Framework for Education for Sustainable Development

As part of our reflection surrounding Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD), we were required to design a framework for planning and evaluating EfSD programmes. The framework I have developed is set out below. It is the result of the conclusions I have come to regarding EfSD while doing the GSE827 course and keeping this journal.

I have kept this framework fairly high level as I wish it to be situationally flexible and to incorporate a large number of different types of programs. This is because I've learnt through our classwork that EfSD can cover a large range of types of engagement processes, from simple information that enables change (e.g.workshops, leaflets, media) to participatory projects (e.g. action research, partnerships, futuresearch conferences) (ARIES 2005).

EfSD should also be largely about giving people skills to bring about sustainability, rather than providing a rigid set of outcomes or goals that people need to learn (ARIES 2005, ARIES 2009, Ferdig 2007). It is for that reason that I have also approached this framework as more of an engagement framework that comprises education, participation and partnerships, rather than a pure education framework (although for ease of classification, I will continue referring to it as an EfSD framework) (ARIES 2005).

Framework for EfSD

At its base, I've come to the conclusion that every EfSD programme or project must develop capacity - that is, it must develop participant’s skills, including critical thinking skills, and/or knowledge. I think this is the primary test of whether a programme is EfSD or not.  Developing capacity in this sense may comprise everything from informative education – whether formal, non-formal or in-formal - to partnerships and participatory engagement (ARIES 2005, ARIES 2009, Tilbury & Wortman 2004, Ferdig 2007).

Under this underlying principle then sit criteria which are used to create a successful programme design and measuring and evaluating its overall impact and success.

The most important of these criteria is a solid understanding of the programme’s desired outcomes and impacts. When designing a programme I think it is important to have the ‘end goal’ in mind from the outset, and to then design the programme to meet that goal or vision (Tilbury & Wortman 2004, ARIES 2009). These outcomes and impacts must be clearly defined and understood by participants as appropriate, and participants should share and buy into the programme's end goal or vision (ARIES 2006, Victorian Government DES).

To achieve these desired outcomes and impacts, a programme must have a successful mix of four elements:

1. Design

• Stakeholders are clearly identified and engaged as appropriate in a fashion that is sensitive to cultural, linguistic and social differences
• The programmes design comprises appropriate engagement model(s) for the target audience and desired outcomes and impact  
• The programme allows for and is designed to encourage appropriate participant engagement
• There is a clear communications plan or strategy that identifies key stakeholders and programme elements, and makes explicit strategies for ensuring ongoing and open communication throughout the programme as well as emergency strategies for if things go wrong

2. Realistic use of time and resources

• The engagement process is designed with a realistic length for achieving its desired outcomes (e.g. the programme does not expect to achieve 100% on-going behaviour change within a few days) and takes account that on-going, long terms activities may be necessary if it requires bringing about lasting impact
• The programme aims for realistic outcomes and impacts given its allocated resources and time, and is defined within achievable boundaries
• The programme makes use of multipliers and champions where possible to increase its impact when resource limited, and champions are well supported

3. Tools

• The programme utilises engagement tools which a) work towards the desired outcomes and impact, b) are aimed at right audience and c) fit the situation in which they are being used. Tools may include informing, envisioning, future search, values clarification, critical and/or systemic thinking, partnerships, participation
• The programme creates a non-threatening environment, in which all participants feel comfortable operating (e.g. the programme takes account of and neutralises obstructive power differences, linguistic and cultural differences are accounted for etc.)
• The programme uses tools that promote reflective and critical thinking skills and lead to participant up-skilling, rather than just imposing new behavioural patterns

4. Evaluation and Monitoring

• Evaluation is built into the programme from the start, with an ongoing set of clear and obtainable indicators identified that build towards desired outcome and impacts
• Programme timeframes and project management is clearly set out but flexible to take advantage of opportunities and retool if programme outcomes shift
• Ongoing reporting is undertaken to ensure that project is on track and working towards desired outcomes and impacts

(The above in part reference from: ARIES 2005, ARIES 2006, ARIES 2009, Ferdig 2007, Hughes 2010, Tilbury & Wortman 2004,Victorian Government DES)

If a programme contains all of the above elements, I think that it can successfully engage participants to work towards a sustainable future. As well as this framework, I believe that one could then use the 6 Cs (Brown & Issacs 1994) to evaluate the success of programme's final impact and the health of the participant group as a community.