the cognitive and affective dimensions of learning, others emphasize the importance of including the practical (or psychomotor) domains of ESD and holistic consideration of the “whole person” across “head, heart and hands” (Sipos et al. 2008; Mahmud 2017). Cognitive learning (head) focuses on understanding information and how it can be applied. Affective learning approaches (heart) engage with attitudes, values, and behaviors and enable students to make emotional connections with the curriculum (Shephard 2008). Learning processes incorporating the hands include practical skills development and physical labor, such as building, painting, and planting (Sipos et al. 2008), and can align particularly with informal curriculum activities, such as involvement in student gardens or conservation activities.
The approach to embed sustainability across formal, non‐formal/informal, and hidden curricula became established as a way to incorporate ESD throughout the student experience (Hopkinson et al. 2008). Table 2.1 summarizes the distinction between these different curricula domains. The formal curriculum refers to curricula developed for academic credit, guided by formally articulated learning outcomes. Non‐formal and informal curricula are a relatively heterogeneous group that overlap considerably. Non‐formal curricula are typically “organised, but … could have learning objectives (or not) and be intentional (or not)” (OECD 2007). The informal curriculum is somewhat of a misnomer given that the term “curriculum” implies some degree of intentionality and one of the principal characteristics of informal learning is that it is not intentional (OECD 2007). In the context of sustainability in higher education, the non‐formal and informal curricula include the opportunities available for students to become involved with outside of their coursework, such as involvement in societies or volunteering initiatives, which enable learning but are unlikely to be formally articulated or assessed (other than in the context of non‐formal schemes where some submission of work is still required). The hidden curriculum, a term originally coined by Jackson (1968), refers to what students learn through implicit messages of societal, institutional, or lecturers' values (Cotton et al. 2013). In the context of sustainability this has been defined as the “implicit messages a university sends about sustainability through the institutional environment and values” (Winter and Cotton 2012: 783), which includes the implicit messages within the campus environment itself (Cotton et al. 2020). In his 1993 essay “Architecture as Pedagogy,” Orr explores the implicit messages embodied within our university buildings including the inconsequence of environmental and energy costs from which we learn “carelessness that accompanies waste and inefficiency, as well as callousness to the degradation of other places where materials and energy originate” (Orr 1993, p. 226). In the context of ESD, it is important to consider how sustainability is integrated into the formal, informal/non‐formal, and hidden curricula, and how these different domains of learning intersect and provide opportunities for the “transformational sustainability learning” of integrating the head, heart, and hands (Sipos et al. 2008).
Table 2.1 Distinguishing characteristics between formal, non‐formal, informal, and hidden curricula.
Source: Based on Table 2 from OECD (2007), and drawing on material from Cotton et al. (2013).
| Organization of learning | Presence of learning objectives | Intentionality of learning | Duration | Leads to a qualification | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formal curriculum | Highly organized | Present | Highly intentional | Rather long and/or full‐time | Almost always |
| Non‐formal curriculum | May or may not be organized | Sometimes present | Can be intentional or unintentional | Rather short and/or part‐time | Usually not |
| Informal curriculum | Not organized | Not present | Unintentional | N/A | No |
| Hidden curriculum | Not organized, but has potential to be | Not present, but has potential to be | Almost always unintentional | N/A | No |
Alongside the developing interest in embedding ESD in higher education, there has been development of other educational agendas, including increasing graduate employability and entrepreneurship skills (Rae 2007). As such, there is an increasing sector‐wide emphasis on graduate employability and the attributes that ought to be achieved by graduates during their time at university through curricular and non‐formal/informal curricular opportunities. Yet there are potential synergies (although not without their tensions) between the employability agendas and ESD in higher education. For at least a decade, links have been made between the clear demand for graduates to be equipped with sustainability skills, from employers (see BITC 2010), interest in skills for sustainable growth and a green economy (BIS 2010; HMG 2011) as well as clear evidence that students see sustainability skills as being important to their future employers (Bone and Agombar 2011; Drayson et al. 2014).
There have been developments to create a framework for what competencies ESD comprises (e.g. Frisk and Larsen 2011; Wiek et al. 2011; Brundiers et al. 2021) beyond more knowledge‐oriented approaches to ESD (Redman 2020), leading to the introduction of a framework of sustainability competencies from the United Nations (UNESCO 2017). This framework incorporates a range of knowledge, understanding, skills, values, and attributes under the following eight competencies: systems‐thinking, futures‐thinking, values‐thinking, strategic‐thinking, interpersonal, critical‐thinking, self‐awareness, and integrated problem‐solving (UNESCO 2017). Traditional learning and teaching contexts limit the possibilities for students to develop this range of competencies (Brundiers et al. 2021); therefore, innovative pedagogical approaches and educators' willingness to question their role and the activities they conduct are required. Despite these emerging frameworks, key questions remain as to what this means to our practice as educators and practitioners in ESD: How do we enable students to gain the kinds of competencies needed to bring about transformative social change toward sustainability in their own universities and wider communities? How can we move beyond preparing students for employment and produce graduates who are genuinely change agents and ready to be the change they want to see in the world?
2.1.2 Activist Learning and Education for Sustainability
The questions in the preceding paragraph require a pedagogical approach suited to empowering and motivating students to drive change. Experiential learning theory is based on a learning cycle incorporating concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, reflective observation, and active experimentation (Kolb and Kolb 2017) and is derived from Kolb's seminal 1984 work on experiential learning that draws on the work of Lewin, Dewey, and Piaget. This approach is seen as involving the whole person and is applicable not just to the formal classroom, but to all areas of life (Kolb and Kolb 2017). Experiential learning is used here as an umbrella term encompassing a range of active pedagogies and approaches that integrate the interconnections of theory and action (Ludlow 2010). It has been suggested that experiential learning can support students to move beyond generic dissatisfaction about the way things are, to feel empowered to drive change through focusing on specific issues, targets, and actions (Ludlow 2010). Such approaches, particularly where there
