Exploring the link between Learning for Sustainability and attainment

Discussion and recommendations

This section considers the research findings in relation to the existing literature to support recommendations.

This research supports the findings from previous research examining the outcomes of LfS. For example, it has been long established that the real life and meaningful contexts of LFS activities can improve engagement, motivation, and attitudes to learning (e.g. Munns, 2007) and support the development of meta skills and skills for life (Christie and Higgins, 2020). This is particularly true for low-attaining pupils, whose self-perceptions and value of an activity influences their motivation and persistence, leading to improved academic achievement (Wigelsworth et al., 2019, p.2). Enabling this sense of achievement in lower attaining pupils is also thought to positively impact sense of self and attitudes to schooling and learning (Coyle et al., 2020).

This is reflected in this research, which has shown that LfS activities promote engagement and motivation among learners, leading to increased confidence, self-esteem, and effort and in some cases improved performance for lower attainers. Despite this, practitioners participating in the research did not consider there to be a link between LfS and standardised attainment measures. In their experience, LfS activities did not contribute towards improvements in attainment measures like ACEL and SQA qualifications. Many of the practitioners questioned what attainment means. They reflected that perceived improvements in cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes were difficult to evidence or measure.

In fact, participating practitioners identified a conflict between LfS and attainment, driven by the emphasis on improving performance metrics at the primary level and, at the secondary level, the focus on the Scottish Attainment Challenge and on passing exams in the senior phase. In their view, this meant that local authorities and school leaders often overlooked LfS in favour of prioritising traditional approaches to attainment.

Furthermore, participants did not consider exams to be conducive to achievement for low attainers, suggesting that alternative forms of assessment may be more suitable for these learners. Given that LfS offers such opportunities, the findings of this research suggest that LfS-based activities may be preferable for lower attainers.

The findings of this research align closely with the findings of a 2023 Scottish Government report (‘Learning for Sustainability: young people and practitioner perspectives’), which also identified a conflict between LfS and attainment for senior phase pupils. Participants in both research projects observed that for senior phase learners, the focus on qualifications and passing exams meant that LfS and associated interdisciplinary approaches were not prioritised. In their experience, this resulted in LfS not being integrated across the curriculum, which limited access to LfS for all learners.

For primary practitioners, the focus on improving attainment in literacy and numeracy reflected what they saw as a narrow view of attainment. This sometimes resulted in learners having fewer opportunities to engage with the LfS curriculum, despite practitioners’ belief that LfS provision could support improvements in literacy and numeracy for these learners. However, practitioners said that LfS outcomes were difficult to measure. This view aligns with a 2021 UNESCO report which argues that as LfS is about the development of skills rather than knowledge making, it is difficult to measure and assess. As a result, there is currently no agreed way of assessing learning in LfS.

Current approaches to assessment received scrutiny in a 2023 Scottish Government sponsored report, ‘It’s our future – Independent review of Qualifications and Assessment’ (‘the Hayward Review’). This report noted the disconnect between the intentions of Curriculum for Excellence and the reality of qualifications and assessment in the senior phase. The report noted that although a deep understanding of subjects should be provided for learners, their experience should also include engagement in the school community and opportunities for interdisciplinary learning and personal achievement, which does not always happen.

The report detailed that this disconnect was largely driven by accountability metrics which are used to evidence the quality of education. This can also have an impact on equity and recognition of learners’ wider achievements. Coyle et al. (2020) also highlighted the importance of differentiating between attainment, defined by measures related to testing and examination, and achievement, defined by a feeling of success for the learner, usually generated by feedback and mentoring, which generates a sense of wellbeing. To promote a broader understanding of attainment that incorporates LfS activities and learning and that recognises the value of LfS in the curriculum, it is recommended to review and clarify definitions of attainment in education policy. This should align with the recommendations of the Hayward Review, and particularly with regard to LfS, outlining successful learning in LfS and how it can be evidenced.

It has been acknowledged that disadvantaged learners’ achievement can be impacted by social structures, low teacher expectations and emotional and mental health, which can negatively affect academic attitudes, self-esteem, and motivation. These attitudes can also be reinforced by peers, or parents who have experienced intergenerational cycles of low achievement (e.g. Becker and Luthar, 2002). A safe and supportive environment is of critical importance, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, but the school system can counteract this through an emphasis on competition, weakening learner-teacher relationships and reducing autonomy (ibid). However, research has identified pedagogies, skills and strategies that can reduce these barriers. For instance, the Education Endowment Foundation (2024) recognises that evidence-based strategies similar to the LfS approaches outlined in this research can be used to ‘break the link between family income and educational achievement’ – strategies such as socio-emotional learning, collaborative learning, parental engagement, learner-centred learning, feedback and improved teacher-pupil relationships (ibid), all of which were observed in this research.

Although there is still considered to be a lack of evidence of a causal relationship between such interventions and improved outcomes (Wigelsworth et al., 2020), this research project has identified cases where LfS practitioners have employed approaches in LfS which can help to address the barriers faced by some learners. For example, the projects in school J incorporated collaborative learning and feedback, which are considered by the EEF to be high impact interventions. According to the practitioner from this school, these pedagogies contributed towards high quality work across all levels of attainment. In recognition of the positive outcomes for all learners from using LfS approaches, this research recommends embedding LfS into local authority and school policies and to recognise and prioritise LfS as a tool for practicing pedagogies for equity and supporting related outcomes. This complements recommendation 5 of the 2023 Scottish Government report referred to above, ‘Learning for Sustainability: young people and practitioner perspectives’, namely to:

‘integrate LfS into policy at school, CLD [Community Learning and Development] and local authority level to guide practice and support stakeholders to identify good practice and related outcomes’ (Ward et al., 2023, p.6)

As this research indicates, the impact of LfS can vary depending on the local authority, school and/or the teacher. Teachers who had more confidence and experience delivering LfS could identify more outcomes for achievement and performance for learners. As previous studies indicate (e.g. Ward et al., 2023), there is variability in understandings of LfS and its implementation in the classroom, even among teachers and schools recognised for their strong performance in LfS.

As such, learners’ experiences of LfS vary. To improve the consistency of approaches to LfS and related outcomes across local authorities, schools, and practitioners, it is recommended to embed LfS into local authority and school policies. This involves recognising and prioritising LfS as a tool for implementing pedagogies for equity and supporting related outcomes.

While it has long been recognised that pedagogies can contribute to social justice, they should not be solely relied upon to close the achievement gap. This is due to the complex, long-term factors influencing it, and because pedagogies often reflect the realities of the privileged and powerful, often overlooking the experiences of marginalised groups (Lingard and Mills, 2007). Issues of global justice are frequently responded to with a western, ‘global North’ status quo (Pashby and Sund, 2020) which can be reproduced in LfS approaches. This research highlights a potential risk that some LfS-related activities may overlook injustice if not approached from a sufficiently critical perspective. For instance, activities commonly associated with LfS, particularly those related to global citizenship such as collecting for food banks or charity, may inadvertently perpetuate existing inequalities. There is an opportunity for LfS practitioners to guide learners in challenging the status quo by encouraging them to question why such 'help' is needed and what is meant by 'others'. In other words, there is an opportunity to develop learners' critical thinking skills and deepen their understanding of key LfS concepts such as 'equity' and 'social justice'. However, this can be challenging without the appropriate training and guidance.

This research shows that practitioners addressing complex topics through LfS and global citizenship education may not have received training to tackle these issues or to consider their implications for social justice. Furthermore, Wisely et al. (2020) observe that sustainability is sometimes perceived by teachers as mainly of interest to pupils from higher socio-economic groups. Although the current research did not find this, some participants did reflect that pupils from more disadvantaged backgrounds had less environmental and cultural awareness and experience than their more advantaged counterparts. Practitioners considered that this lack of awareness and experience could impact on attainment, and that higher attainers were more likely to be motivated to join extra-curricular LfS initiatives like eco-committees. This illustrates that teacher’s perceptions of pupils could impact their expectations of pupils’ participation and ability in LfS activities.

Therefore, there is a risk that disadvantaged pupils or low achievers might be overlooked with respect to LfS, and that LfS could work against social justice and equity outcomes in these circumstances. Wisely et al. argue that addressing this requires teachers to critique their own views, assumptions, and biases, and how they understand their communities, through critical self-reflection and pedagogies of discomfort to support confidence, competence and transformative, rather than affirmative social justice dispositions (Wisely et al., 2020). Indeed, critical self-reflection is a key tool for teachers with respect to LfS and educational equity.

This research showed examples of practitioners working in communities with high levels of deprivation, who are using pedagogies which support inclusion and positive educational outcomes. Training provided by WOSDEC helped to equip practitioners to deal with difficult or controversial issues and to support inclusion, ensuring that LfS activities were relatable and accessible for all learners. Training and resources for teachers in social justice education is key to supporting educational equity and inclusion. Therefore, it is recommended that policy should support access to LfS-related training and continuing professional development (CPD) for all schools and local authorities – in particular, global citizenship education and pedagogy development for an inclusive, equitable and socially just LfS curriculum and delivery, with supporting resources. Colucci-Gray and Cassidy’s (2020) ‘Learning for Sustainability Framework’ incorporates the three principles of social justice, inquiry and learning to support consistency, planning, and addressing potential issues for LfS teaching and learning. This framework could be used to support teachers in developing LfS pedagogies.

Finally, in consideration of funding, this research points to a need to reconsider how PEF and LfS might better support each other. The five factors that are recommended for use in determining who would benefit from PEF funding – attainment, attendance, health and well-being indicators/inclusion, engagement/ participation, and wider achievement (Education Scotland, 2022) – all have relevance for LfS. Practitioners who participated in this research identified that LfS approaches contributed to an improvement in all of these factors, with the exception of standardised attainment measures. However, in their experience, funding rules sometimes represented a barrier to participation in LfS activities for lower income pupils, particularly in relation to travel for field trips and outdoor learning. Therefore, it is recommended that PEF and related guidance be reviewed to support lower income pupils to participate in LfS activities and field trips.

In conclusion, as noted by several practitioners, LfS is not a ‘cure all’; educational inequity is a complex challenge that cannot be solved only through implementing LfS. This research has shown that LfS can be a useful tool for improving learner engagement and developing skills, applying approaches that can improve attainment and supporting inclusion, especially for lower attaining pupils. However, work is required to ensure that LfS can be prioritised and delivered consistently, recognising that all practitioners need to have access to appropriate training and resources to support their practice.

Summary of Recommendations

1. Review and refine definitions of educational attainment within education policy to encompass broader achievement, aligning with recommendations from the Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment in Scotland (‘the Hayward Review’), specifically focusing on LfS. This process should define successful learning in LfS and establish methods for its assessment, supporting a broader view of attainment that integrates LfS activities and learning, thus acknowledging the value of LfS in the curriculum.

2. Embed LfS into local authority and school policies, recognising and prioritising it as a tool for practicing pedagogies for equity and supporting related outcomes, to improve consistency of approach between local authorities, schools, and practitioners

3. Ensure access to LfS-related training and continuing professional development (CPD) for all schools and local authorities, focusing on areas such as global citizenship education and pedagogy development for an inclusive, equitable, and socially just LfS curriculum and delivery. Provide supporting resources, such as the Learning for Sustainability Framework (Colucci-Gray and Cassidy, 2020).

4. Review the use of PEF funding and revise guidelines to expand its scope, allowing for support of lower-income pupils' participation in LfS activities, such as travel and field trips.