Exploring the link between Learning for Sustainability and attainment

Methodology

The study method was qualitative primary research, in the form of semi-structured interviews conducted with 15 practitioners. This included eight primary practitioners (class teachers, principal teachers and one head teacher) and seven secondary practitioners (subject teachers and sustainability leaders across geography and social science, science and biology, mathematics, business and information technology). 10 schools were selected from eight local authorities across Scotland according to whether they were performing well in LfS, which was determined in collaboration with Education Scotland. The schools represented a range of different Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) areas and demographics from both urban and rural areas. For the selected schools, the Scottish Government’s social research schools access protocol was followed. The local Director of Education was offered an opportunity to opt out of the research. Headteachers were contacted to identify practitioners who were delivering LfS across the curriculum.

An ethics review was conducted, and participants were provided with a participant information sheet and privacy notice. Participants were asked to provide their consent to be interviewed. They were informed that participation was entirely voluntary and were given the opportunity to ask questions or opt out of the research at any time.

Practitioners were invited to take part in online interviews lasting around 45 minutes. Interviews were conducted over a two-week period in December 2023. Participants were asked about their teaching methods, activities, and techniques they use to deliver LfS. They were asked whether they perceived there to be any overlap between LfS and attainment, particularly for low attainers. There were also questions about cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes and skills for learners and any impact on attitudes and wellbeing from engaging in LfS. Participants were encouraged to answer questions honestly. They were given the opportunity for anonymity and to review any direct quotes used in the report.

Interviews were recorded on Microsoft Teams, auto transcribed, and reviewed for accuracy. The transcripts were then coded in NVivo and analysed to determine common themes. Although the majority of participants did not request anonymity, a decision was made to anonymise all 15 participants’ responses to protect the anonymity of those who requested it. Appendix A provides a table of the pseudonyms used in the report. The case studies in this report were selected from practitioners who did not request anonymity, in the event that they or their schools could be identified through the case study.

Strengths and limitations of the research

Due to the qualitative nature of the research, and the small number of participants (n=15), the findings from this study cannot be considered to be representative of the views of all LfS practitioners. However, the consistency of the views among practitioners across both primary and secondary schools and in comparison to previous research, illustrates that the findings can be considered useful in evaluating the link between LfS and attainment for low attainers.

Schools were selected according to whether they were performing well in LfS, rather than according to pupil demographics, levels of attainment or receipt of Scottish Attainment Challenge funding. This means that the research reflects a range of pupil demographics and therefore the research may be limited with respect to representation of more disadvantaged pupils. However, the two primary schools that were in areas of deprivation were more advanced in their LfS journeys and this was due to the recognition by practitioners of the ability of LfS to contribute towards equity and inclusion for their demographic of pupils.

Due to the short timescales of the project and the busy schedules of the practitioners in the weeks before the Christmas break, the interviews with practitioners were conducted online. The physical distance between the participants and the researcher and the limited time available to conduct the interviews may have impacted the potential to build the rapport and trust required to elicit open and honest responses. Additionally, this may have been impacted by the setting of the interviewee, who may have been using a shared space. As LfS is a policy priority, participants may not have felt able to answer entirely honestly and they may have felt there was a risk to their own or their school’s reputation, despite the option of anonymity.