Guidance: Active pedagogies for sustainability

Active pedagogies for sustainability guidance equips educators with evidence-based strategies in problem-based learning, work-integrated learning, service learning and co-creation.

This guidance equips educators with evidence-based strategies to implement active pedagogies in sustainability-focused education. 

Problem-based learning

Work-integrated learning

Service learning

Co-creation

Each approach fosters deeper student engagement, interdisciplinary thinking and real-world application, supporting transformative learning outcomes. Designed to enhance both academic and civic development, these models encourage educators to facilitate meaningful, student-centered learning experiences.

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a student-centered instructional methodology that initiates learning by presenting learners with complex, authentic problems that simulate real-world challenges. This approach motivates inquiry and knowledge construction by requiring students to collaboratively identify their learning needs, engage in self-directed research, and apply newly acquired knowledge to address the problems at hand. PBL facilitates the development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and lifelong learning skills by encouraging an integrative understanding across disciplines and emphasising learner autonomy and self-assessment. In this model, instructors primarily serve as facilitators who guide rather than directly deliver content, fostering a more active and responsible learning environment.

Core components fundamental to PBL

Overall, PBL shifts the educational paradigm from passive absorption towards an active, student-driven process where learners collaboratively construct solutions to real-world problems, supported by facilitators who scaffold rather than dictate learning.

Active student engagement

Learners interact dynamically with problems, constructing deeper and more durable understanding compared to passive information transmission.

Self-directed learning

After collaboratively determining knowledge deficits, students independently navigate information sources, develop personalized learning plans, and cultivate habits essential for sustained lifelong learning.

Collaborative problem-solving

Group interactions within PBL promote critical thinking, communication, and teamwork skills, which are vital for professional practice and ongoing personal growth. 

Reflection and self-assessment

Regular reflective activities enable learners to monitor and regulate cognitive and metacognitive strategies, reinforcing self-regulated learning capabilities.

Constructivist learning framework

PBL aligns with constructivist theories, whereby learners actively construct knowledge by linking new information to prior experiences in authentic contexts, thereby enhancing transfer and retention.

Motivation and Responsibility

The authenticity and complexity of problems in PBL bolster intrinsic motivation and learner responsibility, fostering engagement and deeper learning commitment.

 

Work-integrated Learning (WIL) is an educational approach that purposefully blends academic learning with practical work experiences directly related to students' disciplines. This method enhances the application of theoretical knowledge, development of employability skills, and encourages lifelong learning through structured partnerships involving three primary stakeholders: the student, the educational institution, and external workplace organizations such as industry partners or community groups. These partnerships ensure that learning activities are authentic and closely aligned with professional contexts, facilitating meaningful integration between theory and practice.

Key components of WIL supported by peer-reviewed research

This comprehensive framework ensures that WIL programs offer integrated, meaningful experiences that prepare students for complex, dynamic professional environments while meeting both academic and industry quality standards. The synergy between educational institutions, students, and employers forms the foundation of effective WIL, supporting employability, career readiness, and lifelong learning. 

Integration of Work and Academic Learning

WIL explicitly links theoretical curriculum content with workplace experiences. This connection allows students to apply classroom concepts in real-world environments, promoting skill acquisition, contextual understanding and professional readiness. 

Partnership Among Three Parties

Successful WIL depends on collaborative, shared responsibilities among students, academic institutions, and workplace organizations. These triadic partnerships embed purposeful work experiences within academic programs, benefiting both student learning and organizational talent development. 

Alignment with Learning Outcomes

WIL activities are deliberately designed to meet specified learning outcomes that map onto program goals, cultivating technical expertise, professional behaviors, employability, and capabilities for lifelong learning. 

Diverse Work Contexts and Activities

WIL encompasses a variety of forms, including internships, cooperative education, apprenticeships, practicums, service learning, industry-sponsored projects, and virtual engagements. These vary by discipline, duration, and timing within study programs. 

Curriculum Design and Assessment

Integration of WIL in curricula involves authentic, inclusive, and accessible learning and assessment tasks aligned with graduate capabilities and professional standards. Assessments often involve workplace partners to ensure relevance and validity.  

Student Support and Supervision

Targeted support such as mentoring, supervision, and structured reflection opportunities are critical to maximize student learning and professional growth during WIL placements. 

Experiential Learning Framework

WIL aligns with experiential learning theories, notably Kolb’s learning cycle, emphasizing iterative cycles of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation - promoting holistic, self-directed, and continuous learning. 

Professional and Personal Development Focus

Beyond technical skill development, WIL fosters professional identity formation, ethical practice, work ethic, and network building, enabling students to effectively engage with authentic workplace tasks and cultures.  

 

 

Service Learning (SL) is an experiential educational approach that integrates meaningful community service with structured preparation and reflection, enabling students to engage actively with social issues while deepening academic understanding and fostering civic responsibility. It is characterised by reciprocal partnerships between educational institutions and communities and emphasises reflection to link theory and practice with social impact.

Key ways service learning cultivates these outcomes, supported by peer-reviewed research

Active engagement with community issues

Research underscores that direct involvement in community service deepens students' understanding of social challenges and enhances their sense of civic responsibility and commitment to social justice. Service-learning cultivates student agency as change agents by embedding authentic societal problems into the learning experience, promoting critical civic engagement.

Development of empathy and social awareness

Empirical studies show that working with diverse and underserved populations during service learning fosters empathy, intercultural competence, and social awareness, motivating pro-social behavioral intentions.

Personal and ethical growth

Structured reflection practices integral to service learning promote self-awareness, ethical reasoning, resilience, and leadership development, preparing students to navigate complex societal contexts with integrity.

Application of academic knowledge to real-world problems

Service-learning bridges academic theory and practical application by enabling students to apply disciplinary knowledge collaboratively in authentic community settings, thereby reinforcing both cognitive and social learning outcomes. 

Building community networks

Through engagement, students foster meaningful relationships with community members and organizations, facilitating recognition of social interconnectedness and promoting ongoing civic participation.

Sustained civic engagement

Meta-analyses indicate service learning reliably enhances students’ long-term civic involvement by embedding values, skills, and motivation that extend beyond the classroom.

Co-creative classrooms represent an educational paradigm where students and educators collaboratively design the learning environment, including curriculum content, instructional methods, and assessment strategies.

Grounded in constructivist learning theory, curriculum co-creation privileges student perspectives and active participation, thereby transitioning learners from passive consumers of knowledge to empowered partners in their education. This collaborative engagement fosters shared responsibility, strengthens relational dynamics, and enhances student agency and intrinsic motivation throughout the learning process.

Peer-reviewed scholarship identifies several core dimensions of co-creation within educational contexts

Empirical evidence across multiple higher education settings consistently demonstrates that curriculum co-creation deepens learning engagement, heightens student motivation, strengthens relationships, and fosters co-responsibility for education. This approach not only advances academic success but also nurtures lifelong learning dispositions and democratic pedagogical practices aligned with the principles of student-as-partner scholarship.

Shared responsibility and negotiated power

Curriculum co-creation is fundamentally a relational and values-based practice built on mutual respect, trust, empathy, and care between students and faculty. It involves continuous negotiation and partnership, balancing instructor expertise with meaningful student influence over curricular decisions concerning content and pedagogy. This approach aligns with the student-as-partner framework which foregrounds collaborative agency and power-sharing to reconceptualize traditional hierarchical roles in academia.

Enhanced engagement through meaningful collaboration

Active involvement in designing curricular elements renders learning personally relevant and culturally responsive, thus boosting intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and commitment. Students often characterize co-creative learning as imaginative, constructive, and generative, fostering creativity and innovation within the educational experience.

Development of a supportive learning community

Co-creation disrupts conventional academic hierarchies by cultivating inclusive, dialogic, and trusting environments. Such spaces promote a sense of belonging and communal ownership among students and instructors, which supports peer learning and reinforces learners’ identities as active stakeholders in shaping their education.

Empowerment and increased agency

Through negotiation and shared decision-making, students develop enhanced confidence, motivation, and responsibility in their educational journeys. This empowerment fosters learner agency, promoting accountability and sustained enthusiasm for academic participation and lifelong learning.

Improved relationships and mutual benefits

Open, honest communication cultivates mutual understanding of roles and shared goals, producing an inclusive atmosphere that values diverse voices. Both students and staff report that co-creation leads to mutual enjoyment, professional growth, and transformative learning outcomes.

 

References and resources

The following articles explore PBL across different educational practices and contribute to its effectiveness and challenges in education.

  • Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (68), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804
  • Dolmans, D. H. J. M., De Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2005). Problem-based learning: Future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education, 39(7), 732–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02205.x
  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  • Etherington, M. (2011). The effect of problem-based learning on student engagement and motivation: A case study in a high school science context. Journal of Educational Research, 104(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903518592
  • Karmila, Y., Nurhadianto, T., & Ramadhani, H. (2023). Problem-based learning in research method courses: Enhancing learning outcomes and reducing plagiarism. F1000Research, 12, 951. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130305.1
  • Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7
  • McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40–49. 
  • Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002
  • Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046
  • Su, T., Liu, J., Meng, L., Luo, Y., Ke, Q., & Xie, L. (2025). The effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) in enhancing critical thinking skills in medical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1565556

The following resources explore WIL from and support the understanding of its impact on student’s learning experience and higher education practice. 
  • Billett, S. (2014). Integrating practice-based experiences into higher education. In P. Gibbs & N. K. Bowpitt (Eds.), Sustaining Higher Education: International Perspectives on Education Policy (pp. 128-140). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04497-7_10
  • CEWIL Canada. (2021). Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) Definitions. Retrieved from https://cewilcanada.ca/CEWIL/CEWIL/About-Us/Work-Integrated-Learning.aspx
  • Lasrado, F., Dean, B., & Eady, M. (2024). University-workplace partnerships in work-integrated learning: A scoping review. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning.
  • McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 337-348. 
  • Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2009). The WIL (work-integrated learning) report: A national scoping study. Queensland University of Technology.
  • Sikender, F. (2022). Main types of work integrated learning, key features and stakeholder responsibilities. Concordia University.
  • Trede, F., Macklin, R., & Bridges, D. (2012). Professional identity development: A review of the higher education literature. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 365-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.521237
  • Zegwaard, K. E., Coll, R. K., Hodges, D., & Korte, R. (2014). Enhancing work-integrated learning assessment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(4), 325-338. 

The listed articles address SL and highlight its implications to students’ academic experience and community engagement.

  • Billig, S. H., & Welch, M. (2004). Service-learning and student engagement. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(3), 281–299.
  • Celio, C. I., Durlak, J., & Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service-learning on students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(2), 164-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591103400205
  • Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? Jossey-Bass. 
  • Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In B. Taylor (Ed.), Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning (pp. 2–6). Corporation for National and Community Service.
  • Hakuta, Y., & Rodriguez, R. (2017). The role of community partnerships in service learning projects. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 9(1), 45-56.
  • Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. Jossey-Bass.
  • Lin, N., & Shek, D. T. L. (2021). Service-learning and positive youth development: An evaluation of a social work course in Hong Kong. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031321
  • McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40–49.
  • Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.0049

 

The following literature investigates co-creation within educational contexts and offers insights on student–faculty partnerships and shared knowledge building.

  • Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2016). Student co-creation for active learning: An exploratory study. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(4), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2016.1154102
  • Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2018). Co-creation of knowledge in higher education online learning environments: How shared knowledge building fosters motivation and engagement in online learning. Internet and Higher Education, 38, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.06.003
  • Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2018). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. Jossey-Bass.
  • Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. (2023). Conceptualisations of curriculum co-creation: ‘It’s not them and us, it’s just us.’ Higher Education, 85(2), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00731-3
  • Matthews, K. E. (2018). Student–staff partnerships to support student retention: A student-as-partner approach to first-year student success. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 926–939. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1207519