464
A. Schlickmann et al.
sustainability (Larran Jorge et al. 2016). And while the educational dimension is the
cornerstone of the university system, most assessment tools cannot adequately assess
that specific dimension. Studies have shown that despite its importance within the
university system, the educational dimension is the least addressed (Amaral et al.
2015).
Concomitant with the findings of Amaral et al. (2015), one of Shriberg’s (2002)
criticisms of revised interinstitutional assessment tools is the inclusion of sustainability education as a central part of curricula. More work is needed to substantiate
the hitherto underrepresented fields of a university’s involvement in sustainability,
namely education and research (Yarime and Tanaka 2012; Fischer et al. 2015; Waheed
et al. 2011a, b).
Amaral et al. (2015), Ferreira et al. (2010) and Henri and Journeault (2010) argue
that sustainability management in a university would be facilitated if the procedure
used to implement sustainability was aligned with the tool used to evaluate its performance. However, the diversity of academic perspectives created a variety of insights
and made it difficult to build a theoretical foundation in the field of performance
measurement and management (Bititci et al. 2018).
Santos et al. (2006) state that “the production of knowledge begins with the search
for information about what was previously produced”. Taking this premise as a
starting point for establishing a common theoretical basis for researchers regarding
environmental education assessment in the context of HEIs, this study focuses on
(1) identifying the main sustainability assessment tools in higher education, based
on in a Bibliographic Portfolio (PB) composed of 58 articles, selected through the
Knowledge Development Process—Construtivist (ProKnow-C) intervention instrument and (2) to elaborate a framework of indicators for the aspect of environmental
education.
The justification of the work includes scientific and practical aspects. Scientifically, this research will identify the status quo about what the academy has produced
in terms of assessment tools and indicators for the dimension of environmental education in HEIs. The highlights and lack of knowledge found can guide the advance of
the field towards a common theoretical base for researchers. In practical terms, the
built framework can be used as an audit tool in Brazilian HEIs.
There is a lack of research on the evaluation of sustainable development for
HEI in South America (Urquiza Gomez et al. 2015) and with application in Brazil,
only the study by Da Silva Junior et al. (2018) proposes a set of indicators for a
new academic category composed of four subcategories—institutional, university
management, financial and social and environmental responsibility. Therefore, the
unprecedentedness of this research involves the development of the indicator framework, focused exclusively on environmental education, based on the most recognized
assessment tools in the literature and for disregarding the presence of specialists, for
assigning weights to the indicators.
A. Schlickmann et al.
sustainability (Larran Jorge et al. 2016). And while the educational dimension is the
cornerstone of the university system, most assessment tools cannot adequately assess
that specific dimension. Studies have shown that despite its importance within the
university system, the educational dimension is the least addressed (Amaral et al.
2015).
Concomitant with the findings of Amaral et al. (2015), one of Shriberg’s (2002)
criticisms of revised interinstitutional assessment tools is the inclusion of sustainability education as a central part of curricula. More work is needed to substantiate
the hitherto underrepresented fields of a university’s involvement in sustainability,
namely education and research (Yarime and Tanaka 2012; Fischer et al. 2015; Waheed
et al. 2011a, b).
Amaral et al. (2015), Ferreira et al. (2010) and Henri and Journeault (2010) argue
that sustainability management in a university would be facilitated if the procedure
used to implement sustainability was aligned with the tool used to evaluate its performance. However, the diversity of academic perspectives created a variety of insights
and made it difficult to build a theoretical foundation in the field of performance
measurement and management (Bititci et al. 2018).
Santos et al. (2006) state that “the production of knowledge begins with the search
for information about what was previously produced”. Taking this premise as a
starting point for establishing a common theoretical basis for researchers regarding
environmental education assessment in the context of HEIs, this study focuses on
(1) identifying the main sustainability assessment tools in higher education, based
on in a Bibliographic Portfolio (PB) composed of 58 articles, selected through the
Knowledge Development Process—Construtivist (ProKnow-C) intervention instrument and (2) to elaborate a framework of indicators for the aspect of environmental
education.
The justification of the work includes scientific and practical aspects. Scientifically, this research will identify the status quo about what the academy has produced
in terms of assessment tools and indicators for the dimension of environmental education in HEIs. The highlights and lack of knowledge found can guide the advance of
the field towards a common theoretical base for researchers. In practical terms, the
built framework can be used as an audit tool in Brazilian HEIs.
There is a lack of research on the evaluation of sustainable development for
HEI in South America (Urquiza Gomez et al. 2015) and with application in Brazil,
only the study by Da Silva Junior et al. (2018) proposes a set of indicators for a
new academic category composed of four subcategories—institutional, university
management, financial and social and environmental responsibility. Therefore, the
unprecedentedness of this research involves the development of the indicator framework, focused exclusively on environmental education, based on the most recognized
assessment tools in the literature and for disregarding the presence of specialists, for
assigning weights to the indicators.