‘I think it works better if we have an example to help us’: experiences in collaboratively conceptualizing the scaling of education for sustainable development practices in South Africa

Abstract

This article aims to contribute to the knowledge of how the ‘scaling’ of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) activities is conceptualized in practice through transactional learning encounters. In the context of the UNESCO Global Action Programme (GAP) on ESD, I discuss the re-actualisation of experiences as part of these encounters. The study is a result of data collected as part of a Re-Solve participatory research workshop held in South Africa in 2016, involving researchers and practitioners with experiences of ESD-activities in the Southern African region. To identify and analyse the transactional learning encounters a practical epistemology analysis (PEA) is used. The article draws on a Deweyan theory of learning as transactional encounters, supported with a tentative conceptual framework of scaling-ESD-activities-as-learning (SEAL). Throughout the study, I illustrate the transactional encounters, including the re-actualisation of participants’ past experiences of ESD-activities. These encounters enabled the conceptualization of contextually relevant concepts of scaling, thus constituting an enabling condition for reflective scaling practices.

Keywords:

• Environmental and sustainability education
• scaling
• scaling-up
• Dewey
• learning

Introduction

‘Scaling’, the moving of educational activities from a small to a larger impact (Elmore 1996; Looi and Teh 2015), has been a recurring topic in UN policy (UNDP 2016; UNECE 2014, UNECE 2016; UNESCO 2012, 2014b, 2014c). These policy documents include a view of ‘up-scaling’, that while there were several successful Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)¹-activities² developed during the UN Decade of ESD (DESD), these activities remained at the pilot stage and must be up-scaled. Up-scaling is also emphasised in the Global Action Program (GAP) on ESD (UNESCO 2014b, 2014a), which describes up-scaling as crucial for accelerating overall progress towards sustainability.

Notwithstanding UN-policy (UNESCO 2012, 2014c), the concept of ‘scaling’ is seldom used in policy and practice but is in this article operationalised as an analytical concept for the movements of ESD-activities. These movements occur along multiple quantitative dimensions, including the horizontal and vertical spread of ESD-activities, and qualitative dimensions, including the deep integration of ESD-activities into ongoing practices, thus contributing to the sustainability and adaptivity of ESD-activities over time (Cash et al. 2006; Clarke and Dede 2009; Coburn 2003).

To differentiate the chosen analytical concept from other similar concepts, ‘spreading’ is used as a generic term for approaches focusing on one or a few dimensions of increasing the impact of ESD-activities.³

Pring (2000) argues that since education presents a highly complex practice, and ESD especially so, there is both a ‘pull’ for ready-made ESD-activities and a ‘push’ for sharing what is considered successful. Arguably, this creates an interest among policymakers and practitioners of finding generalisable solutions for ESD in the form of ‘best practices’ and ‘good examples’ (Biesta 2014; Spector 2015). Pring (2000), Mochizuki (2008) and Spector (2015) argue that ‘best practices’ present oversimplified explanations to the ‘spreading’ of ESD-activities. There are risks of designating standardised educational proposals for diverse groups of people that may impose a universalising worldview (De Andrade and Sorrentino 2014).

Furthermore, Harwell (2012) and others (Denton, Vaughn, and Fletcher 2003; Dewa et al. 2002; Elmore 1996) argue that scaling as a concept is theoretically underdeveloped. There is a marked lack in ESE-research⁴ of critical discussion or references to theoretical frameworks of scaling, with scaling seldom approached as an educational concept, as illustrated in Laurie et al. (2016), Nambiar and Sarabhai (2015), Sarabhai et al. (2012), and Sterling (2014). As such, the conceptualization of scaling becomes a significant condition for addressing qualitative questions of scaling.

Focusing on three workshop sessions held at the Environmental Learning and Research Center (ELRC), Rhodes University, South Africa that was part of a 2016 five days Re-Solve workshop, the article contributes with knowledge of how scaling is conceptualized in practice. The South African Re-Solve workshop was co-designed and co-facilitated by SWEDESD and the ELRC. As a participatory research workshop (Darsø and Høyrup 2012; Darsø 2001; Rossi and Sein 2003; Ørngreen and Levinsen 2017) the Re-Solve is a facilitated critical, collaborative, and iterative process with the dual purposes; of generating co-constructed empirical data on scaling and to enabled capacity-building among workshop participants regarding the scaling of ESD-activities.

Due to its design for detailed studies of learning processes in action, a practical epistemology analysis (PEA) is used as a primary data analysis method, generating empirical data for further analysis. Focusing on encounters between educational content, participants, and their past experiences, PEA offers ways to analyse how participants conceptualize scaling in practice.

In the analysis, the tentative conceptual framework of scaling-ESD-activities-as-learning (SEAL)⁵ (Mickelsson, Kronlid, and Lotz-Sisitka 2019) is used to support the PEA theoretically.

The study explores the involvement of workshop participants as partners in transactional encounters with conceptual frameworks. By re-actualising their past experiences, as part of these encounters, participants can contribute to generating of contextually relevant concepts of scaling, understood as a component of a reflective scaling practice.

Aim and research questions

The article aims to contribute with knowledge of how scaling is conceptualized in practice through transactional learning encounters. A number of research questions are formulated based on the aim:

• How do (a) participants, (b) participants’ past experiences of ESD-activities and (c) existing notions of scaling ESD-activities participate in the conceptualization of scaling?

• How are past experiences of workshop participants re-actualised in the process of conceptualizing scaling during the workshop?

Theory

For the research analysis, I draw on John Dewey’s pragmatist theory of learning, which emphasises experience as a constitutive component of learning processes. This learning theory perspective is supported with the tentative conceptual framework of SEAL to theorize the scaling of ESD-activities in the article as primarily a qualitative learning process constituted by transactional encounters between educational content and workshop participants with their experiences of ESD-activities.

Experience as central to learning and educational activities

Dewey’s learning theory (Dewey, 1938/1997; Dewey & Bentley, 1949/1991) takes a transactional approach to learners meaning-making. Meaning becomes (re)-constructed in an ongoing process in relation to and through encounters with other learners, educational content, facilitators and the learning subjects environment (Dewey, 1938/1997; Dewey & Bentley, 1949/1991; Rosenblatt 1985). As such, meaning-making becomes an emergent property of these encounters and ongoing practices (Hansson 2014). The transactional approach becomes operationalized in the research analysis as the notion of ‘scaling’ is introduced as part of participants meaning-making, transacting with them and their past experiences of ESD-activities.

Central to transactional learning theory is the concept of experience and how experiences are distributed spatially as well as temporally in the environments of learners. This distribution entails current experiences becoming part of a continuity of learners’ experiences, extending both backwards into the past and forward into the future. Accordingly, learning in and through experiences is not just something that occurs in isolated instances, but rather is often regarded as a continuously on-going personal transformation extending over time. As learners experience new encounters with educational content, environing conditions, and other learners, the meaning of past learning experiences change (Dewey, 1938/1997; Wickman 2006).

Encounters in learning processes become interwoven with environing conditions. These environing conditions are parts of a pervasive whole, an environment, which comes to be relevant for a specific activity. Forming the circumstances of our experiences, they extend influence over what we perceive and respond to as these circumstances come to play a part in our activities (Dewey, 1938/1997; Hansson 2014; Kronlid 2014). For example, when students encounter an anthill in the forest, their past experiences of anthills may be re-actualised in the encounter, a fascination for the tiny but complex social community of ants and a sense of fear of the threat of an ant invasion. In the end, the students’ past experiences become part of the transactional learning encounter, as it will inform their current, as well as future, experiences, and activities.

Scaling-ESD-activities-as-learning

As mentioned above, for its understanding of the meaning of scaling processes, the article draws on the 2018 iteration of a tentative conceptual framework⁶, SEAL (Mickelsson, Kronlid, and Lotz-Sisitka 2019) with an approach to the scaling of ESD-activities as a transactional learning process.

The conceptual framework addresses qualitative questions of the purpose, content, involvement, location and process regarding the scaling of ESD-activities. As such, the conceptual framework provides a perspective of scaling as the dynamic adaptation of ESD-activities.

At the centre of this perspective are the transactional learning encounters between ESD-activities, those involved in the scaling process and new environments. To explore these transactional encounters, the SEAL draws on Dewey’s continuity of experience. This approach enables the study of how the re-actualising of past experiences impact the conceptualization of scaling, i.e. how experiences are made relevant to learning processes of how to scale ESD-activities into a future not yet known.

Three related analytical concepts are at the core of the tentative conceptual framework highlighting educational questions of scaling ESD-activities.

Scaling object refers to what is to be scaled, the educational content of the scaling process. This scaling object may range from factual, educational content and educational methods to general educational approaches or onto-epistemological worldviews.

Scaling subjects refer to the people involved in the scaling process. The terms of their involvement may differ from merely benefitting from the scaling of a particular ESD-activity to actively engaging as partners in the scaling process, adapting the scaling objects.

Scaling site refers to the where, with specific environing conditions, scaling objects are introduced. These environing conditions have both natural and human-made aspects that are related to the specific sustainability challenges.

Coburn (2003), as well as Clarke and Dede (Clarke and Dede 2009), present a notion of scaling as characterised by depth, a shift in ownership, sustainability and evolution. Depth becomes enabled through the integration of the ESD-activity in the on-going practices of scaling subject in the designated scaling sites. Furthermore, by enabling scaling subjects to influence the ongoing scaling process, a shift in ownership can be achieved. Through the continued engagement of these scaling subjects in adapting the ESD-activity, the scaling process can be sustainable and able to evolve.

Methodology

This section presents the empirical material in the form of transcripts of audio recordings along with the procedure of data generation and data analysis used.

Co-generated data: the ReSolve scaling workshop at Rhodes University, South Africa

The empirical material studied consists of audio recordings generated during a Re-Solve participatory research workshop on scaling involving researchers and practitioners from Sweden and Southern Africa. As a method participatory research workshops can be described as having two purposes; (1) generating empirical data, and (2) facilitating participants capacity-building (Darsø and Høyrup 2012; Darsø 2001; Rossi and Sein 2003; Ørngreen and Levinsen 2017). Utilising participatory research workshops as the data generating method enabled identification and exploration of scaling as relevant to the participants’ past experiences, supporting their conceptualizations of scaling.

Re-Solve was initiated by the Swedish Centre of Education for Sustainable Development (SWEDESD) as a circular reflective process tool for scaling ESD-activities.⁷ This tool includes several participatory research workshops planned, executed, and assessed in collaboration with workshop participants. Re-Solve is an abductive, critical, collaborative, and iterative process designed to enhance conceptualizations of the scaling of ESD activities grounded both in theory and experience. As such, while the Re-Solve participatory research workshops have dual purposes, in this study, the focus is on it as a data generating method.

The Re-Solve workshop series, during which I researched this article, was held over five days, 14-18 March 2016 in South Africa, in collaboration with the Environmental Learning Research Centre (ELRC) at Rhodes University. In the workshop, participants addressed questions such as ‘what is to be scaled?’, ‘who is doing the scaling?’; ‘who is benefitting from the scaling?’ and ‘who are partners in the scaling process?’. Nineteen participants and two co-facilitators took part in the workshop, distributed as presented in the Table 1 below:

Table 1. Participants of the Re-Solve workshop series 14–18 March 2016.

Countries	Occupation
14 from South Africa	7 university researchers
2 from Zimbabwe	9 PhD-candidates and ESD-practitioners
1 from Swaziland	1 Governmental official

The participants included researchers and practitioners, with experiences of ESD-activities in the region and connection to the Environmental Education Association of Southern Africa (EEASA).

Facilitating the Re-Solve workshop involved stepping into a strong and mutually shared history among the workshop participants of collective ESD work. As such, the participants bring experiences of national and international ESD-activities, stretching back over 25 years. Many of the participants have been involved outside of academia, working with policy and as consultants engaging with questions of education systems development, social learning and social, as well as ecological, justice.

During the studied workshop sessions, when discussing what to scale, the participants focused on two ESD-activities they had past experiences with; the Change project approach and the Fundisa for Change.

The Change project approach focuses on capability building and mediation to address sustainability challenges in context. By enabling participants to develop and reflect on their educational change projects, the approach aims to change institutional practices through the collaborations of colleagues in context (Mandikonza 2016; Mandikonza and Lotz-Sisitka 2016). Fundisa for Change strives to enhance transformative environmental learning through teacher education. Meanwhile, the ESD-activity reaches beyond the educational institutions to engage environmental organisations, NGOs as well as business and state actors sharing an interest in strengthening teacher education in terms of sustainability.

Throughout the five-day workshop audio material was recorded, including small group sessions as well as joint group sessions. Since the joint sessions had the character of reporting on the results of past small group work, audio recordings collected during the small group session became the selected empirical data for the study. In these sessions, participants split into three subgroups of 5-7 participants to work on assignments of addressing questions of the scaling of ESD-activities.

Five hours of transcribed audio recordings from the second day of the workshop came to constitute the generated empirical material. This choice was based on that during the second-day participants engaged in conceptualizations of scaling. These conceptualizations set the direction for the reflections in subsequent workshop sessions. Focusing on these sessions thus enabled a detailed study of how the workshop participants conceptualized scaling. Out of the transcribed five hours of audio recordings, the PEA was used to analyse sections where participants expressed uncertainty of how to proceed with the task at hand. A further strategic selection of examples, to be presented in the findings section of the article, was made based on the transcripts representing recurring themes in the more extensive material identified through the PEA analysis.

Analytical tool and process

A crucial reason for choosing PEA as a method is that it enables the detailed study of learning processes. The design of the PEA is to explore and analyze transactional learning encounters where learners’ past experiences are re-actualised as part of the encounters (Hofverberg and Maivorsdotter 2018; Maivorsdotter and Quennerstedt 2012; Maivorsdotter and Wickman 2011; Wickman and Östman 2002a). Thus, an essential aspect of such an analysis is to inquire into how past experiences enabled the workshop participants to continue with the workshop activity in which they are involved (Wickman 2004; Wickman and Östman 2002a).

In the analysis, four analytical concepts of PEA are utilised to enable the analysis: (1) gaps, (2) relations, (3) encounters and (4) purpose and ends-in-view (Maivorsdotter and Quennerstedt 2012; Wickman and Östman 2002b).

The PEA analysis is conducted in five steps:

1. Identifying gaps in the transcripts.

2. Exploring relations participants create to fill the gaps.

3. Describing analytically constructed⁸ encounters within the relations.

4. Identifying purpose and ends-in-view.

5. Constructing categories of relations to enable further analysis.

A gap (1) is understood to emerge when participants express hesitation or uncertainty of how to proceed with the activity they are involved in. When participants present suggestions of how to continue the activity, these are viewed as attempts to fill the gap by creating relations (2). Drawing on the transactional learning perspective, this is understood as participants re-actualising their past experiences, by relating these experiences with other participants’ past experiences, educational content and what is understood as constituting the participants’ environing conditions. By describing the relations between re-actualised experiences, educational content, and environing conditions, an encounter (3) can be analytically outlined. The three past steps can be understood as processes in which the participants get stuck and possibly also unstuck, and thus can continue the workshop activity. Through this analysis, it is possible to identify whether the participants formulated end(s)-in-view (4) along step 1-3 of the activity that had the purpose (4) of conceptualizing scaling. To facilitate the analysis, Excel was used to structure the analysis, cross-referencing gaps and recurring relations between transcripts.

In my analysis of the audio transcripts, the first step involved identifying instances when workshop participants expressed hesitation or uncertainty of how to move forward with the workshop task at hand. As exemplified in line 5 of example 2, the expressed hesitation and the fact that other participants’ engage with the hesitation through their action is interpreted as a gap emerging.

These actions taken by participants to engage with uncertainties or hesitations are analytically constructed as creating relations in which participants draw on their past experiences. By relating current experiences of the educational content and environing conditions to past experiences that are considered certain, what was uncertain in the current experience becomes (at least temporarily) certain. This certainty, albeit temporary, enables the participants to continue the workshop activity.

As such, both gaps and relations are identified by analysing the stops and starts of the workshop participants’ discussions. A gap is understood to emerge when the hesitation or uncertainty of one participant halted the discussion in that other participants, through their actions, acknowledge the need to address said uncertainty. Furthermore, a relation is understood as having been established when participants are able to continue the discussion, thus getting on with the workshop activity—exploring what comes to be involved in these relations created by the participants’ results in the analytical construction of transactional encounters.

Throughout these three steps of the PEA analysis, participants’ are analytically understood as striving towards fulfilling a purpose, often through recontextualisation of said purposes into ends-in-view. While purposes and ends-in-view are related, Dewey (Dewey, 1934/2005, 1938/1997) differentiates them. Purposes are recontextualised by participants in learning processes into the ends-in-view to relate the educational activity to their past experiences, thus enabling the direction of meaningful action (Maivorsdotter and Quennerstedt 2012; Maivorsdotter and Wickman 2011). The final analytical step involves constructing categories of relations, informed by the tentative SEAL conceptual framework, enabling further analysis supported by the educational research presented in the theory section.

The PEA analysis was conducted in two phases; the paper’s author performed an initial analysis, while in the second phase, sections of the data found interesting in the initial analysis were analysed as part on a workshop together with senior researchers experienced with PEA analysis. Additionally, the results of the analysis were presented and discussed as part of several research seminars. Throughout the analysis, the identified relations were categorised with a small number of relations not categorised due to being ambiguous or difficult to understand given the purpose of the study. As such, conducting the PEA analysis both individually and together with senior researchers reduced the risk of the analysis becoming limited by the authors perspective supporting the credibility of the analysis as noted by Simons (2009, 2015).

This section attempted to detail how PEA as an analytical method enabled me to understand the direction of the learning processes participants involved in the workshop session. The analytical steps outlined resulted in the construction of three principal categories of relations detailed in the findings section.

The subsequent analysis of empirical data generated in the PEA-analysis follows an abductive research method using a theory-informed interpretation of generated empirical data (Corbin and Strauss 2015; Niiniluoto 1999; Peirce 1955). This approach involves analysing how the tentative SEAL conceptual framework is challenged and adapted in the empirical data, resulting in progressively revised iterations of the conceptual framework (Peirce 1955; Reichertz 2010; Simons 2009, 2015).

As such, the 2016 iteration of the tentative SEAL conceptual framework was presented during the workshop series, becoming part of encounters with the participants and their experiences of ESD-activities. Empirical data generated through the PEA-analysis of the audio material was analysed using the 2018 iteration of the conceptual framework. The result of the analysis presented in this article contributes to the 2019 iteration of the SEAL conceptual framework.

Research ethics

The ethical principles of the Swedish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences (Swedish Research Council 2017) has guided the study presented in the article. For the construction of the empirical data in the Re-Solve workshops in Southern Africa, principles of informed consent and voluntary participation have been adhered to, as outlined in the guidelines of the Regional Ethics Vetting Board in Uppsala (2017). Confidentiality has been preserved as far as possible. Participants were informed and consented to that, due to the number of participants and the specifics of the workshop and their experiences with ESD-activities, absolute confidentiality could not be guaranteed.

The collected empirical material neither deals with sensitive or personal data but focuses on participants’ experiences of scaling ESD-activities. Thus, the research was not interested in the participant´s personal lives or their particular roles in scaling processes.

Findings

This section outlines the results of the PEA-analysis to enable the reader to follow the steps taken. Further analysis of the results utilising is detailed in the next section utilising the tentative conceptual framework of SEAL presented earlier in the article (Mickelsson, Kronlid, and Lotz-Sisitka 2019).

Through the PEA analysis, three principal categories of relations were constructed, informed by the tentative SEAL conceptual framework and representing the participants engagement with current scaling efforts in engaging with (theoretical) dimensions and levels of scaling ESD-activities, past scaling efforts in evaluating ESD-activities in terms of scaling and future scaling efforts in envisioning the scaling of ESD-activities.

An example is included from the audio material to illustrate each category, starting with an introductory section, followed by the transcript. Relations created in the transcripts together with the participants that created them and statement numbers are summarised in a series of tables. In expanding on these examples, the analysis details gaps and relations underlining relations in the text. Examples include three small group sessions on the second day of the workshop in which participants focused on developing descriptions indicative of scaling ESD-activities.

Example 1. Engaging with (theoretical) dimensions and levels of scaling ESD-activities

The first example illustrates how participants conceptualize scaling and make decisions about how to address various questions about scaling. The six participants were empirical researchers as well as practitioners with research interests and as such, with diverse experiences of ESD-activities. These experiences included informal education (eco-tourism and wildlife conservation) and formal education (Fundisa for Change and education for strong sustainability in teacher education). Furthermore, these experiences encompassed change projects at university departments and teacher training colleges, as well as government policy work.

Participants, as part of the workshop session, were tasked with answering questions related to scaling. During the session, participants discuss the tentative SEAL conceptual framework that was introduced during the first day of the workshop, attempting to bring it into the current activity.

The session starts by participants deciding to focus on the question ‘what is to be scaled?’. The participants discuss whether this question overlaps with the question of what is the object of scaling as outlined in the tentative SEAL conceptual framework, after which the following dialogue ensues (Table 2):

Table 2. Engaging with (theoretical) dimensions and levels of scaling ESD.

Relation	Participant	Line
Scaling object as one of many possible	R	2 and 4
Principles and other scaling objects	C	7
Combined scaling object	M	9
Different scaling objects at the fore at different times	R	11

1. S: So what is an ‘object of scaling’, how do we understand it? An object of scaling, what is an object of scaling?

2. R: OK, scaling object, organisational model, OK.

3. C: Can all three of those be scaled?

4. R: Those three are different kinds of objects of scaling. You can scale the organisational model, the model, a model of how an organisation does its things. Or you can scale a program, a teacher education program, like that. Or the principles, the way things work. Am I right? [rhetorical question]

5. [voices of agreement]

6. V: The Fundisa for change, for example, is organised on a model, that’s a structure.

7. C: Arent you also, aren’t you also scaling principles at the same time?

8. V: Yeah.

9. M: It could be a combination of [inaudible], but it helps us think through various things, but it could be a combination of all those things.

10. C: Mhm

11. R: But was is important is you cannot, you cannot avoid the others but what is your object, what are you scaling, for example, if an organisational model you cannot avoid a plan of the model of course and principles but our object is the model, the active learning framework, for example, that’s want you want to. Or if it is the program, teacher education program.

[The conversation continues after the transcript to further describe the possible scaling objects going further into questions of who is involved and who benefits from scaling.]

In line (1), S expresses uncertainty regarding what is an object of scaling. This uncertainty is understood as an emerging gap as the other participants acknowledge the uncertainty by engaging with the question. R creates the first relation (2 and 4) between scaling objects and the possibility of being three different kinds, namely scaling object as one of many possible. However, C (7) responds by creating a relation between scaling principles and ‘at the same time’, namely scaling both principles and other scaling objects simultaneously. M also brings up the notion of multiple scaling objects, creating a relation between scaling object and ‘a combination of all those things’ (9), namely a combined scaling object. In response to these suggestions, R (11) creates a relation between the scaling object and program or model at different times, namely different scaling objects at the fore at different times. The relations created by C, M and R, relating the scaling objects to multiple things at different times, is understood as filling the gap as the participants can continue the workshop activity.

In the transcript, through the relations created by R, C, M, there is an encounter between the participants’ re-actualised experiences of ESD-activities and the concept of scaling object. These encounters can be said to be transactional in the sense that the meaning of both scaling objects and the participants’ re-actualised experiences become transformed. The participants conceptualize scaling objects as including principles, organisational models or programs that can exist together or apart. The relation created by C (7) suggests that it is not a question of exclusivity regarding the types of scaling objects. Furthermore, different scaling objects can be at the fore of the scaling process at different times. The past experiences of principles, organisational models and programs, as exemplified when V (6) references Fundisa for change, come to be viewed through the lens of the concept of scaling objects and that these aspects of ESD activities are significant to scaling efforts.

Example 2. Evaluating ESD-activities in terms of scaling

The second example illustrates how participants conceptualize scaling concepts in discussions of specific ESD-activities. The seven participants include empirical researchers and practitioners but also government officials. Their experiences of ESD-activities encompass green economy and green skills projects in South Africa in addition to higher education projects such as MESA (Mainstreaming ESD in higher education) and Fundisa for Change. They also include experiences of Change projects and formal educational projects of language education in Swaziland.

Similar to the previous example, the participants’ task was to answer questions related to scaling. Meanwhile, they find it problematic to agree on how to address the question of what is to be scaled. The following dialogue ensues (Table 3):

Table 3. Workshop participants evaluating ESD-activities in terms of scaling.

Relation	Participant(s)	Line
The change project as a scaling object.	T	8
Scaling the change project as a program	T	10
Scaling multiple things simultaneously in the change project	J	11
Scaling the number of engaged participants	J	11
Participants as the beneficiaries of the change project	J	13
Beneficiaries of the scaling object	P	15
Change project as the scaling object	P	17
Change project as a shared objective	P	21
Mainstreaming of ESD as objective for scaling	M and T	23 and 24
Change project approach as tool for mainstreaming ESD	T	30
The change project approach as an example scaling object can take multiple forms	T	30

1. P: So the first thing that we may want to find out here is when we say what is to be scaled are we talking about the object of scaling?

2. J: The object of scaling?

3. N: Is that what we are talking about, the question was.

4. T: What is to be scaled?

5. P: So what is an object of scaling, how do we understand it? An object of scaling, what is an object of scaling?

6. J: Ok, so what are we saying to help describe it?

7. T: I think it works better if we have an example to help us.

8. T: Example? Object of scaling. You were saying something that I liked that is kind of common in many cases, a change project.

   Voices of agreement

9. M: A change project, we started as a very small thing here, two people probably, four-five people, one institution, thirteen institutions etcetera. So what we are scaling is the, what we mean by scaling a change project, what are we scaling?

10. T: A program

11. J: From what you just said, I think we are scaling several things at the same time. If we are talking of a project starting with two people to five and so forth […] then it becomes for me, we are scaling the numbers, the quantity or increasing the number of people participating, engaged in that particular project. If we are looking at the change project in that context.

12. T: When we are saying participating in that project. Do you have the same understanding, participating in that project? What my question is, what does that mean, an increasing number of people participating in that project?

13. J: Beneficiaries.

14. T: Who are the beneficiaries?

15. P: If we maybe can go to a recap what we done before lunch […] Those beneficiaries of the scaling object.

16. M: So going back to the change project did we decide on what are the object…

17. P: the change project would be the object…

18. M: Is it a program, organisational model, the change project?

19. T: I ‘m confused here, would the change project be the object or the tool for the object.

20. M: I was thinking the same or the activity.

21. P: What is the object, what we are working towards.

22. T: Yes

    [General agreement]

23. M: Mainstreaming of ESD

24. P: Mainstreaming of ESD

25. D(facilitator): That is not the object, the object is that which you want to scale.

26. N: Hmmm

27. D(facilitator): So if you have a project or created a super good teaching model then object, the scaling object, is maybe that teaching model that you want to take somewhere else.

28. M: Not what [inaudible]

29. D: It’s not the objective.

30. T: Because what I was going to say, maybe I understand it [name of participant] is that you see when you mainstream ESD into teacher education you can use change projects approach to do this. They do their change projects, and then they go back to their institutions where they like to try to involve more people in that project. We are not defining what exactly the change project is; it could be the syllabus; it could be a vegetable garden; it could be… but it is the approach that we want to scale.

31. D: So that’s the scaling object

32. T: So that’s the scaling object

33. [Voices of agreement from the group]

[The conversation continues after the transcript with the participants giving further examples of the scaling object, the beneficiaries of scaling, and the impact of scaling efforts from their experience.]

In lines (1-6) a gap is understood as emerging when P first expresses hesitation and uncertainty regarding what is to be scaled, which is then further emphasised by J, T and N. In response to this gap T (7 and 8) first create a relation between the idea of the need for an example and the scaling object taking the workshop task in a new direction. Second, T creates a relation between the change project and the scaling object, namely the change project as a scaling object.

Meanwhile, a new gap emerges as M (9) expresses uncertainty regarding what is scaled in the change project. Both T and J attempt to fill this gap by creating relations. T (10) creates a relation between what is scaled in the change project and a program, namely scaling the change project as a program. J responds (11) by creating two relations between what is scaled in the change project. The first relation is created to several things at the same time, namely scaling multiple things simultaneously in the change project, and the other relation is created to the numbers participating in a particular project, namely scaling the number of engaged participants in the change project.

This part is followed by the emergence of what is understood as a new gap when T (12) expresses uncertainty regarding the meaning of the relation created by J, to which J (13) responds by creating a relation between change project participants and beneficiaries, namely participants as the beneficiaries of the change project. Another gap emerges when T (14) asks who the beneficiaries are. At this point, P (15) interjects by creating a relation between beneficiaries and the scaling object, beneficiaries of the scaling object.

While the relation fills the current gap, it prompts what is understood as the re-emergence of a previous gap when M (16) expresses uncertainty regarding the scaling object. P (17) answer is then to create a relation between the change project and the scaling, namely the change project as the scaling object. This relation suggests that the whole of the change project would be what is scaled, rather than specific aspects of the project.

Meanwhile, the uncertainty regarding the status of the change project and the scaling object lingers as M (18) and T (19) ask several questions regarding the relation created by P (17), which are understood as the re-emergence of the gap regarding the scaling object.

P (21) responds by creating a relation between the scaling object and what we are working towards, namely, change project as a shared objective. Meanwhile, M (23) and T (24) create a relation between what we are working towards and mainstreaming ESD, mainstreaming of ESD as an objective for scaling.

At this point the facilitator D (25) enters the discussion and asserts that what is understood as the relation put forward by M and T ‘is not the object, the object is that which you want to scale’ (25), adding ‘It’s not the objective’ (26). In response, T (30) creates two relations. The first relation is between the change project approach and the objective of mainstreaming ESD, namely the Change project approach as a tool for mainstreaming ESD. The second relation is between the Change project as an approach, whether as a syllabus och a vegetable garden and scaling object, namely the different iterations of the Change project approach as the scaling object. As understood here, T fills the gap regarding the scaling object of the change project. Concluding the transcript D (31) and T (32) both reiterate the creation of the relation between the change project and the scaling object, namely change project as an example of a scaling object. This conclusion receives voices of agreement (33) and is thus understood to fill the gap of what is to be scaled.

The relations created by T, J, M and P highlight encounters in which participants’ experiences of an ESD-activity, the change project approach, is re-actualised. Initially, the stated purpose of the workshop activity to address concepts of scaling, precisely what is to be scaled. Meanwhile, when the participants are unable to continue with the said activity, they create relations between what is to be scaled (scaling object) and the change project approach in what is understood as efforts to fill gaps that have emerged. The change project approach is by the participants related to several different things, and as new gaps emerge, they create new relations regarding the change project. These relations illustrate transactional encounters transforming what the scaling object of the change project approach could be, while also resulting in the participants taking steps to conceptualize ‘what is to be scaled’.

I argue that when the participants create relations focused on filling the gaps regarding the change project approach, this represents an end-in-view of addressing the Change project approach as an example of a scaling object to move forward in addressing the purpose, what should be scaled. As such, the participants’ re-actualisation of their experiences of the Change project approach enables them to find a common grounding for fulfilling the purpose of the workshop activity.

Example 3. Envisioning the scaling of ESD-activities

The third example illustrates participants directing the workshop session towards addressing how to adapt conceptualizations of scaling to a specific ESD-activity. As part of this, the participants discuss what should be scaled, who should be involved in the scaling and which should be the terms of their involvement. The group of five participants includes both empirical researchers and practitioners with experiences from long-term educational work in communities focusing on agriculture.

Furthermore, these experiences include informal educational projects spanning the Southern African region. These projects aim to strengthen environmental education processes for equitable and sustainable environmental management choices through policy, networking, resource materials, and training capacity. Moreover, the participants also brought to the workshop experiences of the more formal educational projects of Fundisa for Change and the Change project approach.

As part of the task of self-evaluating on-going ESD-activities, participants start by referring back to the previous days’ discussion on scaling objects of ESD-activities and what benefits these activities generated. This discussion leads into a conversation regarding ‘who are the beneficiaries and partners in scaling processes?’ after which the following dialogue ensues (Table 4):

Table 4. Envisioning the scaling of ESD-activities.

Relation	Participant	Line
Beneficiaries as well as partners	B	2
Different beneficiaries and partners at different levels	C	3
Inclusive but differentiated benefits of scaling	D	6
Direct and indirect beneficiaries of scaling	C	7
Fundisa for change as an example of direct and indirect beneficiaries	C	10
The possibility of being direct or indirect beneficiaries depending on the context.	C	10

1. A: If I look at the problematic example of the project, in terms of the project. I’m looking at these collages of educational or upper-secondary school. Fundisa, is it a mainstreaming? For example, are they going to change as in terms of the example of landscaping or water project? How does it bring about change in terms of learning about ESD in the curriculum, for the student for the other, you know, partners in whether it’s the work done there, in terms of maybe in the way they conserve water in the institution?

2. B: I think that’s why we also have partners here. Beneficiaries, partners.

3. C: At all levels, different

4. A: Yeah.

5. B: Everybody becomes [inaudible]

6. D: Everybody is benefitting because what I mean what we are really doing this we want a just society, a sustainable society, so that’s our goal. But everybody does benefit but at different levels depending on where you are at. Otherwise, everybody benefits, it’s just that it depends on…ok.

7. C: But in reality, you cannot, in the reality of the practice you cannot go and say ‘I have this program and project that is going to benefit the world’ and everyone clap their hands and say yay! But no one will follow. And then they say, they tell you to go and tone it down. So in the toning down of the who benefits that is when you start to look at your direct benefit, people benefit directly and for example if we running a program on feeding children that have AIDS who would be the direct beneficiaries. Are it those children?

8. B: The children

9. C: And the secondary ones would be the immediate community who hasn’t have to…

10. C: And that’s why I think the benefit depends on the project itself. That it’s very contextual. For instance, I made an example of Fundisa for change where teachers are the direct beneficiary, and the institution is the indirect one. Because if the teacher who is trained moves out of the institution will be left without that capacity. So institutions are secondary in that particular instance, but in other instances, the institution might be the direct beneficiary. If you are going to be putting all these nice things.

[Following the transcript the participants continue the conversation focusing on the contextual character of scaling processes and how the benefits and beneficiaries shift, depending on whether you look at the individual, institutional or national policy level.]

A gap is understood as emerging when A (1) expresses uncertainty about how the notion of beneficiaries, or benefit of scaling as change, can be utilized to grasp the ongoing project of Fundisa for change.

B (2) is prompted to create a relation between scaling beneficiaries and partners, namely scaling, including beneficiaries as well as partners. C (3) adds a relation between scaling beneficiaries as well as partners and all levels, namely different beneficiaries and partners at different levels. Moreover, D (6) creates a relation between benefits of scaling and everybody in different ways depending on their positioning, namely inclusive but differentiated benefits of scaling.

In response, C (7) creates several relations. The first relation is between scaling beneficiaries and direct or indirect, namely direct and indirect beneficiaries of scaling. Continuing, C (10) creates the second relation between the benefits of scaling and the contextual example of Fundisa for change, namely Fundisa for change as an example of direct and indirect beneficiaries. Finally, C (10) creates the third relation between specific scaling beneficiaries and both direct and indirect benefit, namely the possibility of being direct or indirect beneficiaries depending on the context.

When analysing this transcript, the purpose defined by the facilitators for the participants can be understood as deciding how to delimit who are the beneficiaries of the scaling. In the transcript, the relations created by participants A, B, C, and D constitute an encounter between the concept of scaling beneficiaries and past experiences of the ESD-activity Fundisa for change. Participants are understood as formulating an end-in-view when they include the Fundisa for change in the relations to differentiate beneficiaries based on time and place as well as whether they are direct or indirect beneficiaries. The direction of this end-in-view is envisioning the application of the conceptualized notion of scaling beneficiaries in taking the Fundisa for Change ESD-activity forward.

Analysis: Learning to conceptualize the scaling of ESD-activities

This section includes a further analysis of the data generated in the PEA-analysis using the tentative conceptual framework. These findings are outlined with regards to how the workshop participants conceptualized scaling and how participants’ past experiences of ESD-activities were re-actualised as part of the transactional learning process.

The PEA-analysis highlights how participants conceptualize scaling through what is analytically understood as the emergence of gaps, the creation of relations as part of transactional encounters and the formulation of ends-in-views.

In the example, Evaluating ESD-activities in terms of scaling, participants formulated an end-in-view in attempting to understand the scaling concepts in the context of a concrete example. By looking at the specifics of the Change project approach, participants shift the focus of the discussion towards exploring scaling concepts in context. The example is chosen by the participants to represent generic features of ESD-activities. Through this discussion, participants find common ground in their past experiences, which enables them to arrive at shared understandings of both scaling objects (what is to be scaled) and the scaling subjects (who are involved in the scaling).

The use of ESD-activities to conceptualize scaling has the further function of providing new perspectives on said examples as seen in Envisioning the scaling of ESD-activities. By drawing on their shared conceptualizations of scaling, the participants can further their understanding of the ESD-activity and create a direction for scaling Fundisa for change.

Participants emphasise questions regarding who is involved in scaling processes and the terms of their involvement, as beneficiaries or as partners. Thus, shifting the focus of the workshop activity, the participants formulate ends-in-view of envisioning how their conceptualizations of scaling could support the continued work with Fundisa for change. As a result of the participants’ discussions, the notion of ‘beneficiaries’ of scaling ends up transformed, from a more or less homogenous group to a diverse assortment of people who will benefit from the scaling in different ways. The participants present the question of who benefits from scaling and how they benefit as dependent on the organisational and institutional level differentiating between direct and indirect beneficiaries.

Throughout the PEA-analysis, the emergence of lingering gaps (where participants despite attempts to create relations were not able to move on with the activity) leads to participants formulating ends-in-views focused on conceptualizing scaling through concrete examples. To fill the gaps, the participants relate past experiences of ESD-activities to the current activity, thus enabling them to fulfil the ends-in-view. By extension, this also enables them to continue with the purpose-driven workshop activity. In the formulation of ends-in-view, participants take the learning process into new directions that make scaling relevant to their experiences and the challenges they face in working with ESD-activities. Since it indicates the moment when there is an evolution (Coburn 2003; Clarke and Dede 2009) of the transactional learning process, the various formulations of ends-in-view are crucial in the conceptualization of scaling in the workshop.

In the studied workshop session, differentiation characterises the conceptualizations of scaling. The participants conclude that scaling objects can be principles, educational programs or organisational models, adding that while one of these may be the principal scaling object, the scaling process often encompasses a combination of multiple scaling objects. As such, scaling becomes conceptualized as multi-levelled. The concrete examples of ESD-activities obtain in the discussions several forms and could thus fulfil a multitude of different educational purposes.

Based on the analysis, the participants create a multilevelled structure for what is to be scaled (principles, organisational models, and programs) that also includes a differentiation between direct and indirect beneficiaries of scaling.

As part of conceptualizing scaling participants are adapting the concepts of scaling to the specifics of concrete examples of ESD-activities while also presenting these conceptualizations as open to systematic analysis.

This analysis illustrates how the learning process of conceptualizing scaling in practice involves participants deepening and evolving their existing notions of scaling through the operationalizing of these notions concerning their past experiences of ESD-activities. The encounters, constructed as part of the analysis, involves the conceptualization of scaling as a process enabling further understandings among participants of ongoing ESD-activities while simultaneously resulting in refined scaling concepts.

Discussion

As seen in the analysis, the re-actualisation of past experiences was a principal driver, informing and substantiating participants’ conceptualizations of scaling. The following discussion focuses on how the use of ReSolve provided a basis for the participants to engage in a reflective scaling practice.

In the workshops, participants worked with shared experiences of ESD-activities (Change project approach and Fundisa for change) that became the foci for joint discussions regarding scaling. Accordingly, I would argue that the participants’ re-actualisation of past experiences contributed to a conceptualization characterised by depth (Clarke and Dede 2009; Coburn 2003), in the sense of becoming integrated with the scaling subjects’ ESD practices. In the workshop, activities were focused on participants using the tentative conceptual framework of SEAL in their conceptualization of scaling.

Additionally, through the transactional learning process, the notion of ‘scaling’ is also integrated into the continuous flow of experiences of the participants (Clarke and Dede 2009; Coburn 2003). Including ‘scaling’ into the participants’ continuum of experience enables them to carry the conceptualization forward, informing both the meaning of participants’ past experiences ESD-activities as well as how they envision future scaling. These conceptualizations set the conditions for contextually relevant concepts of scaling. Participants can adapt and retain the relevance of their conceptualizations in the face of changing sustainability challenges and conditions. Facilitating workshop participants to adapt ‘scaling’ through conceptualizations constitute an enabling condition for further conceptual adaptation and retained relevance of scaling processes, i.e.sustainability and evolution (Clarke and Dede 2009; Coburn 2003).

Conclusion

This study highlights how the re-actualization of participants’ past experiences include the integration of scaling as part of the experiential continuum of the participants; a continuum in which they re-examine shared experiences of scaling ESD-activities.

Creating opportunities for transactional learning encounters between participants, their past experiences and relevant concepts were shown in the study to be an enabling condition for such re-actualization of participants’ past experiences in conceptualizing scaling. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that such learning encounters depend on participants becoming involved as partners in the conceptualization.

I argue that the study indicates that the involvement of participants as partners can contribute to the generating of contextually relevant concepts of scaling, which is understood as a component of a reflective scaling practice. Examples of such contextually relevant concepts in the study were the relations created by the workshop participants.

Consequently, the study indicates that enabling transactional learning encounters between other participants, with other past experiences and other notions of ‘spreading’ ESD-activities (replication, expanding or mainstreaming) would support the generation of contextually relevant concepts of ‘spreading’.

To summarise, the study indicates that creating opportunities for transactional learning encounters as part of conceptualizing scaling or other concepts of ‘spreading’, acknowledging the past experiences of those involved in conceptualizations, can generate contextually relevant concepts. These, in turn, can contribute to reducing the risk of imposing universalized concepts, constituting an enabling condition for reflective practices of scaling or the more generic ‘spreading’. Consequently, the article encourages further study of the importance of the past experiences of those involved in scaling or ‘spreading’ would be a worthwhile endeavour.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 While ESD is a contested concept including varying approaches to addressing sustainability challenges, in this article understands ESD as characterised a holistic perspective, the challenging of unsustainable patterns of action and enabling the development of capacity among people to move beyond awareness to transformational action. Furthermore, this understanding ESD involves consideration for the views, values, and ways of being of the people involved in creating societies characterized by justice, equality and environmental sustainability (Kapoor 2009; Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015).

2 ‘ESD-activities’ are here used in an inclusive sense of formal programs as well as informal and community-based ESD, including higher education and adult education such as rural farming and water activities.

3 Such as, ‘up-scaling’, ‘scaling-up’, ‘scaling out’, ‘replication’, ‘expanding’, ‘going to scale’, ‘mainstreaming’, ‘rolling out’, ‘growing’.

4 Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE) gathers the research of Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development under a shared wording.

5 The 2018 iteration of the framework.

6 Conceptual framework is here understood as a comprehensive whole made up of several interlinked concepts. The framework aims to support the understanding of scaling as a phenomenon (Jabareen 2009).

7 A team initially developed the basis for the current Re-Solve from the Department of Education (David O. Kronlid), Uppsala Center for Sustainable Development (Sara Andersson and Misol Kim), and the Entrepreneurship Lab at the Department of Business Studies (Mikael Scherdin), all located at Uppsala University. For more information on this phase of Re-Solve, see http://www.resolveprocess.se/.

8 The results of using analytical tools to interpret the empirical data. For example, the analytical lens of PEA enables the interpretation of transcripts of the audio recording as involving encounters between a tentative conceptual framework, workshop participants and their past experiences.