This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 02 August 2014, At: 02:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Education ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Learning for resilience, or theresilient learner? Towards a necessaryreconciliation in a paradigm ofsustainable educationStephen Sterling aa Centre for Sustainable Futures , University of Plymouth , Devon,UKPublished online: 20 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Stephen Sterling (2010) Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner?Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education, EnvironmentalEducation Research, 16:5-6, 511-528, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2010.505427

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.505427

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Environmental Education ResearchVol. 16, Nos. 5–6, October–December 2010, 511–528

ISSN 1350-4622 print/ISSN 1469-5871 online© 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13504622.2010.505427http://www.informaworld.com

Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education

Stephen Sterling*

Centre for Sustainable Futures, University of Plymouth, Devon, UKTaylor and FrancisCEER_A_505427.sgm(Received 17 April 2009; final version received 4 December 2009)10.1080/13504622.2010.505427Environmental Education Research1350-4622 (print)/1469-5871 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis1650000002010StephenSterlingstephen.sterling@plymouth.ac.uk

This explorative paper works across discourses to suggest the possibility andpotential of an integrative paradigm for sustainability education that reconcilesinstrumental and intrinsic educational traditions, informed and infused by resiliencetheory and social learning. It argues that such an integrative view is required in thecontext of the urgency of building more resilient local social–ecological systems(SES), and that such a view offers the possibility of new energy and direction inthe sustainability education debate. The paper is essentially a thinkpiece thatattempts to look at touchstones between discourses to suggest the possibilities andpotential of mutual illumination and better integration. The paper begins byreviewing tensions between an instrumentalist view and an intrinsic value view ofenvironmental and sustainability education, the former seeing such education as ameans to individual and social change, the latter upholding the primacy of theautonomous learner who, secondarily may – or may not – take action towardssustainability. The paper then considers the discourse of the resilient learner, beforereviewing social learning literature linked to resilience and discussing how far thesevarious views can be brought together and reconciled. Parallels are made withtensions in the debate on sustainability when seen as a desirable ideal, or as aprocess. Transformative learning theory is then introduced in relation to addressingthe paradox of resilient but maladaptive worldviews and the need to educate forresilience. The paper concludes with an argument for a transformative educationparadigm – ‘sustainable education’ – which necessarily integrates instrumental andintrinsic views and which nurtures resilient learners able to develop resilientsocial–ecological systems in the face of a future of threat, uncertainty and surprise.

Keywords: resilience; environmental education; sustainability; sustainableeducation

Introduction

According to Richmond, writing in the UNESCO mid-term review of the Decade ofEducation for Sustainable Development, a ‘paradigm shift in thinking, teaching andlearning for a sustainable world’ (2009, 3) needs to be realised and a holistic approachto teaching and learning is vital and urgent. Yet, within environmental and sustainabil-ity education, there is a tension which arguably impedes its effectiveness in helpingachieve more resilient social–ecological systems and a more ‘sustainable’ world at atime when the need to realise transformative change is increasingly urgent. Further,after more than three decades of working in the field, I feel that the paradigmatic baseof ‘education for sustainable development’ (ESD) is as yet insufficiently clear to

*Email: stephen.sterling@plymouth.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

512 S. Sterling

spearhead the kind of shift envisaged by the UNESCO. This paper attempts to developand substantiate an integrative view which may help this process, which I label‘sustainable education’ (Sterling 2001).

I begin with a brief review of two key positions within the environmental andsustainability education debate which, fundamentally, represent different views of thepurpose of education. One puts primary emphasis on nurturing a quality within thelearner, the other on attaining an external outcome. I will argue in this paper that thisis more than a difference of emphasis, rather a philosophical and problematicdichotomy. I suggest these positions are nevertheless compatible and further thatdebates around social learning and resilience (Blackmore 2007), which until recentlyhave tended to develop virtually independently of the environmental and sustainabilityeducation discourse, offer a pathway towards reconciling various views in a moreholistic and intellectually coherent framework for sustainability education. I alsotouch upon and draw parallels with the ‘resilient learner’ debate (Bernard 2004),which has emerged separately from the other debates but has something to contributeto thinking about what is needed at this critical time.

To that end, I will maintain that a transformative educational paradigm – drawingon both extrinsic and intrinsic views of sustainability education and further drawingon ‘resilient learner’ and ‘learning for resilience’ discourses – is necessary to nurtureresilient learners who are able to develop resilient social–ecological systems inthe face of a future of threat and uncertainty. This integrative paradigm is labelledsustainable education to signify a shift of educational culture.

To help define terms, I maintain that sustainability implies the survival, the secu-rity, and beyond these, the well-being of a whole system, whether this is seen atlocal level, such as community, or at global level. These are nested stages; thereis no well-being unless there is some level of security, and no security unlessthere is survival as a prime condition. Further, I see sustainability as implyingeconomic viability, ecological integrity and social cohesion but also necessitat-ing an operating ecological or participatory worldview which recognises thesequalities or system conditions as mutually interdependent and co-defining. Iwould further argue that sustainability is both an explorative process and a broaddirection, and that we need to consider these two aspects in relation. Resilienceis defined as ‘the ability of a system to absorb disturbance and still retain itsbasic function and structure’ (after Walker and Salt 2006). I suggest below thatresilient systems need to be sustainable, whilst sustainable systems need to beresilient, and extend this argument to the sphere of worldviews.

Drawing on such writers as Mezirow (2000) and O’Sullivan (1999), I inter-pret ‘transformative learning’ to mean a quality of learning that is deeply engag-ing, and touches and changes deep levels of values and belief through a processof realisation and recognition. It is equivalent in meaning to epistemic learning,and I argue that it inevitably gives rise to a heightened relational sensibility anda sense of ethical responsibility.

For the purposes of this paper, I am using the term ‘sustainability education’as a catch-all to denote forms of environmental education, education for sustain-ability and education for sustainable development. Beyond these terms, ‘sustain-able education’ is used to suggest a change of paradigm across education as awhole.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

Environmental Education Research 513

Views of the relationship between education/learning and sustainability

In this section, I briefly review four perspectives that throw light on the role and natureof education and learning in relation to resilience, namely an instrumental view ofeducation for sustainability, an intrinsic view of education for sustainability, theresilient learner and learning as seen by resilience theorists. Recognition is made thatin seeking meta-patterns and commonalities, there is a danger that exceptions andcontradictory cases are overlooked or oversimplified, but the argument is offered tostimulate further thought and debate.

The instrumental view of education for sustainability

Starting with the early days of environmental education, the 1972 UN StockholmConference on the Human Environment was one of the first international high-levelmeetings to suggest that education was a key to addressing environmental issues. Theway of thinking, which was in the ascendance for many years following theconference, is essentially an instrumental and behaviourist view of education. In thisview, education is seen primarily in terms of a means to an end. It is seen as a remedialvehicle by which such qualities as increased awareness and understanding, andattitudinal and valuative change leading to action towards environmental protectioncan be attained. In more contemporary terms, environmental and sustainabilityeducation is seen as an agent by which the development of more sustainable lifestylescan be achieved. This view tends to be based on a realist and materialist worldview, auniversalist (rather than locally contextualised) view of knowledge, often giving riseto an instructive and transmissive methodology, with an emphasis on content,information and communication. The assumptions about learning in this process areoften (although not always) relatively simple and linear: that raising awareness andknowledge about environmental issues will, rationally and causally, lead to personaland behavioural change, and if followed in great enough numbers, to social change.This reflects an accompanying linear and causal view of the relationship betweeneducation and society – that the former can affect or change the latter. Hence, educa-tion has been valued for decades, particularly by policy-makers, as a benign influencethat can help address social and environmental issues. It would be fair to suggest thatthis view is reflected in some of the discourse associated with the UN Decade ofEducation for Sustainable Development (2005–2014), the overall goal of which is ‘tointegrate the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development into allaspects of education and learning. This educational effort will encourage changes inbehaviour that will create a more sustainable future in terms of environmentalintegrity, economic viability, and a just society for present and future generations’(UNESCO 2009).

Those advocating this view of education for sustainability are often motivated bya sense of urgency and a passion to increase levels of what is commonly referred to as‘sustainability literacy’ involving sets of attitudes and skills which are perceived asnecessary to participation in sustainable development (Forum for the Future 2004).

The intrinsic view of education for sustainability

Particularly since the early 1990s, in the environmental and sustainability educationdebate, and drawing on antecedents such as Dewey, there has been a counter-view

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

514 S. Sterling

which questions the educational legitimacy and soundness of an educational process,the success of which appears to be founded on achievement of what might be seen aspredetermined learning outcomes and, by extension, predetermined environmental/sustainability outcomes. In particular, the notion of ESD is criticised for presenting a‘destination view’ which is ‘inherently deterministic and modernistic’ (Jickling andSpork 1998), suggesting ‘closure according to goals and outcomes before the learn-ing process has even begun’ (Selby 2008, 67). The instrumental view of sustainabil-ity education is seen as having prescriptive tendencies, and thus these critics invokean argument around the politics of knowledge (Parker 2008) inasmuch as they ques-tion who should determine what is worth learning and knowing, including concep-tions of what sustainability literacy means and should entail. Further, they tend tosuggest that as we do not know what a sustainable society looks like, we cannoteducate for it as such, and invoke uncertainty in support of this argument (Gough andScott 2007).

In contrast, the intrinsic view ‘involves the development of learners’ abilities tomake sound choices in the face of uncertainty and complexity of the future’ (Scott andVare 2008, 3). Whilst the worthiness of the sought outcome – such as environmentalprotection – may not be in dispute, those arguing for environmental and sustainabilityeducation that in effect might go little further than raising critical awareness do so onthe grounds that good educational practice ought not to transgress this perceivedboundary, lest it risk losing claim to being sound education.

So these educators answer the fundamental question, ‘What is education for?’, bystressing the intrinsic values of education, the quality of the learning experience andthe importance of contextualised knowledge, and often cite arguments in favour ofnurturing the qualities of the autonomous, critically reflective learner who is able tomake informed decisions. In this view, environmental and sustainability issuesprovide an important context through which learning takes place, but ultimately,whether or not the learner engages in more sustainable behaviours or environmentalprotection is of important but of secondary value and is a judgement that needs to bemade by the critically reflective learner. Importantly, this is entirely consistent withthe view of sustainability and sustainable development to which ‘intrinsic’ educatorstend to subscribe, as illustrated by Foster:

Sustainability is not a specifiable target state, but the continuous exploratory pursuit,through open-ended learning, of ways to ensure that life goes on … Deep sustainabilityreally consists in the life-effort of men and women whose education has equipped themwith enough knowledge, sensitivity, emotional range and moral imagination to acttogether as a genuinely learning community in modern conditions. (2008, 145)

So whilst instrumental educators see sustainability as an identifiable state whichcan be educated for, instrinsic educators in contrast see the learning process as anintrinsic and vital part of sustainable development which cannot be known inadvance or predetermined. I would argue that this is valid to a degree but is also self-limiting because it tends to deny or avoid a purposive or directive dimension. Froman instrinsic educator’s point of view, it is much more defensible to educate the criti-cal thinker who can then make informed decisions than to educate for any kind ofdesirable direction (or away from an existing state), which might possibly open upaccusations of ideological orientation. Yet, from a sustainability point of view, andgiven the urgency of the issues that face us, the instrinsic stance may be necessary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

Environmental Education Research 515

but not sufficient. As O’Riordan and Voisey suggest, whilst there is ‘no templatefor the transition to sustainability … there is a direction and there are principles’(1998, xv).

The intrinsic position inclines towards an idealist rather than a realist view of theworld, and a social constructivist view of learning and the learner, with an emphasison building the individual’s capacity to think critically, systemically and reflexively.From a resilience standpoint, one of the strengths of the ‘intrinsic’ view is that itattempts to promote ‘adaptive capacity’ in the learner in the face of uncertainty, yetits literature, by and large, is not informed by resilience theory. Interestingly, however,the intrinsic view is consistent with another and separate use of the word ‘resilience’– in relation to what is termed the ‘resilient learner’ – which is reviewed later in thepaper.

Comparing the two views

The difference between these two views is marked and reflects a wider and significanttension in educational debate. They are consistent with what Scott and Vare (2008)have called ‘ESD 1’ and ‘ESD 2’ approaches, and my own educational ‘Strategy 1’and ‘Strategy 2’ analysis (Sterling 1996). In sum, an instrumental view of educationtends to stress purpose and product, that is, outcomes and ‘effectiveness’. It isconcerned more with ‘what education is for’, rather than the nature of education, iscontent focused and is often reflected in such terms as education ‘for literacy’, ‘forhealth’, ‘for development’, for ‘economic competiveness’ and so on, as well aseducation ‘for sustainability’. The intrinsic view however stresses process – thequality of experience of teaching and learning – is pedagogy focused and is primarilyconcerned with ‘what education is’ and the learners’ experience rather than what itmight eventually lead to or influence. In terms of worldview and epistemology, thisdichotomy reflects the realism–idealism tension; in terms of learning theory, it reflectsthe behaviourism–constructivism tension; in terms of methodology, it reflects thecontent–process and transmission–transformation tensions. In environmental educa-tion – and depicted in simple terms – the first orientation is more interested in the‘environment’ part of environmental education, whilst the second orientation is moreinterested in the ‘education’ part of environmental education: a difference between‘education for the environment’ and ‘education for being’ perhaps. Summed upstarkly, the first view is essentially outer directed, the second view more innerdirected.

These two positions may be mapped as presented in Table 1.It is important to note that these are not two simple ‘camps’ – there is a spectrum

of possible positions and practices across these platforms, and certainly examples ofwhere the two positions are integrated, but I would maintain that the model helpsclarify an underlying (and at times unspoken) tension between behaviourist andconstructivist tensions, for example, as has been evidenced in debate about indicatorsfor ESD (e.g. Tilbury and Janousek 2007).

This analysis helps account for the relative lack of significant progress of sustain-ability education. As I have suggested elsewhere:

The behaviourist view tends to provoke an accommodatory response from educationalsystems, a tinkering with curriculum content or greening of the estate, which may or may

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

516 S. Sterling

not take place to any great depth and level of coherence. The constructivist approachsuggests a deeper reformatory response, but one which education systems find hard tograsp, or to distinguish from ‘good education’ that they may claim to be providingalready. (Sterling 2004, 54, emphasis in original)

Not least, the differences in approach between ‘instrumental’ and ‘intrinsic’ viewsof environmental and sustainability education have weakened its overall ability topresent a coherent case for a transformative educational paradigm commensurate withthe social–economic–ecological challenges which face us. Yet I argue that these twoviews are not incompatible, and each brings strengths which addresses the other’sweakness.

Their relationship can be better appreciated if viewed through the lens of learningtheory, following Bateson’s (1972) learning levels and adopted by other theoristssince (e.g. Argyris and Schon 1996; Bawden 1997a, 1997b). If the two approaches areseen as learning responses to the environmental/sustainability crises, we mightsuggest that seen integratively, the instrumental view tends to fall into the category ofa first-order learning response (i.e. basic learning), whereas the intrinsic view isconsistent with a second-order learning response (i.e. learning about learning),whereby assumptions are questioned and reflexivity is valued; indeed this positionarose through questioning of the limits of instrumental education. Using the insightthat the Bateson lens affords helps us then conceive a changed education paradigmconsistent with a third-order change which builds on the first two approaches. I seethis as an ecological transformative educational paradigm appropriate to our times(discussed at length in my thesis, Sterling 2003). Importantly, I see social learninginformed by resilience theory (reviewed below) as highly relevant here, bringing an

Table 1. Fundamental orientations influencing environmental/sustainability education.

Position Behaviourist Constructivist

Ontology Realist Idealist

Epistemology Objectivist/positivist Constructivist/interpretivist

View of knowledge Universalised Contextualised

Theory of learning Instructivist Constructivist

Function of environmental education/sustainability education

Remedial Developmental

Main emphasis Goals/outcomes Learning experience

Focus Knowledge acquisition (and values/skills)

Meaning-making

Seeks Behavioural change Capacity building, self-development

Reflects Instrumental values Intrinsic values

Pedagogy Transmission/instructivist Transaction or transformation/constructivist

Desired change Integration (environmental responsibility)

Autonomy – individual as decision-maker

Intrinsic problems Objectivism; can lack critical reflexivity

Relativism; can lack direction

Source: Sterling (2004, 53).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

Environmental Education Research 517

important dimension to such a paradigm – which would subsume the first-order andsecond-order learning levels outlined above. Not least, it adds the critically importantdimension of collective learning, rather than the emphasis on the individual shared bythe two views outlined above. Before taking this argument further, I wish to brieflydivert to look at a relevant but, as yet, separate discourse which focuses on the resilientlearner to see what this might add to the picture.

The resilient learner

The concept of the resilient learner is worth reflecting on as, whilst it hardly featuresin either sustainability education discourse or social learning in relation to resilience,it is relevant to both. It also links to discourse on human development and resilience.One of the key thinkers who has popularised the notion of the resilient learner is GuyClaxton. His books are essentially about individual learning skills or competencieswhich he believes should be developed alongside the formal curriculum. He outlinesand advocates four ‘Rs’ as follows (Claxton 2002):

● Resilience: being ready, willing and able to lock on to learning● Resourcefulness: being ready, willing and able to learn in different ways● Reflection: being ready, willing and able to become more strategic about

learning● Relationships: being ready, willing and able to learn alone and with others

These ideas have been influential in school systems, particularly in the UK, forexample, featuring in professional development courses and in guidance to students.Talking further about resilience, Wells and Claxton state:

One of the key qualities of the effective real-life learner is surely the ability to stayintelligently engaged with a complex and unpredictable situation, a property we mightcall ‘resilience’. Resilient individuals will be more inclined to take on learning chal-lenges of which the outcome is uncertain, to persist with learning despite temporaryconfusion or frustration, and to recover from setbacks and failures. (2002, 28)

At a deeper level, in the USA, there is interest in the idea of resilience as part ofchild and human development. Bernard (2004) sees resilience as strengths or compe-tencies associated with healthy development and life success in the individual.

She offers four overlapping categories of ‘resilience strength’: social competence,problem solving, autonomy and sense of purpose. Interestingly, Bernard seesresilience as emanating from ‘innate self-righting tendencies’ (2004, 10) and statesthat ‘the development of human resiliency is none other than the process of healthyhuman development’ (2004, 9).

From a systems view, the resilient learner may be seen as a ‘resilient system’. Yetthere appears to be little or no cross-over between the ‘resilient learner discourse’ andlearning in relation to social–ecological resilience (Masten and Obradovic 2008).Neither – interestingly – is there much evidence of links between resilient learnerdiscourse and sustainability education discourse. That said, there is much in commonbetween resilient learner discourse and the intrinsic view of sustainability education(reviewed above).

Let us summarise the positions covered to date:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

518 S. Sterling

Environmental/sustainability education – instrumentalist/behaviourist position.Strong on real-world orientation and reflecting urgency, emphasis on content,but weaker on educational process. Emphasis on individual learner. Consistentwith first-order learning.

Environmental/sustainability education – intrinsic/constructivist position.Strong on learning process but weaker on real-world objectives and in reflectingurgency. Content more likely to be contended and seen as less important thanprocess. Emphasis on individual learner. Consistent – to a degree – withsecond-order learning, where it encourages critical reflection on values andassumptions.

Resilient learner – strong on process but contextual framework/content andsustainability issues may be weakly recognized. Emphasis on individual learner.Consistent – to a degree – with second-order learning, particularly wherepersonal development is core to practice.

I now look at the fourth discourse, which is ‘social learning in relation to social–ecological system resilience’.

Social learning in relation to social–ecological system resilience

Discourse around social and adaptive learning in relation to resilience in social–ecological systems lies within the literature of natural resources management andsystem resilience (Berkes and Folke 1998; Folke et al. 2002; Gunderson and Holling2002; Armitage, Marschke, and Plummer 2006; Armitage et al. 2008). With someexceptions (Krasny and Tidball 2009), this discourse has been almost entirely separatefrom environmental and sustainability education discourses (as evidenced by thepages of Environmental Education Research, for example, over past years) andconducted by a largely separate ‘community of practice’ (Wenger 1998) based onenvironmental science and environmental management. The nature of this discourseis covered elsewhere in this collection, but for the purposes of this paper, I willsummarise some key ideas. One of the more obvious and key distinctions between thisdiscourse and those outlined above is the emphasis on social learning, whichArmitage et al. define as:

The collaborative or mutual development and sharing of knowledge by multiple stake-holders (both people and organizations) through learning-by-doing. (2008, 96)

Similarly, Blackmore states that it is ‘learning our way together to a more sustain-able future in dynamic multi-stakeholder situations of uncertainty and complexity’(2009, 229). Hence, there is a prior emphasis on context, on participative approaches,on collective (rather than individual) learning, on self-organisation and on emergence(rather than predetermined ‘learning outcomes’). The theory and practice of sociallearning for resilience arose primarily from the recognition that the old ‘command andcontrol’ paradigm of resource management was of limited use in conditions ofuncertainty and complexity (Folke et al. 2002; Walker and Salt 2006). If top-down,applied, expert-led approaches were of limited use, then the understanding arose,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

Environmental Education Research 519

particularly in the 1990s, that learning amongst both resource-dependent communitiesand policy-makers was necessary to assure resource sustainability through a processof ‘adaptive co-management’. More profoundly, the capacity to learn was seen as acritical property of any dynamically sustainable social–ecological system, or ‘complexadaptive system’ (Folke et al. 2002). Here was a fundamental break with conventionalmethodologies associated with Western resource management science which empha-sises the role of the expert, universally applicable and decontextualised knowledge,and control (Gunderson and Holling 2002). This radically different approach recogn-ises that transmissive or instructive learning cannot suffice in conditions of uncertaintyand complexity. Hence, Armitage et al. state that adaptive co-management requires amodel of learning that ‘accounts for social context (e.g. conflict and power imbal-ances), pluralism, critical reflection, adaptive capacity, systems thinking or intercon-nectedness, a diversity of approaches to adaptation, and paradigm shifts’ (2008, 98).

This is consistent with Ison, Maiteny, and Carr’s distinction between ‘system-determined problems’ and ‘problem-determined systems’ (1997, 261). If we nowswitch attention to formal education (which is the focus of much sustainabilityeducation discourse), it is possible to see conventional educational frameworks asbeing consistent with a ‘command and control’ approach, and with ‘system-determined problems’ whereby policy determines curriculum and valued knowledge,methodology and methods (which tend to be transmissive), and sought outcomes fromthe learning process (which tends to have an individual rather than collective focus).Problem-determined systems in contrast involve all relevant actors in shaping thelearning system and outcomes through a participatory approach.

However, with regard to natural resource management (NRM), Armitage,Marschke, and Plummer note a ‘paradox of learning’; they argue that whilst the impor-tance of learning is widely recognised in NRM circles, such learning can sometimesbe superficial and less meaningful than intended (2007, 97). Thus, they call for ‘greaterspecificity with respect to learning goals, approaches and outcomes as (stakeholders)seek to collaboratively understand and manage environmental change, and identifyspecific strategies to deal with uncertainty and surprise’ (2007, 87). This is an inter-esting view that casts an eye back on the ‘first-order’ position in instrumental learning.As such, it allows us to conceive an integrative view of the four approaches/positionsoutlined thus far, across Bateson’s learning levels, with social learning in relation toresilience theory indicating the possibility of a third-order (or paradigm) change.

I now summarise the fourth approach briefly reviewed above.

Social learning in relation to resilience theory – strong on real-world orienta-tion, particularly in local contexts, strong on applied systems theory and holisticmethodology, strong on group participative approaches and stakeholder engage-ment, weaker on personal change, human development and psychology, and therole of individual in social learning. Little influence in formal educationsystems. Consistent – to a degree – with third-order learning, where it advocatesand manifests paradigm change.

The next section looks at the meaning of and challenges associated with resilience.This sets a context for discussion later in the paper on how the education/learningapproaches above might be reconciled into a framework that is consistent with thesechallenges.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

520 S. Sterling

The challenge of resilience

As noted above, resilience can be defined as ‘the capacity of a system to absorbdisturbance and still retain its basic function and structure’ (Walker and Salt 2006,xiii). However, as noted earlier in this collection, Gunderson and Holling (2002, 28)make an important distinction between engineering resilience, which concentrates onstability near a presumed steady state, resistance to disturbance and the speed of returnto equilibrium state, and ecosystem resilience, which is the scale of disturbance thatcan be absorbed before the system changes structure. The former focuses on effi-ciency, control, constancy and predictability, and is the conventional and dominantview; the latter focuses on persistence, adaptiveness, variability and unpredictability,where systems are seen to be complex, non-linear, multi-equilibriated and self-organising. Gunderson and Holling argue that sustainable relationships betweenpeople and nature require an emphasis on the second definition of resilience, and thatexclusive emphasis on the first definition applied to natural systems leads to loss ofecosystem resilience (2002, 28).

Folke et al. (2002, 5) note that the antonym of resilience is often said to be vulner-ability. Major reports from such bodies as the Worldwatch Institute, the WorldResources Institute, World Wildlife Fund and the UN Environment Program regularlycatalogue critical decline in environmental systems, and hence also in social systems.According to Homer-Dixon, ‘the possibility of abrupt breakdown in our vital socialand technological systems is rising, and perhaps rising fast’ (2006, 11). However, itwould be unwise to conclude that resilience as such is always a ‘good thing’. Walkerand Salt note that it is ‘not necessarily desirable’ (2006, 37) and give contrastingexamples of a salinised landscape and Franco’s fascist regime in Spain as undesirablesystems that demonstrate resilience.

This presents a very important paradox concerning the resilience of systems thatmay ultimately prove unsustainable or be contributing to unsustainability in the widersystem: in other words, a resilient system may not be a sustainable system. Whilst‘sustainable systems need to be resilient’ (Folke et al. 2002, 23), we might equallyargue that resilient systems need to be sustainable. Beyond social–ecological systems,this notion can also be applied to thought systems (Bohm 1992) and epistemologies(operative ways of knowing and thinking that frame people’s perception of and inter-action with the world). Indeed, the assumption of much sustainability education theoryis that significant change in cultural worldview is necessary if more sustainable statesof society are to be attained. This is in common with the Resilience Alliance, whichmaintains that a fundamental challenge is to change perceptions and mindsets ‘acrossall sectors of society … from the view of humanity as independent of nature to one ofhumanity and nature as co-evolving in a dynamic fashion within the biosphere’ (Folkeet al. 2002, 4). The paradox is that, whilst writers interested in resilience stress the needfor people to understand resilience and shift their thinking paradigmatically, manypeople’s worldviews and frameworks for understanding are themselves resilientsystems. As Homer-Dixon suggests, ‘we often invest enormous mental energy to main-tain a perspective on the world that’s at variance with reality’ (2009, 3).

By extension, educational systems also tend to be resilient – or at least resistant –systems and do not generally demonstrate an ability to adapt to current conditions orbe anticipative. As I have written:

The paradox of education is that it is seen as a preparation for the future, but it grows outof the past. In stable conditions, this socialization and replication function of education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

Environmental Education Research 521

is sufficient: in volatile conditions where there is an increasingly shared sense (as wellas numerous reports indicating) that the future will not be anything like a linear extensionof the past, it sets boundaries and barriers to innovation, creativity, and experimentation.(Sterling 2009, 19)

At personal levels, the maintenance of deep-seated worldviews tends to prevaildespite evidence that they may no longer be appropriate to changed conditions. It maybe that Chapman’s view is true of many people, who he suggests ‘will not change theirmode of thinking or operating within the world until their existing modes are provedbeyond doubt, through direct experience, to be failing’ (2002, 14).

Homer-Dixon suggests that ‘we often need to experience an abrupt and harshthreshold event, breakdown, or surprise before we are willing to accept that we can’tcontinue the way we’re going’ (2006, 268). Bohm (1992, 18–20) goes further bysuggesting that the unsustainability problems we face are a product of the way wethink and therefore cannot be resolved by the same kind of thinking:

You may say, ‘I see a problem here, so I will bring my thought to bear on this problem’.But ‘my’ thought is part of the system. It has the same fault as the fault I’m trying to lookat, or a similar fault … in dealing with it, we use the same kind of fragmentary thoughtthat produced the problem. (18)

An inability to change, coupled with a vague but felt awareness of threats toeconomic and environmental systems, appears to result in anxiety. However, Homer-Dixon sees some hope here. As our worldview or explanation of the world ‘becomesprogressively more complex, cumbersome, and rigid, it loses resilience and is ripe forcollapse should another better theory come along’ (2009, 3). So loss of resilience orbreakdown can pave the way for breakthrough to a different state or level of adaptivefunctioning. If the same applies to educational systems, then education philosophies,programmes and practices which purport to advance sustainability have an addedresponsibility – to indicate new pathways as old and less appropriate or maladaptiveideas wither or collapse.

Sustainable education as a transformative model

The key question at this point is what kinds of education and learning experience areappropriate for a world where surprise and unaccustomed levels of change will likelybecome major features of our lives. Numerous commentators have suggested that weneed to radically change our ways of thinking towards more holistic, systemic andintegrative modes (Clark 1989; Milbrath 1989; Bohm 1992; Capra 1996; Laszlo1997), whilst similarly Reason and Bradbury (2001) argue for an ecological or partic-ipatory worldview. Walker and Salt (2006) call for ‘resilience thinking’, whilstHomer-Dixon advocates the adoption of what he terms ‘the prospective mind’, whichis ‘grounded in the knowledge that constant surprise and change are now inevitable’(2006, 29). Such a collective mind, he says, would help make our societies – and eachone of us – more resilient to external shock and more supple in response to rapidchange (2006, 30). This ‘adoption’, however, is unlikely to happen unassisted, notleast because of the resilience of established and dominant worldviews, as notedabove.

Rather, the prospective mind might be nurtured through transformative andreinvigorated forms of sustainability education which integrate the best of the four

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

522 S. Sterling

forms of education/learning reviewed at the beginning of this paper and, in so doing,also address their weaknesses. Such forms would amongst other things:

● From instrumental ESD: recognise urgency, accept the need for behaviouralchange, and the need for content, informed increasingly by resilience theory andsystems concepts amongst others.

● From intrinsic ESD: accept the need for inner change, the need for attention toprocess and the need for critically aware, reflexive, autonomous learners.

● From resilient learner and developmental theory: recognise individual resilienceand adaptability as a desirable quality associated with personal development.

● From social learning related to resilience theory: adopt and accept key ideasabout participative and contextualised learning, about social–ecological systemsand their well-being, about dynamic systems concepts, as well as the need forparadigm change towards holistic and integrative thinking and approaches.

I have argued extensively elsewhere (Sterling 2001, 2003) that what is required isa change of educational culture towards what I have termed ‘sustainable education’,an ecological or relational paradigm which ‘develops and embodies the theory andpractice of sustainability in a way which is critically aware. It is therefore a transfor-mative paradigm which values, sustains and realises human potential in relation to theneed to attain and sustain social, economic and ecological wellbeing, recognising thatthey must be part of the same dynamic’ (Sterling 2001, 22).

The need in education is for a ‘culture of critical commitment’ – engaged enoughto make a real difference to social–ecological resilience and sustainability but reflex-ively critical enough to learn from experience and to keep options open (Gray-Donaldand Sterling 2007). The reason for advocating such a shift follows from the same logicthat the resilience thinkers referenced above invoke – that old paradigms (in this case,in education) no longer serve us well in extraordinary times. Whilst education iswidely held to be a key agent of change, it is currently largely part of the unsustain-ability problem that it needs to address (Orr 1994). Thus, the big challenge is to worktowards transformative learning in a system that itself is intended to be the primeagency of learning.

Table 2. Towards a sustainable education paradigm: key characteristics.

Ontology Realist/idealist (relationalist)

Epistemology ParticipatoryTheory of learning Participative/systemicFunction of education Remedial/developmental/transformativeMain emphasis Towards transformative learning experiencesFocus Meaning-making grounded in contextSeeks Wholeness and sustainability in learning and living contextsReflects Instrumental, and intrinsic and transformative valuesPedagogy Transformative where possible and appropriateDesired change Contextually appropriate (i.e. healthy, sustainable relationships) in

social–ecological systems at all levels

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

Environmental Education Research 523

Achieving some clarity about the conceptual basis for rethinking education is avital step towards its realisation. In essence, I argue that the two pole positions, aninstrumentalist ‘learning for sustainability’ and the intrinsic value of the ‘resilientlearner’, should not be seen as oppositional but potentially and necessarily comple-mentary, indeed co-dependent. Revisiting Table 1, a sustainable education paradigmintegrates elements of all positions reviewed in this paper into a greater whole, thusTable 2.

This model indicates the possibility of integrating but also going beyondinstrumental and intrinsic sustainability education positions. In both these approaches,the two themes of ‘education’ and ‘sustainability’ are seen as separate domains. In thesustainable education paradigm, ideas of sustainability and resilience theory, as wellas being studied, are also embodied and enacted in a learning situation, giving rise towhat might be termed ‘learning as sustainability’ (Sterling 2003), which can engenderthird-order or epistemic learning.

The theoretical vision that this gives rise to might be characterised as follows:

Learning is seen as an essentially creative, reflexive and participative process.Knowing is seen as approximate, relational and often provisional, and learningis continual exploration through practice, whereby the meaning, implicationsand practicalities of sustainable living are continually explored and negotiated.There is a keen sense of emergence (unplanned ideas, outcomes and dynamicsarising from the learning situation) and the ability to work with ambiguity anduncertainty. Space, reflective time, experimentation and error are valued toallow creativity, imagination and cooperative learning to flourish. Inter- andtransdisciplinarity are common, there is an emphasis on real-life issues and theboundaries between institution and community are fluid. In this dynamic state,the process of sustainable living and developing resilience is essentially one oflearning, whilst the context of learning is essentially that of sustainability.

This is what Fear et al. refer to as engaged learning, which is ‘informed conceptu-ally, grounded philosophically and undertaken with normative intent’ (2006, 63).Whilst this might seem unlikely and idealistic, it has a resonance with a number of realexamples. Such an approach was manifested by the experience of HawkesburyCollege in Australia, which for some 20 years, starting in the late 1970s, explored thepossibility and problems of systemic change in education and learning. Thus, Bawden,who led this work, advocates what he terms ‘self-organising critical learning systems’,a transformed model of education and learning that is, in turn, more conducive totransformative learning than most current models and practices in educational systems(Bawden 1997a, 30). As Bawden suggests:

The central feature of the approach is … the design, establishment, maintenance, anddevelopment of self-referential, or critical, learning systems … (which can) … learnabout their own learning. (1997b, 4)

Bawden summarises this praxis neatly as the ‘systemic development of systemicdevelopment’ (1997b, 1).

A further example is Schumacher College, in Dartington, UK, a small indepen-dently run institution whose advertised descriptor is ‘Transformative Learning forSustainable Living’. On the basis of a long association with the College, I see this is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

524 S. Sterling

a fair claim as there is significant evidence of – and an unusually high incidence –transformative learning, compared with the quality of the learning experience in mostformal mainstream institutions. These are some participants’ quotes from an evalua-tion and review which I carried out (Sterling and Baines 2002):

It made a profound difference in that it has enabled me to clarify my life purpose andbegin to put in place structures consistent with this.

One of the most intensive periods of my life, because a huge bounded energy wasreleased in me, which involved a deep transformation.

There is some extraordinary alchemy which seems to happen on all the courses, evenshort one-week ones.

I am still experiencing the influence of Schumacher College in a deep and profound way.

These kinds of quotes are not unusual amongst participant evaluations of courses,and the College trades on its international reputation for providing deep learningexperiences for participants. The 2002 evaluation suggests that transformative learn-ing experiences – which by their nature cannot be ‘guaranteed’ – are facilitated by theCollege’s both overt and implicit systemicity as regards most aspects of its operation.Hence, a regular facilitator commented on ‘the total evolved system of the staff/volunteers/student body/tutors’ as a ‘truly remarkable presence’ in facilitating change(Sterling and Baines 2002).

Obviously, Hawkesbury College was and Schumacher College remains still veryunusual exemplars where the combination of visionary leadership and a measure ofindependence allowed the development of innovative systemic learning communities.What these exemplars have shown is that it is possible to combine instrumental andintrinsic views of education and learning seamlessly, and that transformative learning,ostensibly an intrinsic and life-changing inner process, leads to outward actions, quiteoften in astonishing, effective and innovative ways, as stories of SchumacherCollege’s alumni participants have often demonstrated.

The scenario of sustainable education outlined above is more resonant with themore flexible and participative traditions of community and adult education than thoseof formal institutions (Fagan 2009). It is perhaps no surprise then that one of the mostdynamic and noteworthy movements of recent years is the Transition Towns move-ment, which has its origins in concern over how communities can prepare for a post-peak-oil world, and has now to begun spread to communities across the globe. (As ofmid-2009, figures suggested some 150 initiatives in 14 countries, Goodwin 2009.)Started in Totnes, Devon, the Transition Towns movement specifically sees resilience,and resilience thinking, as the main foundation for its theory and practice. Hence,Hopkins (2008), one of the founders of the movement, quotes Walker and Salt (2006)as key influences and sets out the implications of resilience principles for regeneratingcommunity. Resilience is defined as ‘the capacity of our businesses, communities andsettlements to deal as well as possible with shock. Transition initiatives commit tobuilding resilience across a wide range of areas (food, economics, energy, etc.) andalso on a range of scales’ (Hopkins and Lipman 2009, 8). The Transition Townswebsite (http://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/TransitionNetwork) sets outthe aspiration that ‘communities across the world will unleash their own collectivegenius and embark on an imaginative and practical range of connected initiatives,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

Environmental Education Research 525

leading to a way of life that is more resilient, more fulfilling and more equitable, andthat has dramatically lower levels of carbon emissions’.

Interestingly, the transition literature recognises the relationship between bothinner and outer change as interdependent. It is also noteworthy that there is an embry-onic transition universities movement arising in the UK.

Connective pattern

It may be useful to end with a brief reflection on why the resilience framework andpractice are important in developing a reinvigorated, effective and committed sustain-able education paradigm. They help address the weaknesses of the instrumental andintrinsic positions by lending scientific underpinning, integrative frameworks and keysystemic concepts to the debate. Importantly, they also lend a purposive sense ofdirection through closer understanding of what constitutes desirable, sustainable,resilient systems (and what does not). In return, the educational discourses lend learn-ing theories, critical thinking and methodologies to the resilience debate. The potentialfor greater reciprocation is fairly evident. But beyond this level, I would tentativelysuggest that there is another level of understanding and commonality to be recognisedby looking for the ‘pattern that connects’, to use Bateson’s (1980, 9) well-knowndictum.

In contrast to the modernist and mechanist paradigm, the emergent ecological orparticipatory paradigm (Zweers 2000) emphasises capacity building, self-renewal andself-organisation in the individual and community as a necessary basis for ‘systemshealth’ and sustainability. Thus, ‘learning and education’ and ‘sustainability’ appearfar more closely related than is commonly supposed. The former often emphasisecritical reflection and autonomy, capacity building, and participation, whilst the latteremphasises self-organisation and self-renewal, community, and resilience. Both areessentially about process, emergence and diversity, rather than about product, controland homogeneity. Hence, it is meaningful to talk about ‘learning as sustainability’wherein the two are manifested as inner and outer dimensions of the same dynamic.

Summary and conclusion

This paper suggests that there are two fundamental approaches to sustainability educa-tion which may be termed the instrumental (learning for resilience and sustainability)and the intrinsic (resilient learner), and that their separation – actual or perceived – isdetrimental to the advancement and effectiveness of sustainability education. Seen aslearning responses to the social–ecological contexts and crises we face, they may beseen as first-order and second-order learning responses, respectively. Social learningin relation to resilience theory, as developed by a largely separate community of schol-ars, may be seen as representing a kind of third-order response as it arises from andadvocates paradigm change towards holistic, systemic and integrative approaches.Necessarily reconciled and integrated, these responses can help generate a transforma-tive educational paradigm, labelled here ‘sustainable education’ or ‘learning assustainability’ which is appropriate to the social–ecological conditions we face, andcan meet the challenge that Richmond (2009) sets at the start of this paper. Such aparadigm is necessary to nurture resilient learners capable of building resilient,sustainable social–ecological systems. To date, a sustainable education paradigm hasbeen infrequently practised, particularly in mainstream formal education, but

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

526 S. Sterling

alternative communities of learning such as Schumacher College and communitymovements such as Transition Towns offer promising exemplars.

In essence, sustainability is about the intentional conservation of potential, increas-ing self-organisation, resilience and adaptive capacity at all nested levels withinsocial–ecological systems. Learning – reflexive, experiential, experimental, participa-tive, iterative, real-world and action-oriented – is intrinsic to this process andchallenge. Meanwhile, the articulation of an ecological and transformative educationalparadigm contributes to critical discourse and, in some way, acts as a vision orattractor that can make its wide realisation more likely.

In 1912, the Spanish poet Antonio Machado, wrote, ‘There is no road. The road ismade by walking’ in his poem Proverbios y cantares (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Antonio_Machado). In working towards a more sustainable, less crisis-prone world,certainly how we ‘walk’ is critically important, but so too is the direction wecollectively take.

Notes on contributorProfessor Stephen Sterling is Associate Director of the Centre for Sustainable Futures at theUniversity of Plymouth and Senior Advisor to the Higher Education Academy ESD Project.His interest is in ecological thinking, learning theory and systemic change, particularly inhigher education institutions.

ReferencesArgyris, C., and D. Schon. 1996. Organisational learning II. New York: Addison Wesley.Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. 2007. Adaptive co-management and the

paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18, no. 1: 86–98.Armitage, D., R. Plummer, F. Berkes, R.I. Arthur, A. Charles, I. Davidson-Hunt, A. Diduck,

et al. 2008. Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers inEcology and the Environment 7, no. 2: 95–102.

Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler.Bateson, G. 1980. Mind and nature – A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books.Bawden, R. 1997a. ‘Leadership for systemic development’ in Centre for Systemic Develop-

ment. In Resource manual for leadership and change, 12–33. Hawkesbury: University ofWestern Sydney.

Bawden, R. 1997b. The community challenge: The learning response. Invited plenary paperpresented at the 29th annual international meeting of the Community DevelopmentSociety, July 27–30, in Athens, GA.

Berkes, F., and C. Folke, eds. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: Managementpractices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bernard, B. 2004. Resiliency: What we have learned. San Francisco: WestEd.Blackmore, C. 2007. What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for

addressing resource dilemmas? A theoretical overview. Environmental Science & Policy10, no. 6: 513–25.

Blackmore, C. 2009. Social learning and environmental responsibility. In The environmentalresponsibility reader, ed. M. Reynolds, C. Blackmore, and M.J. Smith, 229–35. London:Zed Books.

Bohm, D. 1992. Thought as a system. London: Routledge.Capra, F. 1996. The web of life. London: Harper and Collins.Chapman, J. 2002. System failure. London: Demos.Clark, M. 1989. Ariadne’s thread – The search for new ways of thinking. Basingstoke:

Macmillan.Claxton, G. 2002. Building learning power: Helping young people become better learners.

Bristol: TLO.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

Environmental Education Research 527

Fagan, G. 2009. Citizen engagement. In The handbook of sustainability literacy – Skills for achanging world, ed. A. Stibbe, 199–203. Dartington: Green Books.

Fear, F., C. Rosaen, R. Bawden, and P. Foster-Fishman. 2006. Coming to critical engagement.Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, B. Walker, J. Bengtsson,et al. 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a worldof transformations. Scientific background paper on resilience for the process of theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development. http://www.unisdr.org/eng/risk-reduction/sustainable-development/resilience-sd.pdf.

Forum for the Future. 2004. Sustainability literacy: Knowledge and skills for the future.Report from Forum for the Future’s Consultation Workshop, July 21, in London.

Foster, J. 2008. The sustainability mirage – Illusion and reality in the coming war on climatechange. London: Earthscan.

Goodwin, B. 2009. Resilience. Resurgence July/August, no. 255: 37–9.Gough, S., and W. Scott. 2007. Higher education and sustainable development – Paradox and

possibility. London: Routledge.Gray-Donald, J., and S. Sterling, eds. 2007. Sustainability and education: Towards a culture of

critical commitment. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 2,nos. 3–4 (Special Issue): 241–8.

Gunderson, L.H., and C.S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy – Understanding transformations inhuman and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Homer-Dixon, T. 2006. The upside of down – Catastrophe, creativity and the renewal ofcivilisation. London: Souvenir Press.

Homer-Dixon, T. 2009. Our panarchic future. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6008(accessed March 20, 2009).

Hopkins, R. 2008. The transition handbook – From oil dependency to local resilience. Totnes:Green Books.

Hopkins, R., and P. Lipman. 2009. Transition network – Who we are and what we do. Totnes:Transition Network.

Ison, R., P. Maiteny, and S. Carr. 1997. Systems methodologies for sustainable naturalresources research and development. Agricultural Systems 55, no. 2: 257–72.

Jickling, B., and H. Spork. 1998. Education for the environment: A critique. EnvironmentalEducation Research 4, no. 3: 309–27.

Krasny, M., and K. Tidball. 2009. Applying a resilience systems framework to urban environ-mental education. Environmental Education Research 15, no. 4: 465–82.

Laszlo, E. 1997. 3rd Millennium – The challenge and the vision. The club of Budapest.Stroud: Gaia Books.

Mezirow, J. 2000. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Milbrath, L. 1989. Envisioning a sustainable society. Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press.

O’Riordan, T., and H. Voisey. 1998. The politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. London: Earthscan.O’Sullivan, E. 1999. Transformative learning – Educational vision for the 21st century.

London: OISE/UT/Zed Books.Orr, D. 1994. Earth in mind – On education, environment and the human prospect.

Washington, DC: Island Press.Parker, J. 2008. Situating education for sustainability: A framework approach. In Journeys

around education for sustainability, ed. J. Parker and R. Wade, 33–63. London: LondonSouth Bank University.

Reason, P., and H. Bradbury. 2001. Introduction: Inquiry and participation in a search of aworld worthy of human aspiration. In Handbook of action research – Participativepractice and enquiry, ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 1–14. London: Sage.

Richmond, M. 2009. Foreword. In A review of contexts and structures for education forsustainable development – Learning for a sustainable world, ed. A. Wals, 3. Paris:UNESCO.

Scott, W., and P. Vare. 2008. Education for sustainable development – Two sides andan edge. DEA Thinkpiece. http://www.tidec.org/GL%20toolkit/Secondary%20handbook/2c.61%20dea_thinkpiece_vare_scott.pdf.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014

528 S. Sterling

Selby, D. 2008. The firm and shaky ground of education for sustainable development. InGreen frontiers – Environmental educators dancing away from mechanism, ed. J. Gray-Donald and D. Selby, 59–75. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Sterling, S. 1996. Developing strategy. In Education for sustainability, ed. J. Huckle and S.Sterling, 197–211. London: Earthscan.

Sterling, S. 2001. Sustainable education – Re-visioning learning and change (SchumacherSociety Briefing no. 6). Dartington: Green Books.

Sterling, S. 2003. Whole systems thinking as a basis for paradigm change in education –Explorations in the context of sustainability. Ph.D. diss., Centre for Research inEducation and the Environment, University of Bath. http://www.bath.ac.uk/cree/sterling/sterlingthesis.pdf.

Sterling, S. 2004. An analysis of the development of sustainability education internationally:Evolution, interpretation and transformative potential. In Sustainable development: Achallenge for higher education, ed. J. Blewitt and C. Cullingford, 43–62. London:Earthscan.

Sterling, S. 2009. Towards sustainable education. Environmental Scientist 18, no. 1: 19–21.Sterling, S., and J. Baines. 2002. A review of learning at Schumacher College. Unpublished

report. Bureau for Environmental Education and Training, Dorchester, London.Tilbury, D., and S. Janousek. 2007. Asia Pacific guidelines for the development of national

ESD indicators. Bangkok: UNESCO.UNESCO. 2009. Education for sustainable development. http://portal.unesco.org/education/

en/ev.php-URL_ID=23295&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.Walker, B., and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking – Sustaining ecosystems and people in a

changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press.Wells, G., and G. Claxton. 2002. Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociological perspec-

tives of the future. Oxford: Blackwell.Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice – Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Zweers, W. 2000. Participation with nature – Outline for an ecologisation of our worldview.

Utrecht: International Books.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

2:00

02

Aug

ust 2

014