Search results

This research aims to investigate the role of project-based-learning within graduate sustainability curricula through the lens of key competence development. Project-based learning has become a widely recommended pedagogy for sustainability education. It is hypothesized that through collaboration, student autonomy and real-world application, students develop key competencies for sustainability. This paper also aims to examine the connection between project-based learning and competence development on a program level from the student perspective.

This two-year comparative case study follows the project-based-learning journeys of nine graduate sustainability students from three programs: the Master’s of Sustainability at Arizona State University, the Master’s of Sustainability Science at Leuphana University of Lüneburg and the Global Sustainability Science Master’s, an ASU and Leuphana collaboration. Over four semesters, the students each took part in four competence-oriented self-assessments and interviews to map their perceived learning throughout their programs. Additional contextual information was gathered from program and course materials and descriptions, instructor interviews and in vivo observations.

The defining aspects of project-based learning including collaboration, student autonomy and real-world connection do contribute to students’ self-perceived competence development. Student-driven and program-driven project-based learning experiences equally foster this result, as long as the pedagogical challenges of balancing support and student independence associated with each are mitigated through instructor actions, program design or individual student coping skills.

The results of this research can support higher education institutions in designing sustainability programs aimed at competence development through project-based learning. The focus on the curricular and program level combined with repeated overtime student-reported attribution to specific courses and activities bridges the gap between individual course case studies and theoretical recommendations for curriculum design. In addition to length and depth, this study also forefronts student experience of curricula as delivered.

This paper aims to present an experience-based learning framework that provides a bottom-up, student-centered entrance point for the development of systems thinking, normative and collaborative competencies in sustainability.

The framework combines mental mapping with exploratory walking. It interweaves mapping and walking activities with methodological and theoretical inputs as well as with reflections and discussions. The framework aligns experiential activities, i.e. mental mapping and walking, with learning objectives, i.e. novice-level sustainability competencies. The authors applied the framework for student activities in Phoenix/Tempe and Hamburg/Lüneburg as part of The Global Classroom, a project between Arizona State University in the USA and Leuphana University of Lüneburg in Germany.

The application of the experience-based learning framework demonstrates how students started developing systems thinking (e.g. understanding urban systems as functional entities and across different domains), normative (e.g. using different sustainability principles) and collaborative (e.g. learning across disciplinary, social and cultural differences) competencies in sustainability.

The experience-based learning framework contributes to the development of curricular activities for the initial development of sustainability competencies in introductory-level courses. It enables students from different disciplinary, social and cultural backgrounds, e.g. in international education, to collaboratively start developing such competencies. The framework can be adapted to different educational contexts.

This paper aims to investigate student experiences and the potential impact of experience-based learning (EBL) in the early phase of graduate sustainability programs through the lens of key competencies. The goal is to provide evidence for the improvement of existing and the thorough design of new EBL formats in sustainability programs.

This comparative case study focuses on the first semester of three graduate sustainability programs at Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany and Arizona State University, USA, for two of which EBL was a core feature. The study compares the curricula, the teaching and learning environments and the reported experiences of one student cohort from each of three programs and synthesizes the resulting insights. Student interviews were combined with student self-assessments and supported by in-vivo observations, curriculum designer input, instructor interviews and course materials. MAXQDA was used for data analysis following a grounded theory approach.

EBL influences students’ reflective capacity, which impacts the development of key competencies in sustainability. Qualitative analysis found four key themes in relation to the students’ learning in EBL settings, namely, discomfort, time-attention relationship, student expectations of instructors and exchange. The intersection of these themes with curricular structure, student dispositions and differing instructor approaches shows how curriculum can either support or interrupt the reflective cycle and thus, holistic learning.

With the focus on the first semester only, the students’ competence development over the course of the entire program cannot be demonstrated. Learning processes within EBL settings are complex and include aspects outside the control of instructors and curriculum designers. This study addresses only a select number of factors influencing students’ learning in EBL settings.

Early engagement with EBL activities can push students to leave their comfort zones and question previous assumptions. Designing curricula to include EBL while encouraging strong intra-cohort connections and creating space for reflection seems to be an effective approach to enable the development of key competencies in sustainability.

This paper investigates the experiences of students in EBL through a key competence lens. The study combines student self-perceptions, instructor reflections and in-vivo observations. Data collection and analysis were conducted by a researcher not affiliated with the programs. These factors make for a unique study design and with data-driven insights on the seldom researched competence-pedagogy-curriculum connection.

This study aims to illuminate the limited understanding of viable social business among corporate actors in developing countries. It addresses pressing environmental and societal problems, emphasizing the need for corporate participation in sustainable solutions. Additionally, the study explores the transformational business notion linking company achievement with social progress, an increasingly studied concept in management.

Based on a transdisciplinary case study (i.e. a university-industry collaboration [UIC]), this study proposed a structural framework and guiding principles to integrate the academic and practitioners’ different but complementary resources and expertise.

The outcomes could provide insights for social entrepreneurs to perform highly optimal decisions on their organisational strategies, in which the financial-then-social pathway could be an effective social business success mechanism.

Besides, the case study also generates each five learning lessons and challenges coping strategies that provide practical guidance on operationalising an effective UIC. The empirical findings contribute to social entrepreneurship and sustainability science literature.

That institutions of higher education should cooperate with one another is hardly an uncommon idea. In recent years, especially since colleges and universities began to feel pressures for growth and, later, constraints of financial stringency, the general concept of interinstitutional cooperation has been advocated with enthusiasm and near unanimity; national commissions have recommended it and governments have virtually demanded it. But what is much less common is knowledge about the formal arrangements by which cooperation has been achieved widely in the United States and now is the object of serious consideration and some application in other countries. The consortium is not the only application of the cooperative idea. Councils, coordinating boards, compacts, federations, are all forms of cooperative arrangements among colleges and universities, but the inter‐institutional lexicon is not exact and these forms are not distinct. Because the consortium is the most formal and complex organization for inter‐institutional cooperation, it represents well almost all of the characteristics and problems of all cooperative endeavor between higher educational institutions. Thus, the observations and conclusions made about the consortium have a broader applicability. This discussion will address four basic questions about inter‐institutional cooperation as represented by the consortium: What motivates colleges and universities to cooperate with one another? What are the advantages of inter‐institutional cooperation? What are the disadvantages? What are the organizational and managerial problems of the consortium?

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how the province over time has addressed problems that are generic to many jurisdictions in assuring quality: level of aggregation, pooling, definition of new and continuing programs, scope of jurisdiction, role of governors, performance indicators, relationship to accreditation, programs versus credentials, benchmarking and isomorphism. The paper will pay particular attention to the balance between institutional autonomy in promoting quality and innovation in contrast to system-wide standards for assuring quality. The Province of Ontario has had some form of quality assurance since 1969. For most of the period since then, there were separate forms for undergraduate and graduate programs. Eligibility for public funding is based on the assurance of quality by a buffer body. In 2010, after two years of work, a province-wide task force devised a new framework.

The structure of the paper is a series of “problem/solution” discussions, for example, aggregation, pooling, isomorphism and jurisdiction.

Some problems are generic, for example, how to define a “new” program. Assuring quality and enhancing quality are fundamentally different in terms of process.

Although many of the problems discussed are generic, the paper is based on the experience of one jurisdiction.

The article will be useful in post-secondary systems seeking to balance autonomy and innovation with central accountability and standardization. It is particularly applicable to undifferentiated systems.

Implications for public policy are mainly about locating the most effective center of gravity between assuring quality and enhancing quality, and between promoting quality and ensuring accountability.

The approach of the discussion and analysis is novel, and the results portable.

This paper aims at presenting the theoretical concepts of the transdisciplinary case study approach (TCS), which is a research and teaching approach developed and elaborated at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), as a means of transition support.

The paper reveals the historical roots of case studies, transdisciplinarity and sustainable development as teaching and research paradigms. The TCS approach is presented, which has been developed at ETH for supporting transition management of regional, urban, and organizational systems. This approach is entrenched by an ontology that reveals the basic characteristics of ill‐defined transition problems, an epistemology that refers to Probabilistic Functionalism and distinguishes between multi‐layered systemic and normative epistemics, a methodology that includes a set of methods for case representation (including modelling and projection), assessment, and strategy building, and a project management model that refers to more than a dozen TCSs in the field of sustainable development. Problems of validity of TCSs as a research methodology are discussed.

Three major strengths of the TCS approach presented in the paper are: that it is based on three sound paradigms, which focus on different, relevant characteristics of complex, human‐environment systems; i.e. the case study approach, transdisciplinarity and sustainable development, that it is strictly organized according to an elaborated and consistent theoretical framework that includes ontological, epistemological, methodological, and organizational considerations, and that it is itself subject to an ongoing inquiry and adaptation process. All theoretical considerations of the paper are clarified be elaborated examples from the more than 10 years experience with TCS of the authors.

The paper gives a comprehensive overview of the theoretical foundation of TCS that might assist other scientists engaged in case study research and teaching to further develop their approaches. Additionally, relevant topics for further research in the field of TCS are presented which hopefully induce an inspiring discussion among case study researchers.

As far we know, this paper is one of the first that presents a comprehensive and theoretically sound overview of applying transdisciplinary case studies as means of sustainability learning. Thus, it can be seen as a first, crucial step for establishing the new research field of TCS research and a sound research community of complex, transdisciplinary problem solving towards sustainability learning.

For teachers to fully enact pedagogy rooted in equity and inclusion, they must have access to purposeful systems and tools supporting proactive and collaborative planning built explicitly to center the needs of those historically denied full access to learning. This chapter takes on the historical injustices that have been perpetuated within public education in the United States since its inception and presents practical tools and systems (rooted in research and refined in the field) that can promote more equitable day-to-day teaching and learning in classrooms.