Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy for Sustainable Futures: Learning from a European Teacher Education Project

Abstract

Commonalities between linguistically and culturally sensitive pedagogy (LCRP) and education for sustainable futures (ESF) suggest the benefits of connecting these transdisciplinary themes in teacher education. This paper reports on a qualitative study of how educators made sense of connections between LCRP and ESF as part of a European teacher education project, using secondary analysis of project evaluation data. The context for the study is the Erasmus + Teacher Academy Project ‘Teaching Sustainability’ (TAP-TS) (2022–2025), which aimed to develop the sustainability competences of student teachers, teachers, and teacher educators through the co-design of learning and teaching resources during online, hybrid, and face-to-face events as part of an international community of practice. Activities linking LCRP and ESF were presented and evaluated in four discrete teacher education courses, as part of TAP-TS. The study found that connections between LCRP and ESF were meaningful for educators but that this differed between individuals related to their personal and professional experience. The transdisciplinary and international nature of TAP-TS provided learning opportunities, but significant changes are likely to require sustained support for teachers in schools and as part of school communities.

1. Introduction

Linguistically and culturally responsive pedagogy (LCRP) and education for sustainable futures (ESF) are often considered distinct areas of research and practice. However, fundamental commonalities between them have important implications for teacher education. At root, both LCRP and ESF are concerned with the potential of education for social justice whilst also recognizing the ways in which education is implicated in injustices (Gay, 2018; Orr, 2004; UNESCO, 2021). Proponents of both agendas assert the need for educational transformation in order to address current violence(s) in education and realize the potential of education to foster more equitable and sustainable futures (UNESCO, 2021).

A further commonality between is that LCRP and ESF are both transdisciplinary educational themes, which are relevant for educators at all education phases and across subject disciplines (Kondratjuk et al., 2023). This is significant, because transdisciplinarity can be a driver for educational transformation (Mittelstraß, 2003). However, the tendency of educators to consider LCRP and ESF relevant only to certain subjects (Evans et al., 2017; Beacco et al., 2016) undermines their transformative potential.

Teachers are vital to education reform (Villegas-Reimers, 2003) and teacher education is a key part of educational transformation for LCRP and ESF (Gay, 2018; Fischer et al., 2022). In order to catalyze transformative learning, teacher education must go beyond introducing new content and techniques to fostering mindsets, assumptions, and expectations to be more “inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective and emotionally able to change” (Mezirow, 2009, p. 93). Transformative teacher education should also address educational practices, processes, and structures (Kondratjuk et al., 2023) and engage teachers as part of their professional communities (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

This paper reports from a qualitative study of how educators made sense of connections between linguistically and culturally responsive pedagogy (LCRP) and education for sustainable futures (ESF) as part of a European teacher education project. The study is situated within the Erasmus + Teacher Academy Project ‘Teaching Sustainability’ (TAP-TS), which aimed to develop the sustainability competences of student teachers, teachers, and teacher educators through the co-design of transdisciplinary learning and teaching resources during online, hybrid, and face-to-face events as part of an international community of practice (TAP-TS, 2022). The paper is written from an insider perspective: the author1 is the coordinator of TAP-TS and led on the development of the materials in question. The study utilizes secondary analysis of data from the project evaluation and observations of the author. Findings are intended to be interpreted critically by other teacher educators for their contexts of practice.

To begin, LCRP and ESF are defined in relation to the study, and further connections between the two educational agendas are highlighted. Next, TAP-TS is described, followed by the design of this study and the TAP-TS evaluation approach and data set. After this, findings are presented, followed by discussion of the implications for teacher education.

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1. Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Linguistically and culturally responsive pedagogy calls for a rethinking of education, founded on research-based understandings of the roles of language and culture in learning and teaching (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). More specifically, teacher education for LCRP may include exploring the various functions of language in education, the historical roots and present-day expressions of monoglossic ideology and intersectional discrimination/s in education, and multilingualism and multilingual education. It may also include strategies for teaching and learning language across the curriculum and enabling learners to participate meaningfully using their linguistic and cultural resources. (In the following section, these various elements and the assumptions behind them are described in more detail.

Language and education are inseparably intertwined at many different levels. As the medium for social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978), language is the “tool of tools” for pedagogical processes (Wells, 1994, p. 42). Learners use their existing cultural and linguistic resources for learning, and teaching is particularly effective when it connects with what learners, value, know and can do (Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Gay, 2018). Language is also central to learning goals, such as subject-specific and generic language skills, terms and text types, and associated values, concepts, and practices (Derewianka & Jones, 2023).

On a more fundamental level, the social contexts and activities which constitute education are constructed and negotiated through language. For example, wearing white lab coats, and writing lab reports are central to ‘doing science lessons’(Lemke, 1990; Polias, 2016). Indeed, there is a co-constructive relationship between particular language forms and cultural norms, such as values, identities, and roles (Engeström, 1987) and so the language and cultures of subject disciplines are closely interconnected. To add yet another dimension of complexity, particular instances of social interaction are connected to other historical/spatial instances through language, and so the construction of social contexts in education can reproduce but also transform hegemonic beliefs and practices (Cazden, 1988).

The importance of connecting new learning to learners’ existing interests, knowledge, and skills is rooted in constructivist theory (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). There is also substantial evidence that enabling learners to use and develop their linguistic and cultural resources in education improves subject learning and learning of the official language of instruction, among other benefits (Collier & Thomas, 2017; May, 2017; Gay, 2018). Beyond this, it is apparent that where educators have more nuanced understanding of language and culture in education there are benefits for all learners (Beacco et al., 2016). This may include being able to differentiate between the language of learning (i.e., the terms, text types, and communication skills to be learnt) and language for learning (i.e., the linguistic and cultural resources learners bring to the task) (Coyle, 2007). Such understanding can directly inform pedagogical approaches such as that presented by Polias (2016) for ‘apprenticing learners into science’, by moving back and forth between more and less familiar, formal, and academic language, text types, and forms of communication.

Despite these insights, the monoglossic habitus continues to dominate in European schools (Gogolin, 2013; Bourdieu, 1991), where it functions to inhibit language and culture in education beyond hegemonic norms. The monoglossic habitus is related to monoglossic ideology, which emerged in Europe alongside the foundation of European nation states, and was exported worldwide through colonization (McKinney & Christie, 2022; Ndhlovu & Makalela, 2021). From this point of view, language exists as single, separate, bounded systems of grammar and vocabulary directly associated with membership of particular nation states (e.g., French in France); languages should be used separately to maintain social and psychological stability and unity; and monolingualism in one national language is the desirable norm, with multilingualism viewed as a deviation and deficiency (Blommaert, 2010). While these beliefs about standardized languages are very real, and have real-world impacts (Blommaert, 2010), socio-linguistic and psycho-linguistic research calls such assumptions into question. For example, socio-linguistic studies show that language, as a form of human behavior, includes non-verbal and multimodal forms in addition to and often in integration with verbal language (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001). Psychologically, languages are shown to be connected in the brain as part of a single, dynamic system of linguistic, cognitive, and affective resources, which is used and expanded through new learning (Herdina & Jessner, 2002).

Thus, there is a considerable disconnect between research-based understandings of language, culture, and multilingualism in education, and hegemonic beliefs and practices in schools. Marginalized and multilingual learners experience intersectional discrimination due to monoglossic assumptions, hierarchies between languages (e.g., between European and non-European languages), and racism, among other factors (García & Li, 2014). Teacher education is important to engage educators with research-based understandings of language and culture in education and linguistically and culturally responsive pedagogy.

2.2. Education for Sustainable Futures

Next, education for sustainable futures (ESF) is defined in relation to the present study and in contrast to the more widely used term education for sustainable development (ESD). The severe and negative impacts of human-induced climate change and environmental degradation are increasingly felt worldwide, especially by the people who are least responsible (Sultana, 2022; IPCC, 2021). There is a broad consensus that humans are living beyond planetary boundaries and this presents an existential threat to human and non-human beings (Raworth, 2017; Steffen et al., 2015). There is also considerable agreement that the severity and complexity of human-caused sustainability challenges necessitates new ways of seeing, thinking, and acting in the world and that education has a fundamental role in the transition to more sustainable futures (Sterling, 2001; UNESCO, 2020).

The term ‘sustainability’ has various linguistic and cultural roots, which each bring particular emphases. For example, in Germany, the term was originally used to describe an approach to renewable forestry, and emphasizes careful management of natural resources (Ott & Döring, 2011). It is also associated with the concept of Ubuntu, ‘I am because you are’, which emphasizes intersubjectivity (Le Grange, 2018), and Sumak Kawsay, which emphasizes good living with the planet (Escobar, 2018). In international policy, a well-established definition refers to meeting the needs of people around the world and future generations (Brundtland, 1987). This notion of justice has expanded considerably in recent years to include ensuring climate justice for those who suffer disproportionately from climate change (Sultana, 2022) and the rights of non-human species (Takayama, 2020). Another consideration of particular relevance here is ‘epistemic justice’, which addresses the invisibilization of knowers, ways of knowing and being from our collective culture through education (Cummings et al., 2023).

In 2015, 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and related targets and measures were published by the UN General Assembly, as a call to action for a more equitable and sustainable world (UN, 2015). The 17 SDGs are portrayed as integrated and inseparable, and also represent a complex web of conflicts, tensions, and dilemmas (Henkel et al., 2023) Education is described as being central to all 17 SDGs and is the focus of goal four: “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all “(UN, 2015, p. 15; UNESCO, 2020). The subsidiary target 4.7 focuses on education for sustainable development (ESD), and includes factors such as cultural diversity, human rights, and global citizenship (UN, 2015). In response to the UN decade of education for sustainable development (2009–2014) and the SDGs, among other initiatives, the term ESD is increasingly included in educational policy and curricula for schools and in teacher education (Evans et al., 2017).

A number of competence frameworks have been developed to further operationalize ESD, by detailing the competences and composite values/attitudes, knowledge, and skills which constitute ESD (e.g., UNESCO, 2017; Bianchi et al., 2022). However, debates around such frameworks and the term ESD itself reveal tensions and complexities in operationalization processes. The term ‘ESD’ is critiqued as a reflection of “development discourse” (Sachs, 1992), and follows the narrative of a singular, linear process away from tradition (in the past) towards modernity (in the future), following the model of industrialized and post-industrial nations, which is deeply implicated in unsustainability (Latour, 2018). Others consider that the emphasis on ESD shifts responsibility for action away from government and big business and onto education (Brockwell et al., 2022). ESD frameworks are also criticized for instrumentalizing education towards normative goals in ways which undermine the professional autonomy of educators and fail to engage with existing educational scholarship (Brockwell et al., 2022; Hamborg, 2023). Arguably, like any educational reform, the operationalization of ESD depends upon opportunities for educators to explore and interpret associated theories, concepts and practices as part of their pedagogy, including their professional and disciplinary beliefs and practices, in interaction with their learners and school contexts (Villegas-Reimers, 2003).

ESF purposefully differs from ESD through the plural form ‘futures’, which opens up interpretive space for practitioners in recognition that that diverse perspectives on sustainability crises and possible solutions and the roles of education co-exist in academia, policy, and the media (Tikly, 2023). Tensions between these positions can be generative if there are opportunities for the articulation of diverse perspectives and dialog between them. This pluralist approach to sustainability recognizes the value of rational, empirical science and related technological developments and other ways of seeing, thinking, being, and acting in the world (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Stein et al., 2020). At the same time, there is an explicit critique modernity/coloniality as inherently connected processes, characterized by extractive capitalism, and the exploitation of human and natural resources (Stein et al., 2020; Latour, 2018).

Thus, where ESD risks limiting teacher autonomy (Hamborg, 2023), ESF can engage educators with diverse perspectives around sustainability and sustainability education as a basis for identifying their own positionality in relation to their pedagogy. This may be of particular importance for European educators. Latour (2018) described the need for Europeans to unpack nationalistic assumptions and renegotiate local spaces as part of diverse communities, as migration to Europe increases to meet labor demands and due to environmental degradation, climate change, and related conflicts. For Latour, there is an element of social justice here but also a scientific imperative to recognize the complexities of socio-ecological spaces and reject simplistic ideology.

2.3. Connections Between LCRP and ESF

This paper began with the assertion that commonalities between LCRP and ESF, as transdisciplinary educational themes aiming for educational transformation, suggest benefits for connecting these themes in teacher education. This short section draws from the exploration of each theme immediately above to highlight three further connections (although these are by no means exhaustive). The first connection is between monoglossic ideology and other essentialist, exploitative, and extractive assumptions which drive unsustainable behaviors in education and in society (Stein et al., 2020; Andreotti et al., 2019). Contextualizing monoglossic ideology in relation to processes such as colonization and racism and current sustainability crises may foster deeper understanding and provide an incentive to act. Indeed, given critical consideration of this broader historical context, LCRP can be a form of ‘transgressive pedagogy’, where educators identify and address injustices such as exploitation, oppression, extraction, colonialization, and marginalization towards greater socio-ecological sustainability (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2016).

The second connection is the recognition of diverse ways of seeing, being, and acting in the world and the need for dialog between them. From the perspective of ESF, the epistemological challenge for sustainability education is to unlock universals such as modernity and development and make space for and engage with other knowledge systems. Linguistically and culturally responsive pedagogy is a means to enable diverse epistemologies, knowers, and knowledge in education and foster dialog between them. An example of how LCRP and ESF meet in practice is provided by Barrett and Bainton (2016), who show that enabling Kiswahili and other Tanzanian languages alongside English in biology classrooms enables dialog between local and academic understandings and practices of the natural world and more sustainable action.

The third and final connection is that, given the complexities of socio-ecological reality, multiple perspectives are needed to address the severity and complexity of sustainability crises and bring about socio-ecological transformations at different scales (Gunn-Wright, 2023). Linguistically and culturally responsive pedagogy is a means to enable more marginalized and multilingual learners to succeed through education and enrich humanity’s collective capacity to respond to sustainability crises.

3. Context

3.1. Teacher Academy Project—Teaching Sustainability

Next, the context for the present study is introduced. The Erasmus+ Teacher Academy2 Project ‘Teaching Sustainability’ (TAP-TS) ran from June 2022 to July 2025. The project aimed to strengthen the sustainability education competences of European primary- and secondary-level student teachers, teacher educators, and teachers through the co-production, piloting, and use of learning and teaching materials (learning teaching packages; LTP3) and participation in online, hybrid, and face-to-face teacher development courses as part of a transdisciplinary and international community of practice.

Theoretically, the project is based on an understanding of teachers as reflective practitioners and the potential of communities of practice for teacher professional learning (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2020; TAP-TS, 2022). Teachers’ professional learning is understood to be related to professional autonomy and is both an individual endeavor, related to teachers’ active roles, and a collaborative endeavor, which supports transformative practice and relates to teachers as a professional group (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002)

TAP-TS is transdisciplinary (Kondratjuk et al., 2023) in a number of ways. The TAP-TS consortium comprises 11 teacher education organizations, across 7 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, and Sweden), including schools, universities, a government agency, an educational enterprise, and a civil society organization. Partners within the consortium bring a diverse range of expertise across the natural sciences, technology, business, linguistics, and media education and have worked together with student teachers, teachers, and teacher educators to explore these topics in relation to sustainability. Project participants include teachers of a range of curriculum subjects, e.g., modern languages, humanities, and natural sciences.

Over the duration of the project, project partners and participants collaborated to produce seven open access ‘learning and teaching packages’ (LTPs) for use in teacher education and in schools, exploring digitality, entrepreneurship, STEAM, multilingual education, decoloniality, critical media literacy, and whole-institution approaches in relation to sustainability and education for sustainable futures. The LTPs are linked to the European Commission’s GreenComp framework of sustainability competences (Bianchi et al., 2022).

3.2. Teacher Education Materials for LCRP and ESF

Teacher education materials for LCRP and ESF were produced as part of the first LTP, “A sustainable Europe”, specifically in units titled “education for sustainable futures” and “multilingual education for sustainability”. The materials were developed by teacher educators at the Centre of Teacher Education and Education Research, TU Dresden University of Technology, and piloted and revised with teachers, student teachers, and teacher educators from across the consortium and other European countries during professional learning events in 2023 and 2024. These included two one-month blended-learning courses and two week-long summer schools.

The units cover a range of the topics discussed in Section 2.1 (above), including the following:

• Personal and social identities.
• Discrimination in education.
• Language ideology.
• Research-based insights about language and multilingualism in education.
• Orientations to multilingualism.
• Whole-school approaches to multilingual education.
• Language learning and teaching in subject lessons.
• Translanguaging.
• Culturally responsive pedagogy.

Example activities include debating the potential of education to transform society and/or reinforce inequalities, and exploration of discrimination in education in relation to personal and social, assumed, and ascribed, identities (Bowden & Hornig, 2023). Other activities indicate how established practices in schools, such as monolingualism in subject classrooms, the focus on white, European knowers and knowledge systems in curricula and textbooks, and on majority culture festivals and traditions, disadvantage multilingual and racialized learners. Building on this, connections are made between monoglossic ideology, modernity/coloniality, and unsustainability using the metaphor of “the house that modernity built”, developed by Vanessa Andreotti and colleagues (Andreotti et al., 2019; Stein et al., 2020). The activities emphasize trust and community building, dialog, and critical reflection in relation to previous knowledge and contexts of practice.

4. Materials and Methods

This study uses secondary analysis (Vartanian, 2011) of qualitative data from the TAP-TS evaluation and post-event reflection notes written by the author to address the main research question: how do educators make sense of connections between LCRP and ESF? In addition, factors which influenced educators’ responses were considered. Analysis comprised a document review of evaluation reports and the authors’ post-event reflection notes to identify relevant entries, followed by the development of inductive categories.

There are several limitations of this study. The data were not collected with the research question in mind, and this means that valuable observations and responses may have been missed. Moreover, the author of this paper is a project insider and lead author of the materials used, which risks biased selection and interpretation of the data. The use of evaluation data in interaction with the authors reflective notes mitigates this risk to some extent.

The TAP-TS evaluation was conducted by a small team comprising academics and education experts who were part of the project from the start. Conceived as a form of developmental evaluation (Quin-Patton, 2008), evaluation activities informed the conception, implementation, and ongoing adaption of the project i.e., partners and participants were guided to consider project aims in relation to desired impacts and outcomes and to reflect on activities and outputs in relation to these. The stated aim of the evaluation was as follows:

“(…to) ensure the quality of project activities and outputs, in line with desired impact and outcomes, contribute to the ongoing learning and adaption of project activities toward greatest impact, within and beyond the duration of the project”.

(K&R Education (KRE), 2024b, p. 6)

A further purpose of the evaluation was to inform the development of LTP materials, by observing their use in activities during teacher professional learning events and gathering feedback from participants on their experience of the activities and the perceived value for their contexts of practice. Quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were employed, including participant observation, document review, questionnaires, and focus groups. Regular feedback was provided to the project management team following each activity and through annual written reports (e.g., KRE, 2023, 2024b).

The evaluation data used for this study were collected in relation to the four events in which the relevant LTP units were tested and developed. The events and evaluation methods used for each event are summarized in

Table 1. TAP-TS events and evaluation methods.

Event Type and Duration	Participant Numbers	Data Collection Methods
Hybrid event 2023, 3 weeks online, 3 days face-to-face	28	Participant observation for all online and face-to-face sessions. Focus groups during and at the end of the course. Survey after the course. End-of-day survey (each day of face-to-face).
Hybrid event 2024, 3 weeks online, 3 days face-to-face	52
Summer school 2023, 5 days	58
Summer school 2024, 5 days	45

below.

A further source of data for the secondary analysis was the written notes of observations and reflections made by the author after the workshops were conducted, either at the end of the day or shortly after the event.

5. Results

In this section, findings are presented regarding how educators made sense of connections between LCRP and ESF as part of TAP-TS teacher education courses and factors which influenced their responses. In addition, the opportunities and limitations presented by TAP-TS for LCRP and ESF in teacher education are considered.

Evaluation reports indicate that the majority of educators across all four events perceived the connections between LCRP and ESF to be meaningful and relevant for their work in schools. For instance, an early iteration of the LTP unit “multilingual education and education for sustainable futures” was piloted during a hybrid teacher professional learning event, where a series of interactive webinars and self-study activities were followed by three days of face-to-face workshops. Evaluators who were present throughout the course conducted a survey and focus group at the end, from which they concluded the following:

“(…participants) recognized the significance of understanding the connections between multilingualism and education for sustainability, which many found interesting. One participant writes, ‘I liked the activities, reflection activity on the guiding questions, the connections between linguistic and cultural diversity and sustainability; the implications of sustainability for our teaching work in schools”.

(KRE, 2023, p. 34)

A similar finding emerged from the evaluation of a course which took place the following year, when evaluators noted the following:

“(…participants) thought the message was clear: for sustainable futures to take place, we need transformative education, and for transformative education to take place, we need diverse voices, opinions, and perspectives”.

(KRE, 2024b, p. 12)

These findings indicate a level of agreement between participants across events that the connections made between LCRP and ESF are relevant for their work in schools. At the same time, there were differences in the implications which participants drew for their future practice. For example, in their summary of the second hybrid event, the evaluators noted the following:

“Through individual conversations and the final evaluation session, it has become clear that participants are at different levels when it comes to turning their own values and experiences of multilingualism inward towards themselves. Some see it as a need to change their practice to meet all students based on their circumstances regarding multilingualism, while others do not see how they can change anything in their own practice and believe it is the student who must adapt”.

(KRE, 2024a, p. 10)

There are likely to be many factors behind these differing responses. Personal observation suggests that professional experience, including disciplinary backgrounds and contexts of the work of the participants, and personal experience were significant in how participants responded to activities. For some, the connections between LCRP and ESF seemed almost self-evident, while for others, they were irritating and difficult to reconcile. For example, in the first hybrid event, two natural science educators expressed surprise that LCRP was included in a course about education for sustainability, which they equated with environmental education. The same participants reported finding the debate activity (on the potential of education to reproduce/transform injustice) difficult because there was no single correct answer, contrary to their expectations as science educators (personal observation, hybrid event 2023). In general, teachers from Portugal and Cyprus were more familiar with racism-critical perspectives on education and with working in linguistically diverse classrooms than those from Germany (with the exception of a participant from Berlin). There were also distinct ways of talking (and not talking) about race in each country, and this led to discussion of how racial categories are constructed in particular contexts. Personal experience was also a factor for at least one participant, who described his own experience of forced migration and marginalization as a child. It seemed meaningful for him to consider multilingualism as a norm and not an exception from a global perspective (personal observation, hybrid event 2023).

A further finding is that some participants were motivated by the workshops to try out LCRP in their classrooms and schools. In the final focus group of the first hybrid learning event, several educators requested more practical ways of enabling linguistic and cultural diversity in schools. This was seen by the evaluators as an indicator of motivation to change practice, and (…) “demonstrates the participants’ interest and curiosity in the content, as they are eager to learn more” (KRE, 2023, pp. 34–35). As a result, more emphasis was given to practical strategies for multilingual education in the final LTP unit and in teacher professional learning events in the second year of the project. This led to discussion of the challenges to implementing ideas and activities from the course. For instance, one participant said they were keen to expand the history curriculum in their classes to include more people who have been marginalized but were worried about challenging established practices in their school by themselves, and expected resistance from other teachers, the head teacher and parents (personal observation, hybrid event 2024).

The transdisciplinary and international nature of TAP-TS seems to have positively influenced teachers’ professional learning and growth. Participants cited exchanging experiences and perspectives with teachers of other subjects and national contexts as a driver for their own learning (KRE, 2025). In follow-up interviews teachers indicated they were collaborating with other subjects more than before attending TAP-TS. As one said, “This is also part of the development—that as a teacher, you start collaborating with others. I have worked together with geography, biology, and technology teachers. I’ve modified material and then shared it with teachers in other subjects”. (KRE, 2025) Informal interactions with teachers from different professional contexts were also found to be enriching:

“Many participants have noted that, beyond the workshops, they engaged in numerous stimulating conversations that will continue to resonate with them for days or even weeks, contributing to their growth as educators”.

(KRE, 2023, p. 18)

The language policy of the TAP-TS teacher education courses also proved a valuable basis for discussion and experimentation. For example, at the start of both hybrid and fully face-to-face events in the first year of the project, the use of English as a de facto lingua franca for TAP-TS was questioned. The ways that using English as a main shared language of communication privileges some speakers and disadvantages others was highlighted and participants were invited to use their languages creatively and sensitively to support each other to participate and learn. The evaluators reported that the discussion was well received and led to critical consideration of links between language and participation in subsequent sessions (KRE, 2023). During the final session of the 2023 summer school, a group of student teachers returned to the topic of their own accord. They said they welcomed the recognition that English can be exclusive, and the invitation to use other languages. Nevertheless, they reported often feeling excluded by English during activities, and said they wanted more practical strategies and support to be involved:

“Often I still wanted to contribute points but hardly had the chance to get involved in the discussions”.

(KRE, 2023, Appendix 1, p. 12)

Although their frustration was uncomfortable, it was meaningful that these future teachers could articulate their experience and imagine more inclusive support strategies. In subsequent events in the second year of the project, more time was given for participants to identify language supportive strategies, and this led to more strategies being used during the event:

“Different languages were used in various groups, mostly English, but also German and Portuguese. Some spoke slowly. In one group, it was discovered that everyone spoke both English and German, so they used both languages. Some used their phone for translation”.

(KRE, 2024b, p. 7)

In addition, during reflection activities at the end of each day, participants were asked to consider how they felt being able to use familiar or unfamiliar languages, and how this might inform their future work as teachers in schools.

6. Discussion and Implications

This study investigates how educators made sense of connections between LCRP and ESF during TAP-TS professional learning events and factors which influenced this from a secondary analysis of qualitative project evaluation data. The study found that connections between LCRP and ESF were meaningful for many and led to a broadened sense of what sustainability education includes and an increased commitment to LCRP. Some participants were motivated to try out LCRP strategies with their students, while others maintained that learners should adapt to school language policy. Educators reported that the opportunity to learn with and from colleagues from other national contexts and subject disciplines led to expanded understandings of sustainability and sustainability education and ideas for cross-curricular collaboration in schools. The language policy of TAP-TS provided participants with direct experience of linguistic marginalization and the opportunity to try out language supportive strategies.

This study indicates benefits to making connections between LCRP and ESF explicit in teacher education. Following the workshops, TAP-TS participants reported expanded understandings of ESF and an increased perception of the relevance of both LCRP and ESF for their subjects. This is important given the tendency to see these cross-cutting themes as only relevant for certain subjects e.g., LCRP for languages, ESF for natural sciences (Evans et al., 2017; Beacco et al., 2016), and because engaging teachers from across the curriculum with LCRP and ESF as transdisciplinary themes increases the potential for teachers’ transformative learning (Mezirow, 2009). Moreover, the impact of LCRP and ESF on learners is likely to increase when they are included in more curriculum subjects and in cross-curricular and whole-school processes (Holst, 2023).

Not surprisingly, educators expressed a range of views about LCRP and ESF in relation to their disciplinary backgrounds, contexts of work, and personal experience. For example, natural science teachers appeared most surprised by the connection between social justice and sustainability, and related ambiguities. Such responses indicate a conflict with previous assumptions and may be the basis for future learning and even transformative learning. The study confirms the value for educators of exploring LCRP and ESF as related topics from a variety of perspectives and in relation to their existing pedagogy, personal experience, and school contexts (Hamborg, 2023). Thus, teacher education has an important role in providing opportunities for teachers to critically explore connections between cross-cutting themes and in relation to their pedagogy.

Transdisciplinarity (Mittelstraß, 2003) appears to have been an important factor in supporting educators’ learning as part of TAP-TS (KRE, 2023). In particular, opportunities to exchange cultural and disciplinary perspectives and experiences with other teachers fostered new understandings and receptiveness to different practices (KRE, 2025; Tikly, 2023). Teacher education which brings together teachers of different cultural and disciplinary backgrounds may support educators’ learning for LCRP and ESF, and their appreciation of linguistic and cultural differences as a pedagogical resource. An additional benefit of TAP-TS as an international program was the opportunity it provided to discuss hegemonic assumptions about language (i.e., the use of English as a lingua franca, and the separation of languages), to experience the impact of using an additional language on participation, and to develop and reflect on alternatives. This suggests that language policy should be a theme for discussion and experimentation in future international teacher education projects, such as Erasmus+ Teacher Academies.

Several participants requested additional pedagogical strategies for LCRP following the workshops, and this indicates a perceived need for change. The connection between increased educational equity and educational transformation for sustainability (UNESCO, 2021) was compelling for some, and may be included in future teacher education programs. At the same time, comments from educators indicate the challenges that individuals face when trying to question and/or change established beliefs and practices in schools and this suggests that short courses are unlikely to lead to substantial change. This finding reinforces the assertion that teacher education for LCRP and ESF, which aims for transformative learning and educational transformation (Mezirow, 2009; Kondratjuk et al., 2023), should include sustained support educators as part of their school communities in processes of change (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

7. Conclusions

This study indicates that LCRP and ESF can be meaningfully connected in teacher education, specifically by situating linguistic and cultural inequalities within schools and classrooms, in relation to historical, global processes such as colonization and racism. This is an opportunity to increase engagement with LCRP and ESF for teachers of all subjects. Where ESF risks being reduced to environmental education or global injustice happening elsewhere, LCRP shifts attention to local classrooms and schools. LCRP includes practical strategies for educators to respond to sustainability crises by developing more inclusive and pedagogically sound practices, alone, with colleagues, and/or as a whole school. Indeed, while international and transdisciplinary teacher education events can provide valuable impulses, ongoing support in schools may be necessary to allow substantial changes to educational practices and cultures. Further research could focus on how school communities engage with LCRP and ESF as connected concerns as part of whole-school development processes.