Microsoft Word Manus hp debatt nr 2 2017. docx

86
man needs, in both the South and the North. Evolutionary resi-
dues in our brains make us most interested in short term
commodity gains and higher quarterly revenues, a result of
instincts important for our ancestor’s survival in small hunter-
gatherer groups, but now only an obsolete feature in the global
complex world. Nevertheless, humankind’s activities undertak-
en individually in families or by big organizations are contrib-
uting to the devastation of global resources.
The urge for high quality education for sustainable develop-
ment in HE has been pointed out by the UN (2001)
7
and is re-
lated to the introduction of learning activities outside of disci-
plinary boundaries. The UN has expressed concerns about bla-
tant global non-sustainability and has called for sustainable
development that would both evolve and change. UN pro-
claimed 2005-2014 the decade of Sustainability Education
8
. In
the UN perspective, education for sustainable development
(ESD) is a continuous process of learning and elucidating new
approaches to leadership (decision-making) by those providing
formal, non-formal and informal learning. In this paper, we
prefer to use the expression Learning for Sustainability (LfS)
instead of ESD. LfS seems to reduce the reproduction of arte-
facts of unsustainable models and practices and goes beyond
the competences educators possess for good quality teaching in
their discipline.
Theoretical framework
It is important to see difference between Environmental Educa-
tion (EE) and Learning for Sustainability (LfS). The origin for
sustainability always lies in an environmental ecosystem, and
to gain progress and functioning in sustainability, education
7
UN Economic and Social Council (2001) Learning for future.
8
UNESCO UN Decade of ESD (2005-2014).

---

87
about
the environment must have a societal dimension and
explain how to make it function, i.e. learn for sustainability
9
.
SOLO - taxonomy
10
, a valuable tool of pedagogical methods that
is useful in any topic or discipline, elucidates how to under-
stand the structural processes of gaining knowledge in four
consecutive hierarchical steps. Principally, each step in SOLO
brings new knowledge beyond that of the previous level. The
two first steps (Biggs, Tang (2011
11
), known as a) the quantita-
tive declarative phase,
increase knowledge about the subject
matter. They identify the basic nomenclature, reveal known
structures and describe, combine and use a factual platform
grounded on evidence. The quantitative declarative phase is
based on historical knowledge sources up to the present time.
Historical (older) data are valuable for gathering facts in cau-
sality chains to avoid past flaws. The declarative phase is used
at the ground level of all scientific topics.
To a certain degree, the quantitative phase is used in the high-
est third and fourth steps, where SOLO embodies b) the qualita-
tive phase
of deep understanding
12
and functioning knowledge.
The third step is characterized by relational knowledge em-
powering the student’s ability to analyse, compare, relate and
explain causes, whilst the fourth, last step, consisting of an ex-
tended abstract, permits the student to theorize, hypothesize,
generalize and reflect
13
.
Question 1.
Does SOLO’s quantitative phase embrace sustaina-
bility?
9
Jucker, R. (2014) Do we know what we are doing?
10
Biggs, J., Collis, K. (1982) Evaluating the Quality of Learning.
11
Biggs, J., Tang, C., (2011) p 86-93.
12
(ibid, Marton and Säljö, p 90).
13
(ibid, p 91).

---

88
SOLO taxonomy develops education from a prestructural
“null”-level of understanding the topic to the highest level of
extended abstraction.
Current higher education spends time on teaching sustainabil-
ity through declarative knowledge, i.e. applying the quantitative
phase in SOLO’s unistructural and multistructural levels: ac-
cepted theories, methods and evidence. It uses historical facts
and is consequently always a step behind the latest develop-
ments. Superannuated information approaches measures and
improvements in recognized unsustainable issues using tools
that, in most cases, correspond to the knowledge that produced
them.
Teaching with focus on the quantitative phase will consume
time and miss or constrain the more important learning out-
come – a higher level of deep understanding. In the sustainabil-
ity context, declarative knowledge means teaching about facts
that bring the past to the present time, whereas functioning
knowledge in the qualitative phase relates current decision-
making processes to future aspects (Fig 1).
The declarative knowledge achieved in the quantitative phase
does not outline means of prevention or alternative methods of
solving yet undeclared tasks. To resolve sustainability prob-
lems requires, on one hand, a deep understanding of many dis-
ciplines eligible to pick up and, on the other hand, broad (deep)
responsiveness of cooperation among disciplines appropriate
for establishing a coherent methodology to attain the relevant
goal.
Sustainability is not an established scientific discipline. From
this perspective it makes room for Question 2.

---