Exploring the link between Learning for Sustainability and attainment

Background and context

Learning for Sustainability (LfS) is a cross-curricular approach which enables learners, educators, learning settings and their wider community to build a socially-just, sustainable and equitable society. An effective whole setting and community approach to LfS weaves together global citizenship, sustainable development education and outdoor learning to create coherent, rewarding and transformative learning experiences. LfS is an entitlement for all learners within Curriculum for Excellence. LfS is embedded within the General Teaching Council of Scotland Professional Standards for practitioners and permeates the inspection framework, How good is our school? [Fourth edition]. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals are central to Scotland’s national vision and are at the heart of the Scottish Government’s National Performance Framework.

Learning for Sustainability and closing the poverty-related attainment gap are high priorities in Scottish education. Christie and Higgins’ (2020) report for the Scottish Government examined the link between LfS and educational outcomes and showed that LfS is “as an excellent context through which all aspects of CfE (Curriculum for Excellence) can flourish” (p.v). However, in consideration of attainment outcomes, evidence is limited, in particular in relation to closing the attainment gap.

Previous research has shown that there is a link between LfS, especially outdoor learning, and academic achievement, as well as other multiple positive cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes (e.g. Christie and Higgins, 2020). However, findings are usually based on teachers’ and students’ perceptions, and there remains a lack of objective evidence linking the two. Although there is limited evidence exploring the relationship between LfS and attainment, this may be because methods of learner assessment do not consider the link, nor how to measure it, rather than because there is no link. This warrants further investigation.

In fact, there is a link between pedagogies that are key to the successful delivery of quality education through LfS and pedagogies that are recognised as having an impact on attainment (Christie and Higgins, 2020). Research available through the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) provides evidence and recommendations for pedagogies, educational approaches and learning and teaching methods that improve attainment for children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds (EEF, 2024), several of which are commonly used in the delivery of LfS activities.

Furthermore, as noted by Christie and Higgins (2020), LfS offers the opportunity to build knowledge and understanding of the role that a more equal and socially just society plays in building a more sustainable future. However, there are multiple critiques in the literature of a perception that schools and particular pedagogies should be able solve complex social justice issues, suggesting that the reality is much more nuanced (e.g. Lingard and Mills, 2007). Nevertheless, pedagogies are thought to make a difference to educational inequality (ibid, emphasis in text).

Christie and Higgins (2020) state the following as one of their recommendations: ‘Further exploration of appropriate pedagogies is required to determine the drivers of quality education within the context of LfS practice within and across Scotland’ (p.viii). Thus, an exploration of LfS approaches which contribute towards improving educational outcomes and/or equity and inclusion for low attaining pupils is valuable in understanding the link between LfS and attainment.

This research, in examining the contribution of LfS to improving educational outcomes and equity and inclusion for low attaining pupils, also considers whether and how pedagogies for LfS and pedagogies for equity align, and the potential to achieve parallel outcomes. It is also necessary to note that there are multiple positive outcomes of LfS beyond attainment. The aim of this research is not to overlook these, nor to advocate for LfS as a route to attainment, but to identify appropriate pedagogies and the many positive outcomes of LfS that could contribute towards reducing the attainment gap.