Education shapes the minds of the future. It instils values, thoughts, and methods in students, providing them with tools to comprehend the world in which they grow. As the forestry engineer Baba Dioum said: “in the end we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught”. With this in mind and with the strong conviction that, regardless of their field of study, students can make a change, I created an elective course named Sustainability in Academia. The course is offered to Bachelor and Master students at the Department of Astrophysics of the University of Vienna, as part of the newly updated astronomy curriculum, which started in September 2023, and requires that students earn European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) points for a module called Science and Society. Courses in such module address topics that include gender equality, diversity, climate change, and sustainability.

The series of lectures on Sustainability in Academia took place from October 2023 to January 2024, with six lectures of 90 minutes each. Fifteen students followed the course. They were graded based on their participation (40%) and on a final assessment (60%, see Sect. 4). The learning objectives were the following:

The lecture series is divided into six sessions. Due to the limited amount of hours - nine hours in total - for this class, only a very general introduction on sustainability is provided to students. The first introductory lecture gives students a basic understanding on the state of climate change and defined key concepts and resources such as sustainability, the sustainable development goals, the three pillars of sustainability (ecology, society, and economy), the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports¹ and the state of climate change. The planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009) and the doughnut economics (Raworth, 2017) are also presented, the latest being a sustainable alternative to the classical vision of the economy. Based on the definition from the United Nations Brundtland Commission that sustainability is “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”², students were asked to reflect in pairs on which parts of academia are sustainable and which are not. The last part of the lecture was dedicated to discussing their answers.

Through the course, academia was defined as: “Teaching, studying, and scientific work that occurs in colleges and universities”, therefore the following two lectures were devoted, respectively, to higher education (emphasizing teaching and studying) and to sustainability in research.

In the second lecture, I presented the current worldwide access to higher education using interactive maps from Ritchie et al. (2023), also available online³. I introduced the notion of carbon footprint, and the different sectors contributing to it at a university level (Helmers et al., 2021; Berné et al., 2022). Afterwards, I highlighted the challenges of higher education transformation. On the one hand, universities must adapt to external pressures and expectations arising from heightened competition, accreditation requirements, funding considerations, and more. On the other hand, simultaneously, they have to be accountable to society, generating public value for both present and future students, as well as other stakeholders (Argento et al., 2020; Žalėnienė & Pereira, 2021), creating an apparent conflict and inertia in the transition. Finally, I emphasized the role of teaching in creating the next generation of leaders and empowering students into action, using resources from UNESCO⁴. The last part of the lecture was dedicated to allow students to reflect on their values, and to the case study detailed in Section 3.

In the third lecture tackling sustainability in research, I delved into the carbon footprint of astrophysical research (Jahnke et al., 2020; Martin et al., 2022; Knödlseder et al., 2022; Knödlseder, 2024). I particularly emphasized the contribution of mobility, and the correlation between CO₂ emissions from flights and the academic position of travelers (Stevens et al., 2020). We explored the impact of traveling on scientific work and publications (Wynes et al., 2019; Berné et al., 2022). A large part of the lecture was dedicated to discussing the following questions: Should we slow down the pace of new missions? How can we combine astronomy and sustainability?

The fourth lecture was the most crucial in the series. We explored various stakeholders in higher education (Chapleo & Sims, 2010) to offer students insights into potential actors and their roles, placing them at the centre of the transition as key stakeholders. This enabled the students to consider the problem of sustainable transition from various angles. Some of the teaching methods employed in this session have been inspired by the climate fresk workshop⁵ and are presented in Section 3.

The fifth lecture was dedicated to the final assessment, detailed in Section 4.

The content of the last lecture was decided together with students to offer them the chance to go deeper in some of the topics, and to have a final discussion to close the course. After brainstorming on various ideas, they decided to talk about the latest COP28⁶, which was mentioned several times during the lectures as it took place during the course. Two guest speakers were invited, to present a brief history of COPs, and to talk about their experience attending such conferences, and actively engaging with students.

During the first lecture, I focused on creating a positive course environment, conducive to discussion, to make students feel safe and comfortable to speak up. In general, I tried to apply the 3 H model for teaching head, heart, hands. Head refers to the cognitive aspect (i.e., how students think), encouraging them to analyse and reflect on an issue. Heart refers to the affective aspect, emotions and feelings, how do they feel about a specific task or question. Finally, hands refer to action and practicality. The integration of these three dimensions emphasizes the importance of nurturing not only intellectual growth but also emotional intelligence and the ability to apply acquired knowledge in real-world scenarios.

I aimed for the course to be very interactive. Each session started with a quiz to either introduce the lecture of the day or recap the previous one. This was very useful to engage students from the beginning. In each session, at least 30 minutes were dedicated to discussing a specific question or aspect, guided by the learning objectives, to prepare the students for the final assessment.

Specific teaching methods were used in some of the lectures. They are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Table summarizing the teaching methods used in the course. The lecture, the teaching method, and the goals are presented in the first, second and third columns respectively.

Throughout the course, students had to defend and discuss their position on different questions relating to sustainability. These frequent debates prepared them for the final assessment, which took the format of a Model United Nations (MUN) debate, where I acted as the moderator. Such a format was elected to shift from the usual competition present in debates to a collaboration-oriented mindset, an aspect crucial to tackling the current challenges humanity is facing. The general concept is briefly explained here, and the slides introducing the assessment are available with other resources (see the resources section).

Students formed groups of two or three and selected a country that they would represent during the MUN debate. The goal was to debate two problems:

To help students prepare their arguments I introduced key questions a month in advance. They were instructed to reflect on these questions, as a starting point, and to highlight key measures for global consideration. They handed in their draft proposal before the day of the evaluation. This enabled me, as the moderator of the debate, to read through them and structure the debate. During the debate, which was divided into one round per question, students briefly summarized their solutions, then they engaged in discussions, formed alliances, and collectively agreed on key measures for each problem.

I collected feedback from students after every second lecture, to continuously incorporate their suggestions, and a final feedback form at the end of the course. An effective feedback method involved providing students with post-it notes at the end of the lecture, asking them to write what they liked and disliked. They could then anonymously place the post-it notes on the back side of a rotating blackboard. Additionally, a final questionnaire was distributed, asking students to grade specific aspects of the course and provide open-ended comments.

Some of the results are shown in Figure 1. The overall satisfaction with the assessment format, course environment, and the course itself was high, except for one student, who found it challenging to engage in discussions, particularly during the MUN debate.

Students expressed a strong preference for quizzes and discussions during lectures, desiring even more dedicated time for these activities. They gradually increased participation in the discussions through the lecture series, suggesting that such lecture format successfully cultivated critical thinking and favoured an active engagement of the students with the course material. Constructive feedback on the MUN debate included a desire for more diverse countries to be represented and a slightly improved structure and moderation for the debate. The students particularly benefited from the final lecture with external speakers, with whom they actively interacted asking many relevant questions, showing good competence on the course topics and a high interest and motivation in scrutinize them further.

In summary, the course, along with its diverse teaching methods, effectively involved students in discussions, positioning them as active participants in their learning journey. However, it is noteworthy that a few students were less engaged, particularly during the MUN debate; possible ways to enhance their pro-activity and comfort in participation should be addressed. Furthermore, given the demand for more dedicated time for discussions, as expressed by several students, increasing the percentage of lectures dedicated to this purpose from approximately one-third to half or two-thirds could be beneficial. Careful consideration is required to ensure that this adjustment does not compromise the information and knowledge conveyed in the course. Introducing homework assignments, such as reading articles or watching videos, could be a potential solution to strike the right balance. Encouraging students to take a course on human behavior and impact on the environment, tackling broader concepts such as the biodiversity loss, the emotional and psychological response to the climate crisis, and more, would be a way to provide them with all the background required to adequately understand the issue of sustainability in academia and think of solutions. This could also be done through educational workshops such as the Climate Fresk to avoid overloading a curriculum already busy.

Finally, the resources and teaching methods presented in this article can be used beyond astronomy. In 2024, the course has been extended to include students from different scientific disciplines such as informatics, biology, geography, and cover the broader scope of sustainability in scientific research. More information is available in Fréour (2024).

Most of the resources used in the lecture series are available in the Google Drive folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UWQxW08FxoVp_ZAAdOfrfSj4nUg71uPr?usp=sharing. A ReadMe document introduces the different files available: lecture slides, MUN debate for the evaluation, and results from the MUN debate.

I would like to thank the two anonymous referees for their valuable input which improved the quality of this article and of the resources used. I would also like to express my gratitude to Tadeja Veršič for her careful reading and constructive comments, which significantly enhanced the clarity of this paper. Additionally, I am thankful to Alice Zocchi for her support and assistance throughout the lecture series, as well as for providing valuable comments on this paper.

Argento, D., Einarson, D., Mårtensson, L., Persson, C., Wendin, K., and Westergren, A. (2020). Integrating sustainability in higher education: a swedish case. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2019-0292

Berné, O., Agier, L., Hardy, A., Lellouch, E., Aumont, O., Mariette, J., and Ben-Ari, T. (2022). The carbon footprint of scientific visibility. Environmental Research Letters, 17(12):124008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac9b51

Chapleo, C. and Sims, C. (2010). Stakeholder analysis in higher education. Perspectives, 14:12–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603100903458034

Fréour, L. L. (2024). Shifting narratives: from multiple stellar populations in globular clusters to sustainability. PhD thesis, University of Vienna. https://utheses.univie.ac.at/detail/74146/

Helmers, E., Chang, C., and Dauwels, J. (2021). Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide: Part i—objective comparison by standardized metrics. Environmental Sciences Europe, 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00454-6

Jahnke, K., Fendt, C., Fouesneau, M., Georgiev, I., Herbst, T., Kaasinen, M., Kossakowski, D., Rybizki, J., Schlecker, M., Seidel, G., Henning, T., Kreidberg, L., and Rix, H.-W. (2020). An astronomical institute’s perspective on meeting the challenges of the climate crisis. Nature Astronomy, 4:812–815. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-020-1202-4

Knödlseder, J. (2024). The carbon footprint of astronomical observatories. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2409.04054. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.04054

Knödlseder, J., Brau-Nogué, S., Coriat, M., Garnier, P., Hughes, A., Martin, P., and Tibaldo, L. (2022). Estimate of the carbon footprint of astronomical research infrastructures. Nature Astronomy, 6:503–513. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01612-3

Martin, P., Brau-Nogué, S., Coriat, M., Garnier, P., Hughes, A., Knödlseder, J., and Tibaldo, L. (2022). The carbon footprint of IRAP. arXiv e-prints. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.12362

Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing. https://books.google.at/books?id=7A4lDgAAQBAJ

Ritchie, H., Samborska, V., Ahuja, N., Ortiz-Ospina, E., and Roser, M. (2023). Global education. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/global-education

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, î, Chapin, III, F. S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., and Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc., 14(2):32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232

Stevens, A. R. H., Bellstedt, S., Elahi, P. J., and Murphy, M. T. (2020). The imperative to reduce carbon emissions in astronomy. Nature Astronomy, 4:843–851. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-020-1169-1

Wynes, S., Donner, S. D., Tannason, S., and Nabors, N. (2019). Academic air travel has a limited influence on professional success. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226:959–967. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.109

Žalėnienė, I. and Pereira, P. (2021). Higher education for sustainability: A global perspective. Geography and Sustainability, 2(2):99–106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2021.05.001