Evaluating core competencies development in sustainability and environmental master's programs: An empirical analysis

Accepted Manuscript Evaluating core competencies development in sustainability and environmental master's programs: An empirical analysis Gregory Trencher, Shirley Vincent, Kyle Bahr, Shogo Kudo, Kate Markham, Yasuhiro Yamanaka PII:

S0959-6526(18)30186-0

DOI:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.164

Reference:

JCLP 11844

To appear in:

Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 14 July 2017 Revised Date:

6 January 2018

Accepted Date: 20 January 2018

Please cite this article as: Trencher G, Vincent S, Bahr K, Kudo S, Markham K, Yamanaka Y, Evaluating core competencies development in sustainability and environmental master's programs: An empirical analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.164. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Evaluating core competencies development in sustainability and environmental master’s programs: An empirical analysis

’

Gregory Trencher1, Shirley Vincent2, Kyle Bahr3, Shogo Kudo4,

RI PT

Kate Markham5,6, Yasuhiro Yamanaka7 1. Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, Japan

2. National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington DC, USA 3. Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, Japan

SC

4. Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, University of Tokyo, Japan

5. Human-Environment Systems Research Center, Boise State University, USA

M AN U

6. Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Program, Department of Biological Sciences, Boise State University, USA

7. Graduate Institute of Environmental Earth Sciences, University of Hokkaido, Japan Abstract

Interest in and understanding of the various competencies that university sustainability and

TE D

environmental graduate degree programs should aim for has increased in recent years. Yet empirical efforts that assess the effectiveness of programs from a competency building perspective have visibly lacked—particularly from a macro-perspective examining multiple cases. This study fills this gap in the literature by conducting a novel comparative assessment of different types of

EP

master’s degrees in a sample of 14 programs from top-performing universities in Europe, Asia and North America. Our study uses quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess the effectiveness

AC C

of differing types of programs at building key sustainability competencies defined in the literature, and to understand the defining characteristics of programs, innovative competency building approaches, challenges encountered, and potential countermeasures. Using a typological methodology, this study classifies programs into three categories: research-oriented, neutrally-oriented and practice-oriented and then examined the competency building effectiveness of each category through questionnaires administered to faculty (n=40) and students (n = 205).

Results revealed low success in all program types at equipping graduates with anticipatory competencies. Statistically significant differences were also observed between research-oriented and practice-oriented programs, with the latter demonstrating higher success in building interpersonal, strategic and normative competencies. Qualitative questionnaire responses revealed a

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT widespread student demand for more practice-orientated learning and collaborative projects with societal stakeholders. However they also highlight the important role of research-oriented programs at equipping students with theoretical and conceptual knowledge. From a sustainability competency building perspective, the findings point to a need for research-oriented programs to integrate practice-based didactic approaches for building skills and methods via real-world learning

RI PT

projects with external stakeholders. They also prompt a reconsideration of the special importance of research-oriented sustainability and environmental degree programs in a higher education landscape increasingly shaped by vocational and job market expectations.

Keywords: sustainability competencies; university; higher education; environmental; evaluation;

SC

assessment

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

Word count: 8,570 (including references and excluding tables)

’

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ’

1. Introduction The global proliferation and increase of university sustainability and environmental

degree programs and enrollments is well documented (Vermeulen et al. 2014; Withycombe Keeler et al. 2016; O’Byrne et al. 2015; Vincent et al. 2013). Multiple factors are driving the expansion of this academic field. Initiatives such as the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable

RI PT

Development (2004-2014) and multiple global charters (e.g. the Talloires Declaration of 1990 and the Earth Charter from 2000) have spurred decision-maker support for increasing sustainability education in universities (Beynaghi et al. 2016; Lozano et al. 2013). In parallel, green job

opportunities continue to expand globally (OECD 2014) while sustainability expertise is increasingly sought by traditional employers in non-green sectors (Vincent and Focht 2010).

SC

Yet several questions remain. Are graduates from these programs gaining the skills they need to support the global transformation towards sustainability? Which learning approaches and

M AN U

program types are effective in conveying these skills? While much scholarship exists on novel and effective pedagogical methods for increasing the ability of students to function as societal change agents for tackling sustainability issues (Ortega-Sánchez et al. 2018; Trencher et al. 2016; O'Brien and Sarkis 2014; Wiek and Kay 2015), such approaches are often marginal and confined to single courses or the initiatives of frontrunner faculty. Efforts to propagate or mainstream emerging and effective sustainability education practices is often hampered by lack of institutional support and a

TE D

need for faculty training and support from diverse societal stakeholders and students (Disterheft et al. 2015). Even in top universities, despite promises of providing opportunities for transformational learning and effecting social change, environmental and sustainability degrees can fall short of student expectations (Ho and Ang 2016), often failing to provide key skills desired by prospective

EP

employers (MacDonald and Shriberg 2016; Thomas and Day 2014; Brundiers and Wiek 2017). As Sterling (2011) argued while recalling the words of educator Ernst Friedrich Schumacher, although

AC C

the volume of education is increasing, so too is pollution, environmental destruction and dangers of a global ecological catastrophe. Similarly, Orr (2004) reminds us of the fundamental problem of education by asserting that destruction of the Earth’s environment is driven not by a lack of education but more so from “educated” graduates armed with university degrees. As such, environmental and sustainability programs are pressed with the need to break

from traditional knowledge-transmission approaches and focus pedagogical efforts on building cognitive, behavioral and methodological competencies (Segalàs et al. 2009; Thomas and Day 2014) that increase the potential for students to function as societal change agents for sustainability (Wiek et al. 2011; Wiek et al. 2016; Barth et al. 2007; Lambrechts et al. 2013; Lambrechts and Petegem 2016). This points to a need for so-called constructivist approaches which, following Shuell (1986), prompt a shift in emphasis from “what the teacher does” in creating and delivering content,

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT to student engagement and “what the student does” in order to learn. In this context, interest continues to rise around the particular sets of competencies that environmental and sustainability degree programs should aim for (Glasser and Hirsh 2016; Vincent and Focht 2010; Wiek et al. 2016; Wiek et al. 2011; Barth et al. 2007; Lambrechts et al. 2013) and the relative importance of each (Rieckmann 2012; Missimer and Connell 2012). Yet despite the growth in this knowledge, graduate

RI PT

programs globally are still wrestling with attempts to translate these theoretical frameworks into explicit learning objectives, and how to then integrate these into curricula (Thomas and Day 2014; Wiek and Lang 2016). Moreover, empirical efforts to assess the competency building effectiveness of degree programs have visibly lacked (Glasser and Hirsh 2016)—particularly from a national or international perspective from which multiple cases are examined.

SC

Against this background, this study reviews 14 environmental and sustainability master programs from top-performing research universities around the world to examine: 1) the

M AN U

effectiveness of different program types at equipping students with sustainability competencies defined by (Wiek et al. 2011; Wiek et al. 2016), and 2) innovative practices for fostering competencies, challenges encountered and coping strategies. The sample of 14 programs encompasses one and two-year degrees in environmental science/management, sustainability science, and sustainability leadership. Both qualitative and quantitative data is examined from diverse sources including interviews, questionnaires, and document analysis. The small but

TE D

comprehensive sample of 14 programs allows macro-level comparisons as well as the examination of finer details on faculty and student experiences in sustainability competency building and program development.

This research builds on previous studies that have defined various sustainability

EP

competencies, examined the learning outcomes success of individual courses (San Carlos et al. 2017) or appraised the extent to which competency building is reflected in the curricula of a small

AC C

set of bachelor programs (Lambrechts et al. 2013). It also contributes to scholarship that examines larger samples of environmental and sustainability programs (O’Byrne et al. 2015; Vermeulen et al. 2014; Vincent and Dutton 2016) to determine global trends in terms of curriculum content, program objectives, and the sustainability competencies valued by program leaders. While this study does not set out to compare the performance of one specific degree program to another, by classifying programs into three contrasting types it generates a first-of-its-kind comparative appraisal of sustainability competency building effectiveness across a sample of 14 internationally recognized programs. The findings generate insights to guide future development of new and existing sustainability and environmental graduate programs around the world. In parallel, this study’s typology-based assessment approach provides stakeholders, such as government and philanthropic funders, a basis for categorizing and appraising the didactic effectiveness of programs from a

’

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

sustainability competency building perspective.

’

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2. Literature review In sustainably education the concept of “competency” refers to a holistic and interlinked set of knowledge, methods, practical skills, values and behaviors that are purported to enhance task performance and problem solving when dealing with real-world sustainability challenges (Rieckmann 2012; Wiek et al. 2011; UNESCO 2005; Barth et al. 2007). Distilled further, a competency

RI PT

can also conceived of as a triangular and integrated package of knowledge, skills and attitudes (Ploum et al. 2017). Despite agreement on this fundamental definition and the undeniable utility of the competency paradigm for steering degree programs towards more problem-based,

transdisciplinary, experiential and student-centered learning approaches, a proliferation of studies and contrasting delineations has created “a sea of labels” (Glasser and Hirsh 2016: 132). This

SC

challenges any consensus regarding the particular quantity or type of competencies that sustainability and environmental education should aim for (Hesselbarth and Schaltegger 2014;

M AN U

Missimer and Connell 2012). Furthermore, scholars also point to a lack of commonly agreed upon tools or approaches to measure and assess the extent to which competency acquisition actually occurs in students (Glasser and Hirsh 2016).

With regard to key literature, Wiek et al. (2016) build on earlier studies discussing differing types of competencies relevant to sustainability (Barth, Godemann, & Rieckmann, 2005; de Haan, 2006; Sharp, 2002; Wals, 2010), Wiek et al. (2011) to synthesize and propose a

TE D

comprehensive framework of five key competencies (see Table 1) emphasized by sustainability experts in academic programs in eight universities: (i) systems thinking, (ii) anticipatory, (iii) normative, (iv) strategic, and (v) interpersonal. Although this framework is widely used across the sustainability education field, Glasser and Hirsh (2016: 132) argue it is not entirely comprehensive

EP

and that more “still needs to be done to develop and refine a complete and minimal set of relatively non-overlapping key or core sustainability competencies.” Based on a panel of sustainability

AC C

education experts, the authors build on the work of Wiek et al. (2011) to propose a further set of five competencies: (i) affinity for all life, (ii) state-of-the-planet knowledge regarding life-supporting natural systems and processes, (iii) wise decision making in face of uncertainty and conflict, (iv) demonstration of sustainable behavior reflecting “the change that one wants to see in the world”, and (v) transformative social change to foster social learning and understand and apply first and second-order learning. These contrasting interpretations and articulations of key sustainability competencies can be partly explained by the objectives of each. While the set articulated by Wiek et al. (2011) concerns the need to foster the problem-solving ability of individual students relative to social sustainability challenges, the set proposed by Glasser and Hirsh (2016) has occurred in the wider ambition of prompting a fundamental repurposing of sustainability education itself. This repurposing objective encompasses not only education goals and approaches, but equally,

’

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT worldviews and conceptions of nature and sustainability that are shared with students. While other authors (Missimer and Connell 2012; Downs et al. 2017; Hesselbarth and Schaltegger 2014) also outline alternative or complementary conceptions of sustainability relevant competencies, some scholars have recently begun to examine sets of competencies with pertinence to the workplace and roles that students might assume in differing professional contexts upon

RI PT

graduation (Brundiers and Wiek 2017; Thomas et al. 2013). With some studies integrating entrepreneurial qualities and business world sensitivity into conceptions of desirable sustainability competencies (Ploum et al. 2017; Lans et al. 2014), increasingly explicit links are being made

between market place expectations and the desired objectives of graduate sustainability education (Lambrechts and Petegem 2016). Although this development could prompt a normative discussion

SC

on the desirability for market expectations to shape university education goals for sustainability, scholarship suggests that workplace oriented conceptions of sustainability competencies are highly

M AN U

compatible with less vocationally oriented conceptions from earlier scholarship—inclusive of normative and value dimensions (Blok et al. 2015). For example, empirical work by Ploum et al. (2017) finds that a set of six theoretical competencies (1. strategic management and action, 2. embracing diversity and interdisciplinary, 3. systems thinking, 4. normative judgement, 5. foresighted thinking, 6. interpersonal) obtained from previous scholarship (e.g. Lans et al. 2014) correspond with actual competencies desired by young sustainability entrepreneurs. Their addition

TE D

of the “embracing diversity and interdisciplinary” competency is noteworthy. This is not explicitly reflected in the Wiek et al. (2011) framework and demonstrates the importance of attitudinal competencies in professional practice and, in particular, the need to foster the ability of students to appreciate alternative viewpoints, values and types of knowledge.

EP

Despite rich theoretical discussions, few studies have empirically assessed the acquisition of sustainability competencies in students. San Carlos et al. (2017) applied the Wiek et al. (2011)

AC C

framework to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of fieldwork-based courses. MacDonald and Shriberg (2016) conducted a more ambitious survey of alumni from 22 sustainability management and leadership programs. While this allowed an interesting comparison of general trends across academia, the voices of faculty are missing and many respondents had graduated several years before the questionnaire was administered. This significantly reduces this study’s value as a “real-time” evaluation of current practices in surveyed programs. It can consequently be argued that the effectiveness of environmental and sustainability graduate programs at equipping students with key competencies is still largely unverified in academic literature. In pursuit of this objective, this study employs the widely utilized core competencies framework proposed by Wiek et al. (2011). Since sustainability competencies encompass a knowledge/concepts (i.e. “understanding”) and a methods/skills (i.e. “doing”) dimension, as shown

’

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT in Table 1 the appraisal of competency-building effectiveness is conducted from both perspectives in this study. Admittedly, competency frameworks proposed by other scholars could have also been suitable for this study. Reasons for choosing the Wiek et al. (2011) framework mainly concern its: 1) explicit incorporation of the two dimensions knowledge/concepts and methods/skills, which facilitates the comparison of results for each; 2) relative simplicity for questionnaire respondents to

RI PT

understand due to the articulation of only five competencies; 3) widespread recognition in academia as shown by numerous citations (281 according to Scopus in January 2018); and finally, 4) overlap and consistency with other frameworks proposed in both academic and business contexts (Lans et al. 2014; Brundiers and Wiek 2017; Ploum et al. 2017; Hesselbarth and Schaltegger 2014;

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

Rieckmann 2012).

’

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 1. Framework for assessing effectiveness at fostering core sustainability competencies. After Wiek et al. (2011) and Wiek et al. (2016). Knowledge/concepts

Methods/skills

Systems thinking

Ability to understand how differing systems

Ability to generate and interpret results

interact across different domains and scales.

showing how differing systems interact

RI PT

Competence

across different domains and scales. Anticipatory

Ability to understand differing future visions,

Ability to generate and interpret results

states and impacts related to sustainability.

showing differing future visions, states and

Normative

Ability to understand the (un)sustainability of current/future states and required values,

Ability to generate and interpret results about the (un)sustainability of current/future states and required values,

M AN U

ethics, principles, lifestyles etc.

SC

impacts related to sustainability.

ethics, principles, lifestyles etc. Ability to generate change and evaluate

implementation of interventions and

the design and implementation of

transformative governance strategies for

interventions and transformative

sustainability.

governance strategies for sustainability.

Ability to understand collaborative and

Ability to facilitate collaborative and

participatory sustainability research and

participatory sustainability research and

problem-solving.

problem-solving.

AC C

EP

Interpersonal

Ability to understand the design and

TE D

Strategic

’

9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3. Methods

’

3.1 Sample selection The sample for this study comprises of 14 multi-disciplinary master programs from the fields of environmental science, environmental management, sustainability science, and sustainability leadership (see Table 2). The study targets Master of Science (MSc) degree programs

RI PT

conducted in English that encompass varying combinations of mandatory core courses, electives, specialization tracks, and requirements regarding capstone projects or master’s theses. To gain insight into best practices, research universities performing highly in the Academic Ranking of

World Universities (ARWU) by Shanghai Jiao Tong University are examined. Nine of the surveyed programs are ranked in the top-100, three between 100 to 150, and two are non-ranked. Purposive •

Disciplinary focus (environmental science, environmental management, sustainability

M AN U

science or sustainability leadership) •

SC

sampling was employed to ensure a contrasting representation of the following variables:

Orientation towards 1) practice or research, and 2) social sciences or natural/applied/technical sciences

•

Geographic location

•

Length of degree (one or two years)

The sample is confined to programs where at least one full-time teaching faculty agreed to

TE D

cooperate for a semi-structured interview and authorize the administration of written surveys. Seventeen universities were initially contacted and fourteen responded favorably.

3.2 Data collection

EP

Primary data were obtained from semi-structured interviews and questionnaires containing both quantitative and open questions. Secondary data came from program websites,

AC C

brochures, syllabi, curricula and internal documentation. The first author conducted 18 interviews via Skype or telephone from July 2016 to May 2017. Most interviewees were chosen through convenience or snowball sampling and were senior faculty (either associate- or full-professor rank) with several years of teaching, research and mentoring experience in that program. All conversations were recorded and then transcribed into detailed minutes. Interviews were conducted in two rounds. The first built preliminary understanding regarding: 1) basic program attributes (i.e. program history, objectives, orientation, number and background of enrollees); 2) unique approaches to governance, curriculum design, and education; and 3) challenges encountered during competency building efforts and effective countermeasures. The second interview round targeted four programs to examine signature approaches to fostering student sustainability competency acquisition (see Supplementary Material). These were chosen for

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT further analysis due to contrasting and well-developed signature didactic approaches to fostering sustainability competencies. Written questionnaires consisted of two sections. The first collected quantitative data on program orientations and learning objectives. The second collected both quantitative and qualitative data on the effectiveness of programs (inclusive of all core courses, electives and

RI PT

capstone options) at equipping students with sustainability competencies defined by Wiek et al. (2011) using a 1-5 Likert scale. Questionnaires provided detailed explanations and examples of each sustainability competency, also providing room for qualitative information on effective learning practices and barriers hampering competency acquisition.

Questionnaires were pilot tested with colleagues at the University of Tokyo, then

SC

fine-tuned based on feedback. They were distributed as Word documents via email to faculty and students in each program from late September 2016 to early April 2017. Respondents were chosen

M AN U

via snowball sampling or random selection from publically or privately provided email lists. Roughly 120 faculty and 600 students were initially emailed to request permission to send questionnaires. Of these, approximately 60% in each group responded favorably. We then distributed questionnaires to 1) faculty affiliated principally with the program concerned and 2) students who were either in the last semester/year of studies or who had graduated within the last 12-15 months. This ensured respondents possessed sufficient and up-to-date understanding of program objectives, courses,

TE D

and pedagogies, while also being enrolled recently enough for their perspectives to be relevant. In programs with specialization tracks, efforts were made to target students in contrasting specializations. Completed questionnaires were secured from 40 faculty and 205 students, achieving response rates of roughly 50% and 40% respectively. For questionnaire responses

EP

containing unclear answers, respondents were contacted for clarification. In cases where this

AC C

proved unsuccessful, answers were rejected (n=9).

3.3 Data analysis

Although student responses outweigh faculty roughly five-fold, this study considers

faculty as “experts”. Accordingly, when calculating mean scores for each program faculty responses are weighted as 30% relative to 70% for students. Aggregate results for the three types of programs (research, neutral and practice) show the combined mean scores of faculty and student responses from individual programs. One-tailed t-tests were conducted to verify statistical discrepancies between aggregate results for research- and practice-programs. Qualitative data collected through questionnaires were integrated into Excel spreadsheets and analyzed through a qualitative data analysis software (MAXQDA) to identify recurring themes.

’

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2: Overview of Sample

Asia NUS-EM

UT-SS

Approx. enrolments 1 in 2016

Specialization tracks

Length (full-time years)

Australian National University College of Medicine, Biology and Environment University of Melbourne Faculty of Science (Office for Environmental Programs)

(MSc) Master of Environment

77

2014

40

Yes

2

(MSc) Master of Environment

40

Early 2000

400

National University of Singapore School of Design and Environment University of Tokyo Graduate School of Frontier Sciences (Department of Environmental Studies) Tohoku University Graduate School of Environmental Studies

(MSc) Master of Environmental Management

83

2001

20

Lund University Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies Blekinge Institute of Technology Department of

2

RI PT

Year formed

Yes

2

50

No

1

2007

30

No

2

101-150

2015

25

No

2

(MSc) Master in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science

101-150

1997

90

No

2

(MSc) Master in Strategic Leadership towards

n/a

2004

45

No

1

(MSc) Master of Sustainability Science

(MSc) International Environmental Leadership Program

AC C

EP

TU-IELP

ARWU ranking (2016)

SC

UM-E

Degree name

M AN U

Australia ANU-E

University and host institution

TE D

Code

Europe LU-ESSS

BTH-SLS

’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ 1 2

’

Includes part-time students or students in dual degrees. For the new 2-year program that builds on the older 1-year program.

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Sustainability

7

2002

22

No

1 (with 2-year option)

(MSc) Master in Environmental Sciences

19

1987

300

Yes

2

(MSUS) Master of Sustainability Solutions

101-150

2010

50

Yes

2

(MSc) Master in Environmental Science and Policy

n/a

mid-1980s

(MSc) Master in Resources, Environmental and Sustainability

SC 35

M AN U 25

No

2 (with 1-year option)

1991

300

Yes

2

34

2003-2004

40

No

2

42

1996

160

Yes

2

TE D

(MSc) Master of Environmental Management

RI PT

(MSc) Master in Nature, Society and Environmental Governance

AC C

EP

Strategic Sustainable Development OU-NSEG Oxford University School of Geography and the Environment ETHZ-ES ETH Zurich Department of Environmental Systems Science North America ASU-SS Arizona State University School of Sustainability CU-ESP Clark University Department of International Development, Community, and Environment DU-EM Duke University Nicholas School of Environment UBC-RES University of British Columbia Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability UCSB-ESM University of California, Santa Barbara Bren School of Environmental Science and Management

’

(MSc) Master of Environmental Science and Management

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4. Results 4.1 Program characteristics Figures 1a-c show the mean scores of questionnaire responses that characterize program orientations from three perspectives: 1) practice or research, 2) social sciences (implying a qualitative approach and policy/society focus) or natural/technical/applied sciences (implying a

RI PT

quantitative approach and environmental science focus); and 3) flexibility to change this orientation (shown as thin, solid lines) through different course electives, specialization tracks or capstone models. Program names corresponding to each code appear in Table 2. The first perspective

concerns the overall learning objectives of programs and assumed career pathways of graduates (i.e. the x-axis) while the second perspective concerns mainly disciplinary content, methodologies and

SC

subject focuses (i.e. the y-axis). Results suggest that programs can be classified into three clusters: practice-oriented, neutrally-oriented, and research-oriented. This distinction is retained for the

M AN U

purpose of later assessing each type’s effectiveness at equipping graduates with core sustainability competencies. This categorization attaches greater emphasis to program objectives (i.e. practice versus research) rather than disciplinary content, methodologies and thematic focus. This decision is based on the assumption that effectiveness in building sustainability competencies would be affected by research/practice orientations more so than differing content and disciplinary focuses. Results show a slight tendency towards social science, qualitative and societal/policy

TE D

aspects for all three program types. Even for programs where a higher orientation towards natural/technical/applied sciences (e.g. ETHZ-ES and DU-EM) was expected, integration of knowledge and methods from both ends of the disciplinary spectrum is apparent. Practice-oriented programs focus on meeting employer needs and fostering problem

EP

solvers for business, government and non-profit organizations as opposed to traditional scientists for academic research positions (Vincent and Focht 2009). They emphasize hands-on problem

AC C

solving and team work, aim to foster methodological and intrapersonal skills, and actively integrate real-world learning opportunities into curricula. This often occurs through client projects collaboratively implemented with external partners in industry, government and non-profit organizations. These projects feature in both regular courses and capstone experiences, and programs have developed signatory pedagogical models in this area (see Supplementary Material). Practice-oriented programs also proactively seek to align curricula with employer demands by incorporating stakeholders from industry, government and non-profits into either faculty teams or department governance structures. Additionally, several practice-oriented programs reported that they principally target students with two or more years of practical experience to deepen ties with the workforce. Research-oriented programs focus more on fostering the academic research skills of

’

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT graduates for knowledge-producing careers in industry or government, or alternatively, entry into doctoral programs. These programs reported less formal measures to reflect employer needs in curricula design and instead place relatively greater emphasis on academic theory and producing scientifically rigorous knowledge. Practical projects with clients tend to feature less and capstone requirements generally involve traditional dissertations. Overall, less explicit efforts were reported

RI PT

to recruit practitioners into faculty teams and societal stakeholders into program governance bodies. Finally, neutrally-oriented programs contain characteristics of both these program types. Individual programs on Figures 1a-c show highly varying levels of flexibility. This has significantly challenged our attempts to classify programs. While some programs like OU-ESSS and NUS-EM provide relatively little flexibility due to a mostly fixed curriculum, students in much larger

SC

programs like UCSB-EM, ASU-SS, DU-EM and ETHZ-ES can heavily tailor their individual degrees. This can occur firstly by selecting various pre-fabricated specializations, which span both the natural

M AN U

sciences and social sciences and prescribe core and elective subjects, and secondly, by choosing different electives and capstone experiences. Degree customization can occur to such an extent that two students in the same program can acquire a completely different learning experience in

AC C

EP

TE D

terms of both teaching content and learning objectives.

’

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Figure 1a Program orientation and range of flexibility (research-oriented)

AC C

’

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Figure 1b Program orientation and range of flexibility (neutrally-oriented)

’

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Figure 1c Program orientation and range of flexibility (practice-oriented)

’

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ’

4.2 Evaluation of effectiveness at fostering sustainability competencies The following sections present the results obtained from faculty and students regarding

the question: “Based on the totality of your program’s vision, objectives, core curriculum, electives and capstone options, in your view how effective is your program at equipping students with the following sustainability competencies?”. Self-evaluation occurred from two dimensions: 1)

RI PT

concepts/theory and 2) methods/skills. The first surprising finding concerns the knowledge/concepts dimensions of each

competency (Fig. 2a). It was initially assumed that research-oriented programs would perform the highest in this dimension due to a focus on knowledge production. However results show no statistical difference (at p<0.1 significance level) between program types. Interestingly,

SC

practice-oriented programs outperform other types slightly in systems thinking and significantly in interpersonal (confirmed at p<0.1 significance level). Also, as can be seen from the combined mean

M AN U

scores for all competencies (i.e. the top three bars in Figure 2a), which are floating around the 4 or “effective” mark, respondents have reported that all program types are doing a good job at equipping students with knowledge/concepts related to each sustainability competency. The one exception is anticipatory. Mean scores here sit significantly lower than all other categories and float around the 3.5 to 3.7 range in between satisfactory and effective.

The methods/skills dimension (Figure 2b) reveals the greatest discrepancy between

TE D

program types. As expected, the combined mean scores for each of the five competencies (top of Figure 2b) show that practice-oriented programs significantly outperform research-orientated programs with methods/skills building (confirmed at the p<.01 level). Particularly in the interpersonal category, practice-oriented programs are excelling relative to other program types

EP

(significant at the p<.05 level). The one exception is the systems thinking category where no statistical difference was found. Practice-programs are also performing highly in the normative and

AC C

strategic action categories (confirmed at p<.05 significance level). Mirroring these results, individual radar graphs in Figure 3 show that across the five competency levels in research-oriented programs, mean scores for methods/skills tend to lag visibly lower than knowledge/concepts. Turning now to combined results for the knowledge/concepts and methods/skills

dimensions in Figure 2C, since it was assumed that programs performing highly in the methods/skills category would perform lower in knowledge/concepts categories (and vice-versa), no significant differences between program types were expected. However, a significant statistical difference is apparent between the combined mean scores for research-oriented and practice-oriented programs (confirmed at p<.05 significance level), with the latter significantly outperforming the former. This discrepancy is most marked in the interpersonal (p<.01 significance level) and normative (p<.1 significance level) categories. Mirroring the above results, combined

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT program anticipatory scores are significantly lower than other competencies. This suggests that, on the whole, all program types are experiencing difficulties in fostering this competency from both knowledge/concepts and methods/skills dimensions. This tendency can also be confirmed at the level of individual programs in Figure 3. Finally, with regard to neutrally-oriented programs, overall their results tend to fall

RI PT

somewhere in between those for research-oriented and practice-oriented. This is particularly so for the methods/skills category. This provides further indication of some degree of correlation between a program’s orientation towards practice and its effectiveness at equipping students with pertinent methods/skills for the core competencies. That said, this relationship does not hold well for the knowledge/concepts dimension. Interestingly, the mean scores of neutrally-oriented programs in

SC

this dimension have outperformed both other program types overall, and in three out of the five

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

competencies (most notably in normative).

’

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

’

Figure 2 Results for the three program types based on faculty (n = 40) and student (n=205) responses. *** significance at p <0.01, ** significance at p <0.05, * significance at p <0.1

21

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 3 Results for individual programs based on faculty (n = 40) and student (n=205) responses.

’

22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4.3 Challenges in sustainability competency acquisition, and ways forward Open-ended questionnaire responses and faculty interviews revealed significant factors hampering efforts to implement effective didactic approaches for fostering the acquisition of sustainability competencies. Potential coping strategies were also suggested. The following paragraphs unpack recurring themes and provide illustrative quotations.

RI PT

Responses conveyed an overwhelming call for more opportunities to acquire competencies from the methods/skills dimension, particularly in research- or neutrally-oriented programs. Demand for more opportunities to engage in practice-orientated learning and

collaborative projects with societal stakeholders was also widely expressed. Many students pointed to an overemphasis on research and academic theory relative to skill development. Although mainly

SC

apparent in research-oriented programs, this demand was also voiced in practice-oriented

M AN U

programs:

“A lot of what we do is theoretical, and it would be great to actually take the knowledge that we have gained and put it into practice while still in the master’s program. It’s all well and good to have theory, but you can only write so many assignments that at the end of the day just help to further develop the theory that you already possess.” (Student, research-oriented).

TE D

“As a transdisciplinary, applied program, this master’s program should do much more in terms of exposing its students to the raw practice of implementing sustainable solutions (including failing, trying again, and learning from their exposed weaknesses).” (Student, practice-oriented).

EP

Several students also pointed out the inherent contradiction in many master’s programs—that the principle goal of fostering academic researchers sits at odds with the majority of graduates

AC C

assuming practice-based positions in industry, government and NGOs. Supporting this, the following student emphasized that desires for more learning opportunities in the methods/skills dimension were shaped by the job market and prospective employers:

“Many of us will be going into private/NGO/government sectors where our knowledge of certain skills and methods will be expected. I for one am nervous about this. In recent conversations, I’ve had potential employers surprised at my inability to do various forms of impact/life-cycle/multi-criteria analysis. The program should be helping to better equip students with vocational or workplace skills, not just academic skills, if they want us to be effective leaders in sustainability science.” (Student, research-oriented).

Numerous students argued that effective competency building requires more links with

’

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT industry and societal organizations during course design and implementation to increase opportunities for learning in real-world, practical situations. Concrete suggestions included increasing internship opportunities for students or making these compulsory (as done at ETHZ-ES, for example), hiring professors of practice, and actively inviting practitioners in industry, government and non-profits for guest lectures (as done at DU-EM and UCSB-EM, for example).

RI PT

While some interviewed faculty highlighted administrative obstacles or a lack of faculty experience in establishing tight linkages between classrooms and societal stakeholders, some

countermeasures were suggested. One drew attention to the importance of Internet-based

platforms like “Sustainability Connect” at Arizona State University. This helps to match societal needs with education and research by allowing community stakeholders to advertise current

SC

projects to recruit faculty and student participation. Another emphasized the importance of providing expert pedagogical advisors to train faculty in experiential learning approaches and the

M AN U

implementation of joint classroom-community projects. Interestingly, calls for more orientation towards practice were not universal. Some students–like the following—brought attention to the value of softer, theoretical knowing acquired from traditional didactic approaches: “I am able to acquire many methods and skills outside of university, but it is much harder to do this with knowledge and concepts” (Student, research-oriented). Another highlighted the importance of

sustainability issues:

TE D

social theory for understanding the various perspectives of differing social actors regarding

“I think one of the strongest points of our program, which is not well captured by the concept of “competencies” is the ability for students to critically understand different theoretical paradigms. By

EP

critical I mean “knowing the limits of” rather than simply “finding fault with”, so that students can explain clearly and sophisticatedly the merits/logic of, for example, the neoclassical economic paradigm and its

AC C

perspective on social change…” (Student, research-oriented)

Although most conceptions of sustainability methods/skills do not prioritize quantitative

approaches, several respondents and interviewees highlighted that technical scientific skills are essential for their acquisition—particularly for anticipatory competencies. Many problematized an overall deficit of quantitative and technical skills, especially in programs with a social sciences and qualitative focus. Principle reasons cited included: the interdisciplinary nature of student backgrounds and curricula, which reduces methodological commonalities and opportunities for in-depth or specialized training; competing course options in curricula; and a lack of faculty possessing the desired skills. As the following statements show, many faculty perceive that this deficit of quantitative/technical knowledge and skillsets is negatively impacting both the scientific

’

24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT rigor of research and job market competitiveness.

“We continue to have students propose projects with a total lack of rigor. We have a few methods and foundational courses that focus on quantitative as opposed to qualitative analysis, but students can choose

RI PT

other courses instead.” (Faculty, social science/qualitatively oriented).

“Students across sustainability are generally very weak in their quantitative skills. (…) I don’t feel that they leave the program with the ability to independently pursue specific predictions about different scenarios or interventions.” (Faculty, social science/qualitatively oriented).

SC

Several potential countermeasures were highlighted. Students and faculty both acknowledged that curricula were already crowded and that simply increasing the volume of

M AN U

courses was not desirable. Whilst some students suggested that more mandatory courses be tied to skill/methods building (particularly since many students lack the ability and foresight to understand which methods/skills will prove valuable in the future, and which courses provide these), other respondents pointed out the potential effectiveness of strategies like providing optional workshops or “bootcamp” style refresher or immersion courses (like DU-EM, for example). Some pointed to centralized resources like libraries or online learning modules to avoid unnecessary replication

TE D

across campus. Alternatively, others encouraged “bottom-up” skills workshops run by students. This said, multiple faculty and students commented that attempting to cover all types of competencies and associated methods/skills is not feasible or desirable. Interestingly, for those programs with a strong orientation towards practice and methods/skills building, there appears to be a fine-line

EP

between under-provision and over-provision:

AC C

“Saturating us with so many courses and projects may allow the administration to showcase how “awesome” our students perform. In reality however, I believe that I will not remember 90% of things we learned in class because we either did not have enough time to practice these skills or they were classes forced upon us and I did not care to learn it.” (Student, practice-oriented).

Although cognizant of the importance of acquiring technical skills, several respondents across all program types highlighted the need for balancing this with theory, and others emphasized the equal importance of softer interpersonal skills such as leadership, negotiation and community capacity raising:

“We all want the practical and technical because that’s what job seeking has told us we need.

’

25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT However, I believe that technical knowledge won’t be very effective if it’s not backed up by sound theory.” (Faculty, social science/qualitatively oriented).

“The information, the data, the scientific and statistical analysis …are being churned out in many other programs…. What we sorely need are thoughtful, aware, engaging and competent

RI PT

leaders, who understand sustainability challenges and can communicate and engage with them in diverse situations and with diverse audiences.” (Faculty, social science/qualitatively oriented).

With regard to the utility of the competency building learning paradigm for guiding program planning, several programs reported active and continuing strategies to map out

SC

curriculum content and goals from the perspective of key sustainability competencies. For some younger degrees, this took place during initial curriculum design (e.g. LU-ESSS, ASU-SS, BTH-SLS).

M AN U

For more established degrees, a shift in curriculum planning from content towards competency development represents a historical paradigm shift and “a completely different way of thinking”, as one faculty remarked. When developing competency matrices to measure coverage across courses, some faculty reported using the core competencies identified by Wiek et al. (2011) whilst others mentioned experimenting with frameworks developed internally or by government agencies. This strategic integration of competency building objectives leads to an emerging challenge for

TE D

programs—the creation of baselines for tracking the utility of master program outcomes for the competency needs of actual gradates working in sustainability careers. Faculty at ETHZ-ES for example are investing continual monitoring efforts in this area (see Hansmann et al. 2010; Brunner et al. 2010). These developments suggest that the competency-based learning paradigm offers an

EP

important iterative strategy for tying masters programs to societal needs, creating baselines for tracking performance, and then using results to guide the subsequent improvement of courses and

AC C

pedagogical strategies.

’

26

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5. Discussion Findings revealed that low success was reported in the area of developing anticipatory competencies from both a knowledge/concepts and methods/skills perspective across all program types. This concurs with empirical findings in other studies (Lambrechts et al. 2013). Literature argues that the ability to anticipate and envision differing types of harmful or desirable

RI PT

consequences in the future through both quantitative and qualitative understanding and methods is essential for empowering societal change agents and assuring the intergenerational equity that sustainable development requires (Wiek et al. 2011; Barth et al. 2007; Missimer and Connell 2012; Tilbury and Cooke 2001). Developing further opportunities for students to acquire and apply

knowledge/concepts and methods/skills in this domain is thereby an important area for future

SC

development in programs. This said, the five competencies proposed by Wiek et al. (2011) would hold varying degrees of relevance to different cultural and academic contexts. Following arguments

M AN U

from Mochizuki and Fadeeva (2010) it is important that individual programs formulate their own competencies together with strategies for achieving these (Missimer and Connell 2012; Brundiers and Wiek 2017; Downs et al. 2017). Feedback from students suggests it might be difficult or non-desirable for graduates to gain equal proficiency in all competencies due to the contrasting capacities and goals of programs, students, and faculty. Furthermore, Wiek et al. (2016) point out that the importance of specific competencies would vary highly across differing career paths (e.g.

TE D

those required by a banker verses an urban planner). The evaluation of programs from a research-orientation verses practice-orientation revealed that the latter is reporting higher success at equipping students from the methods/skills dimension of the five competencies. This was a general trend across the five competencies, but

EP

particularly so for interpersonal, strategic and normative. These findings are largely supported by student demands voiced across questionnaire responses for more opportunities to develop

AC C

problem-solving relevant methods and skills sought by prospective employers. The statistical analysis did not account for various factors that would undoubtedly affect program performance like policy, governance, pedagogical culture and traditions in each department or institution, and capacities of individual faculty etc. Nevertheless, results suggest that increasing the competency building effectiveness of some research-oriented programs will probably require the active integration of strategies employed by practice-oriented programs to foster methods/skills building in students This triggers an important opportunity for reflection on the special value of research-oriented programs in fostering societal agents for advancing sustainability in a higher education landscape that is increasingly vocational and influenced by market forces (Slaughter and Rhoades 2009; Ploum et al. 2017). Should the primary purpose of graduate sustainability education

’

27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT be for job market preparation as is increasingly implied both implicitly and explicitly in the sustainability competencies literature (MacDonald and Shriberg 2016; Brundiers and Wiek 2017; Wiek et al. 2016)? What is the special value of academic theory, concepts and scholarship for young sustainability professionals entering the workforce? Responding to calls for more opportunities to acquire methods and skills with relevance to sustainability problem-solving and to engage in

RI PT

experiential education with real-world contexts and stakeholders would undoubtedly provide an important opportunity to better align many degree programs with societal needs. Yet the

short-term priorities of market forces are behind much environmental destruction in the world and do not always fit in with long-term scientific agendas that are crucial for generating innovation and reliable understanding into our world (Trencher et al. 2017). Faced with increasingly vocational

SC

framings of sustainability competencies, universities are required more than ever to strike a careful balance between current societal expectations and scientific traditions that underpin much of the

M AN U

university’s utility in society.

Faculty interviews suggested that in many programs abandoning the academic master’s thesis in favor of practical stakeholder projects is not possible due to government policy and historical factors. Furthermore, empirical research suggests that students entering sustainability programs are equally motivated by desires to acquire sustainability knowledge just as much as skills (MacDonald and Shriberg 2016). There is therefore little reason for university programs to

TE D

completely abandon research and scholarship in favor of purely vocational education. Interviewed faculty in two research-oriented programs expressed convictions that the ability to assimilate, structure and critically evaluate differing forms of knowledge, produce evidence, and communicate findings in a scientific manner has a high value for the workforce even though this societal impact of

EP

programs remains largely underappreciated. These findings support work by Lambrechts and Petegem (2016), who argue that research-based learning is an important yet often

AC C

underappreciated vehicle for fostering the integrated acquisition of sustainability competencies, especially if specific competencies are explicitly targeted. This argued, interviews also suggested that accurately conveying the principle orientation and objective of programs was important to avoid misalignment with student expectations. Our analysis of program materials revealed a tendency for even research-orientated programs to use vocational language like “training”, “fostering future global leaders”, “practical know-how”, “management capability” etc. when promoting program outcomes. In several programs, such promises appear to reflect funder expectations more than the actual reality of courses and assignments. Our analysis on signature didactic strategies and tools in Supplementary Material revealed that promising approaches for spurring acquisition of sustainability competencies through problem-based, experiential and transdisciplinary learning tend to avoid tackling competencies in

’

28

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT isolation. Instead, these signature approaches aim to develop several competencies in parallel—both from knowledge/concepts and methods/skills dimensions. They thereby demonstrate an “integrated delivery” and “comprehensive approach to delivering the suite of key competencies”, as emphasized by Wiek et al. (2016: 242). Furthermore, these didactic approaches also portray clearly that competency acquisition is not an individual endeavor like traditional

RI PT

conceptions of scholarship and research. Instead, the acquisition of key competencies is understood as a process that mostly occurs through self-directed learning in groups of students and interactions with lecturers, stakeholders, and living social-environmental contexts. This focus on guiding

students to collaboratively acquire sustainability competencies reflects what Barth et al. (2007) conceptualize as learning through “communities of practice”.

SC

Finally, findings suggest that effective sustainability education approaches should view competency building as a means to an end rather than the contrary. One student questionnaire

M AN U

response asserted that competency development or application is difficult unless attached to “a specific goal or focus throughout the degree.” This was argued not in connection to particular specializations such as policy or energy but “a focus on a specific (possibly local) problem that the student feels passionate or strongly about.” This respondent argued that early identification of such problems in a student’s learning journey would provide a broader context and need for a particular set of competencies that the student could then set about acquiring. This understanding of

TE D

sustainability competency acquisition discourages their framing as abstract entities to be taught in the absence of a particular socio-environmental context or goal; a point which concurs with arguments raised by Ploum et al. (2017). Viewing competencies in this way as an integrated package of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that are tied to a societal purpose (Lambrechts and

EP

Petegem 2016) sits snugly with the recent Wiek et al. (2016: 243) suggestion of a sixth competence; “the meta-competence of meaningfully using and integrating the five key competencies for solving

AC C

sustainability problems and fostering sustainable development.”

’

29

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6. Conclusions While there is much understanding into the various sustainability competencies that graduate sustainability and environmental education should aim for, empirical efforts to actually assess the competency building effectiveness of degree programs have visibly lacked—especially from a macro-perspective examining multiple cases. This study fills this gap through a

RI PT

typology-based analysis of competency building effectiveness, innovative practices, challenges, and potential countermeasures in fourteen master programs from top-performing research

universities. This evaluation moves beyond individual course-level assessments to account for the overall degree experience as captured through core courses, electives and capstone projects.

From a learning objective perspective, our typology suggested three main program

SC

types: research-, neutrally-, and practice-orientated. Each varied further with regard to disciplinary, methodological and thematic orientations and the degree of flexibility granted to students to

M AN U

change these through course selection. These analytical tools could be used by government funding bodies to build understanding into the characteristics of the various environmental and sustainability programs in a national setting. They also provide a potentially important conceptual lens for program administrators and teaching faculty to envision the current focus of degrees, specializations or individual courses. As well as allowing a visual understanding into the various learning pathways available for students, the typological tool could equally facilitate a backcasting

TE D

approach to assist the visualization of desired future shifts to the principle orientations of learning objectives, content and methodologies, and strategies required to achieve that. A key finding of this study was that the effectiveness of all program types at fostering anticipatory competencies from both a knowledge/concepts and methods/skills dimension is

EP

significantly lower than for other competencies. This points to a need to further develop both qualitative and quantitative strategies to increase the ability of graduates to anticipate and shape

AC C

future socio-environmental trajectories from a systems perspective. Findings also revealed a statistically significant difference in performance between research-oriented and practice-oriented programs. The latter group generated better results from a methods/skills perspective—particularly for normative, strategic and interpersonal competencies. Although it was expected that research-oriented programs would outperform practice-oriented programs from a knowledge/concepts perspective, here again, the latter outperformed the former. Coupled with qualitative responses from questionnaires, these findings imply that improving the effectiveness of research-oriented programs at equipping students with core sustainability competencies will necessitate the development and integration of more practice-based and methods/skill building learning opportunities in real-world situations. Findings suggested that student demands for such learning opportunities are heavily shaped by the expectations of potential employers. Although the

’

30

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Supplementary Material reveals novel didactic strategies for fostering sustainability competencies in real-life and collaborative situations, it appears that such approaches are marginal and not widely employed in most programs and courses. The concept of sustainability competencies might not adequately capture the unique and more intangible learning outcomes provided by traditional scholarship and academic

RI PT

research—which respondents stressed cannot be easily supplied by the job market. Yet findings prompt a need for research-oriented programs to better articulate the relevance and value of

rigorous scientific researching training vis-à-vis the paradoxical situation where the majority of graduates assume practice-based careers in industry, government and non-profit organizations. This situation bears much in common with the increasing need for liberal arts and humanities

SC

programs to rearticulate and convey to society their value and distinct role in an increasingly outcomes-driven educational context.

M AN U

While this study was a first attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of multiple sustainability and environmental graduate programs from a sustainability competencies perspective, several limitations and opportunities for further research deserve emphasis. We opted for the widely acknowledged Wiek et al. (2011) framework but other important sets of competencies exist in literature. Future studies might therefore consider empirically measuring acquisition of these. Also, the immense flexibility and breadth of options provided in several

TE D

degrees poses a significant challenge to attempts to categorize programs and understand—let alone evaluate—a “typical” learning journey. Future studies could therefore aim to capture feedback from a larger sample of final semester/year students and recent graduates to increase data validity. Additionally, our results are influenced by the ability of individual faculty and student

EP

respondents to firstly comprehend the meaning of each competency before assessing the effectiveness of the program concerned. Since the definition of some competencies would be

AC C

abstract and conceptual to some respondents, a more reliable approach would be to firstly explain competency meanings through workshops, like San Carlos et al. (2017). This method however would be troublesome to replicate across a large number of programs and respondents. Finally, another limitation of this study design is the reliance on self-reporting. This points to an important future task for researchers—that of developing generalizable assessment approaches to objectively and directly measure the actual acquisition of differing competencies in both individual and group learning settings.

Supplementary material This unpacks four signature approaches and tools developed for building sustainability competencies.

’

31

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Acknowledgements Thank you to Prof. Arnim Wiek at Arizona State University for valuable guidance regarding this study. We extend our deepest gratitude to all students and faculty who generously cooperated with interviews or questionnaire responses and contacting other students and graduates. We wish all

RI PT

current students and graduates the best of luck in achieving their career aspirations as sustainability change agents. We also acknowledge the four anonymous reviewers who provided highly helpful

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

comments and constructive criticism during the peer review.

’

32

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ’

References

Barth’M,’Godemann’J,’Rieckmann’M,’Stoltenberg’U’(2007)’Developing’key’ competencies’for’sustainable’development’in’higher’education.’Int’J’Sust’ Higher’Ed’8’(4):416-430.’doi:doi:10.1108/14676370710823582’

RI PT

Beynaghi’A,’Trencher’G,’Moztarzadeh’F,’Mozafari’M,’Maknoon’R,’Leal’Filho’W’(2016)’ Future’sustainability’scenarios’for’universities:’moving’beyond’the’ United’Nations’Decade’of’Education’for’Sustainable’Development.’J’Clean’ Prod’112’(4):3464-3478.’doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.117’

Blok’V,’Gremmen’B,’Wesselink’R’(2015)’Dealing’with’the’wicked’problem’of’

SC

sustainable’development:’The’role’of’individual’virtuous’competence.’ Business’and’Professional’Ethics’Journal’34’(3):297.’

M AN U

doi:10.5840/bpej201534342’

Brundiers’K,’Wiek’A’(2017)’Beyond’Interpersonal’Competence:’Teaching’and’ Learning’Professional’Skills’in’Sustainability.’Education’Sciences’7’ (1):39.’doi:10.3390/educsci7010039’

Brunner’S,’Frischknecht’P,’Hansmann’R,’Mieg’H’(2010)’Environmental’Sciences’ education’under’the’microscope’Do’graduates’promote’a’societal’change’

Zurich’

TE D

towards’sustainability?’ETH’Zurich,’Department’of’Environmental’Sciences,’

Disterheft’A,’Caeiro’S,’Azeiteiro’UM,’Filho’WL’(2015)’Sustainable’universities’ ’a’study’of’critical’success’factors’for’participatory’approaches.’J’

EP

Clean’Prod’106’(Supplement’C):11-21.’doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.030’ Downs’TJ,’Carr’ER,’Goble’R’(2017)’Re-imagining’environmental’science’and’policy’

AC C

graduate’education’for’the’twenty-first’century’using’an’integrative’ frame.’Journal’of’Environmental’Studies’and’Sciences’7’(2):177-188.’ doi:10.1007/s13412-017-0423-z’

Glasser’H,’Hirsh’J’(2016)’Toward’the’Development’of’Robust’Learning’for’ Sustainability’Core’Competencies.’Sustainability:’The’Journal’of’Record’ 9’(3):121-134.’doi:10.1089/SUS.2016.29054.hg’ Hansmann’R,’Mieg’HA,’Frischknecht’PM’(2010)’Qualifications’for’Contributing’to’ Sustainable’Development’A’Survey’of’Environmental’Sciences’Graduates.’ GAIA’-’Ecological’Perspectives’for’Science’and’Society’19’(4):278-286.’ doi:10.14512/gaia.19.4.10’ Hesselbarth’C,’Schaltegger’S’(2014)’Educating’change’agents’for’sustainability’

33

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ’learnings’from’the’first’sustainability’management’master’of’business’ administration.’J’Clean’Prod’62:24-36.’ doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.042’ Ho’E,’Ang’N’(2016)’Unsettling’environmental’management:’reflections’from’two’ environmental’studies’graduates’in’Singapore.’Environmental’Education’

RI PT

Research:1-16.’doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1146661’ Lambrechts’W,’Mulà’I,’Ceulemans’K,’Molderez’I,’Gaeremynck’V’(2013)’The’ integration’of’competences’for’sustainable’development’in’higher’ education:’an’analysis’of’bachelor’programs’in’management.’J’Clean’Prod’

SC

48:65-73.’doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.034’

Lambrechts’W,’Petegem’PV’(2016)’The’interrelations’between’competences’for’ sustainable’development’and’research’competences.’Int’J’Sust’Higher’Ed’

M AN U

17’(6):776-795.’doi:10.1108/IJSHE-03-2015-0060’

Lans’T,’Blok’V,’Wesselink’R’(2014)’Learning’apart’and’together:’towards’an’ integrated’competence’framework’for’sustainable’entrepreneurship’in’ higher’education.’J’Clean’Prod’62’(Supplement’C):37-47.’ doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.036’

Lozano’R,’Lukman’R,’Lozano’FJ,’Huisingh’D,’Lambrechts’W’(2013)’Declarations’for’

TE D

sustainability’in’higher’education:’becoming’better’leaders,’through’ addressing’the’university’system.’J’Clean’Prod’48:10-19.’ doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006’ MacDonald’L,’Shriberg’M’(2016)’Sustainability’leadership’programs’in’higher’

EP

education:’alumni’outcomes’and’impacts.’Journal’of’Environmental’Studies’ and’Sciences’6’(2):360-370.’doi:10.1007/s13412-015-0344-7’

AC C

Missimer’M,’Connell’T’(2012)’Pedagogical’Approaches’and’Design’Aspects’To’Enable’ Leadership’for’Sustainable’Development.’Sustainability:’The’Journal’of’ Record’5’(3):172-181.’doi:10.1089/SUS.2012.9961’

Mochizuki’Y,’Fadeeva’Z’(2010)’Competences’for’sustainable’development’and’ sustainability:’Significance’and’challenges’for’ESD.’Int’J’Sust’Higher’ Ed’11’(4):391-403.’doi:10.1108/14676371011077603’ O'Brien’W,’Sarkis’J’(2014)’The’potential’of’community-based’sustainability’ projects’for’deep’learning’initiatives.’J’Clean’Prod’62’(Supplement’ C):48-61.’doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.001’ O

’

Byrne’D,’Dripps’W,’Nicholas’KA’(2015)’Teaching’and’learning’sustainability:’

34

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT An’assessment’of’the’curriculum’content’and’structure’of’sustainability’ degree’programs’in’higher’education.’Sustain’Sci’10’(1):43-59.’ doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0251-y’ OECD’(2014)’Green’Growth’Indicators’2014,’OECD’Green’Growth’Studies.’OECD’ Publishing,’Paris.’doi:10.1787/9789264202030-en’

Island’Press,’Washington,’Covelo,’London.’

RI PT

Orr’D’(2004)’Earth’in’Mind:’On’Education,’Environment,’and’the’Human’Prospect.’

Ortega-Sánchez’M,’Moñino’A,’Bergillos’RJ,’Magaña’P,’Clavero’M,’Díez-Minguito’ M,’Baquerizo’A’(2018)’Confronting’learning’challenges’in’the’field’of’

SC

maritime’and’coastal’engineering:’Towards’an’educational’methodology’for’ sustainable’development.’J’Clean’Prod’171’(Supplement’C):733-742.’ doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.049’

M AN U

Ploum’L,’Blok’V,’Lans’T,’Omta’O’(2017)’Toward’a’Validated’Competence’Framework’ for’Sustainable’Entrepreneurship.’Organization’&’ Environment:1086026617697039.’doi:10.1177/1086026617697039’ Rieckmann’M’(2012)’Future-oriented’higher’education:’Which’key’competencies’ should’be’fostered’through’university’teaching’and’learning?’Futures’44’ (2):127-135.’doi:10.1016/j.futures.2011.09.005’

TE D

San’Carlos’R,’Yoshida’Y,’Kudo’S’(2017)’Fostering’the’Next’Generation’of’ Sustainability’Professionals’ ’Assessing’Field-based’Courses’in’a’ Sustainability’Science’Graduate’Program.’Sustainability’Challenges’5’ (1):52.’doi:10.12924/cis2017.05010052’

EP

Segalàs’J,’Ferrer-Balas’D,’Svanström’M,’Lundqvist’U,’Mulder’KF’(2009)’What’has’ to’be’learnt’for’sustainability?’A’comparison’of’bachelor’engineering’

AC C

education’competences’at’three’European’universities.’Sustain’Sci’4’ (1):17.’doi:10.1007/s11625-009-0068-2’

Shuell’TJ’(1986)’Cognitive’Conceptions’of’Learning.’Review’of’Educational’ Research’56’(4):411-436.’doi:10.3102/00346543056004411’

Slaughter’S,’Rhoades’G’(2009)’Academic’Capitalism’and’the’New’Economy.’John’ Hopkins’University’Press,’Baltimore,’Maryland’ Sterling’S’(2011)’Transformative’learning’and’sustainability:’sketching’the’ conceptual’ground.’Learning’and’Teaching’in’Higher’Education’(5):17-33’ Thomas’I,’Barth’M,’Day’T’(2013)’Education’for’Sustainability,’Graduate’ Capabilities,’Professional’Employment:’How’They’All’Connect.’Australian’

’

35

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Journal’of’Environmental’Education’29’(1):33-51.’doi:10.1017/aee.2013.14’ Thomas’I,’Day’T’(2014)’Sustainability’capabilities,’graduate’capabilities,’and’ Australian’universities.’Int’J’Sust’Higher’Ed’15’(2):208-227.’ doi:doi:10.1108/IJSHE-05-2012-0046’ Tilbury’D,’Cooke’K’(2001)’Building’capacity’for’a’sustainable’future.’Macquarie’

RI PT

University,’Sydney’ Trencher’G,’Nagao’M,’Chen’C,’Yarime’M,’Ichiki’K,’Sadayoshi’T,’Kinai’M,’Kamitani’ M,’Nakamura’S,’Yamauchi’A’(2017)’Implementing’sustainability’co-creation’ between’universities’and’society:’A’typology’based’understanding.’

SC

Sustainability’9’(594).’doi:10.3390/su9040594’

Trencher’G,’Rosenberg’Daneri’D,’McCormick’K,’Terada’T,’Petersen’J,’Yarime’M,’ Kiss’B’(2016)’The’Role’of’Students’in’the’Co-creation’of’Transformational’

M AN U

Knowledge’and’Sustainability’Experiments:’Experiences’from’Sweden,’Japan’ and’the’USA.’In:’Leal’Filho’W,’Brandli’L’(eds)’Engaging’Stakeholders’in’ Education’for’Sustainable’Development’at’University’Level.’Springer’ International’Publishing,’Cham,’pp’191-215.’ doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26734-0_13’

UNESCO’(2005)’United’Nations’Decade’of’Education’for’Sustainable’Development’

TE D

(2005-2014):’International’Implementation’Scheme.’Paris’ Vermeulen’WJV,’Bootsma’MC,’Tijm’M’(2014)’Higher’education’level’teaching’of’ (master

s)’programmes’in’sustainable’development:’analysis’of’views’on’

prerequisites’and’practices’based’on’a’worldwide’survey.’International’

EP

Journal’of’Sustainable’Development’&’World’Ecology’21’(5):430-448.’ doi:10.1080/13504509.2014.944956’

AC C

Vincent’S,’Bunn’S,’Sloane’L’(2013)’Interdisciplinary’Environmental’and’ Sustainability’Education’on’the’Nation

s’Campuses’2012:’Curriculum’

Design.’Washington’

Vincent’S,’Dutton’K’(2016)’Three’leadership’perspectives’on’US’interdisciplinary’ environmental’and’sustainability’programs:’a’review’of’the’findings’of’ the’2003-2014’studies’of’the’Center’for’Environmental’Education’Research,’ National’Council’for’Science’and’the’Environment.’Journal’of’ Environmental’Studies’and’Sciences’6’(2):405-417.’ doi:10.1007/s13412-015-0281-5’ Vincent’S,’Focht’W’(2009)’US’higher’education’environmental’program’managers'’

’

36

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT perspectives’on’curriculum’design’and’core’competencies:’Implications’for’ sustainability’as’a’guiding’framework.’Int’J’Sust’Higher’Ed’10’(2):164-183.’ doi:doi:10.1108/14676370910945963’ Vincent’S,’Focht’W’(2010)’In’Search’of’Common’Ground:’Exploring’Identity’and’ Core’Competencies’for’Interdisciplinary’Environmental’Programs.’

RI PT

Environmental’Practice’12’(1):76-86.’doi:10.1017/S1466046609990433’ Wiek’A,’Bernstein’M,’Foley’R,’Cohen’M,’Forrest’N,’Kuzdas’C,’Kay’B,’Withycombe’ Keeler’L’(2016)’Operationalising’competencies’in’higher’education’for’ sustainable’development.’In:’Barth’M,’Michelsen’G,’Rieckmann’M,’Thomas’

SC

I’(eds)’Handbook’of’Higher’Education’for’Sustainable’Development.’ Routledge,’Oxon,’UK,’New’York,’NY,’pp’241-260’

Wiek’A,’Kay’B’(2015)’Learning’while’transforming:’solution-oriented’learning’

M AN U

for’urban’sustainability’in’Phoenix,’Arizona.’Curr’Opin’Sust’Dev’16:29-36.’ doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.001’

Wiek’A,’Lang’DJ’(2016)’Transformational’Sustainability’Research’Methodology.’ In:’Heinrichs’H,’Martens’P,’Michelsen’G,’Wiek’A’(eds)’Sustainability’ Science:’An’Introduction.’Springer’Netherlands,’Dordrecht,’pp’31-41.’ doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_3’

TE D

Wiek’A,’Withycombe’L,’Redman’CL’(2011)’Key’competencies’in’sustainability:’a’ reference’framework’for’academic’program’development.’Sustain’Sci’6’ (2):203 218.’doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6’ Withycombe’Keeler’L,’Wiek’A,’Lang’DJ,’Yokohari’M,’van’Breda’J,’Olsson’L,’Ness’

EP

B,’Morato’J,’Segalàs’J,’Martens’P,’Bojórquez-Tapia’LA,’Evans’J’(2016)’ Utilizing’international’networks’for’accelerating’research’and’learning’

AC C

in’transformational’sustainability’science.’Sustain’Sci’11’(5):749-762.’ doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0364-6’

’

37

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights


This research assesses competency building effectiveness in 14 master programs




Competencies are examined from knowledge/concepts and skills/methods dimensions Low success reported in fostering anticipatory competencies across all programs




Overall, practice-oriented programs significantly outperform research-oriented




This was most pronounced for interpersonal, strategic and normative

RI PT




AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

competencies