Abstract :

This study examined how regenerative pedagogy is enacted in social science general education and explored the tensions between future-oriented teaching discourse and actual classroom practices. Anchored in global calls for transformative and sustainability-oriented education, the study focused on how instructors interpret and implement regenerative pedagogical principles in everyday teaching. Using a qualitative design, the study drew on semi-structured interviews with social science instructors from a public higher education institution. The data were analyzed through thematic analysis across five domains of regenerative pedagogy: course design, classroom practices, sustainability integration, creative strategies, and reflective teaching practices. The findings reveal that while instructors express strong support for future-oriented, participatory, and sustainability-focused education, their classroom practices remain largely content-driven, assessment-oriented, and compliance-based. Regenerative elements are present but uneven, often emerging as optional creative tasks, localized dialogic moments, or informal reflective adjustments rather than as integral components of course design and assessment. Institutional constraints, heavy content requirements, administrative workload, and student readiness challenges further limit the consistent application of regenerative pedagogy. The study identifies a persistent discourse–practice gap in future-oriented social science education and argues that regenerative pedagogy operates along a spectrum of enactment rather than as a fixed condition. The findings highlight the need for greater alignment between pedagogical ideals, assessment systems, and institutional structures to support the systemic development of regenerative and future-oriented teaching practices.

---

Keywords :

Regenerative Pedagogy, Transformative Learning, Social Science Education, Sustainability Education, Qualitative Research, Higher Education

---

References :

1. Barth, M., & Rieckmann, M. (2016). State of the art in research on higher education for sustainable development. In M. Barth, G. Michelsen, I. Thomas, & M. Rieckmann (Eds.), Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development (pp. 100–113). Routledge.
2. Biesta, G. (2016). The beautiful risk of education. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.4324/971315634866

3. Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
4. Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. Retrieved at https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780203465278
5. Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
6. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
7. Gocotano, T. E., Jerie, P., Arcilla, F., & David, K. (2021). Sustainability integration in higher education: A Philippine case. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(5), 1078–1093. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-2021-0032
8. Hargreaves, A. (2001). Emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1056–1080. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00142
9. Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: Futures thinking for transforming. Foresight, 10(1), 4–21. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810855991
10. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
11. Lozano, R., Barreiro-Gen, M., Lozano, F. J., & Sammalisto, K. (2021). Teaching sustainability in higher education: An international study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124539. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124539
12. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401
13. Orr, D. W. (2011). Hope is an imperative: The essential David Orr. Island Press.
14. O’Sullivan, E., Taylor, M., & others. (2019). Learning toward an ecological consciousness: Selected transformative practices. Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.1007/97 8-3-319-97997-0
15. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. Jossey-Bass.
16. Rieckmann, M. (2018). Learning to transform the world: Key competencies in ESD. In UNESCO, Issues and trends in education for sustainable development (pp. 39–59). UNESCO. Retrieved at https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261445
17. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
18. Seatter, C. S., & Ceulemans, K. (2017). Teaching sustainability in higher education: Pedagogical styles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 113–124. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.193

19. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
20. Sterling, S. (2019). Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Green Books.
21. Sterling, S. (2021). Transformative learning and sustainability: Sketching the conceptual ground. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 15(1), 5–15. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.1177/09734082211050900
22. (2018). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. Retrieved athttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444
23. (2021). Learn for our planet: A global review of how environmental issues are integrated in education. Retrieved at https://unesdoc.unesco. org/ark:/48223/pf0000377362

24. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6