Abstract
Background: Over the past three decades, there has been significant advocacy for inclusivity in school education. However, research has shown that teachers lack the necessary inclusive pedagogical skills. This problem can be traced back to teacher education. Structural and systemic challenges hinder the ability of teacher education to respond effectively to inclusive education.
Aim: The study examined how inclusive education can be strengthened in teacher education through Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Change Projects. Education for Sustainable Development is recognised as an empowering framework to support inclusive education. Change Projects are action-oriented initiatives focused on addressing a shared problem for transformative change.
Setting: The research was conducted at a teacher training college in Malawi. This college participated in the Sustainability Starts with Teachers (SST) programme, which aimed to build capacity among teacher-educators to advance ESD in Southern Africa.
Methods: The study was grounded in ESD as a meta-theoretical framework and supported by Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory, which emphasises social learning – learning becomes more effective through social interactions and with the guidance of more knowledgeable others. A qualitative case study approach was used. Data collection involved interviews and workshops.
Results: Findings indicated that curriculum rigidity and insufficient resources may limit teacher capacity development for inclusive education. Still, participants demonstrated cognitive growth and agency through community mobilisation, leadership initiatives, monitoring processes and entrepreneurial skills development.
Conclusion: The study concluded that ESD through social learning offers a collaborative and transformative space for professional development. This enabled teacher-educators to engage pre-service teachers in critical praxis for inclusive education.
Contribution: This research provides evidence that ESD Change Projects, through social learning, capacitated teacher-educators to overcome barriers to inclusivity. The insights emphasise the importance of ESD for educational change and teacher capacity development in Malawi. These outcomes align with calls for transformative approaches to teacher education across Africa.
Keywords: Education for Sustainable Development (ESD); inclusive education; Malawi; social learning; teacher education.
Introduction
Globally, inclusive education occupies a central position in contemporary educational discourse, but its realisation looks faltering (Walton 2025). In Southern Africa, teacher education has faced structural and pedagogical challenges, including a lack of capacity among teacher-educators, which has impacted responses to inclusive education in schools, as teachers are not adequately trained to support learners with diverse educational needs (Muthukrishna & Engelbrecht 2018). In Malawi, despite progressive policy commitments to inclusion, education continues to reflect structural exclusions, with curricula and pedagogical practices failing to meaningfully engage with diverse learner needs (Chitiyo et al. 2019; Malawi Ministry of Education 2020). These challenges are exacerbated by limited institutional resources and insufficient professional preparation for teachers to adapt pedagogy to heterogeneous classrooms (Banks et al. 2022). Given that teacher-educators are key agents in shaping the professional identities, capacities and commitments of pre-service teachers, their ability to negotiate inclusive practices in constrained institutional environments has profound implications for achieving equitable and sustainable education (Rončević & Rieckmann 2025). Therefore, ongoing efforts to reorient teacher education systems are needed to better respond to diversity, reduce marginalisation and mainstream inclusivity as a cross-cutting principle of educational transformation (Muthukrishna & Engelbrecht 2018).
While research has shown the persistent gap between inclusive education policy frameworks and classroom practice (Hernández-Torrano, Somerton & Helmer 2022), there has been limited engagement with the learning processes through which teacher-educators themselves come to understand, enact and sustain inclusivity in their professional contexts. Moreover, studies have approached inclusive education and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) as parallel but distinct reform agendas. This approach leaves their conceptual and practical intersections in transforming teacher education underexplored (O’Donoghue & Rončević 2020; Rončević & Rieckmann 2025). This study positions the convergence of inclusive education and ESD in a social learning perspective, conceived as a collective, dialogic and reflexive process through which participants co-construct meaning, challenge institutional norms and develop transformative pedagogical practices (Lindley 2015). Thus, ESD, through social learning, provides a critical lens for examining how change emerges through collaboration and reflection in the pursuit of more inclusive and sustainable forms of teacher education.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to examine how social learning processes in the ESD Change Project, implemented through UNESCO’s Sustainability Starts with Teachers (SST) programme, enabled teacher-educators in Malawi to re-imagine and negotiate inclusive pedagogies in their institutional contexts. Specifically, the study aims to:
- Identify teacher education systems recognised for inclusivity in the ESD Change Project.
- Examine how these systems constrained or enabled inclusivity in teacher education.
- Investigate how such constraints were renegotiated through ESD-related social learning.
Elsewhere (see De Souza 2024, 2025), I have reported on the same Change Project with a different focus. In this Change Project, teacher-educators involved in the SST programme developed an ESD-oriented Change Project with two goals: (1) to recycle waste into inclusive teaching and learning materials that could demonstrate inclusive pedagogies within teacher education and potentially in schools, and (2) to recycle waste into cooking energy to prevent the communities around the college from cutting down trees. Therefore, the purpose of reporting this Change Project here is to understand how teacher-educators engaged with the ESD Change Project and how it facilitated the development of inclusive practices and pedagogies. Through this focus, the study contributes theoretically by extending understandings of social learning as a mechanism for institutional transformation in teacher education. It also empirically offers new insights into how ESD initiatives can serve as platforms for promoting inclusive pedagogies in resource-constrained contexts.
Literature review
Conceptualising inclusive education and teacher education
Inclusive education is a process of addressing and responding to the diverse learning needs of all learners by increasing participation and reducing exclusion within and from the education system (Slee 2018). It is not limited to accommodating learners with disabilities but extends to all forms of marginalisation arising from gender, socio-economic status, language, ethnicity and geographical location (Ainscow 2020). In the context of Malawi and similar Southern African systems, inclusivity requires a deep transformation of teacher education to prepare teachers who can work responsively and equitably with diverse learners (Muthukrishna & Engelbrecht 2018).
A critical distinction in the discourse on inclusion lies between physical accessibility and pedagogical adaptability. Physical accessibility refers to structural provisions, such as ramps, accessible classrooms or assistive technologies, that ensure learners’ physical presence in school environments (Ackah-Jnr & Danso 2019). However, inclusion cannot be realised solely through such infrastructural measures. Pedagogical adaptability, teachers’ ability to modify curriculum content, teaching strategies and assessment to accommodate learner diversity, is equally important (Westwood 2018). In Malawi, as in many low-resource contexts, teacher education tends to emphasise physical inclusion without sufficiently preparing teachers to exercise pedagogical flexibility (Chitiyo et al. 2019). This gap highlights the need for teacher education that promotes reflective practice, empathy and critical awareness. These capacities are central to inclusive pedagogies, which rest on the principle that difference is a resource for learning rather than a deficit to be managed (Florian & Black-Hawkins 2011). For teacher education, this implies practising inclusion not as an isolated module or policy statement but as a pervasive essence influencing curriculum design, institutional culture and assessment practices. Across Africa, studies show that how teacher-educators conceptualise inclusive education gives a model for inclusive pedagogies.
Education for Sustainable Development and its relevance to inclusion
Education for Sustainable Development provides a transformative framework through which teacher-educators can reconceptualise inclusion as integral to sustainability, that is, inclusion-oriented ESD (Rončević & Rieckmann 2025). Holistic and participatory principles of ESD emphasise learning that is transformative, future-oriented, value-driven and contextually responsive. It encourages educators to engage critically with environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability while promoting participation, collaboration and social justice (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2019). These principles create space for social learning, where learners and educators collectively reflect, negotiate and co-construct knowledge in pursuit of more just and sustainable futures.
In teacher education, ESD thus enables educators (both trainers and trainees) to shift their perceptions of inclusion from a narrow focus on disability to a broader understanding of participation, diversity and social justice (O’Donoghue & Roncevic 2020). By foregrounding equity and sustainability, ESD encourages educators to engage in critical reflection about whose voices are heard or excluded in educational processes (Rončević & Rieckmann 2024). For example, community-based sustainability projects involving teachers and local stakeholders have been shown to promote inclusive pedagogies that integrate local knowledge, promote gender equity and empower marginalised groups (Reeves 2019). In this way, ESD acts as both a pedagogical and institutional catalyst for actualising inclusivity as a lived practice rather than a policy rhetoric.
Education for Sustainable Development Change Project model in inclusive teacher education
The ESD Change Project model represents a participatory, action-oriented approach to professional and institutional transformation. The SST programme of UNESCO employed this model in alignment with SDG Target 4.7, which calls for education that promotes sustainable development, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2019). The Change Project approach invites participants, in this case teacher-educators, to design and implement practice-based interventions that respond to contextual challenges while reflecting ESD’s core values of agency, collaboration and reflexivity.
Through this model, educators engage in cycles of reflection and action that promote social learning in their institutional contexts. Studies across African higher education (e.g. Agbedahin 2016; Mandikonza 2016) show that participants in Change Projects experience shifts in professional identity and pedagogical habitus (Bourdieu 1990). These shifts occur as educators interrogate taken-for-granted assumptions and co-develop new practices aligned with sustainability and inclusion. Rather than reproducing established norms, the Change Project stimulates what Bourdieu (1990) calls a transformation of habitus, a reconfiguration of the dispositions and practices that structure teaching and learning. Mandikonza and Lotz-Sisitka (2016) demonstrate that this process builds educators’ agency to enact inclusive and sustainability-oriented change, which enables moving from compliance-based to reflective and contextually grounded pedagogical engagement. The participatory nature of the Change Project promotes inclusive pedagogies that value co-learning, community engagement and dialogic teaching. According to Rončević and Rieckmann (2025), these are key features of both inclusion and sustainability. As such, the model does not merely promote environmental awareness but supports the development of equitable, responsive and context-sensitive teacher education systems capable of addressing structural exclusions.
Theoretical framework
This study is framed in ESD as a meta-theoretical and analytical framework. Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of learning is the supporting theoretical lens. I use ESD as a meta-theory because it is not necessarily a theory but an educational approach with explanatory language on sustainability education. This theoretical framework provides a coherent structure for understanding how teacher-educators engage in social learning processes that enable shifts toward inclusive and sustainable pedagogical practice.
As articulated in recent scholarship (Rončević & Rieckmann 2025), ESD functions as a meta-theoretical framework because it offers a normative, epistemological and praxis-oriented foundation for rethinking education as a driver of systemic transformation. Education for Sustainable Development is not a discrete pedagogical method but a transformative paradigm that integrates values of equity, participation, justice and sustainability across all dimensions of educational practice. Its praxis orientation refers to the dialectical relationship between reflection and action – learning that is critical, participatory and grounded in lived contexts to promote both personal and societal transformation (Kostoulas-Makrakis 2010).
From a meta-theoretical standpoint, ESD provides the broader analytic lens through which inclusion is conceptualised as an ethical and epistemic imperative. The notion of inclusion-oriented ESD (Rončević & Rieckmann 2025) shows that sustainable education must address both ecological and social dimensions of justice. Within this framework, inclusive pedagogies are understood as pedagogical processes that recognise and respond to learner diversity, promote participation and actively dismantle entrenched exclusions, that is, institutional, curricular or attitudinal barriers that perpetuate marginalisation (Ainscow 2020). In this sense, ESD operates at three interrelated levels in this study: (1) normatively, it provides the ethical foundation for equity and inclusion as inseparable from sustainability; (2) analytically, it offers a framework to interpret how teacher-educators engage in social learning to negotiate inclusive pedagogies and (3) praxeologically, it underpins the concern with transforming educational structures and dispositions toward sustainability-oriented inclusion.
At the theoretical level, the study draws on Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory (1978), particularly the constructs of the Actual Developmental Level (ADL) and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), to explain how teacher-educators’ professional learning unfolds as a socially mediated process. The ADL represents an educator’s current capabilities and practices in existing institutional norms, while the ZPD denotes the potential for development that can be achieved through collaborative engagement, guidance and reflection. In the context of the ESD Change Project, these concepts illuminate how participants collectively navigate the space between their current pedagogical practices (ADL) and more inclusive, sustainability-oriented forms of practice (ZPD). The Change Project thus functions as a mediating process to facilitate movement across this developmental zone by promoting social learning, reflexivity and transformation of pedagogical habitus (Bourdieu 1990; Mandikonza & Lotz-Sisitka 2016).
Social learning serves as the operational mechanism through which inclusive and sustainable change occurs, through collaboration, dialogue and reflexive praxis (Lindley 2015). This process enables teacher-educators to critically examine entrenched exclusions, reconstruct their pedagogical assumptions and co-create inclusive approaches that align with sustainability principles. Therefore, the use of ESD and Vygotskian social learning provides a multilayered explanatory framework for analysing how teacher-educators engage in transformative praxis. The praxis orientation of ESD, learning through doing and reflecting in context, resonates with Vygotsky’s emphasis on socially mediated development. Both frameworks argue that transformation is iterative and relational: it emerges through shared inquiry, guided reflection and contextualised action.
Research methods and design
Study design
This study adopted a qualitative case study design (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2018), situated in a participatory orientation consistent with the praxis principles of ESD. The design sought to explore how teacher-educators, that is, lecturers responsible for training pre-service teachers in a Malawian teacher training college, engaged with the ESD Change Project as a platform for mainstreaming inclusive pedagogies in teacher education. The choice of a qualitative case study enabled an in-depth examination of social learning processes in a bounded institutional context where ESD-oriented transformation was already underway. This approach positioned me as a facilitator of collective reflection, not a detached observer, aligning with Vygotsky’s socio-cultural emphasis on guided learning and co-construction of knowledge.
Setting
The research took place at a public teacher training institution in Malawi, which participated in UNESCO’s SST programme. Through this programme, the institution had initiated an ESD Change Project aimed at practising inclusivity across the curriculum, teaching and institutional culture (see the introduction). This setting was therefore both relevant and strategic. It provided access to teacher-educators already engaged in sustainability-oriented reform. This offered a living example of how ESD principles are being operationalised in inclusive teacher education.
Study population and sampling
The study focused exclusively on teacher-educators involved in the ESD Change Project. These were professional lecturers responsible for preparing pre-service teachers in various subject areas, each of whom had previously participated in SST training or institutional ESD initiatives. A purposive sampling strategy (Ahmad & Wilkins 2025) was used to identify participants with direct experience of implementing inclusive pedagogical approaches in the ESD framework. Sampling ensured diversity in gender, years of teaching experience and departmental affiliation to capture a range of perspectives. Five teacher-educators participated in semi-structured interviews, allowing for individual reflection on inclusive education, social learning and institutional change. Twelve teacher-educators took part in collaborative workshops, which built on insights from the interviews to deepen shared analysis and co-develop inclusive pedagogical strategies in an ESD framework. All participants were based in the same institution but varied in academic rank and disciplinary background. Pre-service teachers were not included as direct participants, since the study’s focus was on teacher-educators’ learning and professional transformation.
Data generation
Data were generated through two complementary and sequential methods, semi-structured interviews and participatory workshops, to ensure methodological triangulation and depth of insight (Cohen et al. 2018). Semi-structured interviews were conducted first. These interviews explored participants’ prior experiences with the ESD Change Project, their understanding of inclusivity and perceived barriers and enablers to mainstreaming inclusive practices. Each interview lasted approximately 60 min and was audio-recorded with consent. The interviews provided baseline insights into existing pedagogical orientations, what Vygotsky terms the ADL, and informed the design of workshop activities. Following the interviews, two workshops were conducted involving 12 teacher-educators, including all who had also participated in the interviews. The workshops served as collective learning spaces where participants engaged in dialogue, reflection and co-construction of ESD-framed inclusivity strategies. Workshop discussions encouraged participants to interrogate entrenched exclusions in their institutions and experiment conceptually with more inclusive pedagogical models. These workshops also provided opportunities for member validation, allowing some participants to comment on and refine emerging interpretations from the interviews. This two-phase approach generated data that reflected both individual perspectives and collective meaning-making. This aligns with the study’s social learning and ESD theoretical framework.
Data analysis
Data were analysed thematically (Braun & Clarke 2006) through an iterative process of coding, categorising and interpretation. Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory guided the examination of learning as a movement from the ADL, existing pedagogical dispositions, to the ZPD, new inclusive practices emerging through collaboration and reflection. Meta-theoretical lens of ESD provided an analytical structure for interpreting these shifts as expressions of transformative praxis, wherein inclusivity was reconceptualised as integral to sustainability. The analysis involved three stages: (1) open coding of transcripts to identify recurring ideas and tensions related to inclusion, pedagogy and sustainability; (2) axial coding to connect individual and collective insights, revealing how participation in the Change Project fostered reflexivity and agency and (3) thematic synthesis, integrating findings from both interviews and workshops into core themes that captured shifts in teacher-educators’ understandings and practices of inclusivity. Triangulation was achieved through the integration of insights across the two data sources to ensure credibility and internal coherence of interpretations.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from the Rhodes University Education Faculty Research Ethics Committee, and ethics consent was received on 03 May 2022. The ethics approval number is 2021-4989-6408. All participants were fully informed of the study’s purpose, voluntary nature and their right to withdraw at any stage without consequence. Written informed consent was obtained before participation. Given the collaborative nature of the study, ethical engagement extended beyond formal approval to continuous reflection on power relations, reciprocity and mutual respect. I took care to ensure that workshops remained safe and non-evaluative spaces, where teacher-educators could critically reflect without institutional repercussion. Data were securely stored, and findings were reported in aggregate to prevent identification of individuals or the institution. Hereafter, anonymity is maintained by using pseudonyms and coded identifiers (e.g. I2 for Interview Participant 2; WA for Workshop Participant A).
Results
This study explored how teacher-educators in Malawi engaged with the ESD Change Project to mainstream inclusive education in teacher education. Data from semi-structured interviews (n = 5) and collaborative workshops (n = 12) were analysed thematically. Three overarching, interrelated themes emerged:
Reconceptualising Inclusion through ESD Principles Developing Inclusive Pedagogical Praxis through Social Learning Institutional Enablers and Constraints in Mainstreaming Inclusivity
Each theme integrates evidence from both interviews and workshops to illustrate how teacher-educators collectively and individually negotiated inclusive and sustainability-oriented change.
Reconceptualising inclusion through Education for Sustainable Development principles
Teacher-educators initially understood inclusion primarily in relation to disability, but through engagement in the Change Project, their conceptions broadened to encompass social, cultural, economic and environmental dimensions of exclusion. This shift reflected the holistic and participatory nature of ESD, which encouraged reflection on inclusion as a collective, justice-oriented process rather than a specialised or isolated activity. One interview participant noted:
‘At first, we thought inclusion was only about learners with disabilities, but through the Change Project we learnt that it is also about social and environmental factors that limit participation.’ (I2)
Workshop discussions corroborated this shift, as participants connected inclusion to sustainable community engagement:
‘ESD has helped us see that inclusion means ensuring everyone can take part in learning and development: students, communities and even staff. It is not just physical access but participation in all forms.’ (WA)
This reconceptualisation enabled teacher-educators to view inclusion as part of sustainability, grounded in ESD principles of equity, participation and systems thinking. One participant concluded that, ‘Inclusion and sustainability go hand in hand because both aim to reduce marginalisation and promote well-being for all’ (WE). This thematic convergence across interviews and workshops demonstrates a deepening conceptual understanding of inclusion as integral to sustainable education, directly informing how participants sought to mainstream inclusive pedagogies in their teaching practice and curriculum engagement.
Developing inclusive pedagogical praxis through social learning
A second major theme revealed how teacher-educators engaged in social learning processes during the Change Project to co-construct new pedagogical approaches that promote inclusion. Both interviews and workshops highlighted the importance of collaborative reflection, peer mentoring and experimentation with teaching strategies aligned with ESD’s praxis orientation, that is, the integration of reflection and action for transformative learning.
As one participant explained:
‘When we shared our experiences in the workshops, I realised how I could adapt my lessons to include everyone, not just those who are easy to teach. We learnt from one another.’ (I3)
Workshops served as learning communities where teacher-educators explored inclusive methods such as group projects, dialogue-based teaching and contextualised assessments. One workshop participant remarked: ‘Through this project, we tested participatory methods and found that even quiet students became more active when we changed our approach’ (WF). Another participant reflected that these pedagogical shifts required moving beyond content delivery toward learner-centred and value-driven approaches: ‘Inclusive pedagogy is not about adding new topics. It’s about changing how we teach. ESD encourages us to involve all learners, link subjects to real-life situations and respect their experiences’ (WB).
This theme illustrates how social learning, guided by ESD’s participatory and reflective nature, enabled teacher-educators to transform their pedagogical habitus, developing practical and inclusive teaching strategies. Importantly, both interview and workshop data indicate that this learning was collective, relational and iterative, marking a shift from individual understanding to shared institutional praxis.
Institutional enablers and constraints in mainstreaming inclusivity
While the Change Project promoted significant conceptual and pedagogical shifts, participants also identified institutional and systemic factors that either enabled or constrained efforts to mainstream inclusive education. Supportive leadership emerged as a critical enabler. Interview participants emphasised the importance of institutional commitment: ‘When management supports these initiatives, by allocating time, resources and recognition, projects like this can continue and influence the whole college’ (I1). Workshops reinforced this point, with several participants noting that leadership’s engagement determined whether inclusive practices would be sustained: ‘If leaders value inclusion, it becomes part of our culture. If not, it remains a project that ends when funding ends’ (WA).
However, participants also described resource limitations and curricular rigidity as major constraints. A workshop participant noted: ‘We have ideas from ESD, but implementing them is difficult without materials and flexible timetables’ (WE). Similarly, interviewees reflected on limited autonomy to adapt curriculum guidelines: ‘Sometimes we want to include new approaches, but the curriculum is centrally prescribed, so we follow what is approved by the ministry’ (I4). Despite these challenges, participants described the Change Project as a mediating platform that encouraged agency and innovation within constraints. One workshop participant summarised: ‘Even with limited resources, we can start small by changing our teaching and supporting each other. The project showed us that inclusivity begins with our own practice’ (WF).
This theme highlights that mainstreaming inclusivity in teacher education requires systemic alignment between leadership, curriculum flexibility and professional learning. It also illustrates that institutional transformation is both a structural and cultural process, supported through sustained collaboration and reflection.
Discussion
This study set out to examine how social learning processes in the ESD Change Project enabled teacher-educators in Malawi to reimagine and enact inclusive pedagogies in their institutional context. Guided by ESD as a meta-theoretical and analytical framework and Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory as the supporting theoretical lens, the discussion interprets the findings in relation to three research objectives: identifying enabling systems for inclusion, examining constraints and exploring how these were renegotiated through ESD-oriented social learning towards inclusive and sustainable teacher education praxis.
Reconceptualising inclusion through an Education for Sustainable Development meta-theoretical lens
The study revealed that participants’ understanding of inclusion expanded beyond its traditional association with disability to encompass broader social, economic and environmental dimensions of exclusion. This transformation reflects the normative and epistemological functions of ESD, which position inclusion as integral to sustainability and equity (Rončević & Rieckmann 2025). Through dialogic reflection in the Change Project, teacher-educators collectively moved from the ADL, where inclusion was narrowly conceptualised, to a ZPD, characterised by broader and systems-oriented understandings of inclusion.
This reconceptualisation resonates with the ESD principle of learning to live together sustainably (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2019), where educational transformation requires not only technical knowledge but a reorientation of values and practices. Participants’ recognition that inclusion and sustainability go hand in hand reflects a meta-theoretical integration of ESD’s ethical commitments of justice, participation and collective well-being with inclusive education’s pedagogical imperatives. In this sense, the ESD Change Project served as a social learning platform where inclusivity was reframed as a sustainability issue, thereby advancing a deeper praxis-oriented understanding of educational equity.
Developing inclusive pedagogical praxis through social learning
The findings further demonstrate that social learning served as the operational mechanism through which participants translated their evolving conceptual understandings into inclusive pedagogical practice. Workshops and peer collaboration became dialogical spaces for co-constructing knowledge, sharing experiences and experimenting with teaching strategies, consistent with Vygotsky’s view that learning is a socially mediated process (Vygotsky 1978). Through guided participation and mutual scaffolding, educators engaged in praxis, the dialectical interplay between reflection and action, that ESD foregrounds as essential to transformative learning (Rončević & Rieckmann 2024).
Participants’ experimentation with participatory, dialogic and learner-centred methods indicated a shift from content transmission to value-driven pedagogy. These approaches embrace what Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) describe as inclusive pedagogies, where difference is treated as a resource rather than a barrier to learning. The iterative cycles of reflection and practice in the Change Project mirror Vygotsky’s ZPD, as teacher-educators collectively advanced from existing teaching dispositions towards more adaptive, context-sensitive and socially just pedagogical practices. This movement illustrates how the praxis orientation of ESD, when operationalised through social learning, promotes both professional growth and institutional transformation.
Navigating institutional enablers and constraints
Institutional and systemic factors both supported and constrained these transformative efforts. Supportive leadership, collaborative culture and recognition of the Change Project’s relevance emerged as key enablers. These conditions align with Agbedahin’s (2016) and Mandikonza and Lotz-Sisitka’s (2016) findings that institutional commitment and distributed leadership are critical for advancing ESD and, for this study, inclusion. Leaders acted as mediators in the institutional ZPD by creating enabling environments for experimentation and reflective practice.
However, participants also faced structural barriers, including rigid curricula, resource shortages and limited autonomy. These constraints highlight the contradictions that Engeström (2011) identifies as drivers of expansive learning, situations where systemic tensions stimulate innovation. Teacher-educators’ improvisation of local materials and development of entrepreneurial strategies illustrate emergent agency and sustainability thinking. These are key features of ESD praxis. Thus, even within restrictive systems, the Change Project acted as a mediating process through which educators navigated from compliance to creativity. This demonstrated ESD’s praxeological dimension in action.
Implications for mainstreaming inclusivity in teacher education
The synthesis of ESD and Vygotskian social learning provides a practical framework for mainstreaming inclusivity in teacher education. Firstly, ESD’s meta-theoretical stance situates inclusivity as an ethical and systemic imperative rather than an isolated policy goal. Secondly, Vygotsky’s theory explains how teacher-educators’ professional learning unfolds through collaborative engagement. This implies that transformation is socially mediated, not individually acquired. Therefore, the framework demonstrates that meaningful change in teacher education requires dialogic spaces for collective reflection, institutional support structures and participatory engagement across levels of the system.
For Malawi’s teacher education context, this implies that mainstreaming inclusivity demands more than curricular reform; it requires transformative institutional learning. Teacher education should integrate ESD principles throughout coursework and practice teaching. This could ensure that inclusivity is mainstreamed across disciplines. Leadership development should prioritise reflexive, value-driven decision-making, while collaborative professional learning communities can sustain the social learning processes necessary for continual improvement. Finally, ESD-informed approaches to community engagement can bridge institutional and societal divides. This promotes inclusivity as both an educational and social sustainability agenda (Rončević & Rieckmann 2025).
Towards an Education for Sustainable Development-informed praxis of inclusion
This study contributes theoretically by extending understandings of how ESD functions as a meta-theoretical and praxeological framework for inclusive education. Through its integration with Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory, the study demonstrates that inclusive education can be achieved not merely by accommodating diversity but by transforming how educators learn, teach and collaborate (Rončević & Rieckmann 2025). The ESD Change Project enabled educators to engage in expansive learning, a process of collective movement from existing norms (ADL) to new, inclusive practices (ZPD), and to view inclusion as a shared, evolving commitment to sustainability and justice (Engeström 2011).
Practically, the findings highlight that inclusive and sustainable teacher education is realised through relational, reflective and contextually grounded praxis (Rončević & Rieckmann 2024). Education for Sustainable Development provides both the ethical compass and the methodological pathway for this transformation. Therefore, when educators learn together, reflect critically on their assumptions and act collectively to redesign their practices, inclusivity becomes embraced in the living culture of teacher education rather than a prescribed objective.
Conclusion
This study shows that ESD and social learning provide a transformative pathway to mainstream inclusive education in teacher education. Through the ESD Change Project, teacher-educators collectively redefined inclusion from a narrow focus on disability to a broader concern with equity, participation and sustainability. Guided by ESD’s praxis approach and Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory, collaborative workshops and reflective dialogue helped teacher-educators co-develop inclusive teaching methods that respond to local realities. Institutional support, leadership and adaptable curricula emerged as essential factors in this change. The findings suggest that inclusivity in teacher training needs to be mainstreamed throughout curriculum design, professional development and organisational culture rather than being treated as a standalone effort. It is recommended that teacher education institutions adopt ESD-based professional learning communities, advance inclusivity across disciplines and strengthen leadership capacity to maintain collaborative innovation. Policymakers should align national teacher training frameworks with ESD principles to promote systemic coherence. Overall, the study adds to knowledge by framing ESD not only as a sustainability framework but also as a meta-theoretical and practical model for developing socially just, adaptable and inclusive teacher education systems that can address the interconnected challenges of equity, diversity and sustainable development.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Ben de Souza’s doctoral thesis titled ‘Investigating the mainstreaming of inclusive education in teacher education practice for pedagogical proficiency through Education for Sustainable Development change projects in southern Africa’, submitted to the Faculty of Education, Rhodes University in 2024. The thesis was supervised by Heila Lotz-Sisitka. The supervisor was not involved in the preparation of this manuscript and was not listed as a co-author. The manuscript has since been revised and adapted for journal publication. The original thesis is publicly available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/480106.
Competing interests
The author reported that they received funding from the National Research Foundation (NRF) and the Canon Collins Trust, which may be affected by the research reported in the enclosed publication. The author has disclosed those interests fully and has implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated University in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.
Author’s contributions
B.d.S is the sole author of this research article.
Funding information
This work was supported by the doctoral scholarships awarded to the author by the National Research Foundation (NRF) and the Canon Collins Trust. Additional funds were provided by the SARChI Chair in Global Change and Social Learning Systems at Rhodes University through the Sustainability Starts with Teachers (SST) programme.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Rhodes University research repository at https://doi.org/10.21504/RUR.26426032.v1.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Ackah-Jnr, F.R. & Danso, J.B., 2019, ‘Examining the physical environment of Ghanaian inclusive schools: How accessible, suitable and appropriate is such environment for inclusive education?’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 23(2), 188–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1427808
Agbedahin, A.V., 2016, ‘A morphogenic and laminated system explanation of position practice systems and professional development training in mainstreaming education for sustainable development in African universities’, PhD thesis, Rhodes University, viewed 18 August 2025, from http://hdl.handle.net/10962/584.
Ahmad, M. & Wilkins, S., 2025, ‘Purposive sampling in qualitative research: A framework for the entire journey’, Quality & Quantity 59(2), 1461–1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-02022-5
Ainscow, M., 2020, ‘Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences’, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587
Banks, L.M., Hunt, X., Kalua, K., Nindi, P., Zuurmond, M. & Shakespeare, T., 2022, ‘“I might be lucky and go back to school”: Factors affecting inclusion in education for children with disabilities in rural Malawi’, African Journal of Disability 11, a981. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v11i0.981
Bourdieu, P., 1990, The logic of practice, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2006, ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K., 2018, Research methods in education, 8th edn., Routledge, London.
Chitiyo, M., Hughes, E.M., Chitiyo, G., Changara, D.M., Itimu-Phiri, A., Haihambo, C. et al., 2019, ‘Exploring teachers’ special and inclusive education professional development needs in Malawi, Namibia, and Zimbabwe’, International Journal of Whole Schooling 15(1), 28–49, viewed 18 August 2025, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1203354.pdf.
De Souza, B., 2024, ‘Examining the role of education for sustainable development (ESD) in strengthening inclusive education in teacher education: A Vygotskian analysis of change projects from Malawi and Eswatini’, Journal of Education 96, 98–116. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v44ns1a2386
De Souza, B., 2025, ‘Towards change-oriented sustainability education in teacher education in Malawi’, Southern African Journal of Environmental Education 41(1), 1–18. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajee/article/view/285309
Engeström, Y., 2011, ‘From design experiments to formative interventions’, Theory and Psychology 21(5), 598–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311419252
Florian, L. & Black-Hawkins, K., 2011, ‘Exploring inclusive pedagogy’, British Educational Research Journal 37(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
Hernández-Torrano, D., Somerton, M. & Helmer, J., 2022, ‘Mapping research on inclusive education since Salamanca Statement: A bibliometric review of the literature over 25 years’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 26(9), 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1747555
Kostoulas-Makrakis, N., 2010, ‘Developing and applying a critical and transformative model to address ESD in teacher education’, Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability 12(2), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10099-009-0051-0
Lindley, D., 2015, ‘Elements of social learning supporting transformative change’, Southern African Journal of Environmental Education 31, 50–64, viewed 18 August 2025, from https://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajee/article/view/137671.
Lotz-Sisitka, H., Tshiningayamwe, S., Urenje, S., Mandikonza, C. & Chikunda, C., 2019, Sustainability starts with teachers: An ESD action learning programme for teacher educators of ECD, primary, secondary and TVET in Southern Africa: Introduction and overview, Rhodes University & UNESCO Regional Office for Southern Africa, Harare.
Malawi Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST), 2020, National education sector and implementation plan, MoEST, Lilongwe.
Mandikonza, C., 2016, ‘Exploring change oriented learning, competencies and agency in a regional teacher professional development programme’s change projects’, PhD thesis, Rhodes University, viewed 18 August 2025, from http://hdl.handle.net/10962/4410.
Mandikonza, C. & Lotz-Sisitka, H., 2016, ‘Emergence of environment and sustainability education (ESE) in teacher education contexts in Southern Africa: A common good concern’, Educational Research for Social Change 5(1), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.17159/2221-4070/2016/v5i1a7
Muthukrishna, N. & Engelbrecht, P., 2018, ‘Decolonising inclusive education in lower income, Southern African educational contexts’, South African Journal of Education 38(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n4a1701
O’Donoghue, R. & Rončević, K., 2020, ‘The development of education for sustainable development materials for inclusive education in South African curriculum settings’, ZEP: Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik 43(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:20444
Reeves, A., 2019, ‘Classroom collaborations: Enabling sustainability education via student community co-learning’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 20(8), 1376–1392. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2018-0220
Rončević, K. & Rieckmann, M., 2024, ‘How can a whole school approach to sustainability be inclusive to all learners?’, in A.E.J. Wals, A. Sinnes & I. Eikeland (eds.), Whole school approaches to sustainability: Education renewal in times of distress, pp. 121–135, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Rončević, K. & Rieckmann, M., 2025, ‘Education for sustainable development and inclusive education with particular consideration of learners with special needs: A scoping literature review’, Frontiers in Education 10, a1593060. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1593060
Slee, R., 2018, Defining the scope of inclusive education. Think piece prepared for the 2020 global education monitoring report: Inclusion and education, UNESCO, viewed 18 August 2025, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366483.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Walton, E., 2025, ‘Why inclusive education falters: A Bernsteinian analysis’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 29(4), 570–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2241045
Westwood, P., 2018, Inclusive and adaptive teaching: Meeting the challenge of diversity in the classroom, 2nd edn., Routledge, London.
|
Email this article 
Hide
Show all
