Microsoft Word Manus hp debatt nr 2 2017. docx

89
Question 2.
Are advanced levels of understanding within SOLO’s
qualitative phase
sufficiently up-to-date for students to learn to
tackle emerging sustainability problems?
Some researchers argue that a deeper understanding and focus
on the topic in general is more important than pinpointing cur-
rent (un)sustainability in the curriculum and therefore they
consider that sustainability is integrated.
Epistemology and worldview become even more important
elements to consider in education. Emphasis should be on par-
ticipation, appreciation, gender, equity and community instead
of individualism, manipulation, rivalry and control. A holistic
and critical approach must be developed in generic terms. The-
se aspects form the basis of a model for transformation all of
the societal system
14
. Universities and educators need to de-
velop an understanding of key ecological concepts to prevent
learners from retaining their own misconceptions, following
from poor understanding of essential ideas related to sustaina-
bility. Sustainable development requires a change in our con-
temporary mindset. Sterling (2013)
15
stated two problems
within higher education:
“…first, higher education institutions are not primari-
ly reflexive learning systems (learning organisations)
but teaching and research systems. Second, higher
education is not primarily engaged in the provision of
deep learning to students, but in first-order learning:
the transmission of information and the develop-
ment of instrumental skills aligned (increasingly) to
the perceived need of the economy.”
14
Sterling, S. (2009).
15
Sterling, S., Maxey, L., Luna, H., Editors (2013), p 34.

---

90
Learning for sustainability (LfS) extends and adapts present
'declarative knowledge'
to the educators' toolkit of 'functioning
knowledge'
as an intrinsic part, regardless of the teaching topic.
LfS explains the phenomenon of sustainable development
through numerous perspectives and variable contexts.
LfS challenges the paradigms on which the level itself is built.
LfS is related to stipulate learning outcomes and the effects of
sustainability in societal practice.
LfS boosts progression and includes tools and unrestrained
activities of a general character not restricted to specific disci-
plines.
LfS is supposed to link to SOLO at the extended abstract level of
functioning knowledge in a qualitative phase of deeper under-
standing aiming to promote inter-/trans-disciplinarity.
LfS also concerns regulations improving both corporate man-
agement and mitigating environmental burdens at a practical
level, through increasing the learner’s comprehension and
commitment to sustainability (Fig 1).
LfS tools encompass a hidden hiatus appearing simultaneously
to the ‘functioning knowledge’ and outstretching the highest
levels of SOLO (Fig 1).
In our perspective, LfS educates for the future. It leaves a safe
harbour of permitted practices, methodologies and outlines
new perspectives, comprehendible solutions originating in il-
lumination of complexity, instability, dynamics, unpredictabil-
ity, unaccountability, interactivity and differentiation of incom-
ing problems. Concrete tools for LfS, found elsewhere, and
compiled user-friendly by Roorda (2001)
16
, will grasp and help
get around the complexity and dynamics of sustainability is-
sues in higher education pedagogy. The fifth level of SOLO en-
16
Roorda, N. (2001) AISHE.

---

91
compassing a deep understanding with a systemic, holistic and
transdisciplinary approach to attain the intended learning out-
comes for sustainability can thus be introduced.
Regulations 
Higher educational institutions (HE) in Sweden are urged by
law to include sustainable development in their educational
program:
“In the course of their operations, higher education
institutions shall promote sustainable development
to assure for present and future generations a sound
and healthy environment, economic and social wel-
fare, and justice.”
17
In addition to all the governmental authorities in Sweden, HE
are also required by law
18
to implement environmental man-
agement systems (EMS) in their processes. The introductory
environmental review defines education as a significant envi-
ronmental aspect at universities. Consequently, according to
the ordinance
19
, universities should register their environmen-
tal management system based on EMAS
20
or certify it in ac-
cordance with ISO 14001
21
. Nevertheless, a university can
demonstrate compliance with ISO by a) self-determination and
self-declaration (internal) or b) a confirmation by stake holders
(internal second party audit) or c) an external third-party au-
dit.
17
The Swedish Higher Education Act (SFS 1992:1434), Chap 1, Sec 5.
18
Ordinance SFS 2009:907.
19
(ibid, 2 §)
20
EU Eco- management and audit scheme,
EG 1221/2009 (EMAS).
21
SS-
EN ISO 14001:2015.

---

92
Environmental management system (EMS), why ISO? 
The International Organisation of Standards (ISO) has the ac-
tive support and participation of 163 nations and 700 interna-
tional organizations. More than 1300 standards coordinate ac-
tivities in a widespread range of disciplines, from treatment of
waste water and drinking water, e.g. improving sanitation for
2.4 billion people, to management issues. ISO 14001 is one of
eleven globally most used management
22
standards, altogether
with more than 1.6 million certificates. During the past, man-
agement standards have been updated to an identical core, im-
proving integration with many other management systems. In
Sweden, 3700 companies comply with the environmental man-
agement standard and 4300 with the quality standard. Other
management standards are related to IT, road traffic security,
information security, food, medical devices, automotive pro-
duction, business continuity, energy, and the supply chain. This
frequent use of management standards in Sweden and abroad
makes it predictable for students in management positions to
meet relevant systems as part of their engagements.
The latest version of ISO 14001 introduces a new core of man-
agement standards, called Annex SL
23
, with several vital chang-
es concerning interpretation and implementation, e.g. defini-
tion of the (in)direct environmental aspect is removed and all
aspects are evaluated on the basis of risk assessment. The in-
tention is to make standards more dynamic and flexible for
integration with the organization’s main management systems,
i.e. all the aspects the organization can control are embraced
and no environmental aspect is addressed explicitly in ad-
vance:
22
www.iso.org
, Executive summary 2016. September 2017.
23
Annex SL (normative) (2015) Proposal for management systems standards.

---

93
‘… in all circumstances it is the organization that de-
termines the degree of control it is able to exercise,
the environmental aspects it can influence, and the
extent to which it chooses to exercise any such influ-
ence.’

‘The organization should understand which needs
and expectations of parties become compliance re-
sponsibility.’

‘The organization shall consider processes rather
than routines in the previous version of the standard
and maintain them to the extent necessary to have
confidence that the processes can be carried out as
planned.’
The iterative circular arrangement in PDCA
24
(Fig 2) in a man-
agement system ensures continuous improvement to an in-
creasingly higher level of the monitored process, i.e. education
in this case. EMS cannot be treated as a project but is a contin-
uous, on-going and actively developing process comprehensi-
ble at higher educational institutions. A mode of management
strategy developed in Annex SL is proposed be part of SOLO’s
outstretched level five.
Results
Today’s objectives in management systems are to create and
disseminate divergent solutions to emerging problems, not to
uphold the status quo hegemony of collective knowledge. SOLO
does not relate to the broad societal needs of learning for sus-
tainability, either explicitly or implicitly. SOLO deserves devel-
oping connectivity to sustainability by the suggested fifth level,
even when the highly respected fourth step (Fig 1) theorizes
and reflects on an extended abstract level.
24
Deming, E. has introduced PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act, by Shewhart, W.).

---

94
The latest changes in EMS (ISO 14001:2015), especially those
concerning the engagement of top management and environ-
mental aspects, acknowledge a highly qualified contribution
and accentuation of activities striving to establish learning for
sustainability in higher education. This approach corresponds
to the academic freedom to define and analyse significant envi-
ronmental aspects in syllabuses and appeals to the university’s
leadership and performance amplification. The restructuring of
SOLO by the fifth level will improve the learning progression
mechanism, essential for both academic discipline and the stu-
dents’ awareness and comprehension of sustainability. As we
understand it, this fifth level in SOLO has not yet been consid-
ered, introduced or implemented by universities.
Discussion
Obstacles identified  
Do we have to teach/learn all the earlier (established, descrip-
tive) knowledge within a specific theme to the extent that we
do now, or can we make room for functioning knowledge to
promote LfS? Not surprisingly, frequent comments consider
the time budget for the course’s discipline to be sacred. Con-
nections to sustainability are not noticeable and they remain
somewhere outside the subject matter, not as an intrinsic part
of the discipline or the education.
Educators refer to their insufficient or shallow knowledge of
sustainability.
Educators are asking for a suitable frame/model showing what
is sustainable and what is not.
Educators are not motivated to teach beyond their responsibil-
ity as high quality specialists in the discipline.

---

95
Restructuring
the syllabus is time-consuming when the aim is
to find new perspectives with suitable LfS activities referring to
the discipline.
Initially, it is not easy to
understand the students’ preconceived
worldview about sustainability.
Ensure
the novelties in syllabus are sustainable, by complying
with the strategy and policy of the university.
Activity objectives for up-to-date education  
Implement
LfS-tools compliant with the type of discipline in
courses and programs.
Emphasize
the learner’s approach to deep understanding of
transdisciplinary relationships, providing a reliable base for
resolution of emerging problems.
Verify
the role of management standards as LfS-tools in higher
education.
Ensure
curriculum awareness of sustainability through connec-
tion to the 17 goals in UN Agenda 2030.
Methodology 
Start
with the LfS-tool list in Roorda (2001).
Compile
accessible course activity tools suitable for LfS.
Assess
annual management performance reports.
25
Manage sustainability surveys
addressing educators, students
and alumni in prolonged time studies. Start preferably with
Roorda (2001).
25
Swedish universities report to The Ministry of Education and Research and to
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

---

96
Appraise
the effects of environmental management standards
(EMS) on environmental aspects in general and compare LfS
with the intended outcomes and engagement of leadership at
the university (Fig 2).
Reflect
if the following sustainability phrase - ‘Sustainability
means be useful for many, for a long time and not destroying eco
systems or natural resources’
would be a helpful guide to open-
ing sustainability discourse?
Education for a sustainable future depends on an educator’s
reliable functioning knowledge and acceptability of LfS inte-
grated in the curricula. If educators do not understand complex
relationships in earth and human systems
26
, holistic and sys-
temic perspectives, how can they then teach sustainability to
students? Here we might be facing one of the fundamental
problems of progress towards sustainable development: sys-
temic illiteracy.
The toolkit of Roorda (2001) for LfS consists in a battery of
methods/pedagogical activities used elsewhere in HE. The dif-
ference from disciplinary coherence is learning to keep a broad
focus to ensure that the arguments are reasonable for many, for
a long time, and have the lowest impact on the environment that
we depend on
.
27
The learning outcomes of LfS explain how the tool approach to
sustainability can be used, not what the sustainability goals
themselves would be. The annual audit and performance re-
port comments on the enhancement level related to sustaina-
bility objectives. Back-casting (frequently used) can get us on
26
IPCC The Fourth Assessment Report, Figure I.1.
27
Expression inspired by ‘conservation programme’ Roosevelt, Th (1858-1919),
in Scott, W., Gough, S. (2004) Key issues in sustainable development and learn-
ing, A critical review. RoutledgeFalmer, NY.

---

97
the track, while adjustments of timetables and suitable
measures must be revised on the go.
The methodology of LfS is freely generic, and it should be
trained as an integrated part of education, not solely developed
to serve only a specific discipline. It is freely applicable and
suitable for further exploitation of progression in pedagogy as
well as simultaneously broadening and deepening understand-
ing of the subject.
The declarative (known) knowledge is historical, from ancient
sources up to latest yesterday’s news. Educational activities in
LfS compile appropriate historical parts and modern features
to create improved methods for solving emerging problems.
LfS applies new values, attitudes and competences suitable for
risk evaluation, challenging paradigms and executing new pro-
cesses for a more sustainable future. LfS-tools applied to uni-
versity programs would help accomplish this goal.

---

98

---

99

---

100
References
Annex SL (normative) (2015). Proposal for management sys-
tems standards.
ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Consolidated ISO
Supplement.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning:
the SOLO taxonomy
. New York, Academic Press.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at
University
. 4
th
Ed, McGraw-Hill, NY.
Brundtland Commission (1987). Our common future. UN Doc-
uments, Annex to A/42/427, WCED.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. A Crest Reprint, Fawcett Publi-
cations, Greenwich, Conn.
Club of Rome (1968). International think-tank. Meadows D., et
al (1972) Limits to growth. Potomac Associates.
Deming, E. has introduced PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act, by
Shewhart, W.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming#PDCA_m
yth.
EU Eco- management and audit scheme, EG 1221/2009 (EMAS).
Jucker, R. (2014). Do we know what we are doing? Cambridge
Scholar Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
McKeatchie, W.J., & Svinicki, M.D. (2014). McKeatchie´s Teach-
ing tips
. Cengage Learning, Wadsworth.
Ordinance SFS 2009:907, update 2017:382, 3 §, 22-32 §§.
Roorda, N. (2001). AISHE, Auditing Instrument for Sustainability
in Higher Education.
Mälardalens Högskola 2008:4.
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 

---

101
SS EN ISO 14001:2015 Environmental management systems –
Requirements with guidance
.
Sterling, S. (2009). Sustainable education in: D. Gray, L., Science,
Society and Sustainability.
Education and Empowerment for an
Uncertain world,
Routledge, NY.
Sterling, S., Maxey, L., & Luna, H., Editors (2013). The sustaina-
ble University. Progress and prospects.
Routledge, NY.
Tegmark, M. (2017). Life 3.0, Being Human in the Age of Artifi-
cial Intelligence
. Knopf Publishing Group.
UN Economic and Social Council (2001) Learning for future
Competences in Education for Sustainable Development
(ECE/CEP/AC.13/2001/6).
UN General Assembly (September 2015) The 17 SDG.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org Transforming our
world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
A/RES/70/1.
UNESCO UN Decade of ESD (2015-2014).
https://en.unesco.org
.
www.iso.org
, Executive summary 2016. September 2017.

---

Document Outline

• Tom sida