Sustainability and English Teachers' Professional Development Needs in the Era of Türkiye Century Education Model

Abstract

The Türkiye Century Education Model, the recent curriculum reform, positions sustainability literacy as an explicit goal of English language learning and expects teachers to integrate sustainability-related themes and competencies into ELT (English Language Teaching) classrooms. However, sustainability is often treated as the responsibility of other subject areas; thus, there is limited evidence on whether English teachers possess the sustainability-related competencies and receive professional support needed to meet the curricular expectations. Addressing this gap, the present study investigated English teachers’ sustainability-related competencies through the lens of environmental literacy and examined how teachers understand ESD, integrate sustainability into ELT and articulate their professional development needs. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, an online Environmental Literacy Questionnaire was administered to 372 English teachers, followed by semi-structured interviews with 12 participants. The quantitative results indicated broadly positive orientations toward sustainability and sustainability integration into ELT. However, participants demonstrated only moderate environmental knowledge and engagement in environmental behaviors, with routine low-cost actions reported more frequently than civic or collective forms of participation. Qualitative findings converged with these patterns. Most teachers supported sustainability integration in principle but reported limited familiarity with ESD and tended to address sustainability mainly when coursebooks thematized it. Only a small minority described sustained integration, typically under more flexible school conditions. Overall, the findings suggest that successful implementation of sustainability will require systematic, practice-oriented professional training that strengthens conceptual understanding of ESD/SDGs, models ELT-appropriate pedagogies, and supports materials adaptation within curricular constraints.

Keywords

• Education for sustainable development
• environmental literacy
• sustainability
• English language teachers
• curriculum

Supporting Institution

This study was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Bursa Uludağ University under project code SDK-2024-1728

Project Number

SDK-2024-1728

Ethical Statement

Bursa Uludağ University Social and Human Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee stated that the research was ethically appropriate and granted permission to conduct the study (23.06.2023 / Meeting No: 2023-06 / Decision No: 3). All the information in the article was obtained within the framework of academic integrity, and the principles of publication ethics were followed during the article writing process.

Türkiye Yüzyıl Maarif Modeli Döneminde Sürdürülebilirlik ve İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Mesleki Gelişim İhtiyaçları

Abstract

Sürdürülebilirlik, dünya genelinde eğitim politikalarının temel bir endişesi haline gelmiş olsa da İngilizce öğretimine pratik entegrasyonu hâlâ belirsizliğini korumaktadır. Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli olarak bilinen güncel müfredat değişikliği, sürdürülebilirliği Türk eğitim sisteminde disiplinler arası temel okuryazarlık becerilerinden biri olarak konumlandırmaktadır. Ancak, İngilizce öğretmenlerinin bu yeni beklentileri karşılamaya ne kadar hazır oldukları ve ne tür mesleki gelişim olanaklarına ihtiyaç duydukları konusunda sınırlı bilgi bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, İngilizce öğretmenlerinin çevre okuryazarlığını ve sürdürülebilirliği İngilizce öğretimine entegre etme konusundaki mesleki gelişim ihtiyaçlarını incelemektedir. Karma yöntem tasarımının benimsendiği araştırmada, 372 İngilizce öğretmeninden nicel veriler çevre okuryazarlığı anketi aracılığıyla, nitel veriler ise 12 katılımcıyla yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla toplanmıştır. Anket, çevre bilgisi, tutum ve davranışlarını ölçerken; görüşmeler, öğretmenlerin algıladıkları çevre okuryazarlığı düzeylerini, Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Eğitimi (SKE) çerçevesine aşinalıklarını ve mesleki gelişim gereksinimlerini ortaya koymaktadır. Bulgular, öğretmenlerin genel olarak olumlu çevre tutumlarına sahip olduklarını, ancak orta düzeyde bilgi ve değişken çevre davranışları sergilediklerini göstermiştir. Öğretmenler, kolektif veya savunuculuk temelli davranışlardan ziyade, daha çok günlük çevreci uygulamaları benimseme eğilimindedir. Ayrıca, daha önce katıldıkları sürdürülebilirlik eğitimlerinin çevre bilgisi veya tutumlarını anlamlı ölçüde etkilemediği, ancak çevreci davranışlara daha yüksek katılım ile ilişkili olduğu görülmüştür. Görüşme verileri, öğretmenlerin SKE’ye ilişkin kavramsal anlayışlarının sınırlı olduğunu ve sürdürülebilirlik konularını ele almak için genellikle ders kitabı materyallerine başvurduklarını ortaya koymuştur. Katılımcılar, pratik, deneyimsel ve bağlamsal olarak anlamlı mesleki gelişim fırsatlarına ihtiyaç duyduklarını belirtmiş. Genel olarak çalışma, sürdürülebilirliğin hem hizmet öncesi hem de hizmet içi dil öğretmeni eğitimine sistematik biçimde entegre edilmesi gerektiğini ve uzun vadeli, disiplinler arası, uygulamaya yönelik mesleki gelişim programlarının İngilizce öğretmenlerinin sürdürülebilirliği dil öğretimiyle ilişkilendirmelerine yardımcı olabileceğini öne sürmektedir.

Keywords

• Sürdürülebilir kalkınma eğitimi
• çevre okuryazarlığı
• sürdürülebilirlik
• İngilizce öğretmenleri
• müfredat

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışma, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi tarafından SDK-2024-1728 proje kodu kapsamında desteklenmiştir.

Project Number

SDK-2024-1728

Ethical Statement

Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Kurulu, araştırmanın etik açıdan uygun olduğunu belirterek çalışmanın yapılmasına izin vermiştir (23.06.2023 / Toplantı No: 2023-06 / Karar No: 3). Makaledeki tüm bilgiler akademik dürüstlük çerçevesinde elde edilmiş olup, makale yazım sürecinde yayın etiği ilkelerine uyulmuştur.

References

1. Alghamdi, A. K. H., & El-Hassan, W. S. (2019). Raising Saudi students’ (energy) sustainability awareness through ESL – Teachers’ thoughts. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 21(1), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2019-0011
2. Arıkan, A., & Zorba, M. G. (2024). Raising pre-service English language teachers’ awareness of sustainable development goals through literary texts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25(8), 1681–1695. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2023-0256
3. Arslan, S., & Curle, S. (2024). Institutionalising English as a foreign language teachers for global sustainability: Perceptions of education for sustainable development in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Research, 125, Article 102353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102353
4. Bedir, H. (2021). English language teachers’ beliefs and perceptions on sustainability. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(2), 1880–1895.
5. Borg, C., Gericke, N., Höglund, H.-O., & Bergman, E. (2012). The barriers encountered by teachers implementing education for sustainable development: Discipline bound differences and teaching traditions. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(2), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2012.699891
6. Borg, C., Gericke, N., Höglund, H.-O., & Bergman, E. (2014). Subject- and experience-bound differences in teachers’ conceptual understanding of sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 20(4), 526–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833584
7. Canaran, Ö., & Bayram, İ. (2024). English language teacher trainers’ capacity building in sustainable development goals through MOOCs. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25(3), 445–469. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2022-0228
8. Coyle, K. (2005). Environmental literacy in America: What ten years of NEETF/roper research and related studies say about environmental literacy in the U.S. The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED522820.pdf

9. Disinger, J. F., & Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED351201.pdf
10. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
11. Hollweg, K. S., Taylor, J. R., Bybee, R. W., Marcinkowski, T. J., McBeth, W. C., & Zoido, P. (2011). Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy. North American Association for Environmental Education. https://cdn.naaee.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/devframewkassessenvlitonlineed.pdf
12. Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743
13. Kazazoğlu, S. (2025). Environmental education through eco-literacy: Integrating sustainability into English language teaching. Sustainability, 17(5), 2156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052156
14. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
15. Kuzu, E., Karaoğlu, M., & Türemiş, N. (2024). Exploring ecological literacy and environmental attitudes in preservice teachers for sustainable education. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(3), 3501-3517.
16. Kwee, C. T. T. (2021). I want to teach sustainable development in my English classroom: A case study of incorporating sustainable development goals in English teaching. Sustainability, 13(8), 4195. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084195
17. Lenziardi, R., Méxas, M. P., Lucas, M., & Sá, P. (2025). Enhancing teacher competences in education for sustainable development (ESD): A value-oriented framework. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 27(1), 6–32. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2025-0002
18. Maijala, M., Gericke, N., Kuusalu, S.-R., Heikkola, L. M., Mutta, M., Mäntylä, K., & Rose, J. (2024). Conceptualising transformative language teaching for sustainability and why it is needed. Environmental Education Research, 30(3), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2167941
19. Maijala, M., Heikkola, L. M., Kuusalu, S.-R., Laine, P., Mutta, M., & Mäntylä, K. (2026). Pre-service language teachers’ perceptions of sustainability and its implementation in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 30(4), 2130–2159. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231170682
20. Mason, M., Savvani, S., & Taylor, K. (2024). Embedding sustainability into English language teacher-training. Open Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 80-95. https://doi.org/10.56230/osotl.83
21. Mercer, S., Correia Ibrahim, N., Bilsborough, K., Jones, C., & Potzinger, C. (2023). Teacher perspectives on addressing environmental issues in ELT. ELT Journal, 77(4), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccac039
22. Ministry of National Education. (2018). İngilizce dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812411191321-İNGİLİZCE%20ÖĞRETİM%20PROGRAMI%20Klasörü.pdf
23. Ministry of National Education. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli (Öğretim programları ortak metni). https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/ortak-metin
24. Ministry of National Education. (2025a). The English language curriculum (Years 2–3–4–5–6–7–8). https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/program/ingilizce-dersi-2-8.pdf
25. Ministry of National Education. (2025b). The English language curriculum (Years 9–10–11–12. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/program/ingilizce_9_12_ogretim_programi.pdf Özonur, M. (2021). An investigation of prospective teachers' awareness toward environmental issues: An investigation of prospective teachers' awareness. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(2), 1845-1856.
26. Rieckmann, M. (2019). Education for sustainable development in teacher education—An international perspective. In S. Lahiri (Ed.), Environmental education (pp. 33–48). Springer.
27. Sahin, E., Ertepinar, H., & Teksoz, G. (2012). University students’ behaviors pertaining to sustainability: A structural equation model with sustainability-related attributes. International Journal of Environmental and Science, 7(3), 459–478.
28. Sund, P., & Gericke, N. (2020). Teaching contributions from secondary school subject areas to education for sustainable development—A comparative study of science, social science and language teachers. Environmental Education Research, 26(6), 772–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1754341
29. Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2017). Teacher agency and identity commitment in curricular reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.010
30. Tavakkoli, Z., & Rashidi, N. (2020). A study on the status of sustainability education among Iranian EFL instructors: Developing a glocalized model. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 22(2), 66–89. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2020-0017
31. Tuncer, G., Tekkaya, C., Sungur, S., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Kaplowitz, M. (2009). Assessing pre-service teachers’ environmental literacy in Turkey as a mean to develop teacher education programs. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(4), 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.10.003
32. Uitto, A., & Saloranta, S. (2017). Subject teachers as educators for sustainability: A survey study. Education Sciences, 7(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010008
33. UNESCO. (2014). Roadmap for implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000230514.locale=en
34. UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. https://stairwaytosdg.eu/images/UNESCO_Education_for_Sustainable_Development_Goals_ENG.pdf
35. UNESCO. (2018). UNESCO Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development: Information folder. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246270
36. UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246270
37. United Nations. (2019). Turkey’s 2nd VNR 2019: Strong ground towards common goals. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/23862Turkey_VNR_110719.pdf
38. Yavetz, B., Goldman, D., & Pe’er, S. (2009). Environmental literacy of pre-service teachers in Israel: A comparison between students at the onset and end of their studies. Environmental Education Research, 15(4), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620902928422
39. Yılmaz Fındık, L., Bayram, İ., & Canaran, Ö. (2021). Pre-service English language teachers’ conceptions of sustainable development: A case from Turkish higher education context. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(2), 423–456. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2020-0202
40. Yu, B., Guo, W. Y., & Fu, H. (2024). Sustainability in English language teaching: Strategies for empowering students to achieve the sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 16(8), 3325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083325