Development of an ESD Indicator for Teacher Training and the National Monitoring for ESD Implementation in Germany

Werner Rieß,Antje Brock,Eva-Maria Waltner

doi:10.3390/su10072508

Abstract

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is a core element of UNESCO’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs) Target 4.7, which seeks to ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development through education for sustainable development. The German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) followed suit in 2015 and launched a high scale national monitoring of the current state of ESD implementation. In this context, suitable ESD indicators should be analyzed to inform policy and research agendas. The present project is part of the national monitoring within Germany’s Global Action Program (GAP) actions. The research team at the University of Education in Freiburg conducted a study to evaluate the accessibility of data and the measurability of ESD-relevant teacher training (TT). During the two-step procedure for data collection on ESD-relevant TTs in Germany, an extensive list of ESD related search terms first captured 66,935 TTs with possible ESD relevance in the evaluation period. Second, the collected data was analyzed using Mayring’s qualitative content analysis. The 66,935 TTs were thereby reduced to 3818 TTs with different degrees of ESD relevance. The results of the evaluation study show that suitable ESD indicators, the FESD (formula for the ESD-indicator for TTs) (basic), FESD (basic, rated) and FESD (pro), could be developed and calculated for 15 of 16 federal states in Germany. The gathered insights show a path towards ESD monitoring in TT to clarify the needs and achievements of ESD implementation in the field of continuing education of teachers. However, the presented indicators only show a possible path for ESD indicator development. A comprehensive set of ESD indicators should also focus on the micro or output (e.g., ESD competencies) level. These insights for the future seem worth striving for not only in Germany or on the national level but also internationally to foster ESD, Target 4.7 of the SDGs and the SDGs in general.

Highlights

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is placed at the center of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and has been widely recognized as a key enabler of sustainable development and an integral element of quality education [1] (p. 4)
The FESD can be understood as a robust proxy indicator that can quickly enable stakeholders dealing with ESD or teacher training (TT) to evaluate how the ESD implementation evolves over time
The ESD indicator on TT, as part a of a larger set of ESD indicators, can serve to promote “comparison of performance, monitoring and data collection” [72] and foster benchmarking processes and political target setting. It can be seen as an important driver in promoting the structural implementation of ESD, while addressing the following questions: “How do stakeholders know that an increased understanding of ESD and indicators develops? How can stakeholders work productively to build ownership and commitment? and Are stakeholders improving their ability to assess ESD progress?” ([10], p. 32)

Summary

Introduction

ESD is placed at the center of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and has been widely recognized as a key enabler of sustainable development and an integral element of quality education [1] (p. 4). The department of the scientific advisor is responsible for the wide-scale national monitoring of the current state of ESD implementation with the aim of informing the stakeholders involved in the GAP structure, the scientific community, and the public about the status quo of ESD in Germany and effective measures for upscaling it. This implementation structure of the GAP addresses what Læssøe and Mochizuki [5] have identified as missing elements in the actual governance efforts related to ESD, i.e., a lack of concrete national action plans, curricula frameworks and guidelines, fragmentation, a lack of coordinating bodies, a lack of systematic monitoring and evaluation of ESD policy efforts, as well as what happens in practice These studies mainly had a macro focus or relied on self-report surveys with dichotomous scale (yes/no) formats (e.g., see [12,13,14,15])

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion