: Pre- Versus Post-survey Results: Level of Agreement with Sustainability-related Statements

Statement	Survey Instrument	Percentage of Respondents (%)
Statement	Survey Instrument	Strongly agree/agree	Neutral	Disagree/strongly disagree
I make an effort to be knowledgeable about environmental issues.	Pre	65.9	22.7	4.5
	Post	94.3	5.7	--
My daily behaviours reflect a concern about sustainability issues.	Pre	56.8	29.6	6.8
	Post	83.0	17.0	--
I value knowing that my food is grown locally.	Pre	43.2	38.6	11.4
I value knowing that my food is grown locally.	Post	64.2	32.1	3.8
I think about the carbon footprint of my choices.	Pre	31.8	45.5	15.9
I think about the carbon footprint of my choices.	Post	54.7	37.7	3.8
I know where my garbage goes after being picked up from my house.	Pre	29.6	11.4	50.0
	Post	62.3	17.0	18.9
I think about where and how my clothes are made.	Pre	22.7	40.9	29.6
I think about where and how my clothes are made.	Post	45.3	35.9	18.9

Source: Lewis, Kenerson, Sorrentino, and Rowse (2019).

Table 5

SLLC Programmatic Assessment Comparison—Pre- Versus Post-survey Results: Sustainability Behaviour/Practice Frequencies

Behaviour/Practice	Survey Instrument	Percentage of Respondents (%)
Behaviour/Practice	Survey Instrument	Always/usually	Sometimes	Rarely/ never
Choose your food conscientiously based on its impacts	Pre	25.0	29.6	38.6
Choose your food conscientiously based on its impacts	Post	32.1	32.1	35.9
Conserve water	Pre	40.9	43.2	6.8
Conserve water	Post	62.3	28.3	7.6
Minimize purchases that are not environmentally friendly	Pre	18.2	56.8	18.2
Minimize purchases that are not environmentally friendly	Post	45.3	37.7	17.0
Minimize the waste you generate	Pre	75.0	13.6	4.6
Minimize the waste you generate	Post	67.9	24.5	5.6
Recycle items	Pre	86.4	6.8	–
Recycle items	Post	92.5	7.6	–
Use alternative transportation	Pre	34.1	38.6	18.2
Use alternative transportation	Post	45.3	39.6	15.1

Source: Lewis, Kenerson, Sorrentino, and Rowse (2019).

Rather than being satisfied with the changes they made in their own lives, several SLLC students instead called for a more sweeping change in attitudes towards and practices for sustainability in and beyond our learning community. For instance, one student stated: ‘I believe that it is important for everyone to practice some aspect of sustainability in his or her everyday life. If people begin to recycle rather than throw away all their garbage, eat naturally and locally grown foods, and pay more attention to where and how their clothing is made, then the world will benefit positively’. In arguing that others need to not only realize the impacts of their consumptive habits and behaviours but also adopt a more sustainable lifestyle in response, another student reflected that, ‘I wish everyone would get on board and at least try sustainable thinking because in the long run I believe it is going to be how we have to live’. Such viewpoints echo our students’ growing desire to take what they have learned and transform it into a greater sense of collective (rather than just individual) responsibility. Time and time again, SLLC students called for more action from themselves, others and their community regarding sustainability, suggesting that individual action alone was not enough to combat the challenges we face.

While experiencing the increased level of individual agency brought about by their growing awareness of the power we have as consumers, SLLC students often expressed the desire to translate what they were learning into actions that would extend beyond their own lives and influence those around them. As one student put it, ‘awareness is half the battle and I have tried to have an impact on others around me [who] have not had [the] chance to be educated in the subject’. Meanwhile, other students articulated the idea that education alone may not be sufficient in changing how people go about their daily lives. As one student argued, ‘Whether it be making posters encouraging people to recycle or marching around campus informing people of the environmental impact their lifestyles are having, I believe that most people…would feel compelled to “practice what they preach”’.

Throughout our year working together, SLLC students reported struggling to consistently implement changes in their own lives, as well as with finding the most effective means by which to engage with their peers and the campus community as a whole. Evidence from thematic analysis of the data indicated that students encountered significant intra/interpersonal and institutional barriers that limited their ability to fully realize the desired sustainability changes. Many barriers were self-imposed and, thereby emphasising the difficulties students face when modifying their sustainability habits and preferences (especially when it comes to food). Other student-identified barriers, by comparison, highlighted student disappointment in the irresponsibility or apathy of their peers. Finally, concerns about the broader campus culture and institutional support (or lack thereof) of sustainability also surfaced, leaving some students to question their sense of control and agency.

Conclusion

This study has examined the use of a year-long, interdisciplinary experiential education steeped LLP dedicated to building sustainability literacy that leads to action. The programme goal was to foster transformational learning resulting in knowledge development, internalization of sustainability values, reported behaviour change and fledgling activism. While little difference was found at the study start in conceptual knowledge of SLLC students, as compared to the first-year class as a whole, higher levels of concern for sustainability issues were noted. One question raised by this difference in the study population is the relative effectiveness of the programme model based on already established interest in sustainability.

Thematic analysis of the data revealed an evolution in students’ conceptual understanding of sustainability from a natural resource management issue to a more complex and multi-faceted idea that extends beyond the natural environment. Additionally, many SLLC students appeared to recognize and examine their own role in and impact on sustainability in terms of their consumption choices. Along with the increased levels of awareness came an increase in individual responsibility, with students reporting small changes in behaviour, such as energy and water conservation or sustainable purchasing and transportation choices. For some SLLC students, the experience led them to desire change from others as well. Students sought to educate and influence others, though how to most effectively do this was not always evident. While progress in knowledge, responsibility, and limited action was made, students identified some barriers to their growth. Students felt hindered by their own self-imposed limitations (such as the difficulty in changing habits even when they believed they should do something different), as well as factors they perceived to be outside their control (such as a perceived lack of institutional commitment). Further examination of these barriers, as well as the impact(s) of individual curricular components of the programme, could yield insights into a programme design that even more effectively empowers students to overcome actual or perceived obstacles, especially as related to the second semester campus intervention projects.

As this study relies on self-reported measures of sustainability knowledge, values and behaviours, research that explicitly includes direct observation and documentation of student behaviours may provide more accuracy in depicting behavioural outcomes of such programmes. Future research should consider direct measurement of resource use at various programme intervals in an effort to shed light on any possible changes in student sustainability actions. While our pre- and post- programme survey design allows us to document changes in student knowledge, behaviours and attitudes over the course of our year working together, it fails to capture the long-term impacts (or lack thereof) of the SLLC programme on our students. We, therefore, advocate for more longitudinal studies of such sustainability education programmes, recognizing that student sustainability literacy outcomes and actions may be better understood from the completion of a multi-year study that tracks programme participants over the course of their college career (Zwickle, Koontz, Slagle, & Bruskotter, 2014). We also encourage ESD researchers to explore the ways that students connect their learning to other courses and life experiences. Focus groups with past programme participants may be an effective way to document how educational interventions, such as the SLLC programme, impact students’ sustainability knowledge, values and behaviours over the course of their undergraduate careers (Armstrong et al., 2016; Hovarth et al., 2013).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Brandon Barile, Shelle Basilio-Murray, and Robb Flowers for their assistance during the research process, as well as the first-year seminar (FESM) faculty at Hobart and William Smith Colleges for allowing us to visit their classes. In addition, we are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and editors at Journal of Education for Sustainable Development for their valuable insights while revising this manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Office of Academic and Faculty Affairs and Office of Student Affairs at Hobart and William Smith Colleges.

References

Adomβent

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, 1–7.

Armstrong

C. M. J.

Hustvedt

LeHew

M. L. A.

Anderson

B. G.

& Hiller Connell

K. Y.

(2016). When the informal is the formal, the implicit is the explicit: Holistic sustainability education at Green Mountain College. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(6), 756–775.

Arbuthnott

K. D.

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

Arbuthnott

K. D.

(2012). Sustainable consumption: Attitudes, actions, and well-being. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 12(1), 204–208.

Barth

Godemann

Rieckmann

& Stoltenberg

(2007). Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(4), 416–430.

Brower

A. M.

& Inkelas

K. K.

(2010). Living-learning programmes: One high-impact educational practice we know a lot about. Liberal Education, 96(2). Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/living-learning-programmes-one-high-impact-educational-practice-we.

Bryson

(2014). Assessing sustainability literacy at RU. Retrieved from http://www.roosevelt.edu/2014/05/09/assessing-sustainability-literacy-at-ru/

DeLind

L. B.

& Link

(2004). Place as the nexus of a sustainable future: A course for all of us. In Bartlett

P. F.

& Chase

G.W.

(Eds.), Sustainability on campus: Stories and strategies for change (pp. 121–137). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Djordjevic

& Cotton

D. R. E.

(2011). Communicating the sustainability message in higher education institutes. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(14), 381–394.

10.

Emanuel

& Adams

J. N.

(2011). College students’ perceptions of campus sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 79–92.

11.

Evans

T. L.

(2015). Finding heart: Generating and maintaining hope and agency through sustainability education. Journal of Sustainability Education, 10. Retrieved from http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/finding-heart-generating-and-maintaining-hope-and-agency-through-sustainability-education_2015_11/

12.

Fischer

(2011). Monitoring educational organizations’ culture of sustainable consumption: Initiating and evaluating cultural change in schools and universities. Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 63–75.

13.

Gombert-Courvoisier

Sennès

& Ribeyre

(2014). Higher education for sustainable consumption: Case report on the Human Ecology Master’s Course (University of Bordeaux, France). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 62, 82–88.

14.

Grauerholz

& Bubriski-McKenzie

(2012). Teaching about consumption: The ‘not buying It’ project. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 332–348.

15.

Heeren

A. J.

Singh

A. S.

Zwickle

Koontz

T. M.

Slagle

K. M.

& McCreery

A. C.

(2016). Is sustainability knowledge half the battle? An examination of sustainability knowledge, attitudes, norms, and efficacy to understand sustainable behaviours. Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(5), 613–632.

16.

Horhota

Asman

Stratton

J. P.

& Halfacre

A. C.

(2014). Identifying behavioural barriers to campus sustainability: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(3), 343–358.

17.

Hovarth

Stewart

& Shea

(2013). Towards instruments of assessing sustainability knowledge: Assessment development, process, and results from a pilot survey at the University of Maryland. Journal of Sustainability Education, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/toward-instruments-of-assessing-sustainability-knowledge-assessment-development-process-and-results-from-a-pilot-survey-at-the-university-of-maryland_2013_06/

18.

Howlett

Ferreira

J.-A.

& Blomfield

(2016). Teaching sustainable development in higher education: Building critical, reflective thinkers through an interdisciplinary approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(3), 305–321.

19.

Inkelas

& Weissman

J. L.

(2003). Different by design: An examination of student outcomes among participants in three types of living-learning communities. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 335–368.

20.

Koehn

P. H.

& Uitto

J. I.

(2014). Evaluating sustainability education: Lessons from international development experience. Higher Education, 67(5), 621–635.

21.

Kokkarinen

& Cotgrove

A. J.

(2013). Sustainability literacy in action: Student experiences. Structural Survey, 31(1), 56–66.

22.

Lewis

R. A.

& Barile

(2016). Capitalizing on faculty-administration collaborations to build sustainable college campuses. Poster presented at the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education Conference, Baltimore, MD.

23.

Medrick

(2013). A pedagogy for sustainability education. Journal of Sustainability Education, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/a-pedagogy-for-sustainability-education_2013_06/

24.

Messineo

(2012). Sustainability and first-year programmes. New Directions for Student Services, 2012(137), 67–81.

25.

Mosher

H. R.

& Desrochers

(2014). The effects of information regarding sustainability issues and behavioural self-management instruction on college students’ energy conservation. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(3), 359–370.

26.

Pike

(1999). The effects of residential learning communities and transitional residential living arrangements. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 269–284.

27.

Rohli

R. V.

& Rogge

R. A.

(2012). An empirical study of the potential for geography in university living-learning communities in the United States. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 36(1), 81–95.

28.

Rowley

(2002). Using case studies in research. Management Research News, 25(1), 16–27.

29.

Sammalisto

Sundström

von Haartman

Holm

& Yao

(2016). Learning about sustainability—what influences students’ self-perceived sustainability actions after undergraduate education? Sustainability, 8, 510. Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/6/510

30.

Savage

Tapics

Evarts

Wilson

& Tirone

(2015). Experiential learning for sustainability leadership in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(5), 692–706.

31.

Savageau

A. E.

(2013). Let’s get personal: Making sustainability tangible to students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14(1), 15–24.

32.

Savelyeva

& McKenna

J. R.

(2011). Campus sustainability: Emerging curricula models in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 55–66.

33.

Schroer

A. L.

Lowman

H. E.

& Just

C. L.

(2015). Educating the aware, informed and action-oriented sustainable citizen. Sustainability, 7(2), 1985–1999.

34.

Sherman

J. D. B.

& Burns

H. L.

(2015). ‘Radically different learning’: Implementing sustainability in a university peer mentor programme. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(3), 231–243.

35.

Shepard

(2008). Higher education for sustainability: Seeking affective learning outcomes. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 87–98.

36.

Sibbel

(2009). Pathways towards sustainability through higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(1), 68–82.

37.

Sterling

(2001). Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Cambridge, UK: Green Books/Schumer Society.

38.

Stewart

(2010). Transforming higher education: A practical plan for integrating sustainability education into the student experience. Journal of Sustainability Education, 1, 195–207.

39.

Sustainability at UNC (2015). UNC chapel hill student sustainability literacy survey. Retrieved from https://sustainability.unc.edu/files/2015/12/Sustainability-Literacy-Assessment-UNC.pdf

40.

Thomas

(2009). Critical thinking, transformative learning, sustainable education, and problem-based learning in universities. Journal of Transformative Education, 7(3), 245–264.

41.

Wiek

Withycombe

& Redman

C. L.

(2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic programme development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218.

42.

Winter

& Cotton

(2012). Making the hidden curriculum visible: Sustainability literacy in higher education. Environmental Education Research, 18(6), 783–796.

43.

Zhao

& Kuh

G.D.

(2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–138.

44.

Zwickle

Koontz

T. M.

Slagle

K. M.

& Bruskotter

J. T.

(2014). Assessing sustainability knowledge of a student population: Developing a tool to measure knowledge in the environmental, economic and social domains. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(4), 375–389.