Education for sustainability in preschool: Swedish preschool teachers’ perspectives

Abstract

Worldwide, preschool is recognized as an important arena for the implementation of education for sustainability (EfS). In Swedish preschools EfS has been a part of the national curriculum since 2019, but little is known about what this means in practice. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to increase our understanding about preschool teachers’ perspectives on teaching for sustainability. Using individual semi-structured interviews with 16 randomly selected preschool teachers in Sweden, the results of which were analyzed thematically and then quantitatively, this study examines how teachers put EfS into practice. Four teaching practices were identified: actively present teachers, children’s experiences as a basis for learning, children’s opportunity for agency – a democratic approach, and communication between children and teachers. Taken together, these four teaching practices demonstrate a pluralistic teaching tradition. The analysis also demonstrates a holistic perspective on subject content where environmental, social and economic issues are addressed. A third result is that EfS is carried out using three teaching strategies planned, spontaneous and semi-spontaneous. The identification of semi-spontaneous teaching is an important finding which is made possible in created learning environments aiming to stimulate children’s agency, which is of central importance in EfS and an important contribution from this study.

Keywords:

• Education for sustainable development
• pluralism
• preschool teachers’ perspectives
• teaching strategies
• thematic analysis

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Marta Licardo, University of Maribor Faculty of Education, Slovenia

SUBJECTS:

• Early Childhood
• Sustainability Education, Training & Leadership
• Education
• Teaching Methodology & Practice

Introduction

Internationally in preschool, there has been a notable trend toward a greater focus on teaching as a complement to play (Hedefalk et al., 2015b). This development runs in parallel with a development in society and preschool toward the increased significance of sustainability issues (Bascopé et al., 2019; Boldermo & Ødegaard, 2019; Öztürk & Olgan, 2016; Somerville & Williams, 2015). Often these two lines of development are brought together when it comes to the issue of introducing education for sustainability (EfS). In research literature (Grindheim et al., 2019; Elliott et al., 2017) as well as in international policy (UNESCO, 2014), the argument is that EfS needs be introduced and practiced from as early as preschool so that it can form the basis for lifelong learning. However, there is little to substantiate our knowledge as to how this can be put into practice. This study, which is an interview study involving teachers in Swedish preschools, aims to address this research gap. The Swedish preschool is a good case to look at since the question of EfS was brought to a head after a curriculum reform in which the concepts of teaching and sustainable development were introduced (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). Consequently, there has been a great deal of discussion among teachers about what meaning the term should be given (Jonsson et al., 2017). Few studies from a teacher’s perspective have examined the issue with fewer still examining what it means in relation to teaching for sustainability.

In a study of the new Swedish curriculum conducted by Ohlsson et al. (2022), it became apparent that the new curriculum conveys an image of teaching in preschool as being based on a pluralistic teaching tradition. In such a tradition, children’s agency is an important feature, and the meeting with the child and with the child’s experiences is important for learning to take place (Borg & Pramling Samuelsson, 2022). One question that follows from the curriculum study is whether this way of teaching pluralistically is also reflected in teachers’ teaching practices, which is a focus of this study.

Like the concept of teaching, sustainable development is also new in the Swedish curriculum, where it is defined as a specific goal in preschool and described from a holistic perspective. There, the three dimensions of sustainable development are stated: environmental, social and economic (Borg & Pramling Samuelsson, 2022). The curriculum gives the most amount of space to the environmental and social dimensions in teaching content, and the least to the economic dimension (Ohlsson et al., 2022). This way of focusing on environmental and social dimensions of sustainability is also reflected in studies of how preschool teachers worked with the issues in their teaching both internationally (Inoue et al., 2016; Davis, 2009) as well as nationally in Sweden before the new curriculum was implemented (Ärlemalm-Hagsér & Sundberg, 2016; Borg, 2019). However, it is important to find out whether this same allocation of space to the various dimensions has remained the case since the curriculum reform, and how the content issue relates to teaching practices for sustainability.

Although there has been an increase in research in the field of early childhood education (ECE) and EfS in recent years (Somerville & Williams, 2015), empirical research remains lacking (Hedefalk et al., 2015a; Hedefalk, 2018). In particular, this is the case with studies on how preschool teachers implement EfS and what teaching strategies they use. Teachers’ teaching strategies in preschool differ from those of teachers in primary school since boundaries with play are not clearly defined, and unplanned spontaneous teaching occurs in parallel with planned teaching (Sheridan & Williams, 2018). Thus, the assumption is that the design of EfS differs at preschool compared with at primary school. Studies demonstrate that EfS is difficult to implement in preschool (Davis, 2008; Singer-Brodowski et al., 2019). Therefore, the question as to whether or not and, indeed, how teachers put EfS into practice in preschool is one that is important to pursue. Consequently, the purpose of this study is to increase knowledge about preschool teachers’ perspectives on teaching for sustainability. The following research questions are explored:

• How do preschool teachers describe their EfS teaching practices?

• Which dimensions of sustainability (environmental, social, economic) and which teaching strategies do teachers use in their EfS teaching practices?

Theoretical starting point

In this study, we use the terms EfS and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). We see these two concepts as more or less synonymous and make no distinction between them. We use the term sustainable development when we are citing from policy documents. In our analysis of EfS, we start from the more progressive understanding of the concept that Vare and Scott (2007) refer to as ESD 2, as opposed to the more transmissive-oriented ESD 1. This is a more relevant way of understanding EfS in preschool since traditionally, teaching at this level is more progressive than teaching at school, where children’s experiences and participation are central (Davis & Elliott, 2009; Nilsson et al., 2018). In EfS, this more progressive form of teaching has been described as pluralistic teaching with a holistic view of knowledge that includes environment, society and economy (for example, Öhman, 2008; Sinakou et al., 2019). Our theoretical starting point for the study is therefore EfS based on a pluralistic teaching tradition with a holistic perspective on content knowledge.

The pluralistic teaching tradition and EfS

The pluralistic teaching tradition relates to EfS according to Öhman (2008) since teachers who adopt this tradition strive to strengthen students’ critical-thinking skills and ability to act in the future by allowing them to try things out and act in such a way that connects practice and theory in the learning process (Öhman, 2008; Sinakou et al., 2019). The teacher’s responsibility when it comes to teaching is to be able to recognize and tap into children’s interests and experiences at any given time so that they have the conditions and opportunities they need to create new experiences through both action and conversation, while also taking into account the fact each individual child forms their own understanding of the world (Biesta & Burbules, 2003). By giving children the opportunity to interact with each other and their surroundings – that is to say, the physical, social and cultural environment in which they find themselves – they develop and learn (Dewey & Bentley, 1949/1975). This leads to the possible emergence of new understanding and new patterns of action that the child is able to relate to previous experiences and through these understand why things are the way they are: it becomes sensible (Dewey, 1916/2009).

In the pluralistic teaching tradition at preschool, children’s agency is an important part of teaching, and the meeting with the child, along with the child’s experiences, is important for learning to take place (Borg & Pramling Samuelsson, 2022). Children are seen as active in their learning through activities where experiences, challenges, actions and conversations form a basis for teaching in preschool. The teacher’s role is to guide children toward knowledge that is worth exploring (Hedefalk et al., 2015b). As Hedefalk et al. (2015b) argue, pluralistic teaching that aims to make children aware of what sustainability is and how they can influence change so as to achieve a sustainable society presupposes that children have the opportunity to be challenged and create understanding through conversations and their own experiences. The pluralistic teaching tradition often occurs through deliberative discussion (Ojala, 2013; Rudsberg & Öhman, 2010), where the teacher’s role is to create situations that mean that the discussion can also be tested in practice (Ojala, 2013). By way of trial and experiences, the children’s competence to act also increases.

Holistic perspective in EfS

The study is based on a holistic perspective of sustainability where environmental, social and economic dimensions interact and create opportunities for a sustainable society (Giddings et al., 2002). A holistic model that encompasses all three dimensions is the most common way to describe sustainability in the literature (Roorda, 2021) and in the curriculum specifically, it is described through the mention of these three dimensions (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018).

‘Environment’ as used in this study is understood to relate to aspects of environmental sustainability and, according to the Swedish National Agency for Education (2018), includes ‘an understanding of natural sciences, knowledge of plants and animals, and simple chemical processes and physical phenomena’ (p. 15). Social sustainability concerns people’s lives together and the way in which they are affected by social, cultural and political dissimilarities in society (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2010). According to the Swedish National Agency for Education (2018), ‘The social development of children presupposes, according to their ability, that they can assume responsibility for their own actions and for the environment in the preschool’ (p. 17). Finally, the economic dimension includes an understanding of the value of money, and economic value is crucial for children as future consumers (Borg, 2017b; Borg, 2017c).

The link between the dimensions described above and an understanding of how they overlap through time and space in terms of content are central aspects of a holistic perspective on sustainability in preschool (Pramling Samuelsson & Park, 2017). The reason for this is that children need to be taught at an early age that what they do locally can affect the environment globally and vice versa, and past environmental problems can affect generations long into the future, an example being carbon dioxide emissions. Another factor to consider is that ways of addressing issues of sustainability may lead to new problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973): for example, minerals are mined for use in batteries to help mitigate climate change, but the process of mining may result in biotope destruction. Consequently, a holistic perspective on sustainability issues is important when it comes to showing the complexity of the problems and their possible solutions.

Previous research

Previous studies have found that teaching in Swedish preschools is often based on the children’s perspective where their experiences and ways of communicating are viewed as resources (Magnusson & Bäckman, 2022; Thulin & Jonsson, 2018). The connection to children’s experiences and interaction with others in conversation and action is often central. Furthermore, it is often up to the teacher to include and confirm children’s thoughts so as to provide them with the opportunity to develop new knowledge, and play is seen as a natural place for experiences as well as a tool that teachers can incorporate into their teaching (Pramling et al., 2017).

Two teaching strategies, planned and spontaneous, are mentioned in the Swedish curriculum and according to Sheridan and Williams (2018), they are commonly used in Swedish preschool. Planned teaching is described as teaching planned in advance by the preschool teacher with definite content and prepared material that both connect clearly to the learning objectives. Spontaneous teaching is described as a teaching situation that arises at the present moment and that comes about as a result of the teacher’s spontaneous reflection on an event or the initiative of the children themselves. The teacher captures the situation and in real time connects the spontaneous teaching to the goals and/or to the current theme they are working with (Pramling et al., 2017). Previous research has shown that the connection to children’s interests and experiences occurs in both planned and spontaneous teaching, but that it is most evident in spontaneous teaching (Lind, 2010). The importance of a good relationship between teacher and child plays a role in spontaneous teaching where the teacher’s responsibility is to listen in and make new experiences possible based on children’s previous practical experiences. In spontaneous teaching, play can become both a natural place for experiences as well as a tool that teachers can connect to Pramling et al. (2017). Since the curriculum specifies planned and spontaneous teaching as two teaching strategies that teachers must relate to, we have in this study chosen to investigate in what way EfS is conducted by the teachers in relation to these prescribed teaching strategies. In the following section, we describe previous research on teachers’ implementation of EfS in preschool.

Teaching for sustainability in preschool

According to Yıldız et al. (2021), teachers are often perceived to be key agents of change, and their teaching about sustainability in ECE is significant for the development of children as future citizens of the world. It is essential to start with EfS in ECE because children develop their attitudes and behaviors at a young age (Pramling Samuelsson, 2011). Several studies from different parts of the world show that preschool teachers view EfS to be abstract and complex, especially when it comes to teaching practices (Öztürk & Olgan, 2016; Park et al., 2016). Often the studies show that teachers consider EfS to be challenging, and this relates mainly to the complexity of integrating the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability into their daily teaching practices (Borg & Gericke, 2021). Reasons for this often relate to the teachers’ lack of training in EfS and a lack of teaching materials (Borg & Gericke, 2021). Interestingly, studies indicate there to be a significant and positive relationship between teachers’ teaching practices and children’s learning about sustainability (Borg, 2017a), meaning that the role of preschool teachers in teaching sustainability is important. Since the responsibility of teaching at preschool lies mainly with teachers, an understanding about their views on EfS is of great value since often our views guide our practices.

According to previous research, what characterizes and dominates EfS in preschool has been a focus on issues relating to the environment and nature. This has proven itself to be the case both nationally in Sweden (Pramling Samuelsson & Park, 2017; Ärlemalm-Hagsér & Sundberg, 2016) and internationally (Inoue et al., 2016), and often relates more specifically to waste sorting, nature and ecology (Eidevald & Engdahl, 2018). Iorio et al. (2017) argue that it is important to make connections between humans and the Earth so as to build an impactful relationship with our planet. As with the environmental dimension, the social dimension has also received great focus in preschool teaching, but there is often limited understanding of how it contributes to a holistic perspective on sustainability (Borg & Gericke, 2021; Eidevald & Engdahl, 2018). For example, this was apparent in a large quantitative study of pre-service early childhood teachers in Greece (Maidou et al., 2019). Therefore it would seem that although the literature often talks about a holistic view of sustainability, research shows there to be a lack of competence among preschool teachers to teach about the economic dimension, meaning a holistic view cannot be achieved (Borg, 2019; Grindheim et al., 2019).

Few studies have examined how teachers implement EfS in relation to pluralistic perspectives. Gambino et al. (2009) have shown that preschool teachers often base their teaching on experience-based learning, and Mammadova (2017) believes that such teaching results in children being given better opportunities to understand sustainability from a holistic approach. Bautista et al. (2018) argue that dialogue is an important tool in EfS when it comes to influencing children’s attitudes and behaviors linked to sustainable development. The ability to handle both theoretical and pedagogical knowledge is important, argues Ärlemalm-Hagsér and Larsson (2019), so that conditions can be created in which children can meet and understand sustainability in real contexts. Since pluralistic teaching includes both facts and experiences, Hedefalk et al. (2021) claim that children are given the opportunity to develop an in-depth understanding of sustainable development. According to Ärlemalm-Hagsér and Sundberg (2016), pre-service teachers’ lack of practical experience may explain why pluralistic teaching practices are limited in preschool today.

Previous research can be summed up as follows: pluralistic teaching supports children’s understanding of, and action for, sustainability, and requires that teachers have a holistic understanding of sustainability. Current research shows that pluralistic teaching based on a holistic perspective on sustainability is scarce and that further studies on the subject are needed.

Method

The context of the study

Despite preschool in Sweden not being compulsory, 94% of all 3- to 5-year-olds attend (SCB, 2019). Preschool teaching is in accordance with the Education Act (SFS 2010: 800) and the curriculum that came into force in 2019 (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018), which describe how preschool should give all children the opportunity to acquire and develop knowledge and values. Preschool is considered a component of lifelong learning, with one of its goals being to ‘lay the foundation for a growing interest and responsibility among children to actively participate in society and for sustainable development – both economic and social as well as environmental’ (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018, p. 5). Trained preschool teachers are responsible for preschool education; however, other professional groups, such as childcarers, may also have a role in teaching.

Informants

Sixteen preschool teachers were selected in a process that began with the selection of eight of Sweden’s 290 municipalities using an online random-sampling tool (Urbaniak & Plous, 2013). After that, two preschools were selected in each of the eight municipalities using the same online random-sampling tool, after which the headteacher of each preschool was contacted. The headteachers were tasked with appointing one preschool teacher at their preschool who met the selection criteria for the study. The selection criteria we used were as follows: the preschool teacher is a certified teacher, has worked with 5-year-olds at the preschool and has worked for at least 5 years as a preschool teacher. The thinking behind these criteria was that teaching in preschool occurs more frequently with the older children, and we wanted to be sure that the preschool teachers in this study did some teaching. Furthermore, more experienced preschool teachers can relate their teaching to the time prior to the most recent curriculum change in 2019. The selection process resulted in the participation of sixteen preschool teachers, two men and fourteen women (see Table 1), who are referred to in the present article as T1-T16 to ensure their anonymity. This gender distribution is representative of the distribution in today’s Swedish preschool.

Table 1. Selection of informants/preschool teachers.

	Work experience				Total number
	1–5 yrs	6–10 yrs	11–20 yrs	21 yrs and more
Female	2	2	4	6	14
Male	2				2

Data collection

The study builds on empirical data collected using semi-structured interviews (Kvale & Brinkman, 2017), where the sixteen informants were each interviewed individually for about 40 minutes in the autumn of 2021. The authors first developed a preliminary interview guide that underwent revisions after three pilot interviews. The interview guide touches on three main themes, namely how preschool teachers understand sustainable development, how they understand teaching in general and how they claim they work with EfS: see Appendix A. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Data analysis

The study is based on a thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews. Robson and McCartan (2011) describe thematic analysis as a generic method when qualitative data is to be analyzed and as a good way to analyze experiences in different discourses such as EfS. The thematic analysis constitutes the first step of the analysis and relates to the first research question. After this, there were two quantitative analytical steps that reported the frequencies of content dimensions and teaching strategies. The following provides a detailed description of the analysis:

In step one, the transcribed material was read and coded. The unit of analysis became a meaningful text unit consisting of one or more sentences in which the preschool teachers describe a defined way in which they teach about EfS. In the analysis, we distinguished and coded words that describe the units of analysis, such as participation, dialogue, experiences, challenge, encourage and explore. In the analysis, the coded units of analysis were then grouped based on the coding words, which formed the basis for defining the themes identified in the analysis. These words are reported in the results, where the thematically inductive categories are also given more detailed descriptions with excerpts to exemplify the analysis and describe the variation of the theme in the first part of the results section. Finally, the frequency of the coding for the themes found was quantitatively reported, which is included in the second part of the results section.

In step two, all the units of analysis that were found in step one were deductively analyzed with respect to which content dimension the teachers’ description of the implementation of teaching related to (environmental, social or economic). This result was then quantitatively compiled as frequencies and is presented in the second part of the results section in relation to the four inductively found themes (of EfS).

In step three, all the units of analysis found in step one were analyzed deductively in relation to different teaching strategies (planned, spontaneous and semi-spontaneous). Planned and spontaneous teaching were first analyzed deductively. The analysis also found an inductive teaching strategy, a semi-spontaneous teaching strategy. This result is compiled quantitatively as frequencies and is presented in the second part of the results section in relation to the frequencies of the EfS themes found and the content themes (environmental, social and economic).

Reliability and validity

The generalizability of the study builds on the selection process in which randomization and selected criteria have defined the informants. The validity of the study is ensured by the fact that the thematic analysis was subject to review in repeated meetings between the authors where the codes and units of analysis were discussed and reviewed until a full analysis was felt to have been achieved and no more themes could be discerned (Bryman, 2011). In all three steps of the analysis, the authors communicated on an ongoing basis and discussed the process of analysis – first in the process to create valid codes and units of analysis in the inductive analysis, and then in the process to arrive at reliable results in the deductive coding of the content dimensions and teaching strategies in steps two and three. Further, to ensure reliability, the same interview guide was used with all informants, which means that the method for empirical collection can be repeated. In addition, parts of the material were encoded independently by two of the authors, and deviations were discussed to ensure reliability.

Ethical consideration

The study was reviewed and approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr. 2020-00005). The study followed the codes and regulations of good research practice (Swedish Research Council, 2017) in relation to informed consent of the informants, use of information for the study, and maintenance of confidentiality. All participation was voluntary, and the informants could withdraw at any time without having to give any reason for doing so.

Results

The results section begins by presenting the four inductively found themes that describe the preschool teachers’ EfS teaching practices – that is to say, the response to the first research question. In the second part of the results section, the second research question is addressed. It presents how common these themes were in teachers’ statements, and how the frequency of these themes relates to the content dimensions of EfS (environmental, social and economic) and teaching strategies (planned, spontaneous and semi-spontaneous).

The preschool teachers’ EfS teaching practices

The thematic analysis identified four teaching practices in EfS: actively present teachers, children’s experiences as a basis for learning, children’s opportunity for agency – a democratic approach, and communication between children and teachers. Here is a detailed description of these four teaching practices.

Actively present teachers

When the preschool teachers describe their role in EfS, what emerges is the importance of always being close to the children. What this means is that the teacher is there for the children and draws on the teaching opportunities that arise. Words that define this theme are as follows: presence, create curiosity, involvement, participation and role model.

The interviewed teachers claimed this to be central for a teacher to be active and present when practicing EfS so that the teacher can participate in the teaching situation when the children allow for this or when the situation requires that the teacher step in. Active presence is made possible by dividing the children into smaller groups, which allows for closer proximity to each individual child. According to the teachers, EfS assumes that the presence of the teacher enables children’s interest and curiosity to shape the teaching.

This can be based on their [the children’s] thoughts or on something that is seen that we draw the children’s attention to. Therefore, it may be all-day learning and at the same time an activity that we have decided on. (T13)

The preschool teachers also talk about how so-called ‘all-day learning’ becomes possible when they, by being close to the children, can reflect on and draw the children’s attention to what they see and what happens throughout the school day. The actively present teacher makes the most of each learning opportunity. For example, one teacher suggests that social development linked to EfS benefits from the active presence of the teacher - for example, in situations when children learn how to resolve conflicts.

You can observe everything that’s going on at the same time. We let the children work to resolve conflicts so that when we talk about them afterwards, we can ask, what happened? It’s the same with games and rules and things… what happened there? (T2).

What is described here is the fact that the teacher can intervene if necessary and together with the children after an incident – a conflict, as exemplified here – they can reflect on and draw attention to what they did while highlighting how the children resolved the conflict themselves. This is an important aspect of EfS. The importance of being present with the children in all situations – at eating times, at toilet time and during play, both outside and inside, as well as when they are, for example, sitting or building or drawing – becomes clear in the interviews. The preschool teachers describe how this sense of togetherness enables teaching that is effective and relevant in relation to sustainability.

Children’s experiences as a basis for learning

The preschool teachers’ responses show that children’s experiences are an important basis for their EfS teaching practices. By allowing children to access and experience different subjects or topics that can be linked to sustainability, the preschool teachers aim to raise children’s awareness of complex issues. The theme is defined by words such as practical, real experiences, experiences, attention, challenge, mission, discover, explore, investigate and process.

Being able to try things out in practical terms is viewed to be an important part of the teaching where experiences in nature are common and where children get to experience and discover things on their own, such as the following excerpt demonstrates:

We were in the forest and were out all the time… and we discovered what’s in the forest and picked berries and looked at what’s going on in nature. (T3)

Another common activity at the preschool is waste sorting, something that the children are involved with and get to experience. Some preschools have sorting inside – for example, in a specific classroom – while others have their own sorting rooms, and others use more general rooms for recycling. When talking about recycling, several teachers say they use educational material that facilitates children’s understanding while also making learning more fun. This is exemplified in the next excerpt when the teacher talks about the Rubbish Collector Monsters:

It’s an activity that we bring out different bits of rubbish for, and the children get to put on the right monster and think about what it eats. It’s often really funny when they put it in the wrong place because then the monster spits it out. (T15)

As well as being able to use the outdoors to teach about life cycles and nature, preschool teachers highlight it as being a good place to be in terms of the social dimension. In the next excerpt, a preschool teacher describes how nature affects the group socially and how there are fewer incidents of conflict, which gives more space for play.

In nature. That’s probably the only place there aren’t any conflicts even though we have all the kids together that we can’t normally put together. It’s there they can play in a sustained manner on their own. (T16)

Instead of conflict, the outdoors affords children positive experiences where they can grow and develop an understanding of social relationships: indeed, nature is described as facilitating socialization and play. The opportunity for children to lead others and to take on different roles under controlled conditions is something the teachers allow the children during play outdoors.

Children’s opportunity for agency – a democratic approach

Affording children agency is seen as important in EfS and occurs when they are listened to and shown respect in relation to their interests and thoughts. The theme is defined by words such as responsibility, independence, voting, involvement, children’s interest, listening, respect, children’s choice, co-determination and planning with the children.

Perhaps the clearest example of children’s agency is the use of co-determination when teaching is being planned. According to the preschool teachers, there is often a vote on such matters as who they will play with, where they will play and what the theme of the teaching will be, and the ambition on their part is that children’s interests should direct the teaching. According to the preschool teachers, creating an understanding of the democratic process is part of EfS, and they refer to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF., 1989), which describes children’s co-determination and involvement. The Convention on the Rights of the Child relates primarily to the social dimension; however, several of the interviewed preschool teachers also see a connection between the Convention on the Rights of the Child and environmental responsibility, which the children are taught by being given different responsibilities that have to do with the environment. Respect for nature and its inhabitants is important in EfS, say the teachers, who explain that children are taught how they can have an effect on nature as a result of their own actions.

Even if the ambition on the part of the teachers is for children to be involved in decisions, achieving this can sometimes be difficult, as described in the following excerpt:

We try to give thought to the fact that they [the children] should be involved and also decide. But it’s always hard to break from your own planning, you always plan or have a foundation, so yes, I would like them [the children] to be involved in the planning, or at least they can be involved and discuss things. But it’s hard, and even more difficult when the children are small. (T16)

The preschool teacher above mentions the age of the children as being a difficulty in terms of how and what the children can be involved in when it comes to decision-making. Another problem that the preschool teachers describe is that of having children understand that they really are involved and do have influence, which is described here:

They [the children] may not have the sense that they are involved even if we think they are because we try to hear what they say, what they are interested in, but do not always ask explicitly what it is they want, and then you may lose elements of the child’s interest. (T11)

To summarize, according to the preschool teachers, there are two parts to EfS: first, giving children the opportunity for co-determination and involvement, and second, making the children aware of this.

One way to make the children aware of how they have influence is to move beyond the framework of preschool. One of the preschool teachers (T9) talks about how the children wrote letters to politicians asking for resources to help them make improvements to their playground. This had results: the children received a quick and positive response to their letters. The preschool teacher talks about how the children were made aware of how they themselves can influence their environment, which led to the children, with the help of the teachers, continuing to write letters to both politicians and others asking for help to make improvements to their outdoor environment.

Communication between children and teachers

The preschool teachers describe how a day at preschool involves different types of communication and how they use these in EfS. Communication appears important and takes place in different forms, which is apparent in the words that define the theme: everyday conversation, talking, conversation/dialogue, telling, process conversation, consequence conversation, curiosity questions, explaining, asking, encouraging, reinforcing, giving examples and reminding.

In the following excerpt, one of the preschool teachers talks about everyday conversations and about viewing these as part of teaching:

I think for me, there are so many everyday conversations with the children. I don’t know if this has always been the case, but I haven’t always taught. (T5)

The preschool teachers state how learning takes place by way of different forms of communication, such as conversation/dialogue, reprimands, questions of various kinds, encouragement and explanations in addition to communication of a more physical nature. To influence and be influenced in the communication that takes place within EfS involves talking about and reflecting on children’s experiences of sustainability issues.

The preschool teachers often talk about reflecting with children on environmental issues and about giving them the opportunity to gain experience through environment-related activities. The social dimension is often brought up in the interviews and described as an ongoing process where the work of bringing children together and developing their social understanding has priority. The ongoing teaching for social sustainability is evident in the following example:

We talk about… what is a friend or how should a friend behave? What should they be like? Usually, they say ‘nice’, and then you kind of have to ask, what does it mean to be nice? They have to try to think for themselves, but we sort of have rules about how we should behave toward each other. (T16)

Consequence conversation or process conversation in teaching, such as the above excerpt exemplifies, is also common when it comes to developing an understanding about economic sustainability, as in this example:

We talked about the fact that it costs money to get to different places. Fuel is expensive. We talked about commuting in groups, and you have to fuel a car just as we fuel our bodies with food and energy, so it costs [money] to fuel a car or a plane. (T10)

Communication can often be linked to the experiences of children, where conversation and reflection with them are described as the most common teaching practices in the interviews.

Teaching content and strategies in relation to EfS

In the following section, we present the quantitative results that answer the second research question. We describe the frequencies of the coding of the four themes found in the analysis of the teaching practices in EfS as well as how these relate to content dimensions (environmental, social and economic) and teaching strategies (planned, spontaneous and semi-spontaneous).

In the case of teaching practices, the quantitative analysis shows that children’s experiences are the most commonly referenced practice followed by communication between children and teachers: 205 and 168 codings respectively. See Table 2. Children’s opportunity for agency and actively present teachers were mentioned much less frequently: 73 and 56 codings respectively. See Table 2.

Table 2. Quantitative results showing the frequencies of found codes of teaching practices, content dimensions and sustainability dimensions.

Theme	Planned			Spontaneous			Semi-spontaneous			Sum
	Social	Environ-ment	Econ-omy	Social	Environ-ment	Econ-omy	Social	Environ-ment	Econ-omy
Actively present teachers	11	7	1	11	7	1	10	7	1	56
Children’s experiences	19	52	15	15	27	9	16	40	12	205
Children’s opportunity for agency	35	9	2	11	2	2	7	3	2	73
Communication between children and teachers	18	23	12	26	26	21	13	18	11	168
Subtotal	83	91	30	63	62	33	46	68	26
Total	204			158			140			502

The frequencies in the table refer to the number of codes for each category in the analysis.

The integration of the three content dimensions of sustainability into teaching practices is evident in the interviews, and a holistic picture emerges where the dimensions are integrated into the teaching practices even if the economic dimension is referred to less frequently in all teaching practices (89 times compared to 221 for the environmental dimension and 192 for the social dimension). See Table 2. It is important to point out that the teachers did not reflect much on this as being an explicit teaching strategy in the interviews; instead, the holistic perspective on content is a result of the teachers starting from real complex issues in the teaching.

If we analyze the relationship between content dimensions and teaching practices, the environmental dimension emerges as being strongly linked to children’s experiences. In teaching aimed at experiences, often in the outdoors, teachers link this to environmental learning goals. When children’s agency is given focus in teaching, it is mainly linked to social issues where children have the opportunity for agency and have more control in terms of issues relating to the social relationships than in terms of issues linked to the environment or economy. Communication between children and teachers is an activity that for the most part leads to all content dimensions being given space in teaching.

An important finding of the study is that in addition to the strategies referred to in the curriculum – planned and spontaneous – the analysis also gave an inductive category that we call semi-spontaneous. Semi-spontaneous teaching is teaching that takes place spontaneously in learning environments that have been consciously prepared for teaching to occur in or that include material that has been added deliberately to allow for teaching to take place. Unlike planned teaching, semi-spontaneous teaching is not scheduled; instead, it takes place on the initiative of the children and according to their interest at that moment when they are in the prepared environment or when they are using the additional material. The link to curriculum objectives is made by teachers at the same time as they prepare the environment or add to the material. In terms of teaching strategies, we see that teachers most often refer to planned teaching, although spontaneous and semi-spontaneous are not far behind when it comes to how often they are mentioned (204 compared with 158 and 140 respectively).

The various teaching practices relate both to content dimensions and teaching strategies of various kinds, which we describe here in the order of how frequently the informants mentioned them.

• The EfS teaching practice that is the most evident in the results is children’s experiences. This practice occurs in the form of planned teaching and semi-spontaneous teaching, which is where the children predominantly experience environmental issues.

• The second most evident EfS practice is communication between children and teachers. In this practice, the different dimensions (environmental, social and economic) appear almost as often as each other. It is usually evident when the teacher is using a spontaneous teaching strategy with the help of process conversation and consequence conversation although it is most evident in everyday conversation.

• The third most common EfS teaching practice is children’s opportunity for agency, which is mainly about the social dimension where planned teaching strategies are used to build relationships. The preschool teachers state that the child’s role as a co-determiner and as part of the democratic process are two important aspects of this teaching practice.

• The fourth and least common EfS teaching practice is actively present teachers. This teaching practice focuses almost exclusively on environmental and social issues but is based on all three teaching strategies to a similar extent. The preschool teachers describe how teacher presence is important when it comes to developing curiosity among children through involvement.

Discussion and conclusion

The overall results from the study reveal four teaching practices: actively present teachers, children’s experiences as a basis for learning, children’s opportunity for agency – a democratic approach, and communication between children and teachers. Together, these demonstrate that preschool teachers in Sweden have a progressive view of EfS, which is reflective, then, of pluralistic teaching ideals (Berglund & Gericke, 2022; Öhman, 2008; Sinakou et al., 2019) – or what Vare and Scott (2007) term ESD 2. This is demonstrated by the fact that the preschool teachers see EfS as an important part of teaching where they invite children to converse and experience new things to increase children’s learning and development. EfS takes place by way of deliberative conversation and practical experiences that are shared with children, where children are seen as full-fledged participants. The study further shows that EfS teaching is based on a holistic perspective on sustainability that includes environmental, social and economic dimensions (see Maidou et al., 2019); however, it also supports the results of previous studies (Inoue et al., 2016; Borg, 2019) that show that the economic dimension is given less space in teaching at preschool. To conclude, our study shows that preschool teachers in Sweden have come a long way in their integration of EfS in their teaching by building on progressive ideas of pluralistic teaching practices and holistic perspective on content. The combination of such progressive teaching and existing teaching strategies mentioned in the curriculum makes likely the integration of EfS in the regular teaching practices of preschool teachers.

Importantly, this study shows that in EfS at preschool, semi-spontaneous teaching is a strategy that teachers frequently employ and is one that appears significant when it comes to strengthening children’s agency for sustainability and is therefore an important pedagogical tool for preschool teachers in terms of progressive EfS teaching practices. In the following section, we discuss our results in relation to theory and previous literature.

Preschool teachers’ description of a pluralistic and holistic teaching tradition

All the teaching practices that became apparent in the study are interdependent but can be related to a pluralistic teaching tradition. This involves the preschool teachers letting children act and experience by way of conversation and activities in different environments and the use of different materials. The pluralistic teaching tradition is based on knowledge being experienced and created when children have their own experiences and are involved (Öhman, 2008). This is consistent with Dewey’s (1916/2009) description that knowledge that we ourselves experience and create can change our behavior, which is a clear goal of EfS.

The Swedish preschool curriculum (Lpfö18) describes a teaching ideal that is influenced by pluralism (Ohlsson et al., 2022). The results of this study suggest that this is also translated into action by teachers in their teaching practice. They see children as being involved in their learning and being able to influence content, while also taking part in conversations on an equal footing as teachers. Children have the opportunity both to choose who they want to play with and where, and to influence theme and content. This result is consistent with Magnusson and Bäckman (2022) who also found that teaching at preschools in Sweden is usually based on the children’s everyday experiences, informal knowledge and participation (2022).

An interesting result of this study is that children’s agency is given a great deal of space in preschool, something that is central to EfS and the pluralistic teaching tradition. Our results show that conversations with children take place on a continuous basis and that children are able to influence both their time at preschool as well as their learning. The opportunity for their agency is created in conversations where children are given space for their thoughts. These conversations can be likened to the deliberative conversations that both Ojala (2013) and Rudsberg and Öhman (2010) describe as being part of pluralistic teaching at schools where conversation and practice are connected and enable learning.

The study also shows a holistic view of the knowledge content of EfS that links to all three dimensions. However, the results of the study show that the environmental dimension, which includes nature and waste sorting, still dominates EfS, but that other dimensions have also been given a clearer place than before. From the fact that Swedish preschool teachers in previous studies had a clear environmental focus (Pramling Samuelsson & Park, 2017), this study shows a more holistic view, which the preschool teachers we interviewed believe is due to the new Swedish preschool curriculum (Lpfö18) defining sustainable development from a holistic perspective. Teaching related to the social dimension has been strengthened, which may result from the fact that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF., 1989) recently (2020) became law in Sweden and has thus been given greater space in social debate and teachers’ continuing education. Meanwhile, the study shows that the preschool teachers in this study give the economic dimension less space in their teaching, which is consistent with previous research by Inoue et al. (2016), Davis (2009), and Ärlemalm-Hagsér and Sundberg (2016).

For children to be made aware of the complexity of the holistic view of sustainable development, preschool teachers need to reflect together with them on the context where the connection to the past, present and future and to the space where we find ourselves is given importance so that focus is not solely on the content dimensions (Gough, 2002; Summers & Childs, 2007). No such references were made by the preschool teachers in this study, and our results thus demonstrate a need among preschool teachers for continuing education and professional development, and for the integration of EfS into preschool teacher education programs (see also Borg, 2019; Borg, 2017c; Borg & Gericke, 2021). Researchers (for example, Bautista et al., 2018; Elliott et al., 2017; Pramling Samuelsson & Park, 2017; Tran Ho et al., 2022) argue that the lack of knowledge, as our study implies, may affect EfS in preschools, because teachers need knowledge so that they are able to employ EfS teaching practices in preschool.

Preschool teachers’ teaching strategies for EfS

In the interviews, it emerged that EfS takes place in both planned forms and spontaneous forms and also, largely, in semi-spontaneous forms. This teaching strategy is an important finding and had a prominent place in the teaching practices of the preschool teachers. The study shows that teaching strategies have different roles in EfS. Spontaneous teaching, unlike planned teaching, takes place continuously during the full preschool day of learning, but our results also indicate that teaching that includes the economic dimension of sustainability takes place first and foremost in spontaneous forms and then usually as a result of children’s questions. According to the preschool teachers, planned teaching includes reuse and recycling in the preschool, these relating to the economic part.

Lind (2010) states how spontaneous teaching, compared with planned teaching, more clearly draws on children’s interests, which is important in a pluralistic teaching tradition. What emerges from this study is that in semi-spontaneous teaching, the preschool teachers enable teaching by creating environments and adding specific material that can affect children’s interests at the same time as children themselves decide when teaching and learning take place. By this we mean that the semi-spontaneous teaching strategy is an important tool in the implementation of pluralistic teaching within EfS, which is an important contribution of this study. Because children interact with the material or the environment, questions that relate to this arise among them, something the preschool teachers in this study describe as an opportunity for them to teach what they had planned.

A fundamental principle of semi-spontaneous teaching is that the preschool teachers can prepare for teaching situations that arise in preschool or from the material they use, which allows for more structure in their teaching. For semi-spontaneous teaching, teachers need to be available both to stimulate deliberative conversation and to reflect together with children when there are practical experiences from a pluralistic perspective on EfS (Ojala, 2013). Semi-spontaneous teaching can be an effect of the changed view on children’s agency that we believe is evident in the preschool teachers’ descriptions since it more obviously draws on children’s interests and initiatives than does planned teaching.

Limitations

It must be emphasized that this study was conducted in Sweden. A randomized approach was used so as to allow for a generalization of the results in a Swedish context; however, there needs to be caution before generalizing the results to countries that have different education systems and/or cultural contexts. As pointed out in the method section, sustainability and EfS are recognized in Swedish policy, and there is a long tradition in Sweden with preschool education, which is highly organized and requires qualified preschool teachers. These contextual factors may influence the results. As such, we encourage replication studies to establish whether or not the teaching practices identified in this study can be found in other countries.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participating preschool teachers who have shared their experiences.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This study is a part of a project that was supported by the Swedish Research Council under grant number 2018-04445.

Notes on contributors

Anders Ohlsson

Anders Ohlsson is a Doctoral Student in Educational Work at Dalarna University in a project titled ‘Eco-Certified Preschools and Children’s Learning for Sustainability: Researching Holistic Outcomes of Preschool Education for Sustainability (HOPES)’. Anders’s research focuses on preschool teachers’ views on sustainability and teaching practices relating to sustainability.

Farhana Borg

Dr. Farhana Borg is an Associate Professor in Educational Work at Dalarna University and the Principal Investigator in the project HOPES, which is financed by the Swedish Research Council. Her research areas include early childhood education, education for sustainability, children’s learning, teaching practices, and sustainability in higher education.

Niklas Gericke

Dr. Niklas Gericke is Professor in Science Education and Director of the SMEER (Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education Research) Research Centre at Karlstad University in Sweden and Visiting Professor at NTNU in Trondheim, Norway. His main research interests are biology education and sustainability education from conceptual, teaching, and implementation perspectives.

Appendix A

Table

Interview guide for preschool teachers Education for sustainability in preschool

Participant…

Interview assignments…

Background information…

Interview questions

1. How do you define sustainability or sustainable development?

2. What does teaching for sustainability in preschool mean to you?

3. How do you work with teaching for sustainability with the children?

4. Can you give some examples (e.g. two) of how you work with teaching for sustainability in preschool and with the children?

5. If you have received competence development in the field of teaching for sustainability, has it had any impact on your way of working in preschool compared to what you did before? Can you explain in what way? Or why not, if the answer is 'no’?

6. What problems or challenges have you encountered when working with sustainability in preschool?

7. What opportunities are there within preschool activities to integrate different subjects / themes in relation to teaching and children’s learning of sustainability?

8. What do you think can be done to help and promote the preschool’s work with sustainability?

9. Is there anything you’d like to add?