Environmental Education Research Curriculum ...

This article was downloaded by: [The National University and Library of Iceland] On: 07 July 2014, At: 05:47 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Education Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Curriculum analysis and education for sustainable development in Iceland Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannesson b

a b

b

, Kristín Norðdahl , Gunnhildur b

Óskarsdóttir , Auður Pálsdóttir & Björg Pétursdóttir

c

a

Faculty of Education , University of Akureyri , Akureyri, Iceland

b

School of Education , University of Iceland , Reykjavík, Iceland

c

Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture , Reykjavík, Iceland Published online: 12 May 2011.

To cite this article: Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannesson , Kristín Norðdahl , Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttir , Auður Pálsdóttir & Björg Pétursdóttir (2011) Curriculum analysis and education for sustainable development in Iceland, Environmental Education Research, 17:3, 375-391, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2010.545872 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.545872

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 to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and 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 Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial 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/termsand-conditions

Environmental Education Research Vol. 17, No. 3, June 2011, 375–391

Downloaded by [The National University and Library of Iceland] at 05:47 07 July 2014

Curriculum analysis and education for sustainable development in Iceland Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannessona,b*, Kristín Norðdahlb, Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttirb, Auður Pálsdóttirb and Björg Pétursdóttirc aFaculty

of Education, University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland; bSchool of Education, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland; cMinistry of Education, Science, and Culture, Reykjavík, Iceland (Received 14 August 2009; final version received 30 November 2010) Taylor and Francis CEER_A_545872.sgm

Environmental 10.1080/13504622.2010.545872 1350-4622 Original Taylor 02011 00 Prof. [email protected] 000002011 IngolfurJohannesson &Article Francis (print)/1469-5871 Education Research (online)

The article explores how the Icelandic public school curriculum for early childhood, compulsory and upper secondary school deals with education for sustainable development. As the curriculum does not often mention the term sustainability, a key with which to investigate signs of education for sustainable development in the three curricula was created. The key encourages a holistic view of sustainable development, where economic, environmental and social factors are not treated as separate entities. It was designed to reflect the goals of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) with research on environmental education and education for sustainable development in mind. The key has seven characteristics: values, opinions and emotions about nature and environment; knowledge contributing to a sensible use of nature; welfare and public health; democracy, participation, and action competence; equality and multicultural issues; global awareness; and finally, economic development and future prospects. Using the key, a variety of signs and indicators that provide a space for teachers and schools to deal with issues of sustainable development were identified. Keywords: curriculum; curriculum analysis; education for development; environmental education; reorientation of education

sustainable

International organisations, governments, municipal authorities, political parties, businesses, labour unions and non-governmental organisations increasingly use the terms sustainability and sustainable development but with various emphases. This article sets out to explore how the curriculum for the public school system in Iceland deals with issues of sustainability and education for sustainable development.1 We wanted to find out whether the curriculum provides time and space for education for sustainable development. In order to do that, we created a ‘key’ to investigate the Icelandic curriculum for early childhood, compulsory and upper secondary school. We first introduce the conceptual and educational policy background of our work. Then we present the curriculum analysis ‘key’ and how we conducted the analysis of the curriculum. Thereafter, we summarise the results of our study of the curriculum, and, finally, we discuss the implications of using the ‘key’.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1350-4622 print/ISSN 1469-5871 online © 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2010.545872 http://www.informaworld.com

376

I.Á. Jóhannesson et al.


Concepts and background The GETA project The study presented in this article is a part of a project designed to research the status of education for sustainable development in Iceland and to strengthen work in this area. The project consisted of several studies on school development work and action research, where a university-based research group worked with teachers on teacherdefined projects in selected schools. Its original title was in English, ActionESD– Educational Action for Sustainable Development, but we soon created an Icelandic term for the project, GETA.2

Sustainable development and education As a concept, sustainable development is relatively recent, both in policy discourse and everyday language, appearing first in the 1970s. It was popularised in a report entitled Our Common Future released by the United Nations in 1987, the so-called Brundtland report (Brundtland 1987; see also Barlett and Chase 2004, Bergmann et al. 2008). The concept was formally adopted in international treaties drafted at the United Nations conference on environment and development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (Ministry for the Environment 2007). The context in which the concept was presented by the United Nations refers to a wider view of economic development, looking at both benefits and related problems. Using the concept of sustainable development also suggested viewing ‘progress’ with more critical eyes than had been done. Such a view may have resulted in a tendency to understand sustainable development as part of environmental advocacy and even a return to the past (Jóhannesson et al. 2008). The use of the concept ‘sustainable development’ is meant to harmonise economic, environmental and social issues – but there is a variety of ways in which that goal is understood or meant to be achieved (e.g. Hicks 2007; Kemp and Martens 2007; Loeber et al. 2007; Shallcross and Robinson 2007). According to Barlett and Chase (2004), the most common definition used is the one put forward in the Brundtland report: ‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland 1987, 43, cited in Barlett and Chase 2004, 6). The GETA research group leans towards an understanding of sustainability that includes and involves economic welfare and social justice within the ecological possibilities on Earth (see, e.g., Huckle 2006). This understanding requires that we evaluate our immediate aims and everyday objectives from a holistic perspective, where economic, environmental and social issues are interwoven rather than being considered as separate spheres. In this line of thinking, McKeown (2002, 8) suggests that sustainability should be considered as ‘a paradigm for thinking about a future in which environmental, societal, and economic considerations are balanced in the pursuit of development and improved quality of life’. In our understanding, there is an emphasis on the balance in a statement like the one that McKeown makes rather than some development that, in the short run, may improve life. The concept of sustainable development is not unproblematic. This is reflected in a growing body of diverse literature on the subject. Fergus and Rowney (2005, 19) point out that the ‘meaning of the term has become vague, ambiguous, undefined, and often contradictory’. Further, its meaning seems to vary in different contexts. In Iceland, the concept is used by the government as well as by aluminium smelter


Environmental Education Research

377

companies, for example Alcoa and Rio Tinto Alcan, and the environmental movement (Jóhannesson et al. 2008). This is problematic for a precise understanding of the concept, but positive for highlighting different aspects of what sustainability might entail. We also agree with Robinson (2004) who argues that attempts to define the concept too precisely will exclude the points of view that are not phrased in the particular definition (see also Kemp and Martens 2007, Jóhannesson et al. 2008). That way the concept can remain, for us, a ‘paradigm for thinking’ rather than a dogma. Turning to our understanding of education for sustainable development, we simultaneously draw upon research directly on this topic as well as upon research on environmental education.3 While researchers vary in their position, we have noticed that in the research literature it is difficult to pinpoint a clear boundary, pedagogical or conceptual, between what is environmental education and what should be considered education for sustainable development. However, some of the literature deals explicitly with the difference. For instance, Rest (2002, 81) emphasises that education for sustainable development ‘differs significantly from the naturalist, apolitical and scientific work carried out under the banner of “environmental education” in the 1980s and the early 1990s’. We also share the worries of Gruenewald (2004) who argues that environmental education has rooted itself within science education and that education for sustainability needs more of a socio-political perspective than traditional environmental education, so that it will not be forgotten except by a few visionary science teachers (see also Pálsdóttir, Macdonald, and Jóhannesson 2009). The history of environmental education in Iceland has been comparable to that in the neighbouring countries, but some developments have been slower and less focused (Bergmann et al. 2008). Education for sustainable development has an even shorter history in Iceland (2008). In this relative vacuum, the GETA research group has worked towards an understanding of education for sustainable development in context of school development (see, e.g., Pálsdóttir et al. 2009). Most importantly, this is pragmatic work for implementing policy, intruding into the space that we considered could be opened up. But we also agree with Sterling (2001) and Breiting (2009) who emphasise that education should focus on empowerment for democratic engagement and on teachers becoming capable of handling controversial issues with learners. The United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development The work of the GETA group reflects the stance taken in the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. The decade, that is to last from 2005 to 2014, is run under the auspices of UNESCO which maintains a major website dedicated to the decade, where the overall goal is defined as the integration of ‘the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning’ (UNESCO n.d.). The decade’s aim is to support member states in developing their education systems by creating a variety of strategies, goals and guidelines with an emphasis on participation and capacity building. UNESCO has defined five dimensions of the decade, namely, education, science, ethics, culture and communication and information (UNESCO n.d.). The organisation has also identified eight important themes of work: Sustainable urbanisation, sustainable consumption, peace and human security, rural development, cultural diversity, gender equality, health promotion and environment (UNESCO n.d.). These themes became important when composing the key for analysing the curriculum.


378


The Icelandic government’s Welfare for the Future The Icelandic government has a policy on sustainable development, to be found in a document named Welfare for the Future (Ministry for the Environment 2002, 2007). In this document, the Icelandic government defines sustainable development as having three pillars: economic growth, social welfare [and equity], and environmental protection (2002, 2007, 9, the words ‘and equity’ have been added in the English version provided by the Ministry). The Welfare for the Future document does not say much about education for sustainable development, but what it says is under the label of environmental education and how environmental education can deal with issues of sustainability. For instance, it refers to work in environmental education, including the international movement of eco-schools that has become popular in Iceland (Ministry for the Environment 2007). Overall, this policy document provides only minimum information about how to approach education for sustainable development.

Method When the GETA research group designed the overall project, it was clear that we needed to understand the ways in which education for sustainable development was being given space in the Icelandic public school system. We decided that our most important task would be to analyse the curriculum for the first three school levels, namely early childhood education (age 1–6, called pre-school level in government translations), compulsory education (age 6–16) and upper secondary education (age 16–20). Those three school levels have a national curriculum. The members of the GETA group who were to perform the analysis of the documents – the curriculum analysis team, the authors of the article – had either participated in writing the curricula or knew the curriculum well, through teaching college courses or doing curriculum research at the respective universities. We knew we would hardly find the terms sustainability and sustainable development and not much about education for sustainable development. Faced with that initial knowledge, we determined that we would search the curriculum for signs and indicators of ways of thinking about sustainable development. For this task, we created a tool for analysis. We believed that such a tool would need to connect the policies of the government and the United Nations and other relevant agencies and organisations with school curricula and research knowledge. The GETA group drafted a tool that we called ‘a key’. The group discussed what needed to be in the key, and the curriculum analysis team pilot-studied a prototype on some curriculum guides to determine which characteristics of education for sustainable development should be included. Changes were made to the key after the pilot study, as well as through deliberations of the research group.

The GETA curriculum key The curriculum analysis key eventually came to include seven characteristics which reflect the interwoven aspects of sustainable development – economy, environment, society – as well as the themes of the United Nations in its guidelines for the decade (UNESCO n.d., see above; see also Norðdahl 2009; McKeown and Hopkins 2007; Jóhannesson et al. 2008). The key includes both content from the UNESCO guidelines and three principles of action for developing education for sustainability, initially



379

identified by the research groups. These are, first, actions for teaching and learning that enable teachers and learners to build up their knowledge of natural resources and sustainable development; second, actions within schools that encourage a respect for critical values, democratic procedures and social inclusion in developing sustainable practices; and, third, actions at local community level that encourage schools and other organisations to work together in sharing responsibility for a sustainable quality of life (quoted from GETA’s research proposal, see GETA research group 2008b, see also Pálsdóttir, Macdonald, and Jóhannesson 2009). These principles were reflected into the GETA curriculum key, which lists the following characteristics (the Icelandic headings are in parentheses) as being indicative of educational action for sustainable development: (1) Indications of values, opinions and feelings about nature and environment (gildi, viðhorf og tilfinningar gagnvart náttúru og umhverfi). (2) Identification of knowledge contributing to a sensible use of nature (þekking sem hjálpar til við að nota náttúruna skynsamlega). (3) Statements about welfare and public health (velferð og l y´ðheilsa). (4) Indications of democracy, participation and action competence (l y´ðræði, þátttaka í samfélaginu, geta til aðgerða). (5) Recognition of equality and multicultural issues (jafnrétti og fjölmenning). (6) Indications of awareness and understanding of global issues (alþjóðavitund og hnattrænn skilningur). (7) References to economic development and future prospects (efnahagsþróun og framtíðars y´n).4 y[aec]ut

ya[e]cut

The order of the characteristics is significant in the sense that the first two, values and knowledge, are interwoven in all the other characteristics, and the final one directs us to the future.5 Selection and analysis of curriculum documents When the analysis took place in the autumn of 2007, there were around 100 curriculum guides available for the three school levels we were to analyse. For early childhood education, there was the National Curriculum Guide for Pre-Schools, one volume, about 50 pages (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 1999a). At first, we decided that we would read only the general section and subject sections for the compulsory level, that are identified in the Icelandic government’s sustainability policy, Welfare for the Future, as the vehicles for education for sustainable development (see Ministry for the Environment 2007), that is, the sections for natural sciences, social science (in particular geography), home economics and life skills. As the analysis went on, we realised that clauses indicating an interest in education for sustainability could be spread almost anywhere in the 13 subject sections for the compulsory school, altogether about 600 pages (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2007e, 2007f, 2007g, 2007h, 2007i, 2007j, 2007k, 2007l). For the upper secondary level we analysed two versions of the National Curriculum Guide for Upper Secondary School: General Section (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 1999b, 2004a) as well as the subject sections mentioned in Welfare for the Future for the compulsory school since no such recommendation was available for the upper secondary level, i.e., the natural sciences, social


380


science and life skills (home economics do not exist as a subject section at that school level) (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 1999c, 1999d, 1999e). At the upper secondary level, there are also curriculum guides for various vocational study programmes which we did not scrutinise. The upper secondary curriculum guides we analysed were 460–70 pages altogether. The general sections for all three school levels, and some of the subject sections, are available in English at the website of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture (n.d.). The curriculum analysis was performed to identify space in the curriculum for education for sustainable development, not as an overall analysis of quantity or quality as concerns this kind of education. The curriculum has the status of government regulations; therefore, the analysis was believed to enable us to point out how the curriculum guides may be used to support focusing on education for sustainable development. We approached the curriculum analysis by dividing the curriculum guides between four of the five authors, according to school levels and authors’ specialities. To assure consistency about what kind of issues or stipulations would be classified where, we first read the natural sciences curriculum for the compulsory school and analysed it with the curriculum analysis key, i.e., we recorded all possible indications that we could find, compared the results and discussed whether it was reasonable to list them as arguments for education for sustainable development. The minor differences that appeared involved mostly whether to put a particular stipulation in the characteristic about democracy, participation and action competence or in the characteristic about welfare and public health. Following this, we analysed our assigned curriculum guides, met repeatedly, worked through the results, checked them for consistency and summarised them. We looked for continuity and coherence, both within subject matter and across the curriculum and across school levels, as described by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2004). Our pre-existing knowledge of the content of the curriculum sometimes helped to find signs where we expected them, but the systematic reading was performed to scrutinise the curriculum in other areas as well. The whole curriculum analysis team of five researchers continued the work by pondering over and reflecting upon the results and their signification for education for sustainability. Finally, a draft paper was prepared, subsequently edited and illustrative quotes added. The actual reading of the curriculum guides can be characterised as qualitative content analysis as defined in books on research methodology (e.g. Judd, Smith, and Kidder 1991; Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen 2004; Flick 2006). In content analysis, the researchers search for patterns and categories and summarise trends, in the same way as we systematically recorded signs and indicators of sustainability in the curriculum guides. Results The Icelandic curricula for the early childhood, compulsory and upper secondary school contain very few direct stipulations about sustainability and education for sustainable development. The concept sustainable development rarely appears. Where it is found, it is in the curriculum for life skills education for compulsory and upper secondary schools, the art and craft curriculum for compulsory schools and the natural sciences and environmental education curriculum for compulsory schools. Here we summarise the findings from our study, which includes what we grouped under each characteristic, and provide comparison with the United Nations goals. Our



381

reading and re-reading of the curriculum guides does not change the fact that sustainability is almost never an overt emphasis. We found in the curriculum a considerable number of signs indicating an emphasis on values, opinions and emotions concerning nature and environment. At all school levels, according to the curriculum, children and teenagers are expected to learn to be responsible for and be interested in nature and the environment. There is also a significant emphasis on schools fostering an ethical sense. This is justified both for nature’s own sake and for its importance for the survival of humans. For example, the early childhood curriculum points out that humanity depends ‘upon nature and natural forces for its existence, life and health. A knowledge of nature and natural phenomena is thus vitally important for people’ (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 1999a, 26, translation by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 2003, 31). Importantly for education for sustainable development and the United Nations decade goals, there seems indeed to be a considerable space for fostering an interest in sustainability and sustainable development among children and teenagers at all school levels. These opportunities are greater in the early childhood and compulsory school curricula than in the upper secondary school curriculum. This emphasis also corresponds with the ethical dimension in the United Nations decade guidelines. The topics in the curriculum that we have grouped within the second characteristic, that of knowledge contributing to a sensible use of nature, signify possibilities of using the curriculum to follow the directions recommended by the United Nations. In curricula for all school levels, the importance of knowledge is emphasised, which is regarded as a prerequisite for the ability to take responsible decisions about nature. In this context, scientific literacy is also regarded important; for example, the compulsory school curriculum for natural sciences states that students need to have ‘a basic understanding of natural science concepts so that they can apply them in their daily lives in order to make sensible decisions regarding the connections between humans and nature’ (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 2007i, 5, our translation). The curriculum provides opportunities for debating the viability of certain actions, not only those aiming at utilising the energy resources of Iceland, but also actions which uphold the protection of nature. The opportunities associated here with the second characteristic also support what is grouped within the fourth characteristic (that of democracy, participation and action competence). In relation to welfare and public health, the curricula of all school levels emphasise healthy lifestyle and attitudes to life. The curriculum for the early childhood level mentions healthy lifestyle, good food and habits of consuming food, protection of children’s health, physical and motor development, well-being and safety. There is also an emphasis on using outdoor activities that should enhance the physical health of children (see, e.g., the early childhood curriculum, Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 1999a, 19–20, 2003, 22). The compulsory and upper secondary schools are expected to foster in students a positive attitude towards a healthy lifestyle and teach students to realise the responsibilities that each individual has with regard to her or his own life and health. For example, one of the main aims in the home economics curriculum for the compulsory school is that ‘students should understand the importance of nutritional food and healthy lifestyle and should be aware of the responsibility that all individuals have for their life and personal health’ (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 2007b, 7, our translation). Also the upper secondary school curriculum in life skills education repeatedly lists that students must ‘develop spiritual values, physical health and psychological strength’ (Ministry of Education, Science,


382


and Culture 1999c, 8, 11, translation by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 2004b, 5, 8). Considering democracy, participation and action competence, the curricula for all school levels strongly focus on children and teenagers developing a strong selfidentity, as well as acquiring social and communication skills and learning to express their opinions. At every school level, there is an emphasis on critical thinking, tolerance and the active participation of children and teenagers in democratic ways of working in the schools. The children should realise that they are listened to and that their wishes and opinions are respected. The higher in the school system, the more the focus shifts towards a deeper understanding of issues as well as skills in debating them. Students are to become proficient in dealing with ethical issues and enhance their social skills, citizenship identity and respect for themselves and others. They are also to become broad-minded and acquire an understanding of society, so they cannot merely understand and follow the rules, but also be active for the purpose of having a social impact. For example, one of the main aims in the social science curriculum for Grade 10 (the final grade) of the compulsory school, is: ‘The student should be able to, within the knowledge s/he has acquired, to use critical thinking to search for causes and to evaluate consequences, to exchange opinions, and to argue for her/his point of view’ (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 2007j, 6, our translation; see also 2007j, 8). Our conclusion is without doubt that the Icelandic curriculum provides possibilities for emphasising democracy, participation and action competence which are key foci in the United Nations decade goals. Equality is a rather general point of emphasis in the curriculum of all schools, and issues that can be grouped as multicultural appear in various places. The curricula stipulate that children and young people should be taught about some of the ways in which inequality appears, and it is stressed that everyone is entitled to equality and that discrimination is forbidden. Children are expected to learn to respect themselves and others, regardless of their origin, life views, language or religion. At the upper school levels, there is a greater emphasis on the importance of knowing about racism and other types of discrimination. For instance, the compulsory school curriculum for life skills education states that students are expected to ‘realise possible effects and consequences of abuse and negative behaviour for the victim’ (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 2007h, 10, our translation). There is a special mention in the curriculum that immigrants must be able to be connected to aspects of their original culture, such as language or religion (see, e.g., the compulsory school curriculum guide for Icelandic, see Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 2007d, 21, 22). The curriculum in these areas is by no means radical. However, it does provide space to deal with equality, diversity and multicultural issues, including gender equity and matters relating to increased immigration, in the spirit of the United Nations decade goals. There are only a few stipulations in the curriculum that we can group as indicators of global awareness; nevertheless we consider them important in our reading of signs in the curriculum towards education for sustainable development. Some of them are indeed focused on how languages and knowledge about other countries can increase an understanding of diversity and multicultural issues. Life skills education for compulsory schools provides examples. For instance, it is expected that ‘students can deliberate the concept of equality from different points of view, such as gender equality, equality between disabled and non-disabled people, and between races’. It is also expected that ‘students realise that there are different cultural regions, customs, and



383

religions in the world’ (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 2007h, 11, 29, our translation). Overall, there seems to be a good space and quite a few, yet often hidden, possibilities to use the curriculum towards the United Nations decade goals of global awareness, especially in the compulsory schools. The scope within the secondary school curriculum needs to be enhanced in this regard. The characteristic about economic development and future prospects is probably where we found least in the Icelandic curriculum. In brief, we found very little about how children and teenagers should consider future prospects and future needs. In relation to consumer education which we had grouped under this characteristic, we found in the compulsory and upper secondary school curriculum some provisions which allow a critical scrutiny of our present day needs and how these needs could develop in the process towards sustainability. We also found a mention of healthy consumer practices, for instance in the upper secondary school curriculum for life skills education. It says that the student should ‘be conscious of his/her responsibility as a consumer in a complex and varied society’ (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 1999c, 12, translation by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture 2004b, 11). Although these relatively few opportunities allow teachers to work towards the United Nations decade goals, it is clear that the curriculum needs to be strengthened in this area. Discussion and conclusions Our analysis shows that the Icelandic curriculum for early childhood, compulsory and upper secondary schools does not include a clear view towards education for sustainability. But when the curricula are scrutinised and interpreted in relation to the goals of the United Nations and the Icelandic government, they provide teachers and schools with some guidance on education for sustainable development (see also Pálsdóttir et al. 2009). The curriculum key was instrumental in identifying space and opportunities and interpreting the guidance. In this final section, we shall discuss the use of the curriculum key as it has developed through its application to the curriculum analysis, as well as its introduction into the Icelandic educational discussion. Finding hidden possibilities With the use of the curriculum key, we found that the Icelandic public school curriculum for early childhood, compulsory and upper secondary schools provides diverse but not always obvious possibilities for emphasising education for sustainable development. This capacity is only likely to be used, if schools and teachers are interested in and even actively looking for opportunities to teach about and for sustainability, and if they feel confident that they can do so. Our view is certainly that schools could utilise the freedom they have within the curriculum; yet, we are aware that schools could also use this very freedom to avoid education for sustainable development. We realise that our interpretation of the Icelandic curriculum guides for early childhood, compulsory and upper secondary schools is in many ways a bold attempt to identify in them opportunities for education for sustainable development. It would have been a more straightforward approach to criticise it for not doing much to fulfil the United Nations policy. But that would not have been a constructive position and not in the spirit of the United Nations decade goals, which provide key ideas where advocacy, networking and capacity-building are stressed (UNESCO n.d.).

384



Nevertheless, it is important that such a reading of curricula guides should not be interpreted as a quality assurance certificate. Rather, we wish that our reading would facilitate a reorientation of existing education programmes towards education for sustainability (Pálsdóttir and Macdonald 2010); the same approach is used in the action-oriented school development work which is another component of the larger GETA project. Such reorientation is one of the United Nations decade recommendations (UNESCO n.d., see also Breiting 2009). Our interpretation of the possibilities in a current national curriculum is indeed likely to invite change as policy and curriculum are being revised. Comparing While we discourage the use of the curriculum key as a checklist or a rating scale for stating that a particular school emphasises education for sustainable development, we realise that the key enables comparison. We have compared our results with the policy of the United Nations in order to remind us that the Icelandic school system does not exist in a vacuum. The key also enables a comparison of any other curriculum with the Icelandic curriculum, or the ambitions of the United Nations decade. Comparison with international policy or other national curricula is likely to create ideas for use in the Icelandic national context, both in the spirit of thinking globally – acting locally and of enhancing global awareness. The key can also be used to analyse other types of documents, such as various school policy documents, as well as Local Agenda 21 documents that a few municipal authorities have produced (Jóhannesson 2007; Jóhannesson et al. 2008). We also discovered in some of these documents possibilities for schools to find support and networking opportunities within their communities, in the vein recommended in the UNESCO guidelines. Creating a holistic view of education We believe that in creating the curriculum key, we moved towards a more holistic and cross-curricular perspective of education for sustainable development where economic, environmental and social factors are not considered separate entities (see also Pálsdóttir, Macdonald, and Jóhannesson 2009). The seven characteristics reflect diversity and complexity in our world. Included in the key are characteristics that enable a consideration of present and future demands on the students to be citizens in a sustainable society, as well as current needs of students to be active in their schools and communities (Pálsdóttir et al. 2009). It is important, however, to acknowledge that although the curriculum key is meant to be comprehensive with regard to education for sustainable development, it is most important to consider it as a tool for thinking differently about education and sustainability (see also McKeown 2002). It has turned out to be useful as a thinking tool where we and other researchers, practitioners or policy makers use it differently from the way in which it was used in our analysis of the curriculum. We have used it to analyse the school development projects that GETA initiated (Bergmann et al. 2010). The Icelandic government has also made use of the curriculum analysis key in its revision of its sustainability policy, Welfare for the Future, where education is now a new area of emphasis in the policy. There the order of the characteristics has been rearranged to foreground the focus on global impact of humans and equality of all



385

people on Earth (Ministry for the Environment 2010, 7). Apparently, the key has been used in this case as a thinking tool rather than as a prescription. In other contexts, it is likely that there will be a varying emphasis on the different characteristics or some other characteristics added to better fit the circumstances where it is used.6 For instance, in countries where there is less social and human security than in most European countries, we believe such a key would need to take issues of peace and security into consideration. Peace and human security is one of the United Nations decade themes, and on the website of UNESCO it is stated that ‘education for sustainable development plays a key role in promoting values for peace’ (UNESCO n.d.). The topic peace and human security could fall under one of the seven characteristics, or it could be a specific characteristic. The fact that the key includes a variety of issues and approaches, and can include many more, offers various points of entry for an emphasis on education for sustainability. This kind of use of the key invites critical questions: Can research such as that presented here really help to reorient educational practices? What should be the emphasis on international guidelines in a national context? Is there a reason to be cautious about following the guidelines from the UN as we have suggested? Opening up possibilities We were aware of previous research indicating that the curriculum is a site of contestation and compromise (e.g. Kliebard 1986; Jóhannesson, Geirsdóttir, and Finnbogason 2002). In this vein, we were confident that curricula can be ‘changed’ by interpreting it in a certain way. And while the reading of the documents can hardly be labelled as any type of discourse analysis, we used the findings in a way similar to feminist or political historical discourse analysis: to identify possibilities and work towards materialising them in policy and practice, ‘working the cracks’ as Collins (2000) describes feminist work to change institutions (see also Jóhannesson 2010). Our search was also performed to identify and possibly create continuities (e.g. Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2004) between subject areas as they are defined today, into education for sustainable development, where subject boundaries are not permeable. Looking at continuities also means that although the division into subject matter can hinder school development from the perspective of education for sustainability, we may be able to identify within them promising possibilities for the reorientation of education which we found through our curriculum analysis. In our work, we emphasised that we were broadening the definition of sustainable development from a focus on the environment, and sometimes the environment-economy rift, to include social, cultural and gender equality issues as well as an emphasis on global dimensions. In retrospect we may have been trying to create what has been called discursive opportunities (e.g. Koopmans 2001; Gamson 2004; Koopmans and Olzac 2004; Snow 2008) in what we, earlier in the article, termed as relative vacuum in the official policy on education for sustainability. The discursive opportunities have appeared, for example, in invitations to present our curriculum analysis at many levels of the education system, as well as into political realms in the Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and the Ministry for the Environment. The impact of these interventions remains to be seen as curricular processes are never straightforward, rational enterprises or easy to predict.7 However, neither of these conceptualisations, the historical discourse analysis nor the analysis of discursive opportunities, suggests that actors in the respective field,

386



such as the GETA group, can actually control or predict the type of change that may or may not occur as a result of the introduction of the curriculum analysis (e.g. Jóhannesson 2010). Furthermore, as Breiting (2009, 203) argues: ‘A prescriptive approach in research ending with recommendations saying that teachers should do this or that’ can be ‘counter-productive to generating new knowledge’. This is why we emphasise that the curriculum key is considered as a thinking and working tool to open spaces for thinking about the variety of options available to strengthen education for sustainable development. Acknowledgements The project is financially supported by the universities where the GETA group members work as faculty and graduate students, namely, the University of Iceland and the University of Akureyri. It also received a three-year grant from the Environmental and Energy Research Fund which is owned by Reykjavík Energy (Orkuveita Reykjavíkur), the municipal energy company of Reykjavík and a number of neighbouring communities. The first author also wishes to thank the University of Akureyri for granting him a research semester in autumn 2008 that enabled drafting parts of the article. All opinions expressed in the article are those of the authors. Although the article is a joint endeavour, the individual authors may have different views about some of the material presented. The curriculum key and the results of the curriculum analysis have been presented by one or more of the authors at several national and international conferences. We finally like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers of the journal for their encouragement and patience in the review process.

Notes 1. We speak interchangeably about sustainability and sustainable development and also about

education for sustainability and education for sustainable development. 2. The GETA project consisted of a number of work packages which can be divided into

three phases: a preparation phase of various studies to support school development, a phase that consisted of action research projects with selected schools and an assessment and dissemination phase. Two reports were produced in the preparation phase, one on the study of the curriculum as well as the policy of Icelandic municipalities and various non-governmental organisations (Jóhannesson et al. 2008) and another about previous practices in Icelandic schools (Bergmann et al. 2008). This article is based on research conducted for the first-mentioned report. The full title of the project in Icelandic is GETA til sjálfbærni – menntun til aðgerða (literally: competence for sustainability – education for action). GETA is intended as a word play: the Icelandic verb geta means to act and the Icelandic noun geta refers to competence; using it in capital letters makes it look like an acronym. We refer to the GETA group, or GETA research group, as all the researchers and graduate students involved in the project; the curriculum analysis team – i.e. the authors of this article – is a subgroup of five researchers. In addition, the following members were in the GETA group during the academic year of 2007–2008 when the curriculum research was conducted: Allyson Macdonald, Erla Kristjánsdóttir, Eygló Björnsdóttir, Stefán Bergmann, Steinunn Geirdal, Svanborg Rannveig Jónsdóttir and órunn Reykdal. 3. We consulted some amount of work in environmental education and education for sustainable development for developing our argument, among those Breiting (1989), Tilbury (1995), Jensen and Schnack (1997), Bonnett (1999), Breiting and Mogensen (1999), Rest (2002), Summers, Corney, and Childs (2003), Gruenewald (2004), Chatzifotiou (2006), Gough and Scott (2006), Huckle (2006), Rauch and Steiner (2006), Lundegård and Wickman (2007), McKeown and Hopkins (2007), Gadotti (2008), Jickling and Wals (2008) and Breiting (2009). 4. The translation of the characteristics in the key is as accurate as we could make it, but nevertheless some of terms we use may carry connotations in Icelandic that we were unable to catch.


387


5. For a more detailed explanation of the key, see Norðdahl (2009) and Jóhannesson et al.

(2008). Less detailed introductions to the curriculum key have been published in Icelandic in a publication of the teacher organisations (Pálsdóttir 2008), a newsletter from Rannís, The Icelandic Centre for Research (GETA Research Group 2008a), in a keynote lecture (Jóhannesson 2009), and in conference proceedings (Pálsdóttir et al. 2009; Pálsdóttir, Macdonald, and Jóhannesson 2009). 6. The use of the curriculum key is free for anyone; it is not a patented instrument so its use only requires proper citations. 7. The minister of education, science, and culture, Katrín Jakobsdóttir of the Left Green Party, has used our work in her speeches, for instance in September 2009 at conference about a national plan of education for sustainable development (Jakobsdóttir 2009). She also declared education for sustainability as one of five basic threads for rewriting the curriculum for early childhood, compulsory and upper secondary schools. As researchers we are a bit cautious about such political interest in our work; as practitioners and activists we are excited that our interpretation of the curriculum has received support.

Notes on contributors Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannesson, PhD, is a professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Akureyri and School of Education, University of Iceland. His main areas of research are educational policy and politics of education, gender and education, teacher expertise and professionalism and historical discourse analysis. He taught history in upper compulsory and upper secondary schools for a few years. Among other experiences as an educator, he has written textbooks in social and environmental studies and worked in the Icelandic national park system as a seasonal nature interpreter. He has also been active in the Icelandic environmental movement. Kristín Norðdahl, MEd, is an assistant professor at the School of Education, University of Iceland. Her main areas of research are young children’s learning in science, the role of outdoor environment in children’s education, environmental education and education for sustainable development. She was a science teacher in compulsory and upper secondary schools for a few years, and she has been a teacher educator for 25 years. Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttir, PhD, is an associate professor at the School of Education, University of Iceland. Her main interests are children’s learning and concept development, science education, classroom research and teacher education. She taught in compulsory school for 12 years and has specialised in primary science education and done research in that area. She has written science textbooks for primary schools and teaching material and has also been involved in reviewing curriculum guidelines in science education and environmental education. Auður Pálsdóttir, MEd, is an adjunct lecturer at the School of Education, University of Iceland. Her interests and experience of research are within the field of geography and science education in compulsory schools, outdoor education, school self-evaluation and mentoring and coaching in education and education for sustainable development. She taught social sciences in a compulsory school for 13 years and in teacher education for many years. She worked in a large compulsory school as a departmental head of school self-evaluation for six years, has written textbooks and been a textbook editor, has made teaching material for teachers and participated in revising the national curriculum of social science (geography). Björg Pétursdóttir, TeknLic, MEd, is adviser at the Department of Education, Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Her main areas of research are youngsters’ and adults’ learning of science. She was a science and mathematics teacher in upper secondary schools for 16 years. Since autumn 2006, she has been working on curriculum development for compulsory and upper secondary schools in the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. In 2008–2010 she was the Icelandic representative in the country cluster named Increasing Participation in Math, Science, and Technology which constitutes part of the implementation of the Education & Training 2010 work programme by the European Commission, DG EAC.

388



References Barlett, P.F., and W.C. Geoffrey. 2004. Introduction. In Sustainability on campus: Stories and strategies for change, ed. P.F. Barlett and G.W. Chase, 1–26. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press. Bergmann, S., E. Kristjánsdóttir, E. Björnsdóttir, . Reykdal, K. Norðdahl, and I.Á. Jóhannesson. 2010. Menntun til sjálfbærrar þróunar: Af reynslu átta íslenskra skóla 2008–2009 [Education for sustainable development: The experience of eight Icelandic schools 2008– 2009. (In Icelandic with an abstract in English)]. Reykjavík: Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands [University of Iceland, School of Education]. http://skrif.hi.is/geta/files/2008/05/ reynsla_islenskra_skola.pdf (accessed November 22, 2010). Bergmann, S., A. Pálsdóttir, E. Kristjánsdóttir, E. Björnsdóttir, G. Óskarsdóttir, K. Norðdahl, S.R. Jónsdóttir, and . Reykdal. 2008. Teikn um sjálfbærni – menntun byggð á reynslu skóla og samfélags [Indications of sustainability – Education building on the experience of schools and society. (In Icelandic with a summary in English)]. Ed. A. Pálsdóttir and S. Bergmann. Reykjavík: Kennaraháskóli Íslands [Iceland University of Education]. http:// skrif.hi.is/geta/files/2009/02/teikn_um_sjalfbaerni1.pdf (accessed June 21, 2009). Bonnett, M. 1999. Education for sustainable development: A coherent philosophy for environmental education? Cambridge Journal of Education 29, no. 3: 313–24. Breiting, S. 1989. Miljöundervisning for fremtiden [Environmental education for the future. (In Danish)]. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Bokhandel, Nordisk Forlag. Breiting, S. 2009. Issues for environmental education and ESD research development: Looking ahead from WEEC 2007 in Durban. Environmental Education Research 15, no. 2: 199–207. Breiting, S., and F. Mogensen. 1999. Action competence and environmental education. Cambridge Journal of Education 29, no. 3: 349–53. Brundtland, G.H., ed. 1987. Our common future. New York: Oxford University Press and World Commission on Environment and Development. Chatzifotiou, A. 2006. Environmental education, national curriculum and primary school teachers: Findings of a research study in England and possible implications upon education for sustainable development. Curriculum Journal 17, no. 4: 367–81. Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2004. A guide to teaching practice. 5th ed. London/ New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Collins, P.H. 2000. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. 2nd ed. New York/London: Routledge. Fergus, A.H.T., and J.I.A. Rowney. 2005. Sustainable development: Lost meaning and opportunity. Journal of Business Ethics 60, no. 1: 17–27. Fitzpatrick, J.L., J.R. Sanders, and B.R. Worthen. 2004. Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson Education. Flick, U. 2006. An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage. Gadotti, M. 2008. Education for sustainability: A critical contribution to the decade of education for sustainable development. Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy 4, no. 1: 15–64. Gamson, W.A. 2004. On a sociology of the media. Political Communication 21, no. 3: 305–7. GETA Research Group. 2008a. Geta til sjálfbærni – menntun til aðgerða [Competence for sustainability – Education for action]. Rannísblaðið [Newsletter of The Icelandic Centre for Research] 5, no. 1: 13. http://www.rannis.is/files/rannis_bladid_1_2008_1653675109. pdf (accessed June 21, 2009). GETA Research Group. 2008b. Uppl y´ singar um rannsóknar– og þróunarverkefni GETU 2007–2010 [Information about the GETA research and development project, 2007–2010]. Reykjavík: Iceland University of Education. http://skrif.hi.is/geta/files/2009/02/ p0_300408.pdf (accessed December 23, 2009). Gough, S., and W. Scott. 2006. Education and sustainable development: A political analysis. Educational Review 58, no. 3: 273–90. Gruenewald, D.A. 2004. A Foucauldian analysis of environmental education: Toward the socioecological challenge of the Earth Charter. Curriculum Inquiry 34, no. 1: 71–107. Hicks, D. 2007. Education for sustainability: How should we deal with climate change? In The challenge of teaching controversial issues, ed. H. Claire and C. Holden, 175–87. Stoke-on-Trent/Sterling, VA: Trentham. y[aceu]t



389

Huckle, J. 2006. Education for sustainable development: A briefing paper for the Training and Development Agency for Schools. Rev. ed. Bedford: Training and Development Agency for Schools. Jakobsdóttir, K. 2009. Ávarp menntamálaráðherra á málþingi um þjóðaráætlun um menntun til sjálfbærni [Address of the minister of education]. Málþing um þjóðaráætlun um menntun til sjálfbærni [Congress about a national plan about education for sustainability], September 15, Reykjavík. http://www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/radherra/raedur/2009/09/ 21/nr/5111 (accessed December 15, 2009). Jensen, B.B., and K. Schnack. 1997. The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research 3, no. 2: 163–78. Jickling, B., and A.E.J. Wals. 2008. Globalization and environmental education: Looking beyond sustainable development. Journal of Curriculum Studies 40, no. 1: 1–21. Jóhannesson, I.Á. 2007. Fjölmenning og sjálfbær þróun: Lykilatriði skólastarfs eða óþægilegir aðskotahlutir? [Intercultural issues and sustainable development: Cornerstones of education in schools or annoying and unimportant additions? (In Icelandic with an abstract in English)]. Netla. http://netla.khi.is/greinar/2007/018/index.htm (accessed June 21, 2009). Jóhannesson, I.Á. 2009. Hvað felst í menntun til sjálfbærrar þróunar og hvernig getur hún verið þungamiðja skólastarfs? [What is education for sustainable development and how can it become the core of education in schools?] A keynote lecture at a conference on school development and professional development, held by the School Development Division of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Akureyri, April 18. http://www.ismennt.is/not/ingo/sjalftung.htm (accessed June 21, 2009). Jóhannesson, I.Á. 2010. The politics of historical discourse analysis: A qualitative research method? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 31, no. 2: 251–64. Jóhannesson, I.Á., G. Geirsdóttir, and G.E. Finnbogason. 2002. Modern educational sagas: Legitimation of ideas and practices in Icelandic education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 46, no. 3: 265–82. Jóhannesson, I.Á., K. Norðdahl, A. Pálsdóttir, B. Pétursdóttir, E. Björnsdóttir, G. Óskarsdóttir, and . Reykdal. 2008. Andi sjálfbærrar þróunar í námskrám og menntastefnu – náum honum til jarðar [Let us capture the spirit of sustainable development in the curriculum and educational policy. (In Icelandic with an Overview in English)]. Ed. I.Á. Jóhannesson. Reykjavík: Kennaraháskóli Íslands [Iceland University of Education]. http:// skrif.hi.is/geta/files/2009/02/p4_300408.pdf (accessed June 21, 2009). Judd, C.M., E.R. Smith, and L.H. Kidder. 1991. Research methods in social relations. 6th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Kemp, R., and P. Martens. 2007. Sustainable development: How to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 3, no. 2: 1–10. Kliebard, H.M. 1986. The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893–1958. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Koopmans, R. 2001. Repression and the public sphere: Discursive opportunities for repression against the extreme right in Germany in the 1990s. Paper for the Conference ‘Mobilization and Repression: What We Know and Where We Should Go From Here?’ University of Maryland, June 21–24. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mobandrep/papers/koopmans.PDF (accessed November 3, 2009). Koopmans, R., and S. Olzac. 2004. Discursive opportunities and the evolution of right-wing violence in Germany. American Journal of Sociology 110, no. 1: 198–230. Loeber, A., B. van Mierlo, J. Grin, and C. Leeuwis. 2007. The practical value of theory: Conceptualising learning in the pursuit of a sustainable development. In Social learning towards a sustainable world: Principles, perspectives, and praxis, ed. A.E.J. Wals, 83–97. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic. Lundegård, I., and P.-O. Wickman. 2007. Conflicts of interest: An indispensable element of education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research 13, no. 1: 1–15. McKeown, R. 2002. Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit. Version 2. http:// www.esdtoolkit.org/esd_toolkit_v2.pdf (accessed December 22, 2009). McKeown, R., and C. Hopkins. 2007. Moving beyond the EE and ESD disciplinary debate in formal education. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 1, no. 1: 17–26.


390


Ministry for the Environment. 2002. Welfare for the future: Iceland’s national strategy for sustainable development 2002–2020. Reykjavík: Ministry for the Environment. Ministry for the Environment. 2007. Welfare for the future: Framework for sustainable development in Icelandic society. Priorities 2006–2009. Reykjavík: Ministry for the Environment. Ministry for the Environment. 2010. Velferð til framtíðar: Sjálfbær þróun í íslensku samfélagi – Áherslur 2010–2013 [Welfare for the future: Sustainable development in the Icelandic society – Priorities 2010–2013]. Reykjavík: Ministry for the Environment. http:// www.umhverfisraduneyti.is/media/PDF_skrar/Velferd-til-framtidar-2010-2013.pdf (accessed September 17, 2010). Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 1999a. Aðalnámskrá leikskóla [National curriculum guide for pre-schools]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 1999b. Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla. Almennur hluti [National curriculum guide for upper secondary school: General section]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 1999c. Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla: Lífsleikni [National curriculum guide for upper secondary school: Life skills]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 1999d. Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla: Náttúrufræði [National curriculum guide for upper secondary school: Natural sciences]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 1999e. Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla: Samfélagsgreinar [National curriculum guide for upper secondary school: Social science]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2003. National curriculum guide for preschools. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2004a. Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla: Almennur hluti [National curriculum guide for upper secondary school: General section]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2004b. National curriculum guide for upper secondary school: Life skills. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2006. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Almennur hluti [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: General section]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007a. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Erlend mál [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Foreign languages]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007b. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Heimilisfræði [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Home economics]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007c. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Hönnun og smíði [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Art and craft]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007d. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Íslenska [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Icelandic]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007e. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Íþróttir, líkams- og heilsurækt [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Physical education]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007f. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Kristin fræði, siðfræði og trúarbragðafræði [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Christian studies, ethics, and religion studies]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007g. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Listgreinar [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Arts]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007h. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Lífsleikni [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Life skills]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture.


391

Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007i. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Náttúrufræði og umhverfismennt [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Natural sciences and environmental education]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007j. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Samfélagsgreinar [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Social science]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007k. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Stærðfræði [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Mathematics]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. 2007l. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: Uppl y´singaog tæknimennt [National curriculum guide for compulsory school: Technology education]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. n.d. Curriculum. Publications.:http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/publications/curriculum (accessed July 2, 2010). Norðdahl, K. 2009. Menntun til sjálfbærrar þróunar – í hverju felst hún? Um gerð og notkun greiningarlykils til að greina slíka menntun [What is education for sustainable development? On the creation and use of a key to analyse education for sustainable development in curricula]. http://netla.khi.is/greinar/2009/013/index.htm (accessed January 29, 2010). Pálsdóttir, A. 2008. Spor til framtíðar – menntun til sjálfbærni: Er íslenskt skólakerfi tilbúið? [A step towards the future – education for sustainability: Is the Icelandic school system ready?] Skólavarðan [Newsletter of the Icelandic Teachers’ Union] 8, no. 2: 16. http:// ki.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=4505 (accessed June 21, 2009). Pálsdóttir, A., and A. Macdonald. 2010. Hlutverk skólastjóra í menntun til sjálfbærni [The role of headmasters in education for sustainability]. Ráðstefnurit Netlu – Menntakvika 2010 [Conference proceedings]. October 2010. Netla. http://netla.khi.is/menntakvika2010/ 004.pdf (accessed January 25, 2011). Pálsdóttir, A., A. Macdonald, and I.Á. Jóhannesson. 2009. Hvað græðum við á því að gera sjálfbæra þróun að s y´ nilegu viðmiði í grunnskólastarfi? [How would we benefit from defining sustainable development as a criterion for schools?] Conference proceedings, the School of Education at the University of Iceland yearly conference, October. Netla. http:// netla.khi.is/greinar/2009/007/03/index.htm (accessed December 22, 2009). Pálsdóttir, A., B. Pétursdóttir, G. Óskarsdóttir, I.Á. Jóhannesson, and K. Norðdahl. 2009. Hvað þurfa einstaklingar að geta í sjálfbæru þjóðfélagi framtíðarinnar? [What do individuals need to be competent of in a sustainable future society?] In Rannsóknir í félagsvísindum X: Félagsog mannvísindadeild – Erindi flutt á ráðstefnu í október 2009 [Research in the social sciences X: Faculty of social and human sciences – Conference proceedings], ed. G. . Jóhannesson and H. Björnsdóttir, 17–27. Reykjavík: Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands. Rauch, F., and R. Steiner. 2006. School development through education for sustainable development in Austria. Environmental Education Research 12, no. 1: 115–27. Rest, A. 2002. From ‘environmental education’ to ‘education for sustainable development’: The shift of a paradigm. Environmental Policy and Law 32, no. 2: 79–85. Robinson, J. 2004. Squaring the circle: On the very idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics 48, no. 4: 369–84. Shallcross, T., and J. Robinson. 2007. Is a decade of teacher education for sustainable development essential for survival? Journal of Education for Teaching 33, no. 2: 137–47. Snow, D.A. 2008. Elaborating the discursive contexts of framing: Discursive fields and spaces. In Studies in symbolic interaction, ed. N.K. Denzin, vol. 30, 3–28. Bingley: JAI Press. Sterling, S. 2001. Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Schumacher Briefing No. 6. Devon: Green Books for the Schumacher Society. Summers, M., G. Corney, and A. Childs. 2003. Teaching sustainable development in primary schools: An empirical study of issues for teachers. Environmental Education Research 9, no. 3: 327–46. Tilbury, D. 1995. Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education Research 1, no. 2: 195–212. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). n.d. Education for sustainable development: United Nations decade 2005–2014. http://www.unesco.org/ en/esd/ (accessed December 23, 2009).


y[aec]ut

y[aceu]t