Education for Sustainable Development: teaching deliberation and ethical decision-making in university coach education

ABSTRACT

Despite increased recognition that a higher education sports coaching qualification plays an important role in shaping coaches’ ethical decision-making, few scholars have considered what ethics to teach and how best to deliver such curriculum. Examples of actual ethics courses are particularly amiss. This article furthers scholarship on ethics education by introducing Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), a pedagogical perspective and approach that is employed to teach quality of mind competences considered necessary to make ethical decisions. To demonstrate how ESD can be translated into ethics curriculum, we present the university course “IIG206 Sustainable Sports Coaching”, which the authors delivered to coaching students, and outline how the course offered students’ opportunities to develop quality of mind competences, including “thinking on their feet”, complexity thinking, working interdisciplinarily, creativity, and “thinking outside the box”. Practical recommendations for scholars keen to create and deliver ethics education in coaching education conclude the article.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethics education
• esd
• gestalt-switching
• case method pedagogy

Introduction

There is increased recognition that a formal (degree) education plays an important role in improving coaching practices, strengthening the desired social outcomes of sport participation, and increasing the appreciation of coaching as a profession (Armour, 2010; Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003; Gilbert & Trudel, 2005; Jones, Armour, & Potrac, 2004; Piggott, 2012; Werthner & Trudel, 2006; Woodman, 1993). Consequently, in the past two decades, coach education (CE) offered by higher education institutions has grown globally. While this increase in provision has been welcomed, CE has also been critiqued with key shortcomings being a lack of contextually relevant content, a privileging of scientific over socio-pedagogical elements, a tendency to separate theoretical and craft knowledges, and a compartmentalisation or fragmentation of CE curriculum (i.e. discrete units of physiology, psychology, nutrition) (Cronin & Lowes, 2016; Jones & Turner, 2006; Nelson, Potrac, & Cushion, 2006; Szedlak, Smith, Day, & Callary, 2018). Furthermore, CE has recently been targeted as neglecting to address unethical coaching techniques that have been the focus of global reports relating to the abuse and maltreatment of athletes (e.g. Human Rights Lang, 2010; Mountjoy, 2020; Smits, Jacobs, & Knoppers, 2017; Watch, 2020; Zehntner, McGannon, & McMahon, 2019). Thus, efforts to re(consider) CE at higher education levels, especially regarding ethics education and curriculum, has gained a new level of urgency.

Research into the education of ethics in coaching has recognised that the dynamic and often precarious and pressured sporting contexts in which coaches work demand coaches to continuously make swift ethical decisions (Cassidy, 2012; Denison & Avner, 2011; Hardman & Jones, 2011; Hardman, Jones, & Jones, 2010; Light & Evans, 2013; Morgan, Jones, Gilbourne, & Llewellyn, 2013; Roderick, 2006). Such “thinking on their feet” requires deliberation, a process that has been identified to entail a variety of “quality of mind” competences, including (self-)reflection, critical thinking, and the consideration of multiple knowledges to understand impact on self and others (Denison, 2007; Hemmestad, Jones, & Standal, 2010; Jones & Turner, 2006; Morgan et al., 2013; Roberts & Ryrie, 2014; Shaheen, 2010; Standal & Hemmestad, 2010). Such competences, and becoming competent in this regard, however, are not like the discipline-specific content knowledge that much of today’s CE higher education includes. Furthermore, traditional didactic approaches that characterise a majority of these programmes may be ineffective delivery strategies. Recognising these limitations, scholars have considered how CE can be structured and delivered to better reflect, and prepare students for, the continued (swift) ethical thinking that coaches must perform (Driska & Gould, 2014; Jones, Morgan, & Harris, 2012; Jones & Turner, 2006; Morgan et al., 2013). Non-traditional and innovative pedagogical strategies, such as “communities of practice” (Jones et al., 2012); online blogs (Stoszkowski, Collins, & Olsson, 2017); “problem-based learning” (PBL) (Driska & Gould, 2014; Jones & Turner, 2006); “ethno-drama” (Morgan et al., 2013) and “case-method teaching” (Roberts & Ryrie, 2014), have been found to facilitate learning environments and situations that develop the necessary quality of mind competences for coaches, in addition to content knowledge. Indeed, the alternative pedagogies are hailed to encourage learners to be creative, solve problems, make links between theory and practice, and work collaboratively (Morgan et al., 2013; Roberts & Ryrie, 2014; Shaheen, 2010).

Still, we suspect that alternative pedagogies have their starting point in trying to “fix” CE’s didactic limitations through connecting theory and practice, bringing in more authenticity, and facilitating interdisciplinarity (Cronin & Lowes, 2016; Jones & Turner, 2006; Nelson et al., 2006; Szedlak et al., 2018). As a result, they are effective in engaging (and possibly entertaining) students. The aim to strategically instil in students “quality of mind” competences may, however, be secondary and thus, CE may miss its potential to provide students with opportunities to learn about and practice the deliberation necessary to make ethical decisions. Indeed, few scholars have to date pursued the questions of what ethics to teach and how best to deliver such curriculum (an exception is Cassidy, 2012). Examples of actual ethics courses (read module; paper; unit) for student-coaches at the higher education level are particularly amiss.

The purpose of this article is to further scholarship on ethics education and curriculum, by specifically focusing on the teaching of quality of mind competences at the higher education level (i.e. university). To do this, we turn to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), a pedagogical perspective and approach, which is being implemented in areas such as engineering, environmental, mathematics, sustainability, teacher, and technology education to develop quality of mind competences (Wals, 2010a; Wals & Jickling, 2002). A key premise of ESD is that today’s education, and higher education in particular, must accept and fulfil its responsibility to educate student populations towards sustainability which, in ESD terms, entails deliberation and ethical decision-making (Barth, Godemann, Rieckmann, & Stoltenberg, 2007; De Haan, 2006; Wals, 2010b). To demonstrate how ESD’s quality of mind education can be translated to CE at the higher education level, we will in this article (1) outline ESD and teaching and learning along with its principles; (2) present the semester six course “IIG206 Sustainable Sports Coaching”, which the authors developed in 2015 and the first author delivered to the students of the CE programme at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden from 2016 to 2018; and (3) provide an overview of how the course was experienced by the article’s first author and the students that have taken the course in the years she coordinated it. In conclusion, we offer practical recommendations for scholars who may want to create and deliver ethics education in CE.

Education for Sustainable Development

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) emerged in the early 1980s, when world leaders of international political and economic forums such as the United Nations (UN) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) agreed that sustainable development should be made a global goal (Hopkins & McKeown, 2002). Since its endorsement in 1987 by the UN General Assembly, which anchored the UN’s Agenda 21 (UNESCO, 1992), ESD has been part of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the 2030 Agenda does not specifically mention sport, the UN and the Office on Sport for Development and Peace recognise and support the contributions sport can make to enable sustainable development (UN 2019 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1, paragraph 37).

To achieve the 17 SDGs listed in the 2030 Agenda, the UN recognises education as the key foundation. The UNESCO chair of Social Learning and Sustainable Development, Arjen Wals (2010a, 2010b), who is an environmental education scholar, argues that higher education has a particular responsibility to foster citizens who will contribute to achieving the UN’s SDGs. Specifically, he calls for higher education institutions to move away from a knowledge- to a competence-orientation. Wals (2011) recognises that there is urgency to protect the environment and/or the economy (perhaps right now more than ever), however, he argues that “the flight to instrumentalism [i.e. teach what is right and wrong] might keep us from developing a more resilient society with a planetary conscience” (p. 178). Relating this to learning, the argument in the ESD community is that ready-to-consume answers do not increase learners’ awareness to change behaviour. Rather, such answers may be counterproductive as they are understood to stifle creativity, critical thinking, and ethical decision-making (Wals, 2009), qualities of mind that have been identified as essential to be able to respond to today’s challenges concerning environmental sustainability (e.g. Wals, 2017; Wals & Benavot, 2017).

The argument for why a competence-orientation has greater potential for a sustainable future can be related to ethics education and curriculum in sports coaching. While it may intuitively make sense to adopt an instrumental (didactic) approach to teach what is right and wrong in sport and sports coaching, especially as reports of unethical coaching call for change, the ESD perspective and approach suggest that a prescriptive approach to ethics is limited in instilling in students the competences necessary to deliberate and make ethical decisions (Kvalens & Hemmestad, 2010; McNamee, 2011). Indeed, the basis of ESD is that sustainability cannot be prescribed, but instead, must be sought (Wals, 2010a, 2011). This seeking process is demanding as it relies on individuals’ qualities of mind to manage different, often starkly opposing perspectives, and to democratically build futures with the individuals and organisations that are locally affected by sustainability challenges (Jickling & Wals, 2008; Wals & Jickling, 2002). In the contemporary context of economic prioritising, a negotiation inclusive of other, less dominant perspectives, is particularly challenging. A similar argument has been put forward by Barker and colleagues (2014), who maintain that in the current context of elite sport, practices that may be sustainable for athletes (e.g. health; safety; welfare), may fall short of expected performance progression, competition results, and possible sponsorship deals. Yet, it is argued that to build sustainable (elite) sport, the dilemma of performance enhancement and success, and athlete health, must be balanced (Dohlsten, Barker-Ruchti, & Lindgren, 2020a; Dohsten, Barker-Ruchti, & Lindgren, 2020b).

Gestalt-switching to conceptualise quality of mind competences

To conceptualise quality of mind competences, ESD scholars have developed the concept of “Gestalt-switching” (Barth et al., 2007; Wals, 2010a). Epistemologically, Gestalt-switching is described as a forward-looking ability that enables individuals “to modify and model the future of the societies in which [they] live, participating actively in the spirit of sustainable development” (De Haan, 2006, p. 22, emphasis ours). Ontologically, Gestalt-switching is defined as a form of “being” that entails competences such as “creative and critical thinking, oral and written communication, collaboration and cooperation, conflict management, decision-making, problem-solving and planning, and practical citizenship” (Barth et al., 2007, p. 418; see also De Haan, 2006; Wals, 2010b).

Gestalt-switching is conceptualised in five Gestalts (see Table 1). The “temporal Gestalt”, which includes past, present, future, and intergenerational mindsets; the “disciplinary Gestalt”, which includes knowledge from the social and natural sciences; the “spatial Gestalt”, which includes local, regional, global and beyond Gestalts; the “cultural Gestalt”, which entails multiple cultural mindsets, and lastly the “trans-human Gestalt”, which accounts for the non-human world (Wals, 2010b). Table 1 illustrates the five Gestalts and its respective competences.

Table 1. The five Gestalts and respective Gestalt competences.

Gestalts	Gestalt competences
Temporal Gestalt	Thinking in a forward-looking manner Dealing with uncertainty Managing predictions and expectations Planning for the future
Disciplinary Gestalt	Working interdisciplinarily
Spatial Gestalt	Achieving open-mindedness
Cultural Gestalt	Appreciating difference Cooperating across cultures Feeling empathy, sympathy, and solidarity
Trans-human Gestalt	Protecting the environment Bio-centric ethics

ESD scholars write that responding to the challenges of sustainability requires, on the one hand, the ability to switch between Gestalts (Barth et al., 2007; Wals, 2010a). On the other, it “requires an awareness of one’s own predominant Gestalts and willingness to, at least temporarily, put oneself into another Gestalt” (Wals, 2011, p. 182).

The five Gestalts and their Gestalt competences resonate with research on ethical sports coaching. The understanding of sport as precarious (Overbye, 2018), which requires coaches to continuously “think on their feet”, relates to the competences of the temporal Gestalt. The disciplinary Gestalt, and its associated competence to work interdisciplinarily, is today reality for many working in teams of coaches and with the various experts that comprise such teams (Purdy, Kohe, & Paulauskas, 2019). The spatial and cultural Gestalts also resonate with an understanding of sport as community, rather than commodity, especially that which is athlete-centred (Barker-Ruchti et al., 2014; Dohlsten et al., 2020a; Dohsten et al., 2020b). Lastly, athlete welfare recommendations, as well as sport-general and -specific ethics/ethical charters and codes of conduct, reflect the competences included in the spatial, cultural, and trans-human Gestalts.

Despite calls for higher education institutions to embed ESD in their curricula, that is, to move from a knowledge- to a competence orientation, the uptake has been varied across institutions and programmes around the world (Fadeeva, Mochizuki, Hopkinson, & James, 2010). In sports coaching contexts, the authors know of only few efforts in this regard (e.g. Cassidy, 2012). A dominant reason given for the delay and/or hesitation to move from a knowledge- to a competence-orientation in higher education is the paradigmatic change in educational vision, mission, provision, and practice that such a move would entail (Guerra, 2017). Thus, academics present changes that are often relatively minor, through for instance, occasional special lectures and the use of problematic cases as the basis for experiments or exercises.

Teaching and learning quality of mind/Gestalt competences

In an attempt to support higher education institutions in understanding and implementing the ESD perspective and approach, Wals and Jickling (2002; see also Jickling & Wals, 2008; Wals 2011) have conceptualised how quality of mind/Gestalt competences can be taught and learned through a two-axes heuristic entailing “educational approaches” and “learning outcomes” (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Heuristic positioning of “education” and the ‘“educated person”’ Copied with permission from Jickling and Wals (2008)

Quadrant I, which Jickling and Wals (2008) have termed “Big Brother sustainability”, prescribes sustainability outcomes. Citizens have no or little agency to negotiate and co-construct what sustainability is and how they may be (more) sustainable. Teaching is instrumental and learning outcomes are right and wrong. Quadrants II and III, termed “Feel good sustainability”, give citizens choice(s) within prescribed boundaries. Teaching is less instrumental than in quadrant I and learning can be negotiated according to given boundaries. Quadrant IV, “Grassroots sustainability”, builds on the idea of emancipation and citizen agency. Teaching is learner-centred, and learning is negotiated in relation to others and relevant contexts.

Jickling and Wals’ (2008) heuristic conceptualises that education built on participatory and socio-constructivist principles has potential to develop ways of being and doing that may be new, meaningful to learners, and reflective of contextual features. ESD scholars further argue that if such education builds on real-life cases, entails group work and includes diverse learner populations, the learning of quality of mind competences essential for deliberation and ethical decision-making, i.e. sustainable being and doing, is facilitated (Sriskandarajah, Bawden, Blackmore, Tidball, & Wals, 2010; Wals, 2010b; Wals & Blewitt, 2010).

The case method pedagogy has a long history in higher education, especially the legal, medical, and business professions (Collier & O’Sullivan, 1997). During the 1990s, the case method pedagogy was also considered by teacher educators. Wasserman (1994), for instance, recognised that the approach could help foster in teacher students “the understanding, skills, and attitudes that take the wannabe teacher from the world of information to the application of knowledge in the classroom” (p. 604; see also Dixon, 2008). In physical education teacher education, Collier and O’Sullivan (1997) were early advocates of the case method pedagogy; in CE, it has been implemented by Roberts and Ryrie (2014).

The case method pedagogy requires students to identify and address situations, issues, or products that those in the related workforce are likely to encounter (Clawson & Haskins, 2006; Ellet, 2007). This focus involves a case analysis process, which goes from analysing a case and dissecting its problems, to analytic reasoning and drawing conclusions, to developing action plans for solutions (Corey, 1998). If infused with ethics, this work process asks students to deliberate to make ethical decisions. It is through this ethical focus, we believe, case method pedagogy can extend a PBL approach. For example, the case method pedagogy allows the facilitator/teacher to step into the working process to ask critical questions on arising issues, something that is not necessarily practiced in a PBL exercise. Thus, as students move through the process of addressing the case, they can be asked to consider ethics at each of the steps. This ethical focus can be enhanced with relevant teacher inputs (e.g. ethics; risk assessments), which is also not something practiced in a PBL exercise (Srinivansan et al., 2007).

A concrete example of a case method pedagogy is the ‘Deconstructing a Happy Meal’¹ course, which Wals (2010b) developed for the programme “Applied Environmental Education and Communication” at Wageningen University, The Netherlands. The purpose of the course was for students to answer two simple questions: What is in a Happy Meal and where do its components come from? To do this, students were organised into groups and asked to choose one of the Happy Meal components (e.g. French fries; hamburger; coke; toy), the aspects of production they wished to focus on, and from which sources of knowledge they would draw (e.g. scientific literature; internet; popular science). In undertaking the Happy Meal course, Wals (2010b) found that “students learn[ed] about food-related sustainability issues (health, environment, (agro-)biodiversity, equity, and economics) and develop[ed] some basic skills such as gathering information, presenting information, questioning knowledge authorities and information sources, critical thinking, and debating” (p. 384). Wals further found that the Happy Meal course had transformative potential, not in terms of rejecting fast food, but in becoming:

More aware, critical, and reflexive of food production and consumption in the context of sustainability. Deconstructing a Happy Meal brings out issues, tensions, dissonance, north-south relationships, health issues, ethics, the role of corporations, consumerism, economics, agro-biodiversity, etc. (p. 385)

Wals’ (2010b) Happy Meal course inspired the authors of this article to consider how such a course could be translated to CE. Jickling and Wals' (2008) emancipatory educational approach (quadrant IV, grassroots sustainability) and the authentic, transdisciplinary, interactive and self-determined case method pedagogy inherent in the Happy Meal course resonated with our desire to create a course that would teach sports coaching students quality of mind competences to deliberate and make ethical decisions. Moreover, we were interested in exploring the transformative potential of the grassroots sustainability approach. Would such a course instil the quality of mind competences that research has found essential for deliberation and ethical decision-making?

In the following section, we outline the semester six course IIG206 Sustainable Sports Coaching, which the authors developed in 2015 and the first author delivered to students of the CE programme at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden from 2016 to 2018. The course mirrored the Happy Meal task but entailed some modifications due to institutional requirements and students’ lack of experience with case method pedagogy. It further differed in that the IIG206 course incorporated an intervention, which the Wageningen students were not asked to produce in the Happy Meal course.

The course: IIG206 Sustainable Sports Coaching

The IIG206 Sustainable Sports Coaching course was designed based on the registered number of 15–20 sports coaching and Erasmus students and the 200 hours of study work Swedish students are expected to complete for a 7,5 ECTS credit point course. The course was held over a five-week period,² during which the students did not take other courses, and was delivered in the English language because international students were included. The course consisted mostly of student-driven group work that was presented and discussed in seminars but entailed some key teacher-led inputs on sustainability, ethics, and risk assessment. A key basis of the course was for students to follow the case method process of analysing an unsustainable/unethical case, dissecting its problems, engaging in analytic reasoning and drawing conclusions, and developing action plans for solutions (Corey, 1998). Also important was that throughout the working process, students were required to respond to questions of ethics.

The IIG206 course material consisted of cases that were developed based on real-life coaching dilemmas, which the authors had encountered in their research with athletes and coaches. Each case was described on two pages, outlining primary and secondary stakeholders (e.g. athlete; head/assistant coach; strength and conditioning coach; medical practitioner; parents; sport high school; club manager; sport federation) and the situation and problem(s) of the presented case (e.g. bullying in the locker room; overuse injury in a young sub-elite athlete; athlete-athlete rivalry). The material comprised seven cases from which the students could choose one.

In keeping with the case analysis process common in case method pedagogy, the course was structured into four phases: 1: Understanding sustainability, ethics, and case method pedagogy; 2: Adapting the chosen case and understanding it from students’ and stakeholders’ perspectives; 3: Producing knowledge about the case using scientific literature, and 4: Developing intervention strategies to improve the unsustainable/unethical dilemma.

Phase 1: Understanding sustainability, ethics and case method pedagogy

Through three teacher-led inputs, students were introduced to (in the order presented here) sustainability science, the course, and the rule- and virtue-based ethical perspectives. The purpose of the first session was to explain sustainability thinking as Wals and Jickling (2002), Jickling and Wals (2008) and Wals (2016) define it, which assumes that sustainability and sustainable outcomes cannot be prescribed and indoctrinated, but must be sought through a continuous inclusive, co-creative, transformative process of “learning at the edge”. This understanding of knowledge co-construction and transformation was crucial for students to understand how sustainability relates to sport (Barker, Barker-Ruchti, Wals, & Tinning, 2014) and learn Gestalt-switching (Wals, 2010b). This understanding was also vital for students to grasp the nature, structure, and assessment of the IIG206 course. It was thus that the principles of sustainability thinking were introduced before specific information about the course was given. In the second session, students were presented with, and asked to reflect on, rule- and virtue-based ethics. The aim here was for students to understand that prescriptive ethics (i.e. rule-based ethics) may be limited because although such ethics “commonly tell us what not to do, often what to aim towards, and occasionally, what to do, they leave so much else in the void” (McNamee, 2011, p. 32). Virtue-based ethics, in contrast, entail a form of being that is considered to demand deliberation on “things that are good or bad for humans” (Aristotle, 1976, p. 1140; Kvalens & Hemmestad, 2010). In combination, sustainability thinking, and virtue-based ethics were not only compatible, but provided a conceptual foundation for students to embark on their case-based course work. To further prepare students, a third session included an exemplary case and a set of sustainability and ethical questions that students answered and discussed in the first of the course’s four seminars. At the end of this session, students were introduced to the case materials, asked to form groups of two to five students, and choose one of the seven cases.

Phase 2: Adapting the chosen case and understanding it from students' and stakeholders’ perspectives

In this phase, students adapted the chosen case to suit their coaching backgrounds and preferred contexts. For example, students were able to amend aspects of the case such as the sport, the athlete(s’) age, gender, ability, and details of the situation and problem (e.g. an overuse elbow injury in tennis could be changed to a knee injury in soccer). The reason behind this adaptation was that students were asked to not only understand the case from their own viewpoint, but also that of stakeholders included in the case. For practical reasons, the changes to the cases facilitated students’ ability to draw from their coaching networks to contact individuals represented in the case (i.e. athletes; parents of an athlete; assistant/head coaches). Upon returning to class one week later, the students presented the adapted case, their and the stakeholders’ understanding of the situation and the unethical/unsustainable case dilemma, as well as reflections and initial ideas as to how the situation could be managed.

Phase 3: Producing knowledge about the case using scientific literature

In this phase, students were asked to collect inter-paradigmatic knowledge about the unethical/unsustainable case. They were each tasked to collect and summarise one scientific article that they perceived to support their understanding of the case. The purpose of this phase was for each student group to collate and synthesise knowledge about the case from different scientific perspectives. In the course’s third seminar, students discussed the acquired knowledge in groups and, individually, prepared their portfolios (to be discussed later in this paper), which required that they synthesise this literature and make it meaningful to their case.

At the end of this third seminar, students were introduced to how they could evaluate risks when intervening to change the unsustainable/unethical dilemma. The basis for this input was Klinke and Renn’s (2002) alternative approach to risk assessment, which assumes that risk and what is considered “risky” is socially constructed and thus specific to particular contexts, cultures, practices, and people. To understand these particularities, risk assessment should include perceived and real risks, that is, include people’s perception of risks and draw on scientific knowledge to predict risks. On this basis, Klinke and Renn (2002) argue that precaution-based risk management is possible, which resembles the co-constructive understanding of sustainability thinking and virtue-based ethics. The portfolio required students to consider the risks and the consequences of their proposed solutions. The aim of this analytic step was to highlight to students that there are (possibly unsustainable) consequences with attempting to intervene in/change the case dilemma.

Phase 4: Developing intervention strategies to improve the unsustainable/unethical dilemma

In this last phase, students developed intervention strategies to transform the unsustainable/unethical case dilemma. Important for this phase was that students develop the intervention strategies in collaboration with the stakeholders they spoke with in Phase 1. The idea with this is that students do not prescribe sustainable outcomes, as is illustrated in Jickling and Wals (2008) Big Brother Sustainability, but democratically develop these with the stakeholders represented in the case. In the fourth seminar, students presented their intervention strategies to the class.

The assessment the students completed to gain the course credits consisted of a portfolio that included sections written by the group (e.g. the description of the adjusted case; the proposed intervention; the risk assessment) and sections written individually (e.g. individual reflections on the scientific perspective and knowledge chosen to inform the case; synthesis of scientific knowledge gained in the group; summary).

Teachers and students’ reception of the course

From the first author’s perspective as coordinator, the course was enjoyable and meaningful. What she found most encouraging was the student motivation and engagement to understand and transform the case, although it was obvious that this process was not without challenges (see Jones & Turner, 2006 for similar experiences). Further encouraging was that all student groups developed the cases in entirely different ways, chose different literature to understand the cases, and developed different interventions. While this required the first author to be flexible in what students produced and could gain from the case work, the student-driven meaning-making speaks for the potential that learner-independence has (Sriskandarajah et al., 2010). It can also be said that the four-phase working process the case method pedagogy followed gave the students a structure to understand, reflect over, and negotiate the unethical/unsustainable cases and develop possible interventions.

In terms of organisation, the preparation of the course was time-consuming and involved. The development of the case material to a user-friendly format that was not overly prescriptive was laborious; a process that was enhanced by obtaining feedback from university colleagues. Further, the scheduling of the different sessions, especially those at the outset of the course, required specific consideration. To gain feedback on this, the first author invited colleagues and students to comment the course schedule and guide.

Course evaluations gathered after the completion of each occurrence in 2016, 2017, and 2018 indicated that students appreciated the course (see Jones & Turner, 2006, for similar findings). Students appeared motivated to work with the cases and produced high quality seminar presentations and portfolios. Their comments revealed that the students could identify with the case materials and found the process of integrating and collaborating with the stakeholders represented in the cases enjoyable and meaningful. The comments also indicated that the involved stakeholders found their collaboration with the students interesting and useful. In one case, a student group reported that the sport organisation represented in their case intended to implement the intervention they had developed.

The student feedback also included critical comments. Some students felt that the case method pedagogy was difficult to comprehend and appeared, at least at the outset of the course, study intensive. The portfolio the students had to produce was perceived as particularly sizeable. Moreover, some students were critical of the course’s position in the sixth semester, sandwiched between the research methods course that intends to prepare students for their Bachelor thesis and the actual thesis course. While some students commented that the portfolio task allowed them to work with a large document alike a thesis, others felt that the course increased the already large workload of their last semester. In reflection of the students’ views, we would suggest that it is not only the position of the course that was an issue, but the length of time available for this type of content (five weeks), an issue that Jones and Turner (2006) identified to require special consideration.

In terms of learning, the student comments revealed that the course had enabled them to develop quality of mind or Gestalt competences. For example, several students highlighted that the course enabled them to experience “working with uncertainty” (i.e. Temporal Gestalt). A 2016 student stated³ that:

The tasks were really interesting. But still hard to work with when you don’t exactly know 100% what was going on in the case. But that way we got a chance to put up some different scenarios on what had happened and what the situations could have been and work from that with different perspectives.

Student statements also indicated that the course had a positive impact on their ability to work interdisciplinarily (i.e. Disciplinary Gestalt). Comments acknowledged the value of different scientific knowledge to develop sustainable interventions. A 2016 student wrote that “the reasoning back and forward and turning the case inside out to try and understand as much as possible really was challenging” but provided “deeper reflections and creative perspectives” (i.e. Spatial and Cultural Gestalts). It was also a process that required students “to think a lot outside of the box”, something that was perceived as “extra giving and inspiring” (2018 student).

With further regard to Spatial and Cultural Gestalts, the students recognised that the four-phase procedure to work with and through unsustainable/unethical cases was helpful, as a 2018 student suggested:

This course, or more correctly the work process of this course, has made me appreciate the complexity of understanding a certain case or scenario. The process throughout the course has made me evaluate and re-evaluate views, possibilities, risks, benefits and consequences. This course has helped me grow in my role as a coach, and has widen my perspective of the complicated, yet awarding, tough “role” of handling conflicts and unsustainable behaviours.

It is possible here to suggest that the course had, at least, actively engaged students to face a dilemma and the uncertainties such situations entail and, in doing so, deliberate and make (and justify) ethical decisions. At best, the course had enabled students to employ the four phases to work with the case to manage and transform it through ethical decision-making.

Conclusion and implications for coach education

In this article, we have aimed to further scholarship on ethics education and curriculum in sports coaching by focusing on the teaching of quality of mind competences at the higher education level (i.e. university). We have outlined ESD and teaching and learning along with its principles, presented how this perspective and approach may be implemented in a university course (i.e. the semester six course IIG206 Sustainable Sports Coaching), and provided an overview of how the course was received by the coordinator of the course and the students that have taken it from 2016 to 2018.

Our focus on ESD has demonstrated that quality of mind competences are essential to deliberate and make ethical decisions, and how this, through teaching Gestalt competences, may develop “grassroots sustainability”. This type of sustainability is regarded to have transformative potential through individuals becoming aware and critically (self-)reflective. Such quality of mind competence/Gestalt-switching has been argued by sports coaching scholars to develop the deliberation necessary for coaches to make ethical decisions.

Our presentation of the IIG206 Sustainable Sports Coaching course provides a practical example of how the ESD perspective and approach can be employed and translated into a course at the higher education level. ESD guided the choice of case method pedagogy, which entailed a case analysis process that went from analysing a case, dissecting its problems, to analytic reasoning and drawing conclusions, and developing action plans for solutions. Our overview of the first author and students’ reception of the course indicated appreciation, enjoyment, and meaningfulness. The learning students mentioned related to “thinking on their feet” (or at the edge), complexity thinking, interdisciplinarity, creativity, and “thinking outside the box”. We postulate that this learning reflects the quality of mind/Gestalt competences included in Table 1.

We would like to conclude this article by offering practical recommendations for scholars who may want to create and deliver ethics education in CE. From a pedagogical perspective, and as emphasised throughout this paper, quality of mind/Gestalt competences are learnable, however, require suitable pedagogical approaches and strategies of delivery. ESD has been proposed as a pedagogical perspective and approach that fosters learner independence and agency. While this requires educators to “re-imagine” curriculum, research on ESD, teaching and learning quality of mind/Gestalt competences, and alternative pedagogies such as the case method, increasingly demonstrate positive reception by students and desired learning outcomes. Our contribution adds to this emerging body of literature conceptualising and operationalising ESD.

From a practical perspective, our experience developing and coordinating the IIG206 course allows us to put forward five implications. First, teachers should consider where a course such as IIG206 would “best” be positioned in a degree programme. It may, for instance, clash with traditional courses that compartmentalise content and rely upon didactic forms of teaching. Thus, to overcome possible resistance to the case method pedagogy and limit the overall effectiveness of the course, the positioning in a degree programme is important. Second, the course length is important. In the IIG206 course, the five-week timeframe could not be changed, which impacted the time students had to search and read literature, reflect, and discuss with stakeholders and peers, and prepare their work for the seminars. It is thus important that the course length, especially in relation to the volume of content, is considered carefully. Ideally, a learner-independent course is given over more than a five-week period. Third, it is important to consider the course structure. To best introduce students to sustainability thinking (i.e. that it is a democratic process of seeking), the sequence of when to introduce relevant concepts or theories (i.e. case method; sustainability thinking; ethics; risk evaluation) is crucial for effective student learning. For the IIG206 course, introducing sustainability thinking before introducing the course appeared to prepare students well. Fourth, given that the course involved the integration and collaboration of stakeholders, it is worth considering how students can achieve this, and if more could be gained with this partnership. It may be possible, for instance, to invite the stakeholders to listen to and speak at the final seminar, within which students present their interventions and risk assessment. Lastly, and perhaps crucially, teachers need to understand that the transformative learning the case method pedagogy aims to achieve necessitates student agency. This requires that teachers accept the diverse outcomes that are likely to emerge.

In conclusion, the results of this article indicate that the ESD perspective and approach, with its focus on quality of mind/Gestalt competences, and case method pedagogy, can enrich CE. Certainly, the students, as we, have experienced the course as meaningful. However, the pedagogical and practical implications outlined above need to be taken seriously to ensure desired educational outcomes. Thus, we hope that more coach educators take to the ESD perspective and approach and share their experiences so that CE curriculum can continue to develop. What we further envisage is longitudinal research that examines the impact of ESD courses on students’ (or then coaches’) deliberation and ethical decision-making in coaching.

Acknowledgments

We thank the three reviewers for their constructive and useful feedback. We also thank the University of Gothenburg for allowing us to be creative in developing the IIG206 course. Lastly, we are grateful to the IIG206 students for their enthusiastic engagement with the course.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The Happy Meal refers to a meal that a dominant fast-food chain produces, specifically for children. It contains different food items, a drink, and a toy, conveniently packaged in a cardboard carry bag.

2. The Swedish university semesters (fall and spring semesters) are split into four five-week periods (total of 20 weeks per semester). Within this system, students commonly take one course per period.

3. All quotes taken from the 2016–2018 course evaluations are left untouched, i.e. are not changed for readability.