Integrating sustainability into curricula: How TASK™ Navigational Charts can help
Scott G. Blair, PhD, Content Development Editor, Sulitest Impact
To help education professionals better empower their students to develop sustainability literacy, Sulitest has created a bank of Navigational Charts dedicated to each of the 28 subjects assessed by TASK™ —The Assessment of Sustainability Knowledge. Each 2-page NavChart contains essential educational and pedagogical content that helps educators review and revise the curriculum—a process premised on effecting the transformative learning in higher education we all need for social and ecological sustainability (Moore et al, 2005).
The content of each TASK™ NavChart includes:
- a grounded definition of the sustainability subject at hand
- a list of 10-12 key ideas that relate to the subject
- bullet-point examples and descriptions that detail the content of each key idea
- banks of “ready-to-adapt” learning objectives for each content subject
- learning objectives articulated around the different types of knowledge that TASK™ assesses for each subject (i.e., descriptive, contextualized, causal, integrated)
- a list of corresponding key bibliographical resources
- and direct access to the full User Guidelines applicable to each NavChart.
Last year in the summer of 2024, I wrote an article entitled Shipwreck Avoidance Protocols - The Sulitest TASK Navigational Charts: What They Are and How to Use Them for Curricular Reform. It took a brief look at how the NavCharts help inform the process of changing or selecting—in line with TASK™ and SDG 2030 Agenda—a course title, course learning objectives, course content, assessment and evaluation protocols, required readings, and pedagogical methods.
Today’s follow-up discussion highlights how the TASK™ NavCharts can similarly be used to review and revise the curriculum of an entire existing program as a collective effort among education professionals. As such, this is a much more ambitious and exciting undertaking, requiring as it does both a collegial effort involving all instructors from multiple disciplines within the program, as well as a systemic and holistic approach requiring the integration of sustainability concepts into the curriculum horizontally—rather than vertically (Figueiró & Raufflet, 2015).
Indeed, when viewing the TASK™ matrix showing the many elements of sustainability knowledge, one appreciates its overall systemic structure and holistic nature, and it becomes immediately clear that integrating sustainability into the higher education curriculum requires a transdisciplinary perspective and approach (Tasdemir & Gazo, 2020).
In practice, this means getting program colleagues together from all disciplinary backgrounds into the same room, everyone with a copy of their current syllabus in hand, each with a set of TASK™NavCharts close by, and all supported by a “recording secretary” to monitor and log proceedings.
1. Take inventory of the current curriculum
The first step is to engage instructors and program directors in a program-wide inventory of what constituent elements of sustainability knowledge are currently in the curriculum and thus being taught. This is an essential step in the journey towards curricular transformation. But it’s also a big one. And to ensure the outcome of this exercise aligns with the TASK™ assessment process later in the program, it’s best to work through each TASK™ NavChart systematically and in sequence, starting with, for example, Climate Change and working through each successive chart. To break the ice (as it were), a set of general questions could be put to the group of faculty members present:
- Does anyone have the words “climate change” formally appearing in their course title, description, learning objectives, class assignments, lecture tiles, required readings, etc.?
- Does anyone include in their course readings any of the key bibliographical titles listed on the NavChart?
- Does anyone address any of the concepts that appear in the metadata for the Climate Change NavChart? (e.g., definitions, status within planetary boundaries, key international regulatory initiatives, etc.)
2. Dive deeper into the NavCharts for better sustainability coverage
As a second step, instructors can then begin looking more carefully through the key ideas in each NavChart, scanning content in search of things that already appear in course lectures (e.g., perhaps, “The Great Acceleration’ [i.e., the post war boom or Trente glorieuses, etc.]) but also for topics that should and easily could be included henceforth in a future-revised syllabus (e.g., ‘Polluter pays’ principle, Geoengineering, the Precautionary principle, etc.).
3. Map and monitor your curriculum alignment with TASK™
As a third step, the recording secretary should keep track of who already does X, who is committing to doing Y, and who might be able to do Z. By tracking and physically marking such information right there on the TASK™ NavCharts, an image progressively emerges of how much program content actually covers the domain of sustainability knowledge as articulated in the Sulitest matrix of sustainability knowledge. Such a process also certainly helps identify gaps and usefully helps detect overlap. Plus, the overall process simultaneously exposes areas of shared concern and interest, revealing where faculty synergies exist and where comparative advantages might be easily leveraged.
No doubt, some phases of this exercise will be more satisfying than others. For example, a business curriculum will already be quite attentive and sensitive to numerous TASK™ subjects such as Macroeconomic Considerations and Finance (3.2.1) or Technology & Innovation (3.3.2), whereas others are likely to reveal considerable gaps, such as Biosphere Integrity (1.1.2) or Ocean Acidification (1.2.3). But even for the former, business-as-usual courses might have to change quite significantly if it’s meaningful sustainability knowledge that we seek as the course’s primary learning outcome. So, there’s still a lot of work ahead (Castaneta & Cuellar, 2024) but this is what the TASK™ NavCharts help accomplish.
In conclusion, at the end of this collegial process of engaging faculty members in both a macro- and micro-level analysis of programmatic content, in comparing such content to the domain of sustainability knowledge articulated by Sulitest, and by creating a method for revising content in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, faculty gain valuable insights. Additionally, by placing at instructors’ disposal the internationally recognized and standardized assessment instrument TASK™ and organizing the overall process around the 28 TASK™ Navigational Charts, faculty have structured guidance for improvement. As a result, program faculty and administrators have every chance to rethink and deliver a program of truly transformational learning (Filho et al., 2018).
These don’t have to be uncharted waters!
Resources cited
Castaneda, D. I., & Cuellar, S. (2024). Business education before and in times of pandemic. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2408450
Figueiró, P. S., & Raufflet, E. (2015). Sustainability in higher education: a systematic review with focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.118
Filho, W. L., Raath, S., Lazzarini, B., Vargas, V., De Souza, L., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O., Haddad, R., Klavins, M., & Orlovic, V. (2018). The role of transformation in learning and education for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.017
Moore, J. (2005). Is higher education ready for transformative learning? Journal of Transformative Education, 3(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344604270862
Tasdemir, C., & Gazo, R. (2020). Integrating sustainability into higher education curriculum through a transdisciplinary perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265, 121759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121759
