University Students' Perspectives on Development: Putting New Wine into Old Wineskins?

1. University students’ perspectives about development: Are we putting new wine into old wineskins? Prof. Paul Pace Centre for Environmental Education & Research University of Malta

2. Methodology • Results: • Defining ‘development’ • Indicators of development • Models of sustainable development • Images of hunger • Reflections • Conclusions Table of contents

3. Sample: total cohort of students 11 (3 males & 8 females) • Procedure: • questionnaire given at the start of the course • same questionnaire given at the end of the course • students compare both responses and share their reflections • The questionnaire asked students to: • define “development” • identify indicators that define development • choose a model that represents sustainable development • choose an image to represent ‘hunger’ Methodology

4. Initial definitions focused on: • owning something (money or objects) • achieving a better state or condition • individualistic yet impersonal interpretation (self or society) that is inward looking • Second definitions focused on: • people being valued as persons not for what they possess • an improved quality of life that is built … that evolves … implying a process of becoming • a holistic (involving the 4 pillars of SD) and a collective perspective that is outward looking Defining ‘development’

5. Students asked to give (and explain) examples ‘good’ and ‘bad’ development • Their responses: • evolved from a ‘single-pillar’ to a ‘4-pillar’ analysis • extended their focus from a local to a global perspective • showed a greater concern for people … particularly disadvantaged people • moved from providing services to satisfy people’s ‘wants’ to engaging in people’s realities to address their ‘needs’ Indicators of development

6. Two models were proposed: Chosen by one student because the economic aspect is a relatively small part of a very big reality Most popular choice because it implies a balanced view and highlights interconnectedness Models of sustainable development

7. Environment Society Economy • In the first instance the model chosen fitted their theoretical construct. • In their comments – although still opting for the 1st model – they felt that it does not represent reality and should be modified • A common question: “If culture has been accepted as the 4th pillar why hasn’t it been integrated in the diagram?” Models of sustainable development

8. This was the most common image chosen • Reasons provided: • confirmed stereotypes • highlighted the problem • generated pity • Subsequently students opted for images that: • removed stereotypes • presented solutions that address the injustice Images of hunger

9. Students moved from a simplistic ‘textbook’ interpretation of reality to a more complex one based on reflection • Students learned to analyse issues from a ‘4+ pillar’ perspective • Empowerment of students shown by their ability to question ‘fixed’ paradigms… implying that these can be changed depending on our world view • The changes observed involved a change in focus of a personal journey: Pete on inclusion; Martha on education; Anne on economy and Emily on culture … which was also reflected in their dissertations Reflections

10. Participatory approaches have been known to promote ownership, an ethical perspective and reflection of one’s values and attitudes (Mathur et al., 2008) • Meaningful learning experiences: • involve an interaction of the 3 domains of learning: cognitive, affective, and behavioural (Sousa, 2001) … head, heart and hands (Sipos et al., 2008) • are related / relevant to an individual’s life • Authentic learners connect their conceptual understanding (cognitive), attitudes and beliefs (affective) and personal decision making (behavioural) (Balgopal & Wallace, 2009) Conclusions

11. ESD implies a transformative approach to education that promotes critical thinking and empowerment • Barriers that university based ESD programmes face (Moore, 2005) : • monodisciplinary organisational structures that determine funding, result in territorial conflicts and limit student mobility from one area to another • competition between and within students, faculties, departments and universities • misdirected criteria for evaluating staff and student abilities and achievements • too many priorities, unclear decision-making and hierarchical power structures Conclusions

12. Thank you for your attention Prof. Paul Pace Centre for Environmental Education & Research Faculty of Education University of Malta Msida MSD 2080 Malta Email: paul.j.pace@um.edu.mt Questions