Teaching SDGs Using Concept Maps in Primary Teacher Training

Abstract

This article presents an original and innovative way for primary teacher training concerning teaching the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) using concept maps. Four types of concept maps were designed and built so that the interconnections between the 17 SDGs could be captured and the complexity of their interdependencies could be highlighted. This educational tool was used in 14 workshops with interesting results, which took place in Piraeus (Greece), and was addressed to primary teachers. Concept maps have proven to be a powerful tool for highlighting correlations between the 17 SDGs, as each group of teachers who used them linked the SDGs in a unique manner and simultaneously justified this interconnection. In addition, the use of concept maps was an opportunity for teachers to experience group work and its quality characteristics, such as participation, exchange of opinions, argumentation and different perspectives.

Keywords

Concept maps Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)sustainability primary teacher training

Introduction

According the Brundtland Report published in 1987, ‘Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987, p. 16). In 1992, Agenda 21 defined economy, society and environment as the three pillars of sustainable development (UNCED, 1992). In 2002, the UN established the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (2005–2014), which illustrated the connections between environmental, economic and social issues (McKeown, 2015; UNESCO, 2005a).

During the Decade of ESD, teachers were required and had the opportunity to put in practice some non-conventional forms of learning, such as discovery learning, participatory/collaborative learning, problem-based learning, interdisciplinary learning, critical thinking-based learning, systems thinking-based learning and social learning (Wals, 2017). This kind of learning requires asking critical questions, values clarification, systems thinking, critical and reflective thinking, future thinking and transformative and participatory learning (Makrakis & Kostoulas-Makrakis 2017; Tilbury, 1995).

Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) had been proposed by the United Nations Summit in September 2015 as a global priority in the framework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. These are: (1) no poverty; (2) zero hunger; (3) good health and well-being; (4) quality education; (5) gender equality; (6) clean water and sanitation; (7) affordable and clean energy; (8) decent work and economic growth; (9) industry, innovation and infrastructure; (10) reduced inequalities; (11) sustainable cities and communities; (12) responsible consumption and production; (13) climate action; (14) life below water; (15) life on land; (16) peace, justice and strong institutions; and (17) partnerships for the goals (UNESCO, 2017).

The 17 SDGs also include the end of hunger, access to health services, combat of economic inequality, innovation, sustainable consumption and peace and justice. For the first time environmental, economic and social issues have been integrated and confronted all together and not separated (see Griggs et al., 2013; Rodrigo-Cano et al., 2019). SDGs can be viewed as a ‘5P’ totality, meaning it contains goals for People, Prosperity, Planet, Peace and Partnership. These goals can be achieved through ethical change, by developing citizenship and by taking action, as proposed by UNESCO–EPD (1997).

Education for sustainability has been proposed as the best manner to promote a better world through increasing environmental knowledge and motivation to action in a global perspective (see Foster, 2001; Jucker, 2002; Nath, 2003; Nordén, 2018). From this perspective, teacher training has been ascertained as the most appropriate tool to achieve this important goal (see Engdahl, 2015; Fien, 1995; Gan & Gal, 2018; Gough, 2016; Kemmis & Mutton, 2012). Therefore, guidelines have been recommended for teacher education to address sustainability (UNESCO, 2005b).

Concept Maps as an Educational Tool

Teacher education must be a milestone on the way to promoting the 17 SDGs. Although there has been a significant progress in many countries in promoting education for sustainability, these themes remain optional and marginal in formal education. Moreover, appropriate instructional tools and best practices for incorporating sustainability in schools are still in question. In this article, we suggest concept maps as an effective instructive tool for teachers to understand the connections between the 17 SDGs with the intention of using them to implement education for sustainability.

In the 1960s, J. Novak proposed concept maps as an effective educational tool with three main arguments. First, they are concise, as they contain condensed information and make the object under study visible in a panoramic way. Second, they help to construct and systematize ideas, as they easily identify comparisons, similarities, differences and connections, as they visualize the relationships between concepts. Third, they have a metacognitive character, as they help students to understand how they structure knowledge, how they correlate concepts, so that they realize how they learn (Novak, 1990). Many researchers believe that graphic representations are generally superior to words and strongly recommend their use in teaching practice because (a) they sensitize abstract knowledge, (b) they highlight relationships, (c) they promote the formulation and processing of concepts, (d) they correlate the new to the old knowledge, (e) they facilitate the memorization and recall of information, (f) they facilitate the production and shaping of ideas, (g) they are offered for the analysis and development of ideas and (h) they are efficient tools for evaluating knowledge and thinking (Hasemann & Mansfield, 1995; McTighe, 1992; Novak & Gowin, 1984).

The formation of concepts is a highly demanding mental process, as concepts are a simplified, schematic and generalized representation of reality (Ausubel et al., 1978; Bruner, 1960). Novak proposed concept maps using Ausubel’s idea that learning is essential when concepts are incorporated into a network of broader and more comprehensive concepts (Novak, 1998). There are three rules for creating this network effectively: hierarchy, progressive differentiation and integrative reconciliation between concepts, indicating causation, time sequence, or interaction relationships (Ausubel, 2000).

Concept maps have been proposed by many researchers to teach a variety of topics in both primary and secondary education; for example, their contribution has been confirmed as crucial in teaching and understanding global atmospheric change (Rye & Rubba, 1998), marine animal life (Andrews et al., 2008), nutrition and plant reproduction (Ugwu & Soyibo, 2004), forces, energy, electric circuit and plants (Berionni & Baldón, 2006), Kinematics, dynamic and static (Safdar et al., 2012), galvanic cells (Hamza & Wickman, 2013) and Newtonian principles of motion (Liu & Nesbit, 2018).

In contrast, research looking at the effectiveness of concept maps in teacher education is scarce. Concept maps have been used as an instructional tool to introduce a subject or as an evaluation tool to develop and deepen the subject matter; for example, Jimenez-Aleixandre and Gayoso (1996) used concept maps to introduce environmental issues in prospective teacher training, finding a positive contribution. Kokkotas et al. (2008) have used concept maps among other teaching strategies to introduce in-service primary teachers in a training programme based on the history of science under sociocultural learning principles. Cakmak (2010) used concept maps to examine prospective teachers’ views on teacher roles. In a study by Wormnaes et al. (2015), concept map activities were used to trigger prospective teachers’ group discussions about inclusive education. Finally, some researchers have proposed concept maps for interactive learning (see e.g., Oprea, 2015).

Moreover, research looking at teaching SDGs using concept maps is missing in the literature. In this article, we present a proposal for the use of concept maps in approaching the 17 SDGs. Our aim is to contribute to the exploration of how we can effectively teach the SDGs as well as to contribute to further development of primary teacher training.

Method

Materials

The 17 SDGs are interconnected and interdependent. Therefore, we consider them to be an excellent tool applying a systemic approach to global problems. This interconnection does not seem obvious at first; thus, a strategy to highlight these complex relationships is required. We believe that concept maps offer such a strategy, as they have the characteristics mentioned above.

Concept maps can be divided into four main types: spider maps, hierarchical maps, flow charts and systemic maps (O’Donnell et al., 2002). Each type of concept map presents the relationship between concepts in a different way. That is why, we designed four different concept maps to give the opportunity to connect the 17 SDGs in different ways and consequently highlight their complex interconnection. The blank concept maps we created were as follows:

Figure 1 is a spider map, which requires the 17 SDGs to be divided into smaller groups with criteria that will determine each teacher group.

Figure 1

Source: The author.

Figure 2 is a hierarchical map which represents the ranking of the 17 SDGs at successive levels. At the first tier, a main goal is set, at the second tier, at least three other goals and at the third tier at least three other groups of other goals are set. An important role in this hierarchical ranking is played by the connecting words that users are asked to write on the arrows, to describe or justify the position of each goal (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Source: The author.

Figure 3 is a flow chart which requires the linear arrangement of the 17 SDGs in such an order as to give a continuous process. Between two goals, a causal relationship has to be posed each time, in order to justify that the achievement of each goal is led by some logical consequence to the immediate or indirect achievement of the next goal (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Source: The author.

A systemic map, a more complex flow chart, shows the continuous process that a flow chart offers but with two differences. First, there are fundamental goals that determine the process and are placed along the linear path. Second, there are inputs and outputs, goals whose achievement is a prerequisite for achieving the fundamental goals and are placed at nodes outside the linear path, in such a way as to indicate that they contribute to the achievement of the fundamental goals (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Source: The author.

We used the concept maps we created as advance organizers, according to meaningful learning (Ausubel, 1960) in order to promote dynamic thinking (Derbentseva et al., 2007). ‘Advance organizers are concepts given to students prior to the material actually to be learned to provide a stable cognitive structure in which the new learning can be subsumed’ (Safdar et al., 2012, p. 58). After presenting such an advance organizer to teachers, they had to process the new material of the 17 SDGs, find the similarities and the differences between the material presented and what they already know, and present their thoughts by fulfilling the blank nodes with appropriate concepts. Moreover, this process had to be done in groups so that teachers could interact with each other. In the end, group members compared their maps with those of other groups and had a reflection discussion.

This process was designed under the social constructivist and sociocultural learning principles. The group of teachers were involved in an innovative experience, referring both to new material (the 17 SDGs) and to a new instructional tool (concept maps). On the one hand, teachers had ‘the opportunity to live and operate in a particularly stimulating and significant learning environment to gain knowledge via constructive processes’ and, on the other hand, ‘concept maps are a tool used to promote, organize and synthesize acquired knowledge, while meditating on thinking operations’ (Berionni & Baldón 2006, p. 1).

While using concept maps as an instructional tool to process the 17 SDGs, we made the hypotheses that concept maps provided an appropriate teaching practice for teachers to ask questions, analyse facts, make connections, find interconnections, share ideas, discover meanings and build their own knowledge. Moreover, we tried to implement the role of the teacher as a facilitator and avoid the ‘transferring of knowledge’ by showing everything as a model of the correct answer (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Gayoso, 1996).

Procedure

The use of the created concept maps was piloted in seven seminars for primary teachers. These seminars were entitled ‘Systemic approach of the 17 SDGs’ and were held in Piraeus (Greece) in the context of a 1-day in-service teacher training. In each seminar, two workshops for the use of concept maps were implemented. In total, the workshop was implemented 14 times, each lasting 90 mins and included the following activities:

An introductive presentation about concept maps to introduce primary teachers on how to use them in class.

A presentation about the 17 SDGs, given that primary teachers were not familiar with education for sustainability.

Primary teachers were separated into four groups and one blank concept map was given to each group.

Each group was provided with a set of 17 labels with SDGs and primary teachers were asked to put them on the blank nodes of their own concept map after a discussion among group members.

Two members of each group were called to present the completed concept map in the plenary session and to justify the connections of the 17 SDGs that emerged, while similarities among groups, difficulties, different opinions and reflections were discussed.

A poster recommended by the Marrakech Summit 2016 showing a school implementing activities towards sustainability found at the following link (https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/what-is-the-whole-school-approach-to-environmental-education/) and translated into Greek at the link (http://attik-old.pde.sch.gr/6pekes/index.php/psifiako-apothetirio/ekpaidefsi-gia-tin-aeiforia?start=12) was given to the groups asking them to match the 17 labels with the SDGs with aspects written on the poster indicating activities and actions of the school to achieve sustainability.

A representative of each group was called to present and justify the correspondence in the plenary session, along with similarities, differences and reflections that emerged.

Primary teachers were asked to select 1 of the 17 SDGs and present it by role playing without words.

Research Questions

Following the above-mentioned introductory information, the following speciﬁc research questions were addressed:

In what way do concept maps contribute to understanding the SDGs?

In what way do concept maps contribute to in-service primary teacher training?

Participants

A total of 312 primary teachers, that is, 254 women and 58 men, participated in the 14 workshops and took part in the present study. The participants were of varied experiences. While 54 participants had between 0 and 10 years of experience, 134 had between 10 and 20 years of experience, 104 had between 20 and 30 years of experience and 20 had more than 30 years of experience.

Data Collection

The survey data were collected in three ways, so that triangulation would be possible. First, a short questionnaire was completed by the teachers after the end of each workshop—there were five closed and one open-ended question in the questionnaire. Second, interviews were given voluntarily by two participating teachers after the end of each workshop. Hence, there were a total of 28 structured in-voice interviews lasting about 20–30 min each. Third, notes of an external observer were recorded.

Data Analysis

The questionnaire responses have been analysed quantitatively. The structured open-ended interviews have been analysed qualitatively, with the given answers being classified by content analysis in categories (Eltinge & Roberts, 1993; Monroe, 2002). Notes of the external observer have been used to affirm or reject aspects that emerged during the interviews or conclusions dependent on the questionnaire.

We did not evaluate the concept maps produced by the teachers according to the number of concept nodes, the total number of links, the number of correctly labelled links and the number of cross-links as proposed by other researchers (Hilbert & Renkl, 2008). We did not use such a coding system or a scoring system (Novak & Gowin, 1984; Stoddart et al., 2000) because teachers did not produce concept maps from the beginning but filled blank concept maps with concepts implying the 17 SDGs with respect to how they interconnect. In other words, we created a kind of ‘worked-out concept maps’ (Hilbert & Renkl, 2008) and teachers were required ‘to complete a ﬁll-in-the-blank test that was organized in a set of subsections that differed in the kind of information to be located’ (O’Donnell et al., 2002, p. 79).

Results

Spider Map

In the spider maps, the 17 SDGs were expected to be divided into 3 groups based on some criteria that each teacher group would set, while additional nodes and arrows were provided in case the groups of teachers wanted to add another group of goals. It was rather surprising to find (Table 1) that only in 4 cases, the teachers had followed the basic instructions and divided the 17 SDGs into 3 nodes (Figure 5). In six cases, the teachers created additional nodes either based on 5P or other criteria (Figure 6). In one case, the teachers also placed connecting arrows between the three nodes (Figure 7). Finally, in three cases, the teachers created additional nodes and added connecting arrows to each other (Figure 8).

Table 1

Way of Completion of the Given Spider Map

Group Work on the Spider Map	Number of Groups
Division of 17 SDGs into 3 nodes of the spider map	4
Division of 17 SDGs into more than 3 nodes added to the spider map	6
Division of 17 SDGs into 3 nodes of the spider map and occurrence of interconnections	1
Division of 17 SDGs into more than 3 nodes added to the spider map and occurrence of interconnections	3
Total	14

Source: The author.

Figure 5

Source: The author.

Figure 6

Source: The author.

Figure 7

Source: The author.

Figure 8

Source: The author.

The most important finding from this process was that in the last two cases (4 out of 14 workshops); the teachers turned the spider maps into systemic maps by placing connecting arrows between the nodes, without being asked to do so. When asked about this decision during the interviews, they gave interesting explanations. Some answers testified that the interconnection of all the 17 SDGs was taken for granted: ‘You didn’t tell us, but we took it for granted, to show how they are interconnected’ (T1) and ‘We thought there were no unrelated goals’ (T17). Other responses implied or described the relationships between different goals: ‘We considered all relationships to be reciprocal. All goals affect all the other goals’ (T25) and ‘We defined the groups with the titles Society, Economy, Environment. These interact with each other and if properly achieved lead to a Quality Education. Then we are led ultimately to the goal, which is goal 10 (reduced inequalities), 5 (gender equality) and 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions)’ (T13).

The observation that the required spider maps were in some cases converted into systemic maps was also formulated by the external observer. This remark had a double message. On the one hand, there was a negative nuance that the teachers probably did not understand how the spider map should be made and, on the other hand, there was a positive connotation that they were looking for more complex connections because they considered the spider web quite simple.

Hierarchical Map

In the hierarchical maps, the 17 SDGs were expected to be divided into 3 levels and some justification for the specific grouping of goals to be provided, while additional nodes and arrows were provided in case the groups of teachers wanted to add another level of goals or more nodes at the same level. It was rather surprising to find (Table 2) that only in 3 cases the teachers followed the basic instructions and divided the 17 SDGs into 3 levels (Figure 9). In four cases, the teachers created four levels of goals (Figure 10) and in three cases, they created five levels of goals (Figure 11).

Table 2

Way of Completion of the Given Hierarchical Map

Group Work on the Hierarchical Map	Number of Groups
Division into 3 levels	3
Division into 3 levels with additional connections	1
Division into 4 levels	4
Division into 4 levels with additional connections	2
Division into 5 levels	3
Division into 7 levels with additional connections	1
Total	14

Source: The author.

Figure 9

Source: The author.

Figure 10

Source: The author.

Figure 11

Source: The author.

When asked about the number of levels, the teachers revealed through their answers the synthetic process within the group, which covered the following possible disagreements of its members: ‘We had disagreements in the group, but we finally found a balance of views’ (T10) and ‘After much discussion, we came to the conclusion that 3 levels were not enough for us. We wanted at least one more to share the goals better’ (T26). Some teachers have emphasized the following importance of having a final goal: ‘We set as a fourth level a final goal, which was 17 (partnerships for the goals)’ (T18) and ‘We definitely wanted to show an end to the route of the arrows, so we set 8 (decent work and economic growth) and 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) as the final level’ (T6).

Another finding was that only 6 out of 14 groups had written connecting words on the connecting arrows. When teachers were asked why they did not write connecting words on the arrows, most teachers answered that they considered the meaning of the arrows to be almost self-evident: ‘No need! We have interpreted that every arrow means leads to…, has as a consequence… implies…’ (T10) and ‘We didn’t even discuss it! We took it for granted that arrows mean it contributes to…, it has as a consequence…’ (T14). When asked how they decided to write connecting words, several points of initial disagreement emerged, for which the following views were exchanged within the group: ‘I did not agree to read on the one hand, that 6 (clean water and sanitation) contributes, among other things, to 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and on the other hand that 17 (partnerships for the goals) presupposes, among other things, 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). Either all the arrows will be interpreted as contributing to… or all as it presupposes!’ (T22).

The most important finding in the hierarchical maps was that in some cases (4 out of 14 workshops), the teachers had placed additional connecting arrows between the nodes whether or not they were into three levels (1 case, Figure 12) or into four levels (2 cases, Figure 13) or into seven levels (1 case, Figure 14). When asked during the interviews, most of them repeated what their other colleagues had said about the spider map that they considered the connection between all the goals to be self-evident: ‘We also put horizontal arrows, because each group of goals affects another, not to mention that each goal affects everyone else!’ (T2). Some teachers’ groups wanted to emphasize some special relationships: ‘We wanted to emphasize 13 (climate action) and therefore we showed that it has a special effect on 14 (life below water), 15 (life on land) and 7 (affordable and clean energy)’ (T6) and ‘It should be emphasized that 4 (quality education) promotes 5 (gender equality)’ (T26).

Figure 12

Source: The author.

Figure 13

Source: The author.

Special mention needs to be made in a case in which a group of participating teachers formed seven levels of goals on the hierarchical map (Figure 14). This group set 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) as the primary goal and 17 (partnerships for the goals) as the final goal. The transition from one level of goals to another was presented as a linear route, where the achievement of one level of goals led to the next, until the final goal was reached. The seven levels resulted in having this route described in more detail and clarification, as shown by the interviews: ‘For example, we wanted to emphasize that 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) leads to 12 (responsible consumption and production) or that 7 (affordable and clean energy) leads to 13 (climate action), 14 (life below water), 15 (life on land)’ (T10). Moreover, through the seven levels the goals became more understandable and were discussed even at the level of daily life: ‘We explained that anyone lives within 10 (reduced inequalities) has more opportunities for 8 (decent work and economic growth), more easily accepts 5 (gender equality), experiences 1 (no poverty) and finally gets in the mood for 17 (partnerships for the goals) that is, to fight for a better world’ (T14).

Figure 14

Source: The author.

Flow Chart

In the flowchart maps, a linear arrangement of the 17 SDGs with causal implications between them was expected. The teachers did not add additional nodes and arrows and only in one case, they wrote connecting words on the preexisting arrows (Figure 15). During the interviews, they stated that they decided to do so because it was a challenge for them to better connect the goals: ‘We wanted the flow chart to be read as text. We wanted the justification of the order of the goals to be clear, so we looked for appropriate connecting words. It wasn’t easy; it was a challenge for our group!’ (T15).

An interesting finding was that 5 of the 14 groups of teachers (Table 3) set goal 17 as the first goal in the flow chart (partnerships for the goals) (Figure 15). Many teachers have argued that this option means that this goal is a prerequisite for achieving the rest: ‘Nothing can be achieved without global cooperation’ (T3) and ‘For us, it is necessary to have cooperation at local, national and international level’ (T11). Several groups (3 out of 14) (Figure 16) put 1–2 goals (no poverty and zero hunger) first, believing that only if the basic living needs of the world’s population were met, they could plan to achieve the other goals: ‘Without eliminating hunger, what does education, innovation, and strong institutions mean for the poor people?’ (T19) and ‘We made it our first goal, because it is a prerequisite for everything. Resources exist on the planet; the problem is their unequal distribution’ (T23). Some groups (2 out of 14) set 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) as their first goal, considering that it includes, serves, or gives meaning to some of the other goals: ‘Without peace and democracy all goals are just wishes’ (T7) and ‘Within this goal we considered that the elimination of poverty, the provision of decent work, quality education, the elimination of inequalities in all forms, many other goals are implied’ (T27).

Figure 15

Source: The author.

Table 3

The First Goal on the Given Flow Chart

Group Work on the Flow Charts—First Goal	Number of Groups
The first goal on the flow chart is 17 (partnerships for the goals)	5
The first goal on the flow chart is 1–2 (no poverty and zero hunger)	3
The first goal on the flow chart is 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions)	2
The first goal on the flow chart is 4 (quality education)	2
The first goal on the flow chart is 13 (climate action)	1
The first goal on the flow chart is 7 (affordable and clean energy)	1
Total	14

Source: The author.

Figure 16

Source: The author.

One finding we discovered even more interesting was that 6 of the 14 groups of teachers (Table 4) set goal 11 (sustainable cities and communities) as the final goal in the flow chart (Figure 17). During the interviews, it was revealed that this choice concealed an important interpretation, as teachers detected the level of daily life or local society in goal 11: ‘We set goal 11 as the final goal, because we thought that if all the previous goals were achieved on a global scale, then at the local scale we would have sustainable cities and human communication’ (T3) and ‘Goal 11 indicates the improvement in the quality of daily life and we would like it to be the final goal for each person individually, wherever he or she may live, no matter how rich or educated he is’ (T19).

Table 4

The Final Goal on the Given Flow Chart

Group Work on the Flow Charts—Final Goal	Number of Groups
The final goal on the flow chart is 11 (sustainable cities and communities)	6
The final goal on the flow chart is 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions)	4
The final goal on the flow chart is 3 (good health and well-being)	3
The final goal on the flow chart is 1–2 (no poverty and zero hunger)	1
Total	14

Source: The author.

Figure 17

Source: The author.

However, similar arguments were made by the 4 groups (Figure 18) that set goal 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) as the final goal in the flow chart: ‘If we eliminate hunger, provide quality education, ensure decent working conditions and act for the environment, then we will be able to fight for the full realization of all these achievements through institutional texts and procedures’ (T7) and ‘Justice includes many human rights.… Human rights are enshrined by institutions, procedures, declarations. And institutions operate only in peacetime. When we will have achieved the previous goals, then we will have reached the highest point described in goal 16’ (T27).

Figure 18

Source: The author.

The opposite argumentation was defended by the three groups that set goal 3 (good health and well-being) as the final goal (Figure 19) and one group that set goals 1–2 (no poverty and zero hunger) as the final goal (Figure 20). Teachers thought this should be the tangible ultimate benefit for every human being on the planet: ‘Why are we talking about all this? To improve the quality of life of every human being. Therefore, everything serves individual well-being’ (T23) and ‘This is a realistic goal on individual level. No one poor and hungry!’ (T15).

Figure 19

Source: The author.

Figure 20

Source: The author.

One finding that may be of particular importance is the position that teachers attribute to education within the grid of the 17 SDGs (Table 5). We noticed that 9 of the 14 groups of teachers had placed goal 4 (quality education) in the top 6 positions of the flow chart (Figures 16, 18 and 20). When asked about this choice, they seemed to give a special value to the educational process to create a better world and consider themselves responsible for many things: ‘We put it in the 2nd place, immediately after 17 (partnership for the goals) having in mind that only with the rise of the educational level worldwide can people claim individually and collectively the next goals’ (T3), ‘We put it first, wanting to show that education is the basis of all achievement. As teachers, we are responsible for teaching the next generations to claim their rights’ (T7), ‘As teachers, of course we put it in the beginning! Without education, without realizing everyone’s position in society, without knowledge of culture, how will people understand if they are wronged, if they are oppressed, if they are manipulated?’ (T11) and ‘We put education among the first goals, considering it as one of the fundamental conditions for the promotion of other goals. Education is a human right but also a supply for a better life and we are proud to work in this direction’ (T27). This particular tendency of teachers to discuss more extensively and more deeply the position of goal 4 (quality education) in the flow chart is also confirmed by the notes of the external observer.

Table 5

The Position of Goal 4 (Quality Education) in the Flow Chart

Where Has Goal 4 (Quality Education) Been Placed?	Number of Groups
In positions 1–6	9
In positions 7–13	3
In positions 14–17	2
Total	14

Source: The author.

Systemic Map

In the systemic maps, a linear arrangement of the 17 SDGs with additional inputs is provided in the sense that groups of goals contribute to the achievement of some fundamental goals. Table 6 presents the goals placed at the first node of the systemic map. In three cases, two goals were placed together (1–2, 14–15, 4–17); hence, the final sum of the cases is above 14. The great value that teachers attribute to the contribution of education to sustainability issues was clearly demonstrated through the systemic maps, as 5 of the 14 groups (Table 6) set goal 4 (quality education) as the first goal (Figure 21). During the interviews, they confirmed what their colleagues had said about education while discussing about flow charts: ‘Improving education opens windows to the world, gives opportunities, increases quality of life’ (T4), ‘Of course we put education first! First you learn your rights and then you claim them!’ (T8) and ‘We teachers believe that in this way we can change the world. That is why we put education first!’ (T24).

Table 6

The First Goal on the Given Systemic Map

Group Work on the Systemic Maps—First Goal	Number of Groups
The first goal on the systemic map is 4 (quality education)	5
The first goal on the systemic map is 17 (partnerships for the goals)	3
The first goal on the systemic map is 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions)	2
The first goal on the systemic map is 1–2 (no poverty and zero hunger)	2
The first goal on the systemic map is 14–15 (life below water and life on land)	1
The first goal on the systemic map is 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure)	1
The first goal on the systemic map is 11 (sustainable cities and communities)	1
Total	15

Source: The author.

Figure 21

Source: The author.

In 3 of the 14 cases, the teachers placed goal 17 (partnerships for the goals) as the first goal on the systemic map (Figure 22) and gave similar explanations to those provided by those who made the same choice in the flow charts: ‘Only global cooperation can ensure that all goals will be achieved’ (T12) and ‘Cooperation has also the meaning of commitment, that’s why we put it in the beginning, so that it is a requirement in every dimension, local, national or global’ (T28). In the same direction were the arguments of 2 of the 14 groups which set goal 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) as the first goal: ‘Only in conditions of peace, democratic institutions and legitimacy can other rights flourish, such as quality education, decent work, equality…’ (T20). The other 2 of the 14 groups that set goal 1–2 (no poverty and zero hunger) as the first goal had the opposite point of view: ‘First the living needs should be met and then the social ones’ (T28).

Figure 22

Source: The author.

In regard to the final goal of the systemic map (Table 7), the results were clearer but similar to those of the flow chart. Eight of the 14 groups of teachers set goal 11 (sustainable cities and communities) as the final goal (Figure 23), explaining either the feasibility of the goal on a local scale or the combination of individual and collective environment: ‘We thought it was a realistic and achievable goal, something that would make sense to everyone, something specific and not vague’ (T12) and ‘If all the goals are achieved globally, then locally every person will enjoy a sustainable city, tailored to their needs, without excluding anyone. It will be an ideal environment for the individual, the family and society’ (T8).

Table 7

The Final Goal on the Given Systemic Map

Group Work on the Systemic Maps—Final Goal	Number of Groups
The final goal on the systemic map is 11 (sustainable cities and communities )	8
The final goal on the systemic map is 1–2 (no poverty and zero hunger) and 3 (good health and well-being)	6
Total	14

Source: The author.

Figure 23

Source: The author.

Six of the 14 groups set goals 1–2, 3, or 1–2–3 (no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being) as the final goal (Figure 24); hence, we calculated them as one category. In these cases, the teachers wanted to emphasize that achieving the 17 SDGs should improve the lives of each person individually on the planet: ‘We have set 3 (good health and well-being) as the final goal considering that this achievement condenses the ultimate personal benefit, as it includes the provision of food, water and sanitation, education, employment, cheap and clean energy’ (T24) and ‘At first, we thought that 1, 2, 3 go together. Then, we put them as final goals because we thought they represent the personal dream of people in many countries around the world’ (T16).

Figure 24

Source: The author.

An important element in the systemic map is the concepts that were placed on the linear path. The goals set by the teachers on this position are shown in Table 8.

The fundamental goals chosen by the teachers and placed more often on the linear path were goals 3 (good health and well-being, 7 times), 8 (decent work and economic growth, 5 times), 12 (responsible consumption and production, 5 times) and 13 (climate action, 5 times). It seems that these goals have been prioritized in a society that is equally interested in environmental, health, economic and social cohesion. We consider this to be a clear indication that the 17 SDGs are indeed unifying seemingly different issues and enabling thinking, judgment and critique in a fertile way towards sustainability. This is also indicated by some teachers’ views when asked about systemic maps during the interviews: ‘Health is certainly a priority, but it does not exist without decent work, adequate finance, protected environment and responsibility on the part of all’ (T8) and ‘Learning to responsibly produce is related to protection of the environment. Learning to responsibly consume is related to education, equal opportunities, infrastructure and work. If all these coexist, then humans live in health and prosperity and in balance with the environment’ (T16).

Table 8

Goals Placed on the Linear Path of the Given Systemic Map

SDGs	Times Placed on the Linear Path
1 (No poverty)	3
2 (Zero hunger)	4
3 (Good health and well-being)	7
4 (Quality education)	3
5 (Gender quality)	3
6 (Clean water and sanitation)	1
7 (Affordable and clean energy)	1
8 (Decent work and economic growth)	5
9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure)	2
10 (Reduced inequalities)	3
11 (Sustainable cities and communities)	4
12 (Responsible consumption and production)	5
13 (Climate action)	5
14 (Life below water)	4
15 (Life on land)	4
16 (Peace, justice and strong institutions)	3
17 (Partnerships for the goals)	4

Source: The author.

Discussion

From the results mentioned above, three specific points emerged that we consider to be meaningful, both for the use of concept maps and for teacher training.

First, the concept maps appear to be a powerful tool for capturing complex relationships between concepts, such as the 17 SDGs, while at the same time, they provide a degree of flexibility in these mappings. In the spider maps, the 3 groups of the 17 SDGs increased to 4 or 5, while a synergy between them was apparent. In the hierarchical maps, the 3 levels increased to 4, 5 and even 7, and concurrently horizontal interconnections were formed, although they were not requested. In flow charts, some concepts occupied a special place, such as goal 17 (partnerships for the goals) as the first goal, goal 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and goal 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) as the final goals and goal 4 (quality education) as a goal of particular importance.

The vast majority of participating teachers (95%) stated that the teaching approach using the concept maps to approach the 17 SDGs was understandable. We consider this finding important because a concrete perception of a teaching tool on the one hand increases the chance of its use in the classroom and, on the other hand, it improves students’ knowledge through the successful interconnection of the concepts regardless of which type is being used. We consider it even more important that these answers were given after the experiential experience of the teachers, as they were asked to enact the role of a student, to classify the 17 SDGs with appropriate connections, to work as a group, to compose views and finally, to agree on a final mapping of the 17 SDGs on concept maps.

Second, there was no group that captured the 17 SDGs and the connections between them in the same way on all types of concept maps. The unique manner of connecting the 17 SDGs for each group highlighted the different ways of thinking, the different approaches, the different justifications and the different ways of working within each group of teachers. During the presentations and reflection discussions, this point emerged as an advantage of the proposed teaching approach, as the teachers considered that the possibility of many different answers reduces stress, enhances creativity and unleashes the imagination of the participating teachers. This is of particular value from two perspectives. On the one hand, when it is offered to students of primary education and, on the other hand, when teachers are called upon to negotiate complex issues, such as the 17 SDGs.

It is noticeable that 88% of participating teachers estimated that this experience was interesting, a fact we consider as an important achievement, given the complexity of the interconnections of the 17 SDGs, which could discourage teachers. It seems that the teachers considered the interconnections between the 17 SDGs as a challenge. As a result, their interest and active participation were maintained at highest level. This is supported by the notes and remarks of the external observer regarding the participation, the willingness to cooperate and the desire for a good presentation by the representative of each group in the plenary session.

Third, the concept maps provided an opportunity for group work, an instructive model that is not yet widely used in the classroom. Teachers experienced an example of collaborative teaching in a sociocultural environment without having to attend a theoretical introduction. They had the opportunity to appreciate the difficulties of working in a group, as during the workshop they experienced the practices of imposing an opinion, insisting on one point of view, excessive undertaking of initiatives, indifference, complaints and withdrawal of colleagues from group work. We believe that in this way, the teachers considered the advantages and disadvantages of working in groups and increased the chance of adopting it in their own classroom.

It is important that 75% of the participating teachers considered this teaching approach applicable to the classroom. Primary school teachers of grades 5–6 found it easier to teach their students using concept maps because they have more opportunities to connect concepts through more subjects: ‘In the higher classes, children are older, have some abstract thinking, understand more and more complex things, and have more opportunities to use concept maps, for example in Geography, Physics, and Citizen Education’ (T3). Primary school teachers of grades 1–4 felt that more playful approaches would be needed for students to understand and connect the 17 SDGs: ‘I think we need more simple and more playful activities for young students. The concept maps may not be all types, but they are difficult for young children’ (T18).

Conclusions

Concept maps had a positive effect on understanding the 17 SDGs, as they showed and visualized the complex interconnections between 17 SDGs in a quite articulated way. Concept maps have proven to be an effective educational tool for highlighting the correlations of the 17 SDGs, as each group of teachers linked them in a unique manner. The nodes added, the arrows attached and linking words are evidence of the flexibility of the concept maps as an educational tool, the freedom they provide and the inspiration they create in the negotiation of the 17 SDGs.

The participating teachers stated that they understood the concept maps, and they could use them in the classroom on more issues. Especially in the case of the 17 SDGs, it seems that the concept maps are an important educational tool, as they provide the opportunity for multiple impressions and interconnections. Education for sustainability needs such innovative educational tools and practices. Sustainability includes not only contradictory socio-scientific issues to be discussed but also challenging practices such as critical thinking, using a systemic approach and participatory learning to be introduced.

Moreover, concept maps contribute to primary teacher training. The concept maps inspired teachers, provided a real opportunity for group work and improved collaboration between them. The teachers estimated that the amplitude of connections provided by the concept maps removes participants’ anxiety, as there is no concrete answer to find. The focus is on the qualitative characteristics of group work, such as participation, exchange of opinions, argumentation, different perspectives and the need to justify the connections between concepts.

These first positive findings encourage us to test the concept maps on a wider audience, in order to communicate the 17 SDGs, as a relatively small sample does not allow safe generalization of the results. For this purpose, a more extensive and specific research tool, possibly with more quantitative and not only qualitative data, would also be required. In addition, further research will be needed on both teacher training and students training to demonstrate the effectiveness of the use of concept maps for teaching the 17 SDGs and their interconnections, especially compared to other educational tools. However, the first encouraging findings described in this article pose a challenge to the creation of other educational tools and practices that will highlight the complexity of sustainability issues and the need for their systemic approach.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Andrews

K. E.

, Tressler

K. D.

, & Mintzes

J. J.

(2008). Assessing environmental understanding: An application of the concept mapping strategy. Environmental Education Research, 14(5), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802278829

Ausubel

D. P.

(2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ausubel

D. P.

, Novak

J. D.

, & Hanesian

(1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Berionni

, & Baldón

M. O.

(2006). Models of social constructivism, laboratory teaching and concept maps to build scientific knowledge and organize concept network teaching experiences in first level education Italian schools. In Cañas

A. J.

& Novak

J. D.

(Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping, San José, Costa Rica, 2006, pp. 1–8. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.119.2287&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Bruner

(1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.

Cakmak

(2010). An examination of concept maps created by prospective teachers on teacher roles. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2464–2468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.354

Derbentseva

, Safayeni

, & Cañas

A. J.

(2007). Concept maps: Experiments on dynamic thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 448–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20153

Eltinge

, & Roberts

(1993). Linguistic content analysis: A method to measure science inquiry in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300106

Engdahl

(2015). Early childhood education for sustainability: The OMEP world project. International Journal of Early Childhood, 47(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-015-0149-6

10.

Fien

(1995). Teaching for a sustainable world: The environmental and development education project for teacher education. Environmental Education Research, 1(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462950010102

11.

Foster

(2001). Education as sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 7(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620120043162

12.

Gan

, & Gal

(2018). Self-efficacy for promoting EfS among pre-service teachers in Israel. Environmental Education Research, 24(7), 1062–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1396288

13.

Gough

(2016). Teacher education for sustainable development: Past, present and future. In Filho

W. Leal

& Pace

(Eds.), Teaching education for sustainable development at university level. World Sustainability Series (pp. 109–122). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32928-4_8

14.

Griggs

, Stafford-Smith

, Gaffney

Rockström

, Öhman

M. C.

, Shyamsundar

, Steffen

, Glaser

, Kanie

, & Noble

(2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495, 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/495305a

15.

Hamza

K. M.

, & Wickman

P.-O.

(2013). Student engagement with artefacts and scientific ideas in a laboratory and a concept-mapping activity. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2254–2277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.743696

16.

Hasemann

, & Mansfield

(1995). Concept mapping in research on mathematical knowledge development: Background, methods, findings and conclusions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273900

17.

Hilbert

T. S.

, & Renkl

(2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: what characterizes good and poor mappers? Instructional Science, 36, 53–73. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/23372818

18.

Jimenez-Aleixandre

M. P.

, & Gayoso

I. G.-R.

(1996). An approach to introducing environmental education into the science methods course in teacher education. Environmental Education Research, 2(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462960020103

19.

Jucker

(2002). Sustainability? Never heard of it. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3(1), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370210414146

20.

Kemmis

, & Mutton

(2012). Education for sustainability (EfS): Practice and practice architectures. Environmental Education Research, 18(2), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.596929

21.

Kokkotas

, Piliouras

, Malamitsa

, & Stamoulis

(2008). Teaching physics to in-service primary school teachers in the context of the history of science: The case of falling bodies. Science & Education, 18(5), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9139-5

22.

Liu

, & Nesbit

J. C.

(2018). Conceptual change with refutational maps. International Journal of Science Education, 40(16), 1980–1998. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1515513

23.

Makrakis

, & Kostoulas-Makrakis

(2017). A paradigm shift in higher education teaching and learning: Practices towards education for sustainability. In Michelsen

& Wells

P. J.

(Eds.), A decade of progress on education for sustainable development—Reflections from the UNESCO Chairs Program (pp. 94–102). UNESCO. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/445631

24.

McKeown

(2015). What happened during the UN decade of education for sustainable development? Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 14(2), 67–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2014.971979

25.

McTighe

(1992). Graphic organizers: Collaborative links to better thinking. In Davidson

& Worsham

(Eds.), Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning (pp. 182–197). Teachers College Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/105708379300300106

26.

Monroe

M. C.

(2002). Evaluation’s friendly voice: The structured open-ended interview. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 1(2), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150213993

27.

Nath

(2003). Education for sustainable development: The Johannesburg Summit and beyond. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 5(1–2), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025309105929

28.

Nordén

(2018). Transdisciplinary teaching for sustainable development in a whole school project. Environmental Education Research, 24(5), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1266302

29.

Novak

(1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377984

30.

Novak

J. D.

(1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

31.

Novak

J. D.

, & Gowin

B. D.

(1984). Learn how to learn. Cambridge University Press.

32.

O’Donnell

A. M.

, Dansereau

D. F.

, & Hall

R. H.

(2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013132527007

33.

Oprea

C. L.

(2015). New perspectives about teacher training: Conceptual maps used for interactive learning. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180(5), 899–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.239

34.

Rodrigo-Cano

, Picó

M. J.

, & Dimuro

(2019). The sustainable development goals as a base for the action and social and environmental intervention. Journal of Administration Sciences and Economics, 9(17), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.17163/ret.n17.2019.02

35.

Rye

J. A.

, & Rubba

P. A.

(1998). An exploration of the concept map as an interview tool to facilitate the externalization of students’ understandings about global atmospheric change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 521–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199805)35:5%3C521::AID-TEA4%3E3.0.CO;2-R

36.

Safdar

, Hussain

, Shah

, & Rifat

(2012). Concept maps: An instructional tool to facilitate meaningful learning. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 55–64. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1086311.pdf

37.

Stoddart

, Abrams

, Gasper

, & Canaday

(2000). Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning—A report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1221–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900750036235

38.

Tilbury

(1995). Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education Research, 1(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462950010206

39.

Ugwu

, & Soyibo

(2004). The effects of concepts and vee mappings under three learning models on Jamaican eighth graders’ knowledge of nutrition and plant reproduction. Research in Science and Technological Education, 22(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514042000187539

40.

UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) (1992). Agenda 21. Brazil, Rio de Janeiro (3–14 June). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

41.

UNESCO–EPD (1997). Declaration of Thessaloniki. Paris, EPD-97/CONF.401/CLD.2. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000117772

42.

UNESCO (2005a). United Nations decade of education for sustainable development (2005–2014): International implementation scheme. Paris, ED/DESD/2005/PI/01. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000148654

43.

UNESCO (2005b). Guidelines and recommendations for reorienting teacher education to address sustainability. Paris, ED-2005/WS/66. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000143370

44.

UNESCO (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444

45.

Wals

A. E. J.

(2017). Transformative social learning for socio-ecological sustainability at the interface of science and society: A forward-looking retrospective. In Michelsen

& Wells

P. J.

(Eds.), A decade of progress on education for sustainable development—Reflections from the UNESCO Chairs Program, pp. 18–27. UNESCO. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/445631

46.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf

47.

Wormnaes

, Mkumbo

, Skaar

, & Refseth

(2015). Using concept maps to elicit and study student teachers’ perceptions about inclusive education: A Tanzanian experience. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1081724