Entwining a Conceptual Framework

ESD: Overview

A brief—but necessary—premise concerns the evolution of the notion of transformative learning in the context of ESD over the last five decades. Therefore, a description of former and current perspectives on nature and their respective pedagogical approaches will follow in the next two sections. In its origins, sustainable education was based on a mechanistic and adaptive approach aimed at addressing specific environmental issues (Scott, 2004). Within this approach, environmental education (EE) was introduced in the school curriculum to equip learners with knowledge and skills to deal with environmental conservation and protection (Marcinkowski, 2009). Broadening the spectrum of environmental concerns to their interrelations with the economic, social, and political spheres, ESD was coined as a new term in the Agenda 21 (1992) and included among the post-2015 sustainable development goals (O’Connor, 2014, section 4.7).

Inherent in the early ideas on EE and ESD is an anthropocentric outlook on reality. In this Cartesian view, human beings are perceived as separate from the environment (so are mind and body) and as the main agents acting upon the earth and its resources. Along these lines, Western approaches legitimately entitle human beings to exploit nature, therein seen as merely instrumental and devoid of moral values (O’Sullivan et al., 2002). The active/passive dichotomy between humans/nature within a dualistic view evokes an analogy with developed/developing countries within the international ESD scenario. Here, in fact, developed nations often act as active players in devising sustainable development educational practices to be implemented in (receptive) developing nations. Critics, however, exhort scholars and policy makers to understand the relations between Global North and South in a new, inclusive, and participatory light. According to them, wider sustainable development initiatives need to consider and establish linkages with specific contexts, not necessarily by abiding to the North–South hiatus (Bowers, 2011; González-Gaudiano, 2005; Jickling, 2005; Kahn, 2008; Lumis, 1998; Marcinkowski, 2009).

“Transmissive” Learning

The separation between the ostensibly antithetical pairs mentioned above (e.g., mankind/nature, developed/developing countries, Global North/South) is echoed in the pedagogical initiatives within such binary views. This often translates into unidirectional pedagogical plans, where mankind, nature, developed countries, and Global North transmit objective knowledge about their counterparts to generate ad hoc solutions for the latter.

In the long term, the outcomes of “transferring” environmental knowledge to learners (Murray et al., 2013) have not proved to be efficient in addressing global environmental issues, especially in the context of developing countries. Studies (Scott & Gough, 2003; Sterling, 2001) have outlined that it is precisely the dichotomous view of humans and nature that is responsible for the ineffectiveness of such pedagogical programs. Said separation, recalling the positivist division between subject and object, fails to grasp the intrinsic nuances of the unified nature of the relationships between humans and the environment (Shahjahan, 2005).

Therefore, the next two sections will delineate ESD developments, attitudes, and learning approaches in the last decades. Their residual shortcomings will be identified and transformative learning theory—as the basis for the framework elucidated further in this article—will be contextualized.

“Transformational” Learning

In response to the limitations of earlier approaches, recent ESD scholarship encourages holistic and transformative initiatives. Within these, the notion of sustainable education includes a multidisciplinary dialogue based on the interconnectedness of various aspects of learning, for example, social, cultural, and ecological (Kumar, 2008; Reid & Scott, 2007; Scott & Gough, 2003; Sterling, 2001). Similarly, transformative educational practices entail a revised perspective on the nature of the mankind/environment relationship in coevolutionary terms (O’Sullivan et al., 2002; Scott & Gough, 2003). In this view, the boundaries that divide the individual self from the environment dissolve to embrace both in a continuum. Here, the relationships between humans and nature are understood on equal terms, thus ascribing reciprocal, intrinsic, and instrumental values to both (O’Sullivan et al., 2002). Therefore, the equilibrium between the two is unpredictably ever-changing and can be interpreted only by constantly acknowledging and focussing on their interdependence (Bateson, 1987; O’Sullivan et al., 2002; Scheunpflug, 2010).

In the current framework, the function of learning is fundamental to spur deeper changes in individual learners’ consciousness and in their relations with the environment (Bourn, 2014; Murray et al., 2013; Sterling, 2001). Paramount to this approach is a view where social and ecological processes mutually influence each other (Antunes & Gadotti, 2005; Earth Charter Commission, 2004; Scott & Gough, 2003; Wals, 2012). Thus, pedagogies intend to be transformative rather than transmissive (Murray et al., 2013; Sterling, 2010), with the purpose of guiding students through a process of critical self-reflection and self-discovery. This leads them to acquire enhanced awareness about themselves and their role into and interdependence with wider social and ecological systems (O’Sullivan et al., 2002; Reid & Scott 2007; Sterling, 2001, 2010). Indeed, recurrent divergence between learners’ preconceptions and perceptions of themselves, of reality, and of the relationships between the two induces a perspective transformation. This allows them to reconceptualize and reorganize their knowledge and experiences. Eventually, such learning represents a transformative shift from old to new patterns of understanding (O’Sullivan et al., 2002).

The unfulfilled need of contemporary ESD approaches, however, is to establish pedagogies promoting learning not only about issues of global poverty and inequalities but also from them. In these regards, educational models in the Global South can offer innovative theoretical contributions. An instance to explore is how integrating Western and indigenous epistemologies to pursue sustainable practices could provide concrete insights into the “dialogic” (Bourn, 2014, p. 29; Kumar, 2008) aspect of development education. The lessons thus learnt could help reverse the direction of sustainable development approaches. People from the Global South would play an active role through their contributions to ESD discourses, beyond being mere illustrative examples of situations of poverty. In this regard, the idea of dialogism proposed by Scott and Gough (2003) as a confrontational process among various voices, where none predominates over others, could be enhanced.

To introduce said exploration, the second part of this article will “dissect” both transformative learning as an educational theory and Buddhist/Eastern learning approaches. This comparison will bring to light similar aspects, such as inner experience, oneness of reality, moral sustainable values, and community curriculum. Moreover, careful consideration will be given to the contradictions arising from engaging with differing views on Buddhist and Eastern perspectives. Therefore, the analysis will be followed by a discussion related to including other-than-Western perspectives in the curriculum, a methodology section and the possible implications of a beyond-school curriculum.

Getting a Grasp on Transformative Learning

The ESD framework emphazises on learning as transformative, whose notion originates from the works of Mezirow (2003) in the context of adult learning. It is further developed by Sterling in relation to sustainable education, also by drawing on the three orders of learning proposed by Bateson (1987). In what follows, an analytical synthesis of these concepts displays insightful parallels with those pertaining to “Buddhist approaches.” These are (i) individual (inner) experience, (ii) oneness and interdependence of reality, (iii) sustainable moral values, and (iv) community curriculum. Current literature on ESD (Banerjee & Singh, 2013; Barrett et al., 2016; Burns, 2015; Bussey, 2012; Chadha, 2015; Chakkarath, 2005; Chansomsak & Vale, 2008; Des Jarlais, 2008; Healy, 2000; King, 2009; Liu & Constable, 2010; O’Sullivan et al., 2002; Pendergast et al., 2012; Toh & Cawagas, 2010; Wang & King, 2008; Witoszek, 2013) presents some theoretical and practical attempts at exploring the possible outcomes of merging these perspectives, with examples from educational programs in both the Global North and South. However, such instances have not yet been thoroughly analyzed and taken into account by international policies on ESD and will be included in this section as food for thought for further investigation. Just as importantly, although quite unintentionally, bridging these positions also addresses some of the criticism to Mezirow’s transformative learning theory (Taylor, 1998). Particularly, as detailed below, the limitations of his focus on rationality (Clark & Wilson, 1991) can be overcome by integrating the aforementioned four points within transformative learning. Said criticism points at Mezirow’s lack of critical consideration of the effects of cultural values in the transformative learning process. In a recent work (Mezirow, 2009), he agrees with current research and reconsiders the notion previously developed, by acknowledging the role of emotional—in addition to cognitive—knowledge, to foster critical reflection in learners. Central in his formulation of transformative learning practices is learners’ individual experience. Its interconnection with critical thinking—both stimulated by a value-based course content—leads learners to develop new perspectives and promotes the transformative process. Accordingly, drawing a parallel between Mezirow and Dewey’s conceptualization of how (new) learning occurs presents similarities with the four Buddhist aspects listed above—and explained in detail below—and with ESD. Dewey too allocates a central role to direct individual experience in the learning process through abduction (Prawat, 1999), where physical authentication of ideas bridges old and new learning. Moreover, experiences are further translated into linguistic “metaphors” or “imaginal representations.” These offer “epistemic access” to phenomena (Prawat, 1999, pp. 61, 62, 65), as a result of learners’ “reflective process” (Prawat, 1999, p. 70), for both Dewey (Prawat, 1999) and Mezirow (2003). For the former, when learners’ new ideas move from particular experience to a broader level, they can be transformative (Prawat, 1999, p. 71). According to the second, learners’ transformation occurs by thoroughly considering the beliefs and assumptions underlying their understanding of reality (Mezirow, 2009, pp. 7, 8). This aspect, however, has been extensively criticized, in that an excessive focus on rationality overrelies on Western epistemology, which is disconnected from experience (Taylor, 1998). Thus, critics recommend reconciling rational aspects with “extrarational” ones (Susan, 1998). In an attempt to respond to said criticism, Mezirow includes “dialogue” (Mezirow, 2009, p. 9) to facilitate critical thinking and transformation through active questioning and meaning-making; “holistic orientation” and “awareness of context” (Mezirow, 2009, pp. 10, 11), referring to emotions that enable learners to develop a comprehensive awareness about themselves and larger sociocultural facets affecting their learning process; and “authentic relationships” (Mezirow, 2009, p. 13) between educators and learners. Moving beyond emotions, interestingly, Mezirow associates transformative learning also with “cosmology” (Mezirow, 2009, p. 28), by considering O’Sullivan and others’ approach on transformative learning and sustainability. Here what bears relevance for sustainable education is how environmental and spiritual aspects elicit learners’ perspectives change, with the possible result of envisioning alternative ways of relating to themselves and to the world (O’Sullivan et al., 2002). Nevertheless, without necessarily evolving into the view of a planetary consciousness, transformative learning processes can result in other meaningful perspective developments which can equally lead to outcomes that are both transformative and sustainable. Instances can be found in Boyd, who employs a psychological lens, or Freire, whose approach is more socially emancipatory (Taylor, 1998). Similarly, contemporary research (Nicolaides & Holt, 2016) shows that transformative changes can be more complex than previously considered. Some learners, in fact, exhibit sustained socially engaged behaviours, although simultaneously holding a dualistic view of the world and experiencing a sense of nonseparation (Nicolaides & Holt, 2016). Therefore, this article purposefully adopts a specific perspective on transformative learning due to its relevance to Buddhist/Eastern approaches.

Considerations on cosmology and transformative learning are referred to by Sterling (2010) too, as a basis for the conception of his model of “levels of knowing” (Sterling, 2003, cited in Sterling, 2010, p. 20), drawing on Bateson’s (1987) three orders of learning. Briefly, learning of the first level recalls the mechanistic transmissive approach of imparting knowledge, hence “conformative.” Learning of the second level involves critical reflection on and, possibly, a change of learners’ beliefs and assumptions, hence “reformative.” Learning of the third level extends to an expansion of learners’ consciousness to include a paradigm shift in their epistemological views, and hence transformative (Sterling, 2010, p. 25). Likewise, in O’Sullivan et al.’s (2002) “third level of presence” (p. 83) acquired by learners, reality is understood as continual and interconnected internal and external processes that govern the self and the environment. In this way, learners are enabled to appreciate (how) the interactive flow between their individual self and actions as well as the status of their environment reciprocally effect each other. Compared to sustainable education’s earlier emphasis on problem-solving skills and outcomes, this view, instead, highlights transformative learning as a process. Focussing on the ever-evolving nature of this type of learning represents a key feature in this approach, for measuring it solely in terms of accomplishing a specific goal—without considering how it is attained—would represent a limitation rather than an advantage (Bourn, 2014). Nonetheless, it is important to define specific parameters in order to distinguish transformative learning outcomes from other types of learning, as systematically explained by Hoggan (2016). In particular, the author provides six main categories (e.g., worldview, self, epistemology, ontology, behaviour, and capacity)—and respective subcategories—to determine if and when outcomes qualify as transformative (Hoggan, 2016).

In light of the above analysis, parallels can be drawn with each of the aforesaid four elements of Buddhist/Eastern spiritual perspectives, namely (i) individual (inner) experience, (ii) oneness and interdependence of reality, (iii) sustainable moral values, and (iv) community curriculum, through a detailed exploration. These four convergent points arise from the juxtaposition of core elements of transformative learning theory with an examination of multiple perspectives on pedagogy and sustainability within the literature of Buddhist/Eastern approaches to learning (Banerjee & Singh, 2013; Chadha, 2015; Chansomsak & Vale, 2008; Chaudhary & Aswal, 2014; Healy, 2000; Liu & Constable, 2010; Nhat Hanh, 1988; Wang & King, 2008). It is worth mentioning, however, that the author is aware that the phrase Buddhist approaches entails careful use. There exist, indeed, various Buddhist schools of thought and related contradicting interpretations by different authors (Schmithausen, 1997; Sullivan, 2015). Therefore, the analysis in what follows is based on and limited to specific studies and relevant examples from the literature referred to.

Individual Inner Experience

Akin to both Mezirow and Dewey’s conception of transformative learning, several Eastern schools of thought—including Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism—emphasize on nurturing individual inner experience (Wang & King, 2008). Like in transformative learning, its purpose is to develop both cognitive and moral attributes to enhance personal transformation as well as transformations beneficial to the relationships with the broader community and the environment. Similarly, the Buddhist practice of “insight meditation” (Healy, 2000) can be conducive to transformational and sustainability learning thanks to a self-knowledge process. Through observation and awareness of inner and outer experiences within oneself and in the relationships with others, the individual’s knowledge of the essence of reality can transform. The meditative process—similar to the reflective process in transformative learning—allows for the creation of a mental empty space, where observation of occurring thoughts takes place (Nicolaides & Holt, 2016). Paradoxically, dissociating from specific thoughts causes absence of separation between the self and the other (Nicolaides & Holt, 2016), thus, leading to an appreciation for the interconnectedness of all animate and inanimate entities (Healy, 2000). In this regard, however, it is worth noting a difference among Dewey, Mezirow’s and Eastern conceptions of the transformative learning process. On the one hand, for Dewey, this occurs through abduction, which is limited to ideas that emerge only from observable facts, versus insight arising from inward-looking methods. In like manner Mezirow’s later formulations, where the transformative learning process is triggered by “experiential activities” (Mezirow, 2009, p. 7) within the classroom, differ from transformational knowledge emerging from meditational exercises. Said processes, unlike those in the Eastern spiritual approaches, do not allow for a deep understanding of the nature of reality (Prawat, 1999), in that they originate only from external stimuli. On the other hand, Buddhist/Eastern approaches’ individual inner experience results in the elimination of the divide between internal and external spheres, thus contributing to resolve precisely the tension between rational and extrarational raised by Mezirow’s critics. Expanding on this point, in broader spiritual terms, integrating the classroom curriculum with spiritual intelligence would promote a type of learning of a transformative nature, where deep understanding of inner and outer existence could encourage sustainable choices (Chaudhary & Aswal, 2014). Spiritual intelligence includes the ability to expand human consciousness beyond the physical realm and to support learners’ meaning-making and problem-solving abilities, leading them to develop critical and value-based solutions (Chaudhary & Aswal, 2014). In the same way as with Buddhist meditation, learners’ self-realization (both in individual and in relational terms) attained through spiritual intelligence abilities would spawn their awareness about conducting their lives in tune with high moral principles. On the same lines are the findings from a study on the practice of “mindfulness” (Lina Lanestrand, in The Sustainability Prism, by Bussey, 2012), which produces changed perspectives in practitioners through enhanced awareness of the self and of the relationships with others. As advanced by Liu and Constable (2010), these fundamental principles of Eastern philosophies are consistent with the intended outcomes of transformative learning for sustainability.

Therefore, the next section will focus on the oneness and interconnectedness between the self and the whole of reality, seen as a realisation arising from the process of individual inner experience and self-knowledge.

Oneness of Reality

The Buddhist view of reality ¹ is primarily attuned to the coevolutionary perspective advanced by the current literature on ESD (Reid & Scott, 2007; Sterling, 2001, 2010). Here, human beings are seen as strictly interconnected and coexisting with nature and their self-development is conceived in harmonious terms with it (Chansomsak & Vale, 2008). In particular, the principles of the dharmic perspective of oneness of all things evoke Reid and Scott’s (2007) emphasis on the connection between sustainability and human consciousness beyond ecocentric and anthropocentric approaches. Mindful-meditation practices result, indeed, in perspectives and behaviours’ change towards the so-called objects of reality (Chadha, 2015). Thus, manifesting nondual awareness (e.g., human–nature) indicates an intellectual transformation in practitioners (Chadha, 2015), analogous to the perspective shift occurring within transformative learning. However, the latter and Eastern spiritual approaches present a difference in outcome. Namely, by aiming at ridding oneself of suffering through elimination of ignorance on the true nature of reality, Buddhist/Eastern practices attain a deeper level of understanding compared to transformative learning. They beget awareness of the mental processes constituting the perception of objects as separate. This realization eventually removes the sense of separation between the perceiver and the perceived (Chadha, 2015), unveiling the unity between their and reality’s existence. Hence, adding meditative practices to Mezirow’s reflective process would be advantageous in order to turn it into a strength against its criticism. Relevant to ESD is also the Buddhist concept of karma, which can further reinforce sustainable habits (Chakkarath, 2005). Within a karmic outlook, cause and effect are simultaneous, as every action carries in the present moment its potential future effects (e.g., for the environment). Thus, encompassing individual inner experience and meditative practices within a karmic view can trigger environmentally sustainable behaviours and promote inherent inclination towards a high moral conduct in life. Therefore, the next section will delve into the role of moral values within Buddhist approaches in context to sustainable learning.

Sustainable Moral Values

Additional Buddhist methods that encourage transformative and sustainable learning are the practice of principles of moral conduct, mind training, and wisdom development. Respectively, moral conduct refers to the need for learners to develop a line of compassionate and ethical conduct, which is reflected in their daily actions (Sullivan, 2015). Mind training is aimed at creating focus and awareness in carrying out daily tasks. Finally, wisdom development pertains to understanding the connection between cause and effect and, accordingly, to cultivating appropriate intentions in thought and action (Chansomsak & Vale, 2008; Sullivan, 2015). Developing a personal moral conduct through mind training and wisdom development presents links with the above-mentioned notions of critical thinking, holistic orientation, and awareness of context. They too, in fact, increase learners’ awareness of the inner and outer correlations influencing their meaning-making and action-taking processes. Therefore, these extrarational features (see section on “Getting a Grasp on Transformative Learning”) would enrich transformative learning practices, as advanced by Mezirow’s critics (Susan, 1998; Taylor, 1998). Having direct bearing on ESD, the aforesaid line of conduct within traditional Buddhist traditions and ethics would elicit appreciation of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all beings. What is more, it would naturally lead to the respect of ecological systems as part of personal and spiritual advancement, without even requiring to ascribe special value to the environment (Schmithausen, 1997). As it is candidly expressed by Nhat Hanh (1988, p. 41):

We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question “How should we deal with Nature?” We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves; we should not harm nature… Human beings and nature are inseparable.

In light of these considerations, sustainable learning curriculums may need to be redefined to include broader physical and social contexts, by virtue of their significant contributions to the learning process. The next section, therefore, will provide examples of existing community curriculum sustainable programs and further implications deriving from this approach.

“Sustainable Community Curriculum” and Social Learning

Approaches grounded on a Buddhist-inspired sustainable curriculum in Thai schools have been beneficial for whole communities beyond the school settings and also included elements of local traditions and customs within school activities (Chansomsak & Vale, 2008). The Shangri-la Institute for Sustainable Communities in China is a similar instance of how combining Chinese philosophies (e.g., Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism) and indigenous knowledge and traditions has resulted in sustainable livelihood solutions involving entire communities (Liu & Constable, 2010). In like manner, a learning framework endeavouring oneness of life and communal relationships as learners’ internal values is more likely to prompt enhanced care and action towards environmental issues (Antal & Drews, 2015). Namely, the authors explain, through the use of analogies and metaphors, specific words selectively trigger mental structures called “frames” (Antal & Drews, 2015, p. 1057). These in turn connect to larger cognitive and emotional systems. Hence, this learning model bears relevance for both transformative learning and ESD. Firstly, the way said process and its association with values engender behavioural changes presents similarities with both Dewey and Mezirow’s definitions of transformative learning (see section on Getting a Grasp on Transformative Learning). Respectively, they recall Dewey’s abductive process (Prawat, 1999) and Mezirow’s (2009) individual experience. Regarding the latter, oneness of life and communal relationships within such framework offer themselves as being apt to address the shortcomings of Mezirow’s notion of rationality (Taylor, 1998). Secondly, this framework would help fill some of the current ESD’s gaps—for example, the need to establish linkages between ESD approaches and specific contextual needs—(Bowers, 2011; González-Gaudiano, 2005; Jickling, 2005; Kahn, 2008; Lumis, 1998; Marcinkowski, 2009) through focussing on nature as interrelating with whole communities, their “indigenous knowledge systems,” values, and local relevance (Antal & Drews, 2015). Consequently, to determine the pedagogical pertinence of a sustainable community curriculum, this article draws on aspects of social learning theories to unveil the role of “relationships” within ESD, transformative, and Buddhist learning approaches.

Indeed, “authentic relationships” (Mezirow, 2009, p. 13) play a key role for the transformative learning process to occur, akin to the appreciation of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all beings within Buddhist/Eastern perspectives (Chansomsak & Vale, 2008; Schmithausen, 1997). Thus, both approaches to learning focus on understanding relationships of various kind (e.g., within the social, environmental, economic, and political contexts). In these regards, numerous studies on social learning and sustainability—both in the Global North and South—take into consideration (power) relations and the links between local and global interrelations when analysing experiences of social learning (Wals, 2009). In this way, processes of transformative and sustainable learning are analyzed with reference to the structure of existing relationships within a “learning community” (Wals, 2009, pp. 13–15). Concerning the acquisition of cognitive and behavioural learning, social learning theories concentrate on the analysis of the reciprocal interaction between learners’ inherent individual factors and external influences (Bandura, 1971). That is to say, both through a social learning and a sustainable learning perspective, humans and the environment mutually influence each other. Specifically, in this prospect, learning is understood as learners’ (positive or negative) behavioural reinforcement resulting from the occurrence of direct experience, observation, and—symbolic—social relations (Bandura, 1971), which all contribute to shaping their learning.

Along with incorporating a social learning lens to investigate beyond-school sustainable practices, it is paramount to ponder on the effects of breaking epistemological “boundaries” when exploring non-Western systems of knowledge (Denzin et al., 2008). Therefore, the next section will cover a discussion and illustrations of their potential effects.

Learning Beyond-School and Epistemological Boundaries

Diverse, non-Western knowledge systems offer not just a unified view of man and the environment, but they also consider the latter as an active agent, thus conferring on it an equal role in leading towards a sustainable path (Barrett et al., 2016; Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2015). Therefore, learning from traditional knowledge and values would induce students to reflect on and understand their ownselves and surroundings afresh and be more inclined to undertake sustainable practices (Liu & Constable, 2010). As exemplified by the idea of “threshold concepts” (Barret et al., 2016), unfamiliar epistemological insights bolster transformative learning, by engaging learners in critically contemplating new outlooks on reality and reshaping their perceptions (Barret et al., 2016). An emblematic example of transformative perspectives of local communities can be found in a study conducted by Burns (2015). The indigenous knowledge system of the Okanagan people conceives no separation between the self and the land or the community, and intellectual learning equals with community learning and knowledge construction. Along the same lines in community-based learning in the United States, the (more or less physical) “spaces” (Fine et al., 2000) where community encounters occur facilitate transformative learning not only for students but for all members involved in common activities. Learning in noninstitutionalised settings and for the benefit of the whole community is common to various non-Western societies, where the latter is understood in this context as “indigenous” knowledge systems” (Merriam & Kim, 2008, p. 72). These imply exploring their different ways of learning and constructing knowledge (Denzin et al., 2008), which—in comparative terms with research in Western school-based educational systems—occur in daily activities and rituals that promote individuals’ growth in holistic terms (Merriam & Kim, 2008). Therefore, investigating sustainable educational practices beyond-school settings in indigenous communities could meaningfully inform ESD initiatives internationally.

Inferring from the considerations above, two main aspects catch the eye of the researcher. Firstly, the analyses of both transformative learning and Buddhist/Eastern perspectives suggest that, besides feelings and emotions, (community and moral) values too significantly contribute to shaping learners’ transformative process (Keltner, 2009; Manni et al., 2017; Mezirow, 2009; Sterling, 2001). Secondly, there is not equal correspondence between learning and school environments, for the former often refers to knowledge sources, contents, and learning spaces that include larger communities. In this regard, a study on “service learning” (Pedersen et al., 2015) exposes how, after conducting community-based learning activities, students experienced increased levels of community involvement.

The emergence of movements like the “socially engaged Buddhism” (Toh & Cawagas, 2010) exemplifies the analogies between transformative learning and Buddhist approaches. This movement includes different branches of Buddhism and is based on linking Buddhist values with ESD demands and aims, individually and globally. It promotes active engagement “with the economic, political, social, and ecological problems of society…not separate from Buddhist spirituality, but is very much an expression of it” (King, 2009, p. 1). One of its most widespread examples is the Soka (value creating) education (Sharma, 2011), a branch of Buddhism originating in Japan and grounded in the Buddhist teachings of the master Nichiren Daishonin. It focuses on the interdependence and oneness between (subjective) individual self-reflection and “self-revolution” and changes in the broader (objective) environment, as a basis for improving the condition of society as a whole (Sharma, 2011). However, its shortcomings lay in the oversimplification of complex issues related to sustainable development and the role of broader sociopolitical power relations. Multidisciplinarity and integration of such aspects, in fact, constitute the core of ESD. Nevertheless, their approaches to sustainable learning practices need to be institutionalised within broader sustainable policy initiatives (King, 2009) in view of their considerable efforts to actively pursue sustainable practices. In this regard, research that explores the potential contributions of sustainable communities in developing countries could help bridge relevant policy links between their methods and the existing ESD scenario (Blum, 2008).

Considerations on the emergence of religious movements and research on the role of spiritual practices in the ecomodern discourse are discussed by Witoszek (2013) and Herrmann and Sugihara (Nicolaides & Holt, 2016) too. In the former, examples from Norway, Ghana, China, and India show how values and belief systems of different religious traditions are, indeed, already playing a role in fostering sustainable practices. Common recurring elements include wholeness and interdependence between humans and nature and the pursuit of “sustainability of the self” as a metaphor for sustainable systems. In the latter, the implications of two doctoral research projects (respectively, on incorporating global consciousness in post global service learners and exploring nondual views of global justice participants) are considered. They indicate that spiritual transformation and a shift towards a nondual outlook on reality play a pivotal role in fostering social engagement (Nicolaides & Holt, 2016). Likewise, the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds at University of Wisconsin-Madison conducts research on implementing a kindness curriculum ² to explore its impact on students’ social, emotional, and cognitive skills. Similarly, studies on Buddhist/Eastern and indigenous approaches to transformative learning emphasize on the intrinsic interdependence between individuals and the whole system of which they are part (Des Jarlais, 2008; Merriam & Kim, 2008). Equally, the interdisciplinary approach—Home Economics Education—undertaken in Japan after the 2011 earthquake (Pendergast et al., 2012, p. 219) provides further evidence of how critical thinking on local environmental issues can be encouraged by nurturing a sense of care and interdependence. Perhaps the largest “community” that has incorporated Buddhist philosophy into their sustainable practices is the state of Bhutan. Here, the guiding principle of “middle path” (a lifestyle refrained from extreme pleasurable or self-mortifying extravagances) has allowed to balance economic growth, cultural preservation, and the safeguard of the environment, together with the pioneering introduction of the Gross National Happiness Index. The latter, in fact, provides a measure of well-being that includes indicators, such as “cultural diversity and resilience,” “community vitality,” and “ecological diversity and resilience,” to name a few (Centre For Bhutan Studies & Gross National Happiness Research, 2016; Banerjee & Singh, 2013). Therefore, further exploration of analogous models promoting values in the relationship among individuals, communities, and their environments could meaningfully enrich ESD discourses.

Finally, outlining a conceptual framework that is sensitive to ongoing debates on issues of representation of indigenous knowledge within the literature necessitates some remarks (Tinker, 2007). In the effort to overcome ethnocentric perspectives on the existing dychotomies between “Western” and “Eastern”/“Indigenous” knowledge systems, way too often Western researchers reinforce such essentialist positionings. They do so by maintaining this divide and simply transposing validity and legitimacy from traditional Western systems of thinking to the “holistic, communitarian, and natural” perspectives attributed to the so-called indigenous knowledge systems (Giri & van Ufford, 2004). This article certainly intends to promote research that gives a voice to “other” ways of perceiving the relationship between humans and the environment. Nonetheless, it aims to do so not without problematizing this division in the first place. Research studies can overcome the limitations of the static and polarized view of Western versus Eastern/Indigenous knowledge systems. To do so, contextual representations and analysis of their complexities can be accomplished by exploring research participants’ perspectives and including them in the process of “self-representation” (Spencer, 1989, p. 159).

Proposed Methodology

The methodological approach proposed for this type of research is qualitative and interpretive in nature, namely, ethnographic case studies, as the most appropriate form of enquiry for the research focus and information sought. Ethnography provides a pertinent methodological framework for the epistemological and ontological assumptions inherent to the nature of such studies (Pole & Morrison, 2003). This technique of enquiry conforms with the intention of conducting research that is fundamentally relevant to the people involved (Denzin et al., 2008). In this regard, of particular importance is the use of a critical methodological perspective, where adopting a “moral lens” (Denzin et al., 2008, p. 9) enables a participative relationship with the community members, especially when bridging together differing paradigms (i.e., Western/Eastern perspectives). The case study of a school in the Indian Himalayas presents an instance of such approach, where the needs and knowledge of the local community reveal that:

diversity…was…in the way we perceive, in our belief systems, knowledge systems, the way we think and the process through which we arrive at our decisions. Essentially it was about the manner in which we deal with our sansar (the world around us) and establish relationships with the different entities within it (Penn, 2005, p. 125).

Concluding Remarks and Recommendations

The first part of this article concisely outlined how the notion of transformative learning emerged from the transition from an anthropocentric to a coevolutionary view of reality within ESD. This elucidated how a man-centred view produces learning of a transmissive nature, with the aim to equip learners with problem-solving knowledge and skills, thereby maintaining the subject–object (human–nature) divide. Moreover, parallels between this educational approach and broader international trends reproduce the aforesaid separation, in like manner, between developed and developing countries. Namely, ESD arrangements are usually designed by the former for the latter. In this regard, experts urge for the adoption of more participatory and dialogic measures in both relationships (i.e., between mankind and nature and between Global North and South).

Therefore, a coevolutionary perspective encompassing a more holistic and multidisciplinary approach—where humans and nature are perceived in equal terms—has been formulated in response to these shortcomings. This perspective elicits a new type of learning, of a transformative character, both for learners and for current dominant international paradigms.

Accordingly, an in-depth theoretical analysis of transformative learning and its relation to the aims of ESD was proposed, by drawing from the works of Mezirow, Dewey, Sterling, and others. Criticism of the theory was considered with regard to excessive focus on rationality within Mezirow’s conception of transformative learning. Furthermore, links between transformative learning and features of Buddhist/Eastern philosophical and spiritual approaches were delineated, to demonstrate the potential of incorporating these perspectives into ESD pedagogies. This conceptual and epistemological blend brought to light four main points of convergence, namely (i) inner experience, (ii) oneness of reality, (iii) moral sustainable values, and (iv) community curriculum. Additionally, by integrating these elements into transformative learning, the shortcomings of Mezirow’s theory could be turned into strengths by resolving the tension between rational and extrarational raised by his critics. Furthermore, to substantiate the theoretical framework thus formulated, empirical examples of similar sustainable models in various developing countries were provided. However, there is need for further research, institutionalisation and development of sustainable learning pedagogies relevant to these types of approaches and containing the above-mentioned four elements.

Two important elements emerged from the discussion. Firstly, an expanded learning space, beyond the school environment, plays a key role for community members’ cocreation of knowledge. In this regard, indigenous knowledge systems were regarded as precious in spurring epistemological perspective transformation and in aiding to sustainable practices. Secondly, “values”—besides feelings and emotions—are crucial to the transformative learning process, to support the transformation of the “self” and of wider economic, social, and environmental relationships. Finally, a brief section considering ethnography as a suitable methodology for studies based on this conceptual framework was included.

In light of these considerations, devising broadened community-based curricular approaches that integrate Buddhist/Eastern spiritual values and notions (including those of indigenous knowledge systems) represents a great potential. Their purpose would not be to merely replace current ESD approaches with a revamped traditional imprint. Rather, they would allow a transformative dialogue between already established sustainable learning programs and perspectives that have not yet been widely taken into account. Such transformative dialogue could spur locally innovative sustainable learning approaches, with the result of creating more equitable shifts globally. Additionally, the theoretical framework proposed in this article could be adopted in ongoing research studies of alternative sustainable learning models. Further research along these lines would, indeed, be needed in order to support and bring about the aforementioned pedagogical changes.