Sustainability Education and the Built Environment: Experiences from the Classroom

Abstract

Embracing sustainability will change the way we work and live in the 21st century – it will be a primary focus in our intellectual and material work, and in our collective and individual lives. The key role education can play in readdressing the human–nature disconnect, which is a central cause of crisis facing modern society, is broadly accepted. However, despite international calls for a transformation of education systems to a sustainability education model, there is little evidence of change in practice. This article aims to help fill this gap by presenting research on sustainability education praxis, focusing on a sustainability course delivered in the School of Property, Construction and Project Management at RMIT University, Melbourne. Sustainability education is especially relevant to professions involved in the built environment, as they play a role in the overconsumption of natural resources and shape the interface between individuals within their communities and the natural environment. The aim of the research presented here was to critique the effectiveness of the BUIL 1229 Managing for Sustainability course through a combination of reflective practice and the results of an attitudinal survey of the 2010 student cohort. Specifically, it sought to identify if and to what degree key elements of sustainability education praxis, including pedagogy, learning and teaching approaches and curriculum, achieved the prescribed learning objectives and aims of the course.

Keywords:

• educational praxis
• pedagogy
• learning and teaching methods
• curriculum development

Introduction

The Need for Sustainability Education

Professions of the built environment have played a role in the decline of our natural, human and social capital (OECD 2003, Sivam & Karuppannan 2010). This occurs at all stages of development, from the generation of raw materials, construction and life of a building through to its eventual demolition and disposal to landfill. The OECD (2003) states that buildings consume 32 per cent of the world’s resources, including up to 40 per cent of its energy and 12 per cent of its fresh water, produce 40 per cent of waste going to landfill and contribute 40 per cent of air emissions. These are significant figures, as we are increasingly faced with a variety of environmental constraints, such as water availability and excessive levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and they have implications for our social and economic systems through fiscal and social policies (MA 2005, Porritt 2007). Additionally, the character, design and sustainability of our buildings can improve the social and human capital of those living and working within them (Cotgrave & Alkhaddar 2006, Edwards 1999, Langston & Ding 2001, Sivam & Karuppannan 2010, Webb 2000). Sustainable buildings contribute to community at the local level through the development of social justice and economic viability (Morgan & Talbot 2001, Woolcock & Narayan 2000). They improve the quality of life within the dwelling, contributing to 'social and psychological satisfaction. Sustainable physical design can contribute to quality of life’ (Hasic 2001, p329). Consequently, it is imperative for the building industry’s long-term viability to ensure its graduates, across the disciplines of the built environment, are well equipped for the challenges of sustainability.

However, Kemmis (2008), Orr (2001), Robottom & Hart (1993) and Sterling (1996) believe a scientific worldview dominates the field of formal education, which is then reflected in our ‘educated’ society (Fricker 1998). This positivist approach seeks ‘to apply the standards and methods of the natural sciences to the problems of education’ (Robottom & Hart 1993, p29). This kind of thinking is a direct product of the dominant motives and interests of a Western worldview: efficiency, effectiveness and productivity. Education of this nature does not promote the development of skills or the ability of individuals to recognise the dominant ideology. Jucker (2002a, b) concludes that in its current conceptualisation Western education has been successful in reinforcing an understanding of what is unsustainable rather than what is sustainable.

Consequently, the dominance of the scientific worldview in formal education is under increasing scrutiny. According to Capra (1982), it is no longer a sufficient model of reality. Huckle (2005) and Kuhn (1970) suggest that new ways of thinking continually need to emerge so that we are able to explain and question our own worldviews and models of thinking, allowing deep reflection on personal and societal value positions. This is critical, as “… meaning is a property which is emergent in both individuals and communities through the interactions of different ways of knowing” (Bawden 1997, p4). Lazlo (2006) and Robottom & Hart believe a new philosophical and conceptual framework (a new worldview) is emerging, one in which ‘new social, ethical, ecological, epistemological and ontological problems’ are included (1993, p34). The challenge for educators is to bring about and empower a change in attitude and behaviour. This can occur only if ethics and values are reinstituted into education and learners are provided with the skills to critically reflect on and question the implications of their decisions (Fricker 1998, Henn & Andrews 1997).

Sustainability in higher education aims to give students the knowledge, skills and attributes to address current and future challenges in their personal and professional lives (Sterling 2001). Sustainability education has been described “as a unique educational concept” (Barth & Michelsen 2013, p106), that “challenge[s] conventional modes of education and require[s] new methods for integrative learning” (Fortuin & Bush 2010, p20). Consequently, there is an enormous opportunity for the industry, through sustainability education, to address the gap in knowledge and professional application.

BUIL1229 Managing for Sustainability

In 2010, a new sustainability subject BUIL 1229 Managing for Sustainability was developed and taught across the first year cohort in the School of Property, Construction and Project Management at RMIT University. The subject forms part of the Common Program Architecture all first year undergraduate students within the School must undertake. The Common Program Architecture provides an opportunity for the enhancement of the student learning experience by fostering both subject-specific and transferable skills through interdisciplinary learning. The subject requires students to explore the diverse definitions of sustainability using the dimensions of natural environment, society and culture and the economy and to develop their own definition of sustainability, which requires them to reflect on their personal and subsequent professional practice of sustainability, including recognition of the different philosophical/disciplinary orientations and the emerging consequences in practice. By using the concept of sustainability to explore assumptions, biases and the limitations of existing approaches to practice, it is hoped that students will be able to develop a critically reflexive approach to their own practice. The culmination of this should result in more informed graduates and professionals and the improvement in our collective environmental, human, social and economic capital.

This article offers the lived experience in the journey of the conceptualisation, development and delivery of a sustainability course for professionals in the field of the built environment. Additionally, it critiques the effectiveness of the BUIL 1229 course through a combination of reflective practice and analysis of completion results of an attitudinal survey of the 2010 student cohort. The following section first defines sustainability education praxis and outlines the research methodology. An overview of the BUIL 1229 course and reflection on the educational praxis combined with relevant quantitative and qualitative data from the research is then presented.

Sustainability Education in Higher Education

Sustainability education must equip graduates with the capabilities to problem solve, reflect, think systemically and critically, be able to make timely and insightful decisions (Hegarty 2008) that will begin to future proof a world constrained by limited natural resources and an increasing population. As sustainability is a value-laden, abstract concept, its interpretation and application within an educational context will result in different educational experiences, learning outcomes and capabilities (Hegarty 2008, Holdsworth et al. 2008). Given this, sustainable development and related forms of education are contested and open to interpretation. The following presents the widely accepted typologies of education underpinned by a sustainability paradigm drawn from the work of Sterling (2001), a recognised leader in the field of sustainability education and research. Sterling identifies three different typologies, which embody different degrees of understanding, constructing, and translating knowledge:

• education about sustainability, or ‘learning as maintenance’ (p60), which does not challenge the current paradigm;

• education for sustainability, which is ‘an adaptive response that equates to second-order learning’ (p60) based on values and capability;

• education as sustainability, or sustainable education, which facilitates third-order learning and change, and a creative and paradigmatic response to sustainability.

Sterling argues that these three types of sustainability education range from transmissive to transformative in their pedagogical approach. Education about sustainability is based on the transmission of facts or knowledge about sustainability. It involves the transfer of knowledge about sustainability and is usually added to existing subjects that may also present ideas contrary to sustainability. Education for sustainability adapts curriculum content by ‘building in’ sustainability into subjects in ‘an attempt to teach values and skills perceived to be associated with sustainability …’ (Sterling 2003, p285). Sterling (2001) argues that the third kind of sustainability education, education as sustainability, ‘is a transformative, epistemic education paradigm, which is increasingly able to facilitate a transformative learning experience’ (p61). Education as sustainability, or sustainable education, is holistic, where learning is approached as change, requiring the engagement of the whole person and institution (Sterling 2001).

Education as sustainability is the approach that has informed the development of the BUIL1229 course, and it is this focus on transformative learning that makes sustainability education the preferred terminology and approach to education discussed in this article. Good practice sustainability education requires a paradigm shift from transmissive to transformative learning (Cotton & Winter 2010). Part of this involves praxis-oriented learning based on reflection on practice and experience, which then informs future practice. Knowledge of sustainability and sustainable education is developed through a learning cycle. This sustainability education praxis is undertaken by both students and educators. Effective sustainability education is underpinned by this concept of sustainability education praxis, which requires the educator to continually reflect on their understandings of sustainability, pedagogy, and teaching methods, which then feeds back into improved teaching. This is in line with Sterling’s education as sustainability, which sees educating about sustainability not as a fixed practice but as a process of continual pedagogical development based on reflective practice.

Improving teaching and learning practice requires educators to consider themselves as active learners, recognising that they construct their own understanding of knowledge. The process of reflection is especially important for those engaging in sustainability education, given that the sustainability paradigm is contested and open to epistemological interpretations (Chappell (2007), Henn & Andrews 1997, McAlpine & Weston 2000 argues that reflection is an essential ingredient of the learning process and that unless lecturers engage in critical reflection and ongoing discovery, they stay trapped in unexamined judgements, interpretations, assumptions and expectations. According to Barnett (1992), reflective practice enables lecturers to compare their teaching with their own experience, highlight differences between theory and practice, so the reflective process thus becomes a means of re-conceptualisation. The key elements of sustainability education praxis include the following:

• Pedagogy: As educators we must be aware of our philosophical beliefs and the role these play in shaping our educational practice (Summers et al. 2005).

• Learning and teaching: Student learning must embody self-reflection and question personal values and identity. Teaching strategies should include the advocacy of enquiry, involving investigation of differing viewpoints and value positions, discussion and debate, all of which should enable students to develop, express and justify their own views about sustainability issues (Huckle 2005, Sterling 2001, UNESCO 2005).

• Curriculum: How sustainability is understood and practised by the educator will influence the sustainability content that is considered relevant and important to disciplinary knowledge and practice.

This research aims to help educators develop effective practice for teaching sustainability in disciplines associated with the built environment. The research will analyse the course BUIL1229 Managing for Sustainability to:

• reflect on the practice of teaching and the theory informing the course curriculum, learning and teaching methods, and pedagogical approach from the course designer’s perspective;

• describe previous student experiences;

• compare and contrast student experiences with the intentions and experiences of the course designer/educator to gain an understanding of the strengths, challenges and areas for improvement from this practice.

Methodology

The research undertaken on BUIL1229 focused on detailing the definition and philosophy of sustainable development used in the course, the course structure and explored the pedagogical approach. From this, the effectiveness of the implementation of the course in terms of meeting course aims and objectives and the learning outcomes were then analysed.

Online survey

One of the methods used was an online survey of students who participated in the course in the second semester of 2010, which collected data on the following areas:

• attitudes towards, and understanding of, sustainability;

• experiences within the sustainability course;

• perceived need for understanding of sustainability in personal and professional practice.

The survey was undertaken in 2011, six months after the students had completed the subject, and consisted of 26 qualitative and quantitative questions that collected data in four areas: basic information, class structure, course impact and self-rated confidence in skills for sustainability. Students were asked to provide qualitative feedback on the majority of quantitative ‘yes/no’ and Likert Scale questions, which provided valuable data on the rationale behind their responses. The survey targeted the 2010 student cohort as these were the only students who had completed the course at the time of the survey. The survey was anonymous and was administered using Survey Monkey. An email was sent to all students who undertook BUIL 1229 in 2010 inviting them to complete the survey. A reminder email was sent three weeks after the first invitation.

The survey was sent to 201 students: 84 from Construction Management, 73 from Property and Valuation, and 44 from Project Management. A 23.3% response rate was achieved with 49 students undertaking the survey with an 85.7% completion rate. According to Sue & Ritter (2007), the average response rate for online surveys is approximately 30%, so our response rate is not far below average. Some 51.2% of the respondents were enrolled in Construction Management, 37.2% in Property and Valuation and 11.6% in Project Management. Of the respondents 81.2% were male and 18.8% were female, which reflected the gender balance of the student cohort: 76.6% male and 23.4% female.

Educator/course coordinator’s reflection

The second part of this research involved a reflection undertaken by the educator/course coordinator to analyse not only the logic and reasoning to construct or justify the approach taken, but also to explore the assumptions underlying beliefs and actions.

The main aim of BUIL 1229 Managing for Sustainability is to create a greater understanding of our environment, society and economy, and to recognise the impact we as individuals and professionals in construction, property, valuation and project management have within and across these three areas. BUIL 1229 has been designed to encourage students to critically reflect on how their own personal, disciplinary professional practice relates to the issues of sustainability, drawing from the above discussion of sustainability education in its constituent parts. The course objectives were to provide students with the ability to:

1. define sustainability and to identify the differences between their definition and those of others;

2. understand and apply key sustainability principles in relation to their disciplinary practice;

3. define and understand the five types of capital (natural, human, social, economic and manufactured);

4. recognise, describe and reflect upon their personal and professional practice in relation to sustainability;

5. evaluate current sustainability concepts, theories, methodologies and practices;

6. reflect critically upon different sustainability concepts, theories and methodologies as they relate to:

   • their ability to make decisions on the basis of a personal and professional interpretation of sustainability;

   • their ability to identify good sustainability practice/management;

   • their understanding of what constitutes exemplary sustainability leadership and management.

(RMIT 2010)

The course has been structured in three sections. The first section introduces students to the concept of sustainability and sustainable development, exploring seminal definitions, their meaning and interpretations. The industrial revolution and its impacts are explored and the evolution of the sustainability paradigm is presented. In order to expose students to some of the key issues that led to the evolution of the sustainability revolution, seminal texts are explored, including Jarrod Diamond’s Collapse (2005), Rachel Carson’s Silent spring (1962), Meadows et al.’s Limits to growth (1972) and Meadows et al.’s Beyond the limits (1992). Additionally, students are introduced to key events such as the United Nations Earth Summits.

This allows for the introduction to, and explanation of, core sustainability issues, including the debate between growth versus development, inequality, the Earth’s finite limits, interconnections between the environment, society and the economy, population and consumption, and manufacturing methods. This ensures that sustainability is positioned, from the beginning, across the triple bottom line (TBL) of sustainability and not simply from one singular perspective. Additionally, values exercises are undertaken to allow students to determine and reflect on their own values. As students become more familiar with the concept of sustainability they are challenged to explore the assumptions that inform different definitions of sustainability, and they are asked to begin to align and identify their own assumptions with a personally constructed definition of the concept. The final component of this section of the course requires students to reflect on the wide range of definitions of sustainability/sustainable development and implications for decision making, compromise, complexity and change. By using sustainability as a concept to explore assumptions, biases and the limitations of existing approaches to practice, it is hoped that students will be able to develop a critically reflexive approach to their own practice.

The second section of the course is structured around the work of Jonathon Porritt and Forum for the Future – specifically, the Five Capitals Framework (Forum for the Future 2000, Parkin et al. 2004, Porritt 2007). If it is assumed that we live in a world where capitalism is the central organising principle, for the creation of wealth and wellbeing, then sustainability must be understood within this context. Central to the ideals of capitalism is the development and accrual of economic capital, “a stock of anything that has the capacity to generate a flow of benefits which are valued by humans” (Porritt 2007, p138). The Five Capitals Framework extends the idea of capital to “five separate ‘stocks’: natural, human, social, manufactured and financial” (Porritt 2007, p137)

The Five Capitals Framework provides first year students studying sustainability with an entry point for making meaning out of complexity, as it is contextualised in values and assumptions already familiar to them. Many of the students who undertake the course have come straight from secondary school, with a set of values underpinned by the notion of capitalism, and are familiar with the concept of financial capital. Exploration of these elements of sustainability as capital tends to facilitate the development of meaning, complexity, contradiction and alignment with aspects of sustainability important to them. Additionally, it allows learners to understand the importance of each of the five capitals from both a personal and professional perspective and the impact they will have on these levels of capital in their emerging professional practice. The contradictions embedded within any definition of sustainability and trade-offs required across the five forms of capital in the decision-making process are then explored, allowing them to situate themselves within the debate as aligned with their own values and beliefs. However, as the authors recognise, reducing the natural world or human rights to a definition of ‘capital’ situated within a capitalist paradigm would not be appropriate for all disciplines, but in this instance the “conceptual and linguistic conventions … provide the clearest means of explaining the condition for its sustainability” (Porritt 2007, p139).

The content of the second section of the course presents sustainability as the five forms of capital, and is structured into each of the following sections:

1. Theory and Personal Practice: As each capital is presented students are provided with an explanation of the tangible or intangible benefit/service which the particular capital provides us with, the issues associated with the capital and sustainability and their relationship with the issue (in terms of personal practice).

2. Disciplinary Practice: This section explores how the theoretical components relate to disciplinary practice.

3. Techniques/Tools: This section provides the students with tools and techniques available for evaluating and mitigating the impacts of their personal and professional choices on the flow of the capital being discussed.

The Five Capitals Framework has been adopted to include curriculum materials in the following topic areas:

Environmental Capital: This topic area seeks to explain the role of, and the benefits provided by, natural capital to the individual and their relevant discipline. The services provided by natural systems – such as renewable resources (e.g. timber, grain, fish and water) and non-renewable resources (e.g. fossil fuels); sinks, which absorb, neutralise or recycle wastes (e.g. forests, oceans); and processes, such as climate regulation and the carbon cycle – that enable life to continue in a balanced way are explained and the impacts of our personal and professional choices explored (Parkin et al. 2004, Porritt 2007). Activities such as the ecological footprint calculator created by Mathis Wackernagel (Wackernagel et al. 2002, Wackernagel & Rees 1996) are undertaken and embedded in summative assessment, providing opportunities for deep learning through self-reflection. Once students gain ownership and an understanding of the theory, opportunities to mitigate their impact are presented across all phases of the development process i.e. pre-design and planning, construction and demolition and value. Content introduced here includes relevant planning and environment legislation, environmental management systems and auditing processes, ecologically sustainable design principles, and sustainability measurement rating systems and local government tools.

Manufactured Capital: This topic explores the impacts of consumption on our environment, identity and communities. It allows students to explore the idea of consumption in relation to their personal consumption choices, and the choices made in the consumption of resources in both the building phase and the lived phase of development. The importance of choice is situated against the material presented in the natural capital week. This topic explores the impacts of overconsumption not only on the environment but on the individual, the community and some of the social factors that lead to overconsumption. This discussion includes consumption in relation to manufactured capital, i.e. an individual’s ability to access manufactured capital (infrastructure and buildings) and the associated impact design has on our level of wellbeing and the link this may have on our need to consume. Finally, discussions related to the transcendence of our industries towards a development mode, rather than a growth mode, of practice are explored.

Human and Social Capital: These topics allow students to understand the link between social and human capital, and their role in the development of environmental and economic capital. Human capital is explored in relation to the impact buildings and infrastructure have on an individual’s personal level of wellbeing and attainment. Additionally, as many of the students will go on to management roles, human capital is also explored in relation to management skills. Further, the relationship between the built environment, human capital and sustainable communities is explored. Students reflect on some ideas about communities, explore the role the built environment plays in shaping communities and are challenged to think about how good design could add to the development of sustainable communities.

Economic Capital: This section looks at the role of capitalism in society and the impact it has on social, human and environmental capital. It presents commonly accepted methods of measuring economic growth and explores the need to understand the difference between growth, development, wellbeing, progress and equity. It then presents alternative methods for measuring natural, social, human and manufactured capital. It presents the key elements of a good indicator of sustainability and explores the need for all sectors of the economy to engage in sustainability.

The final section of the course focuses on organisational change, leadership and sustainability. These weeks present organisational change theory and opportunities to integrate sustainability knowledge into our future professional practice. Students engage with case studies and identify and reflect on the commonalities, differences and depth of initiatives taken.

As the course is undertaken by students from multiple disciplines, material is discussed across each discipline and the relationships between sustainability and the discipline areas are clearly identified. This allows students of each profession to see how they fit into the cycle of development.

The pedagogic goal that underpins the learning and teaching practice of this course is that we (the student) need to learn to ‘see’ differently if we are to know and act differently, and that we need learning experiences to facilitate this change of perspective, which is drawn from the work of Sterling (1996). This acknowledges the urgent need for a change in behaviour, to rethink our actions to counter the degradation of social and environmental capital in pursuit of the development of economic capital. Consequently, the pedagogy is founded on a student-centred, inquiry-based constructivist approach that requires the course to be developed from, and situated in, current concepts and issues related to the specific disciplines and professional practice. These concepts and issues are explored across local, national and global perspectives, and the different assumptions that are embedded in our current social constructions are unpacked.

Consequently, subject content and activities focus on interrelationships between environmental, economic and social factors. To ensure that the curriculum and delivery methods are appropriate and that material is understood, both summative and formative assessments are used in the course. Summative assessment entails three formal assessment tasks to be completed across the course of the semester with formative assessment designed into weekly activities. This ensures that students’ development is monitored and addressed. In addition, the course’s summative assessment also requires students to demonstrate an understanding of the systemic and integrated nature of sustainability. Again, this is structured into personal- and professional-based activities, which unpack assumptions and require students to determine their own understanding of the material within specific contexts. The main assessment tasks comprise:

1. An article review: students are asked to identify the main claim and sub-claims presented by the author of an academic, science or social science article in addition to the evidence. A critical evaluation of the effectiveness of that evidence from their perspective is required.

2. An Ecological Footprint calculation: students are required to calculate their own household's Ecological Footprint using the calculator to determine the impact their behavioural and lifestyle choices have on the natural environment. They are then required to discuss this in relation to equity and fairness based on a comparison of their results with global averages.

3. A Reflective Essay: This requires students to identify three key sustainability principles relevant to their discipline. In doing so they are required to substantiate their beliefs with material presented in class.

The approach recognised the need not just to develop skills in sustainability content as it related to disciplinary knowledge, but also to develop key transferable skills, essential for active learning and associated with the sustainability education paradigm. These include problem solving, team work, ethics, creativity, resilience, leadership and the ability to improve their own self-knowledge, be more mindful, autonomous, reflective, creative, socially responsible and ethical and to be able to deal with change. The development of content is then structured and presented in a way that develops these generic skills while reflecting the learning objectives of the discipline and subject matter. This approach aims to provide students with the skills, content and awareness to ‘see’ differently and with the courage and ability to adapt, change, or – at the very least – understand their own way of being, visualised in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Visualisation of the chosen course structuring approach. Adapted from the work of S. Holdsworth & K. Hegarty (unpublished) From praxis to delivery: A Higher Education Learning Design Framework (HELD).

The course and its assessment are grounded in the belief that higher education needs to embrace transformational education to develop not only professional competencies, which are the ‘capacity for a person to perform certain professional tasks, in given situations, in a particular way’ (Newton 2009, p102), but also attributes, skills, qualities and knowledge that extend beyond disciplinary knowledge and contribute to more than disciplinary practice (Bowden et al. 2000). Transformational education is focused on education

that moves beyond learning facts and information to learning/identifying the framework of personal values and attitudes within which facts and information are interpreted, to challenging the personal worldviews, value framework and ‘habits of mind’ that drive and constitute our (learning) behavior.

(Newton 2009, p106)

This approach to learning removes the focus on achievement, placing students in a learning context more similar to the professional environment, to better enable a student to understand and deal with the working environment they will face. ‘Transformational learning puts the focus directly back onto such graduate attributes as explicit outcomes from the learning experience’ (Newton 2009, p107).

Results

The following results combine the course designer’s reflection and description of practice with qualitative and quantitative results from the student survey. The results are outlined and discussed based on the elements of sustainability education praxis outlined above, including learning and teaching, curriculum development, intended learning outcomes, the effectiveness of educational praxis and also the learning environment.

Learning and Teaching Methods

The development of learning and teaching activities within the course is founded on the idea that student learning must embody self-reflection and question personal values and identity as part of transformational learning. Teaching strategies include the advocacy of enquiry, involving investigation of differing viewpoints and value positions, discussion and debate, all of which should enable students to develop, express and justify their own views about sustainability issues (Huckle 2005, Sterling 2001, UNESCO 2005). A key consideration when determining how content should be structured, engaged with in class and assessed was that there cannot be just one solution to the issues and challenges that sustainability seeks to address. There are no right or wrong answers in sustainability, only sustainability problems that require understanding, including consideration of all elements within the social, environmental and economic systems that are involved in an issue and a recognition of the assumptions each person brings to the problem definition and subsequent responses.

Central to achieving this understanding is the first section of the course: definitions, values and assumptions in relation to the construction of the learners’ own definitions of sustainability. At the commencement of the course learners were asked to construct their own definition of sustainability through activities aimed to facilitate the exploration of their ethical assumptions, which they later reflected upon on as part of the summative assessment tasks. This enabled students to recognise any changes in their definition from the early weeks to the later part of the course. Some 73.8% of respondents believed that their definitions of sustainability changed as a result of the course. For example, one student mentioned a stronger consideration of future generations as part of their changed understanding:

• “The course has helped me clarify key definitions, along with a deeper understanding of how our lifestyle choices impact the availability of resources for the future generations.”

Some students mentioned that they have a more ‘in depth’ understanding, and other students elaborated on what this means:

• “It is a lot more in depth.”

• “Did not understand the breadth and multiple meanings of sustainability [before the course].”

• “I now define sustainability as the social, environmental and economic impacts of an action equate to positive projections for now and the next several generations.”

A changed view based on a broader scope for sustainability and related issues was further emphasised by some students:

• “It is now not solely based on the environment. Also includes personal feelings, economic factors, etc.”

• “It’s not just about the environment; it’s about how all of the elements listed in the previous question link and impact on the proposed development.”

The second part of the course explored five capitals of sustainability in relation to both personal and professional practice. Students may recognise that there are issues relating to sustainability that need to be addressed; however, often missing from this understanding is the ability to identify how they fit into the cause and the response to these issues. Sustainability as a concept, given its complexity and multiple interpretations, must be placed within a framework that students can engage with, a framework that allows them to identify their own worldview, recognise other worldviews, and then articulate the differences between them. Consequently, sustainability needs to be described as being made up of three inherently linked elements – he social, he environmental and he economic. Based on this, everything is inter-connected and decisions made now have long-lasting, complex impacts. Insightful decision making must recognise this. Sustainability education also needs to help students question the dominant assumption that Earth’s resources are infinite and to reflect on and understand the difference between growth and development to help evolve alternatives to current practice (Porritt 2007, Sharp 2002). This framework is used to illustrate all the content discussed in class as students engage with the concept of sustainability. Using this approach, it is possible to visualise and discuss how different values, perspectives and worldviews result in different outcomes. This does not just specifically relate to sustainability subjects, but can be used in any subject/discipline area to understand how decisions and policies are made, the assumptions that underpin them, and how alternative outcomes can be achieved.

Students were asked the following forced-choice question: “What elements of the programme, if any, had the greatest impact on you in terms of changing or reaffirming your belief that sustainability is relevant for your individual and future professional practice?” Twenty-three students rated parts of the programme. Overall, based on the quantitative and qualitative responses to this question, different parts of the course seemed important for different students, indicating that the course appealed to students’ differing interests and points of connection with sustainability. Nine students ticked all the checkboxes related to the different elements of the course. Some of these respondents provided the following reasons for their selection:

• “I ticked all of them as I think the whole course changed the way I thought about sustainability. It really affected my thought process and my goals with the built environment in achieving sustainability.”

• “I think the whole subject was very helpful in understanding that sustainability is relevant to individuals and professional practices.”

• “I think they were all entirely relevant topics as they discussed sustainability from different points of view and gave us knowledge about each element. These elements are all relevant in our profession.”

The main goal associated with the learning and teaching approach adopted by the educator involved in the development and delivery of this course was to: (a) develop students who are able to recognise their view of the world, how it differs from others’, and why; (b) nurture students to recognise the applicability and importance of sustainability criteria in their personal and professional lives; and (c) create value in the development of knowledge, rather than accumulating quickly forgotten facts and theories.

In order to do this, a set of principles was developed that informed all classes. These included:

1. Any content presented had a contextual setting primarily locally or at least nationally. Students are required to think about how course content is currently being applied in real-world settings and to think about how different decisions would affect different stakeholder groups. Students are challenged to think about the values and worldviews associated with different decisions and initiatives, preparing them for similar situations in their professional lives.

2. Students must engage personally with the material so that they have a literal understanding of the outcome of the application of that/their knowledge.

3. A co-operative, active learning environment (rather than a traditional lecture format) will be developed. Teaching sustainability needs to reflect the principles of sustainability; therefore, students need to be challenged and encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning. Teaching focuses more on facilitating than on lecturing, ensuring appropriate styles of discussion are developed, and that all are able to participate constructively.

This learning and teaching approach ensured that those transferable skills identified – i.e. life-long learning, reflective practice, critical thinking and systemic thinking – were supported throughout the weekly classes. By encouraging learners to critically reflect on their own values, and align these values with the knowledge they acquire through the formal educational experience, students must identify and explore unexamined conceptions and assumptions, which have evolved over their entire formal and informal educational experience. Reflective practice and critical and systemic thinking gave students the opportunity to identify and begin to understand their own worldview, and then to reflect on this as it relates to the content that is being presented in the classroom. The explicit purpose of this learning and teaching approach is to enable students to develop new knowledge and skills in life-long learning, not just to provide them with facts and theories about a particular subject. Content is then determined by the particular subject area, associated learning objectives and the disciplinary and transferable skills that are the focus of the class.

The approach to learning and teaching was well received by students. All the respondents enjoyed the diverse delivery of the workshop content, with 100% of the respondents selecting ‘yes’ in response to the question “17. Did you enjoy the delivery of the workshop content (i.e. theory, case studies, videos)?” The qualitative responses indicated why respondents enjoyed the delivery:

• “It was a balance. Content was not delivered solely in one way but various ways so that students could gain learning experiences in multiple ways.”

• “The subject wasn't just text thrown at you; it was delivered through a number of mediums, i.e. assignments, class activities, videos, presentations, etc. This made the learning a lot more interesting and made the 3 hour workshop go very quickly.”

Sustainability curriculum development

It is critical to any discussion on worldview to recognise that an individual’s worldview has been shaped by a lifetime’s worth of experience and is underpinned by their values. When asking students to reflect on and explore their own assumptions, it is important to remind them that this is not an exercise to determine what values and beliefs are considered right or wrong, sustainable or non-sustainable, but to allow for the exploration of how our experience and values translate into actions, both personally and professionally. The course was not taught with the aim of changing every non-sustainable behaviour which students have, but to ensure they understand the social constructions that exist within society and determine and inform their conscious or unconscious actions and decisions. It is then possible for students to identify whether these are consistent with their own values and resultant decisions and will allow them to begin to recognise why the underlying values of society need to change and how difficult this can be. The point that it is easier (both mentally and physically) and cheaper to be unsustainable than to take action that is more ecological or socially beneficial is explored. The course aims to widen awareness of the values of sustainability and the existing tools and technologies, so that students can use this new knowledge in their professional and personal life to create the change that is needed.

This targeted outcome was reflected in a number of students’ statements about the reflective essay. It shows how students were given the opportunity to take what they know and add or change their views based on their reflective learning through the course:

• “… I had to research into the deep end of sustainability and incorporate evidence with my own opinion. This made me develop ideas which I never would have thought of in the past.”

• “It forced me to actually sit back and look at what was happening within companies, and decide what could be done better.”

• “The reflective essay helped me put into practice all the concepts important to me that [I had] learned over the course, and assisted me in developing my view on how [positive] sustainability impacts can be achieved through various strategies.”

It is important to recognise that any discussion that asks students to think about their values and perception of the world also requires the educator to undergo the same process. There is no such thing as ‘value-free’ education, especially when it comes to sustainability education. For an educator on such a course it is important to ensure that all assumptions that are brought into the classroom are clearly articulated. Questioning the educator’s views and understanding the difference between these and the students’ views is as important for students as questioning their own. It is also important to recognise the tensions between the social, economic and environmental, and that there is not always a situation where equity across all areas can be achieved in seeking a sustainable solution. This necessitates the recognition that life is full of contradictions and that one constantly has to work through these. It is important to attempt to minimise moralising and judgements to create a learning atmosphere of trust, where students can move out of their comfort zones and challenge each other, constructively learning in the process.

This reflection then allows for the educator to select content most relevant to contemporary issues; how sustainability is understood and practised by the educator will influence the sustainability content that is considered relevant and important to disciplinary knowledge and practice. In order for all elements of sustainability to be incorporated into a curriculum that reflects second- and third-order learning, the curriculum must be founded on the following:

• interdisciplinary and intercultural practice;

• discourse with room for discussion, subject diversity and cross-cutting topics;

• holistic and systemic approach, i.e. consisting of a mix of targeted activities, cognitive learning modules and emotional and practical experiences;

• key current and historical sustainability issues in their local, regional and international contexts;

• issues relevant to the discipline that explore social justice, diversity and equity (Baud 2004, Fien 2001, Holdsworth et al. 2006).

Effectiveness of the course in meeting its learning objectives

The students who responded to the survey felt that the course learning objectives were made clear to them. No students disagreed with the statement ‘The learning objectives for the course were made clear to me’ when surveyed. The qualitative responses reflect the need for a greater awareness of the impact an educator’s pedagogy has on all aspects of course development/delivery/structure and student engagement.

Personal

On a personal level, 67.4% of students felt that before undertaking the course, sustainability was already relevant to them. However, the qualitative responses showed that undertaking the course resulted in a deeper understanding of sustainability and appreciation of its relevance to them personally and professionally. For example:

• “I had always considered the importance of sustainability both personally and for society. However, this course helped to relate sustainability to myself more personally.”

The perceived relevance of sustainability to students personally after undertaking the course rose by 25.1 per cent, with only three (7.5%) of the respondents disagreeing with the statement “Before attending this course I believed sustainability was an issue that was relevant to me personally”. Of the 14 students who disagreed with the statement, three indicated that they still felt sustainability to be irrelevant to them personally. However, the remaining 11 students who disagreed with the question, agreed that after the course they felt that sustainability was relevant to them personally, indicating a transformation as a result of the course. Some of the 11 students who did change their mind made the following statements:

• “Yes, because it will affect my career, which will affect me personally.”

• “By completing relevant exercises in class and discussing relevant topics I endeavoured to understand the concepts of sustainable living and the importance of it to our community.”

Professional

On a professional level, 83.7% of the respondents had felt that sustainability was relevant to their professional practice before undertaking the course. Of those students who disagreed, six made the following comments about their response:

• “It didn't cross my mind until I began to understand its importance.”

• “Although I knew sustainability was an important issue, I didn't exactly know how to adapt it to my professional career.”

• “I didn't know anything about the impact of sustainability in the property industry and thought it was an additional expense that most developers choose to ignore.”

Students who agreed that sustainability was relevant to professional practice before undertaking the course made the following statements about their response:

• “I was aware of the importance of sustainability within the property industry beforehand due to the prevalence of green-star buildings recently.”

• “I understood this was the case but had very little knowledge on the issue.”

Of the respondents, 95.3% agreed that they now see sustainability as relevant to future professional practice, an increase of 11.6% from those who agreed with the statement before undertaking the course. Two respondents disagreed with the statement that they now believe sustainability to be relevant to professional practice having undertaken the course. Those two respondents did not comment on their response. Some of those respondents who felt that sustainability was not relevant before the course and now think sustainability is relevant to professional practice had the following to say about their change in thinking:

• “The learning materials are useful for daily life.”

• “If current buildings aren’t converted into more sustainable buildings they will eventually become obsolete as demand for environmentally friendly buildings increase.”

• “I definitely feel that in my future career I can construct buildings that are sustainable. I now have the knowledge to identify key aspects of sustainable buildings such as north-facing windows, double glazing etc.”

• “The property industry is a major user of resources in both a construction and operational aspect. It is therefore vital to develop ways to minimise that output that this industry is currently subject to.”

Some of the students who felt sustainability was relevant to professional practice both before and after the course had the following to say about their response:

• “Yes, I currently work for a property developer and have already mentioned some ideas to them in regard to sustainability. We will see what happens.”

• “Will have to ensure when I become a property developer that my buildings have a 5 star green rating, or if I become a valuer I will ensure that more sustainable buildings will be valued at a higher price.”

• “By encouraging sustainable development there are a lot of positives to consider. These being increase in tenancy in buildings, increase in capital growth of the development and creating a greater outlook in the community.”

There were mixed responses to the question ‘With respect to issues of sustainability, did this course influence you in changing your approach to your studies and future career path?’: 47.6% of respondents selected influenced and 7.1% elected greatly influenced. 16.7% selected partially influenced, 21.4% said not really influenced and 7.1% selected did not influence at all.

Satisfaction

The majority of respondents felt highly satisfied or satisfied with their understanding of sustainable development as a result of the programme: 26.2% of respondents felt highly satisfied and 66.7% felt satisfied. Two students felt particularly satisfied and one felt not really satisfied. Only one student commented on why they were not satisfied, attributing their partial satisfaction to “A lot of technical terms to remember and wordy theories”. Students who were satisfied or highly satisfied made the following comments:

• “This course efficiently detailed sustainable development, in that it explained sustainability in a variety of different forms and how it can be applied to the development of buildings all over the world.”

• “I thought the material and the assessments were very relevant to enhancing the learning experience of sustainable development therefore giving me a broad understanding on the topic.”

The learning space

The pedagogical approach to the course described above informed a delivery mode that differed significantly from traditional approaches in higher education. The course was run as a series of 12 three-hour lectorials, held in New Age Learning Spaces (NALS) designed to incorporate technology and design principles, e.g. glass windows to increase natural light into classroom improving the student learning experience. (A traditional teacher-centred lecture model of delivery integrated with student-centred and collaborative elements of a tutorial – resulting in an approach that has been dubbed a 'lectorial'.) Features of the physical layout of the room were round tables and interactive team boards, designed to promote high levels of engagement and create a focus on the student. The lectorial was structured to ensure that there was a consistent mix of theory and learner-directed activities, to ensure students were able to make their own meaning from the course content. A range of teaching approaches was utilised, including:

• problem-solving exercises which enable students to critically engage with influences on the environment, community or economy;

• using sustainability topics/principles/concepts to make explicit the relevance of the subject matter;

• using case studies so that students integrate and apply their knowledge to real-life scenarios in material or as sources of information;

• integrating learning and professional practice through guest speakers;

• using audiovisual material, websites and literature to develop critical thinking skills.

Students surveyed either strongly agreed (34%) or agreed (46.8%) with the statement that the structure of the rooms added to their learning experience. Some 12.8% felt ‘neutral’ and 6.4% students disagreed with the statement. The qualitative responses reflected both positive and negative experiences with the NALS environment. Students commented that the round tables supported group discussion; however, they also noted that the interactive environment was distracting at times.

• “Having circular tables means that students are able to work in an environment which incorporates diversity. The multiple team boards are great. Since there are circular tables, students have their backs behind [i.e. to] or in front of the boards, so it helps the class environment to have multiple boards around the room.”

• “The round tables make it hard to communicate and make eye contact with the teacher; and students facing each other get very easily distracted.”

Sustainability education: praxis

This article has reflected on an educators’ own pedagogy to recognise the learning and teaching approaches and curriculum used to develop the required graduate capabilities for sustainability. With a lack of reflection on practice, an educator will struggle to transcend practice into praxis, falling victim to the reductionist and individualistic approach to education often seen today by reinforcing traditional patterns of behaviour rather than thinking through alternative approaches, which might be unfamiliar (Huckle & Sterling 1996, Sterling 2001, Biggs & Tang 2007). So far, this article has reflected on an instance of practice in terms of learning and teaching methods, curriculum development and the achievement of learning objectives based on student perspectives. As part of reflective practice it is important to clarify the educator’s pedagogy and approach to teaching as experienced by the students. When asked, ‘In your opinion, what are the most important factors that contribute to a positive learning experience?’ most qualitative responses noted the teaching approach as an important factor for a positive learning experience. These responses show that for these students the teacher effect was a critical part of having a positive learning experience. These data reinforce the need for reflective praxis in good sustainability education practice:

• Engaging lecturers and tutors.

• Passionate, thorough and patient lecturers. Having my thoughts and opinion heard and considered by students and teachers (classroom discussion).

• A lecturer who knows how to motivate student and kindly for help.

• A positive and engaging teacher, a relaxed learning environment and a lot of explaining

• Enthusiastic teachers. Clear course content and criteria.

• Enthusiastic lecturer, passionate lecturer and relevant activities.

• Good teacher who is interactive with course, a subject that has many case studies that are relevant to my own discipline.

• Engaging and helpful teacher.

• Interacting with students to collaborate ideas to come to a final idea. Teaching staff being able to teach content slowly and not too quick.

• Ergonomic design of classrooms, interesting lecturer who tries to use various teaching methods, especially for difficult concepts. Also it is important to be able to contact them for clarification.

Other students noted the learning environment and classroom dynamics as important:

• A good environment in class, where everyone is able to speak their piece.

• Clear, defined topics; breakdown of class time for learning (lecture) and implementing our knowledge (activity); assignments and tests need to reflect the content of what is learned in class.

Conclusion

The question of how to incorporate sustainability principles and capabilities has become increasingly important over the past two decades, as research and action for sustainability have gained momentum (Graham 2003). Educating for these new skills will require shifts in educational practice and the development of new curricula. Sustainable education requires educators to reflect on their own understanding of sustainability and their own pedagogy and teaching methods. Improving teaching and learning practice requires educators to consider themselves as active learners who recognise that they construct their own understanding of knowledge. This is especially important for those engaging in sustainable education, given that the sustainability paradigm is contested and open to epistemological interpretations. Sustainability education needs overtly to challenge the learner, allowing for discussion of its complexity so that the learning experiences are participatory and respectful of different perspectives.

Education must consist of the development of a certain skills base and of an understanding of some basic social, environmental and economic principles and systems for curriculum content. The skills identified and subsequently attained will determine whether this constitutes sustainable education, i.e. transformative, third-level learning as outlined by Sterling (2001). This is significant as sustainable education requires students to develop meta-skills, such as the ability to think critically about the nature of knowledge and about the ways in which knowledge is produced and validated. Dawe et al. (2005) identified many, varied teaching approaches to education for sustainable development, all of which have a validity, depending on which teaching tradition the teacher comes from, what her/his standpoint on sustainable development is, and what beliefs she/he has about sustainable development. It is important to note that the development of curriculum, pedagogy and educational method are all heavily influenced by the social and cultural character of the teaching institution and discipline area, and these factors can impede change.

This article has argued that effective sustainability education that is both engaging and satisfying for students and achieves transformational learning outcomes relevant for personal and future professional lives of the students needs to be based on reflective praxis, which has been described and modelled above. Effectiveness and importance of learning and teaching methods, curriculum development, achievement of learning objectives, the learning space and teaching praxis have been explored. Based on the survey results, students who responded were very satisfied overall with the course in terms of learning outcomes and enjoyment of the delivery and content. The results show that students felt that the content was relevant to their personal and professional lives and the qualitative responses indicate significant learning and transformation for a number of respondents as a result of participation in this course. The overwhelmingly positive results from the student survey about the engagement, transformation, teaching approach and learning from the course reaffirm the theory and pedagogical approach underpinning the course: that continuous critical reflection on the part of the educator through sustainability education praxis supports good- practice sustainable education. This research demonstrates that good practice sustainable education is valued by learners studying the built environment and that this approach to sustainability education can and is being delivered with positive outcomes in this disciplinary context. This research is important for better understanding learning and teaching experiences in sustainability education, particularly in the built environment context. Further research is required to better understand the learning outcomes from these teaching and learning approaches. Follow-up research on subsequent years of the course can also be used to identify significant trends and test the outcomes of changes in teaching and learning approaches.