c e p s Journal | V ol.11 | N o 1 | Y ear 2021 27 In-service Home Economics Teachers’ Attitudes to the Integration of Sustainable Topics in the Home Economics Subject Martina Erjavšek* 1 , Francka Lovšin Kozina 2 and Stojan Kostanjevec 2 • Education for sustainable development is essential for the well-being of present and future generations and is one of the key objectives in the discipline of home economics. The purpose of this research was to as - certain whether in-service teachers of home economics recognise the opportunities to educate students about sustainable development in their courses and if they can identify the topics related to sustainable development that they can integrate into the subject of home econom - ics. To determine this, a study using a questionnaire with a non-random sample of 89 Slovenian in-service home economics teachers was con - ducted. The results were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. Ac - cording to the research results, in-service home economics teachers un - derstand that the topics of the subject promote education for sustainable development. They see the most opportunities for integrating sustain - able topics arising in the fields of food and living environments, and less in economics and textiles. This is evident because sustainability topics are predominantly connected to food and the living environment classes in the current education system. Based on the research results, it can be deduced that in-service home economics teachers should be offered ongoing professional development in order to achieve the competences needed to teach sustainable development as part of the home economics subject. The need to update the curriculum of this subject has emerged as it offers numerous opportunities to educate the young in topics re - lated to sustainable living. Keywords: sustainable development, education for sustainable develop - ment, home economics, home economics teachers 1 *Corresponding Author. Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; martina.erjavsek@pef.uni-lj.si. 2 Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. doi: 10.26529/cepsj.614 in-service home economics teachers’ attitudes to the integration of sustainable ... 28 Odnos učiteljev gospodinjstva do vključevanja trajnostnih vsebin pri predmetu gospodinjstvo Martina Erjavšek, Francka Lovšin Kozina in Stojan Kostanjevec • Vzgoja in izobraževanje za trajnostni razvoj sta pomembna za kako- Vzgoja in izobraževanje za trajnostni razvoj sta pomembna za kako - vostno prebivanje zdajšnjih in prihodnjih generacij; predstavljata eno izmed ključnih izhodišč delovanja discipline gospodinjstvo. Namen raziskave je bil ugotoviti, ali učitelji, ki poučujejo gospodinjstvo, pre - poznajo možnosti za vzgojo in izobraževanje učencev za trajnostni ra - zvoj pri predmetu gospodinjstvo, ter prepoznati vsebine, ki jih učite - lji gospodinjstva vključujejo v predmet gospodinjstvo in so povezane s trajnostnim razvojem. V raziskavi je bil uporabljen nenaključnostni vzorec 89 slovenskih učiteljev gospodinjstva. Za potrebe raziskave je bil razvit anketni vprašalnik. Rezultati so bili kvalitativno in kvantitativno analizirani. Izsledki raziskave so pokazali, da učitelji menijo, da vsebine predmeta gospodinjstvo spodbujajo vzgojo in izobraževanje za trajno - stni razvoj. Največ možnosti za vključevanje trajnostnih vsebin vidijo na področju prehrane in bivalnega okolja, manj pa pri obravnavi vsebin s področja ekonomike gospodinjstva in tekstila, kar se izkazuje tudi v izvajanju vzgojno-izobraževalnega procesa, v katerem trajnostnim vse - binam, povezanim s prehrano in z bivalnim okoljem, namenjajo največ pozornosti. Na osnovi izsledkov raziskave lahko sklepamo, da je treba učiteljem gospodinjstva ponuditi permanentno strokovno izobraževa - nje, ki bi bilo namenjeno doseganju kompetenc za poučevanje trajno - stnih vsebin v okviru predmeta gospodinjstvo. Kaže se tudi potreba po posodobitvi in aktualizaciji učnega načrta predmeta, saj ponuja številne priložnosti za izobraževanje mladih o temah, povezanih s trajnostnim življenjem. Ključne besede: trajnostni razvoj, vzgoja in izobraževanje za trajnostni razvoj, gospodinjstvo, učitelji gospodinjstva c e p s Journal | V ol.11 | N o 1 | Y ear 2021 29 Introduction In the literature, there are different definitions of the concept of sus - tainable development (SD) (Holden et al., 2014; Lorek & Spangenberg, 2014; Meadowcroft, 2007), while the definition most often used is the one given by Brundtland’s Commission of 1987 , defining SD as a ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987, p. 43). SD includes several disciplines, such as the environment, biology, medicine, nutrition, agronomics, geography, engineering, architecture, citizenship, sociology, psychology, political science, history, law, economics, and business (DeFries et al., 2012). Thus, due to its disciplinary diversity, home economics has the potential to influence the de - velopment of measures in various sectors of society, including the environment (IFHE, 2008), with many authors (Dale & Newman, 2005; Luppi, 2011) empha - sising the importance of an interdisciplinary approach for providing effective education for SD. UNESCO (2014) points out that quality education is crucial for increas - ing the quality of life for individuals and for advancing SD. Education for sus - tainable development (ESD) is ‘a process of learning how to make decisions that consider the long-term futures of the economy, ecology, and the equitable development of all communities’ (UNESCO, 2009, p. 1). It encompasses con - tent from natural sciences and technical studies, social sciences, and the hu - manities (Devetak & Krek, 2013). Most theoretical concepts of SD include three dimensions: economic, environmental, and social (UNESCO, 2009). Dresner (2008) indicates that there is no existing consensus about whether these three dimensions of SD should be considered equally important. Teachers rarely ap - ply all three dimensions of SD in ESD, generally emphasising the environmen - tal dimension and less often the economic and social dimensions (Burmeister et al., 2013; Haapala et al., 2012; Summers et al., 2004). Breiting (2000 in Borg, Gericke et al., 2012) emphasises that SD is often viewed as an extension of en - vironmental education, which is defined as an ‘educational process that deals with the human interrelationships with the environment and that utilizes an in - terdisciplinary problem-solving approach with value clarification’ . (UNESCO- UNEP , 1983 in Pavlova, 2013). Vartiainnen and Kaipainen (2012) point out that ESD is every teacher’s duty, and this has also been emphasised by Buza (2010) since natural sciences teachers believe that environmental education should be included in the entire education process. Pre-service and in-service students of pre-school education and students of environmental sciences in Slovenia ex - pect their teachers to promote the principles of SD (Torkar, 2013). in-service home economics teachers’ attitudes to the integration of sustainable ... 30 As a multidisciplinary field, home economics integrates topics of dif - ferent disciplines, using an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach (IFHE, 2008). Since the problems of modern times and everyday challenges are far from simple, an individual should possess different types of knowledge and skills in order to solve them successfully. It is for this reason that the im - portance of home economics as a multidisciplinary field is emphasised (IFHE, 2008; Sproles & Sproles, 2000). Hira (2013) points out that the concept of home economics literacy integrates various literacies: environmental literacy togeth - er with nutrition, health, and financial literacies. Gale Smith (2015) notes that increasing environmental problems and the need for SD are undoubtedly an important reason to include the topics of the home economics field in the edu - cation process. Moreover, Līce and Reihmane (2015) draw attention to the fact that many SD topics are part of the home economics school subject. The pur - pose of home economics education is to capacitate a person and families for the development and activities that help increase the quality of life and their readi - ness for life-long learning, but also to capacitate future generations to manage different global challenges (Pendergast, 2006, 2012; Renold, 2008). One study (Dewhurst & Pendergast, 2011) revealed that home economics teachers think that having sustainable topics within home economics education is essential, and they view themselves to be sufficiently competent in delivering them. De - whurst and Pendergast (2011) note that it is essential to address sustainable top - ics in home economics education. The Slovenian nine-year compulsory school is organised into three-year cycles with students ranging from six to fifteen years old (Eurydice, 2018). Stu - dents are expected to acquire knowledge of a healthy lifestyle and sustainable organisational forms of social and economic life. They should also develop a responsibility for their own health and the abilities that will enable them to function in society, engage in life-long learning and continuous personal growth, and develop the necessary skills and knowledge to be able to preserve the natural environment (Kalin et al., 2011). The nine-year compulsory school curriculum includes the home economics subject, which is compulsory for 5th graders (children 10 years of age) and 6th graders (children 11 years of age) and represents the basis of home economics education. Within this education, students acquire knowledge and skills pertaining to natural and social sciences. The subject includes four different teaching modules: 1) Economics, 2) Tex - tiles and clothing, 3) Living and the Environment, and 4) Nutrition. In the 5th grade, the subject is taught for 35 hours. Students learn about the topics of the Economics and Textiles and Clothing modules. In the 6th grade, 52.5 hours are dedicated to home economics education, in which students learn about living c e p s Journal | V ol.11 | N o 1 | Y ear 2021 31 and the environment and nutrition. Home economics education stimulates students to reflect on contemporary problems as they occur at the individual, family or societal level. Students acquire the knowledge and skills for the sus - tainable use of natural and social resources, which are necessary to meet basic living needs. The topics of individual modules enable them to be taken from the perspective of an SD concept. Economic and environmental principles are in - trinsically connected to SD, which are taken into account during the realisation of general curricular goals. However, the term ‘sustainable development’ is not mentioned in the Slovenian Home Economics curriculum (Elementary school programme, Home Economics …, 2011). Research Problem The main objective of home economics is to improve quality of life and promote lifelong learning (Benn, 2008), thus encompassing individuals’ and so - cietal needs. Various research works (IFHE, 2008; Pendergast, 2006; Torkar & Koch, 2012) note that addressing sustainable topics within the home economics curriculum appears to be necessary for society. Kostanjevec et al. (2017) have found that different stakeholders, who deliver or are connected to the process of home economics education, hold the opinion that during the literacy process carried out within formal education, students should develop functional home economics literacy that includes knowledge and skills typical of the area of SD and consumption. Hira (2013) points out that the quality of this process may contribute to the development of adequate home economics literacy among stu - dents, which in turn fosters a change in behaviour and a higher quality of life for an individual. Kostanjevec et al. (2017) note that Slovenian teachers reported on having observed the positive effects of home economics education on the stu - dents’ development of sustainable attitudes to the environment and acquisition of a higher-level environmental awareness. The above-mentioned leads to the conclusion that neither the topics of the subject nor the role of home economics teachers in the elementary school can be of marginal significance regarding sus - tainable development education (Höijer et al., 2011; Lichenstein & Ludwig, 2010; Pendergast & Dewhurst, 2012; Slater & Hinds, 2014). Therefore, home econom - ics education should include topics related to SD (Gale Smith, 2015; Grayson, 2013). Zsóka et al. (2013) argue that the attitude and behaviour of current genera - tions of students may influence the future of the environment. With regard to this, the role of in-service home economics teachers is relevant as they have the didactic knowledge regarding how to effectively integrate SD topics into home economics teaching. However, problems arise in-service home economics teachers’ attitudes to the integration of sustainable ... 32 if teachers do not identify the importance of SD topics that are not explicitly stated in the curriculum. To the best of our knowledge, in Slovenia, no relevant research on which topics home economics teachers recognise as being relevant to encourage ESD and which of them they integrate into teaching has been conducted. The aims of the present research are a) to determine whether home eco - nomics teachers recognise the opportunities of their subject to educate students for SD and b) to identify the topics that are integrated into the home economics school subject, which are related to SD, by home economics teachers. Based on the aims of the research, two research questions (RQ) were formed: RQ1: What are teachers’ opinions about the role of the home economics school subject in the process of encouraging ESD? RQ2: Which SD topics do teachers integrate into home economics courses, and in which teaching modules? Method Qualitative and quantitative research approaches were used. Data were collected with a survey questionnaire, which was completed by teachers who taught home economics in the nine-year compulsory school. Participants The sample was a non-random, purposeful one. E-mail addresses of all 452 Slovenian nine-year compulsory schools were obtained from the national teachers’ database, retrieved from the web site of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia. Headmasters of all the 452 nine- year compulsory schools were sent a letter with instructions to forward the on-line questionnaire to in-service teachers of home economics in the fifth and sixth grades. Altogether, 89 in-service teachers gave complete answers to the on-line questionnaire. These respondents represent the final sample of the re - search. The sample consisted of 86 (96.6%) females and 3 (3.4%) males. Most in-service teachers were between 41 and 60 years old (76.4%) and 23.6% of them were between 21 and 40 years old. The average work experience of the respond - ents was 23.7 years ( SD = 8.76; Min = 2.00; Max = 36.0). Altogether, 57 (64%) in-service teachers had completed the Home Economics study programme (bi - ology and home economics teachers, home economics and chemistry teach - ers, technology and home economics teachers), and 32 teachers (36%) were not educated in home economics (primary school teachers, biology and chemistry c e p s Journal | V ol.11 | N o 1 | Y ear 2021 33 teachers, maths and physics teachers, geography and history teachers, natural history teachers, an arts teacher and a teacher with a degree in food technology studies). Instruments An on-line questionnaire was developed for this research. The question - naire was based on comparable research carried out in the field of home eco - nomics (Dewhurst & Pendergast, 2011). The initial part of the questionnaire contained questions about respondents’ general demographic data, and the second part contained open-ended questions about the integration of SD top - ics into home economics courses in reference to the four teaching modules: 1) Economics; 2) Textiles and Clothing; 3) Living and the Environment and 4) Nutrition in the Slovenian Home Economics curriculum (elementary school programme, Home Economics …, 2011). Teachers’ attitudes were measured with a four-point Likert scale (1 – do not encourage at all, 2 – do not encour - age, 3 – encourage, 4 – encourage a lot). Participants answered the following questions: (1) How significantly do home economics courses encourage ESD?; (2) How significantly do the four teaching modules encourage ESD?; (3) Which topics related to SD do you integrate into teaching modules? Research design At the beginning of the research, the e-mail addresses of Slovenian ele - mentary school headmasters were obtained from the national teacher database. The headmasters were sent a letter inviting them to participate in the research. In-service teachers of home economics who teach in the fifth or sixth grades were also invited to take part. The final sample of participants was formed, af - ter consideration of the response rate by the in-service teachers of home eco - nomics. Teachers included in the research filled in the on-line questionnaire, designed on the 1ka electronic application for surveys (https://www.1ka.si/). T eachers’ responses were collected in electronic form. Data analysis was carried out with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 22). De - scriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse quantitative data. Basic descriptive statistics of numerical variables (mean, standard deviation and fre - quency) were employed. One-way repeated measures ANOV A and Bonferroni post hoc test were conducted to compare in-service home economics teachers’ attitudes regarding the way how home economics teaching modules encourage ESD. in-service home economics teachers’ attitudes to the integration of sustainable ... 34 To analyse the open-ended questions, qualitative data analysis was used. It was carried out by employing the following steps. First, the material was edited, then an inductive approach was used for coding. Formulated according to home economics terminology, codes were determined upon an analysis of responses to the open survey questions. T o ensure the adequacy of the codes, coding was carried out by two independent researchers. They compared and reconciled the possible discrepancies between certain codes. After reaching a consensus, different codes were classified into several sub-categories depending on their similarities and dif - ferences. Different sub-categories were further classified into main categories. Results of Research Attitudes of in-service home economics teachers regarding the way home economics encourages ESD The home economics curriculum includes many topics that can be inte - grated effectively with SD. In the research, participating in-service home eco - nomics teachers were asked how home economics courses encourage ESD. The results show that a big majority of participating teachers think that home eco - nomics courses encourage (69.7%) or strongly encourage (29.2%) ESD (Table 1). Table 1 In-service teachers’ attitudes regarding how home economics courses encourage ESD How do Home Economics courses encourage ESD? 1 2 3 4 M a SD f f% f f% f f% f f% 3.28 .48 0 .0 1 1.1 62 69.7 26 29.2 Note. a Average value (M) is calculated based on 4-point Likert scale (1 – do not encourage at all, 2 – do not encourage, 3 – encourage, 4 – encourage a lot). Home economics courses in Slovenia include four teaching modules: Economics, Textiles and Clothing, Living and the Environment, and Nutrition. The research aimed to establish how home economics teaching modules encourage ESD, according to teachers. Table 2 shows that the teachers believe that the nutrition teaching module is most applicable, followed by living and the environment, and economics. According to the teachers, the textile and clothing teaching module is somewhat less suitable for integration of ESD (Table 2). c e p s Journal | V ol.11 | N o 1 | Y ear 2021 35 Table 2 Attitudes of in-service teachers regarding how home economics teaching modules encourage ESD Module M a SD Textile and Clothing 2.97 .55 Economics 3.27 .58 Living and Environment 3.31 .60 Nutrition 3.65 .50 Note. a Average value (M) is calculated based on 4-point Likert scale (1 – do not encourage at all, 2 – do not encourage, 3 – encourage, 4 – encourage a lot). One-way repeated measures ANOV A showed a statistically significant ef - fect of the teachers’ attitudes regarding home economics teaching modules and integration of ESD (Wilks` Lambda = .378, F (5, 86) = 47.13, p < .000). The Bon - ferroni test for Pairwise Comparison showed a statistically significant difference between nutrition and all other teaching modules; Economics ( p < .000), Textile and Clothing ( p < .000), and Living and the Environment ( p < .000). Moreo - ver, there is a statistically significant difference between the Textile and Clothing module and all other teaching modules: Economics ( p < .000) and Living and Environment ( p < .000). Differences between teaching modules Living and the Environment and Economics are not statistically significant ( p < 1.000) (T able 3). Table 3 Results of Bonferroni post hoc test for Pairwise Comparisons between pairs of home economics teaching modules Module 1 Module 2 Mean Difference SE p Economics Textile and clothing .303 .067 .000 Living and the environment -.045 .069 1.000 Nutrition -.382 .057 .000 Textile and clothing Living and the environment -.348 .064 .000 Nutrition -.685 .059 .000 Living and environment Nutrition -.337 .062 .000 in-service home economics teachers’ attitudes to the integration of sustainable ... 36 Overview of SD topics’ integration into teaching modules of Home Economics T eachers were asked to identify which SD related topics they integrate into their home economics courses and teaching modules (RQ2). They wrote their an - swers separately for each teaching module. The answers were coded and classified into main categories and subcategories. After coding, three main categories were identified: goods, consumption, and health. Figure 1 presents the SD topics that in-service home economics teachers integrate into the home economics teach - ing modules. The three main categories do not appear in all teaching modules of home economics subjects. For teaching the modules of Economics, Textiles and Clothing, goods and consumption were identified. For the teaching modules Living and the Environment and Nutrition, the health category was identified. Figure 1 Main and sub-categories of the topics referring to SD that in-service teachers integrate into home economics teaching modules c e p s Journal | V ol.11 | N o 1 | Y ear 2021 37 Below, a more detailed analysis of sub-categories related to each catego - ry and teaching module is presented. Economics As mentioned above, two main categories were identified in the Eco - nomics teaching module: a) goods and b) consumption. The Goods category includes five sub-categories related to sustainabil - ity topics. The first sub-category, Money and Financial Services , includes topics connected to money and its functions, the economy, and saving. The second sub-category, Purchase Planning and Buying , includes topics such as sustainable and consumer behaviour connected to the responsible use of financial resourc - es. The third sub-category, Living in a Household , includes topics connected to the principles of a person’s and family’s sustainable lifestyle in a household. The fourth sub-category, Personality and Development Skills , includes topics con - nected to planning one’s own needs and organising work. The fifth sub-cate - gory, Rational Use of Energy Sources , includes topics connected to the efficient consumption of energy, water, foodstuffs, and cleaners with the financial aspect of their use emphasised. The Consumption category includes one sub-category: Recycling and use of recycled materials , within which teachers connect the topics of recycling and re-use of various products with reducing costs in the family budget (Figure 1). Participating in-service home economics teachers rarely integrate SD topics into the Economics teaching module ( f = 15). Textile and clothing The Textile and Clothing teaching module includes two main categories: a) goods and b) consumption. The category Goods includes one sub-category: Production of Textiles. The category Consumption includes two sub-categories. The first, Purchase Planning and Buying Textiles , is connected to planning pur - chases and selecting and acquiring clothes. The second sub-category is Mainte - nance of Textiles (Figure 1). Participating in-service teachers of home economics rarely integrate SD topics into the Textile and Clothing teaching module ( f = 5). in-service home economics teachers’ attitudes to the integration of sustainable ... 38 Living and environment Three main categories were identified in the Living and Environment teaching module: a) goods, b) consumption and c) health. The category Goods includes three sub-categories. The first sub-category, Obtaining goods , is connected to agriculture and food production without pollut - ants. The second sub-category is Environmental pollution and the third sub-cat - egory is Energy sources , referring to the characteristics of renewable and non-re - newable energy sources together with the impact of their use on the environment. The category Consumption includes five sub-categories. The first sub-cate - gory Sustainable behaviour , is connected to a person’s proper attitude to the envi- is connected to a person’s proper attitude to the envi - ronment and their consumer behaviour. T eachers deal with the influence of hyper- consumerism, fashion trends, and trademarks on a person’s purchasing behaviour and point out the importance of rational consumer choices. Teachers also encour - age sustainable behaviour in students by addressing topics on sustainable use of different energy sources and waste separation in one’ s household and about nature conservation and care for the environment. Moreover, teachers emphasise the im - portance of balancing one’s needs with the principles of sustainable consumption. The second sub-category is Purchase planning, in which teachers present the influ - ence of advertising and media on consumers’ purchase decisions, which should focus on sustainability. The third sub-category is Green purchasing , which refers to an eco-conscious and responsible consumer. The fourth sub-category is Transport , also connected to the fifth sub-category, which is Environmental pollution as the consequence of the negative impact of consumption on the environment. The category Health , includes one sub-category: The importance of a healthy and clean environment for healthy people (Fig. 1). In-service home eco - nomics teachers integrate many topics related to SD ( f = 68) in the Living and environment teaching module. Nutrition Three main categories were identified in the Nutrition teaching module: a) goods, b) consumption and c) health. c e p s Journal | V ol.11 | N o 1 | Y ear 2021 39 The category Goods includes two sub-categories. The first sub-category, Food production , is connected to the methods used in food production, featur - ing concepts such as organic farming, and organic and integrated food produc - tion. At the same time, teachers emphasise the importance of food production in terms of local self-supply as they deal with the topics of locally produced food and point out the importance of short-distance transport of such food. The second sub-category, Food processing , includes the topics of different mechanical and thermal food processing in order to preserve the nutrition and sensory quality of foodstuffs. Teachers point out the importance of appropriate food storage to prevent their deterioration and emphasise the importance of food preservation, as it significantly influences the quantity of food waste. The category consumption also includes two sub-categories. The first, Food purchasing , refers to consumers’ sustainable behaviour when planning purchases and buying food. This goes together with the significance of eco- conscious consumer who should know and critically evaluate environmental problems of food consumption connected to the carbon footprint, the impor - tance of short production chains and familiarity with labels on food packaging that display information on food production and processing methods. In the second sub-category, Sustainable diet , teachers encourage stu- teachers encourage stu - dents’ positive attitudes to food and teach them to treat food with responsibil - ity, which should contribute to decreased quantities of food waste. The third main category, Health , includes one sub-category, Healthy nourishment , which includes the topics referring to healthy, well balanced and safe nourishment and to the influence of food on a person’s health. In connec - tion to the practical preparation of healthy food, teachers draw attention to the rational use of water and energy when food is thermally processed, and to the efficient use of foodstuffs in the preparation of meals (Fig. 1). Most frequently, the participating teachers integrate SD topics into the Nutrition teaching mod - ule ( f = 75). Discussion The results of the present research indicate that three-quarters of the par - ticipating in-service teachers of home economics think that the topics of the Slo - venian Home Economics curriculum encourage ESD. Home economics teach - ers are the key actors and promoters of the home economics discipline, who are supposed to act according to the principle of uniform philosophy for the disci - pline and in compliance with its umbrella principles (Hira, 2013; Wahlen et al., 2009). The key starting points for enacting and developing the home economics in-service home economics teachers’ attitudes to the integration of sustainable ... 40 discipline in the 21 st century are published in the basic IFHE Position Statement, conceived by IFHE in 2008. The key starting points of home economics activi - ties emphasise SD that refers to the question of how to obtain an optimal, yet sustainable life, where the relationship between human needs and the consump - tion of resources is the most advantageous. Home economics teachers are thus expected to recognise SD as one of the key areas in which home economics has a substantial impact. It is also essential for the teachers to be aware of the role that they have in carrying out high quality home economics education, incor - porating the various aspects of SD. Only sufficiently competent and motivated teachers who integrate SD topics using appropriate teaching approaches can en - courage the development of home economics literacy. In-service home economics teachers were asked how home economics courses and teaching modules encourage ESD (RQ1). The results of the present research revealed that all four teaching modules were perceived as encouraging ESD; however, the teachers recognised some as being more relevant than oth - ers. In-service teachers recognised the Nutrition teaching module as the most relevant for integrating SD, followed by Living and Environment, Economics, and Textiles and Clothing. According to the results of the present research, the Nutrition teach - ing module was identified as the most stimulating and suitable module for the integration of SD topics. One of the reasons could be that, in comparison to other teaching modules, this module is the most extensive one in the Slovenian Home Economics curriculum and is thus more available for teachers to include sustainable topics in this teaching module. Kostanjevec et al. (2018) have found that Slovenian in-service home economics teachers see themselves as the most competent to teach the Nutrition module. According to the in-service home economics teachers’ opinions, the Liv - ing and Environment module is similarly important to the Nutrition module for the acquisition of knowledge and skills for SD. The Slovenian curriculum of the module includes topics from the following areas: 1) attitude to the envi - ronment; 2) sustainable behaviour; 3) eco-conscious consumer; 4) production of goods, 5) consumer behaviour, and 6) consumer information on products and services (Elementary school programme, Home Economics …, 2011). In modern society, these topics are frequently connected to SD (Līce & Reihmane, 2015). Within home economics education in Slovenia, fifth-graders acquire knowledge and skills in the Economics, and Textiles and Clothing teaching modules. Participating in-service home economics teachers found these mod - ules less suitable for integrating SD topics. They also estimate that both of these c e p s Journal | V ol.11 | N o 1 | Y ear 2021 41 modules have inferior roles in stimulating students to become educated about SD. Given the results of the research carried out by Kostanjevec, Lovšin Kozina, and Erjavšek (2018), it can be deduced that teachers’ attitudes also depend on their competence to teach particular topics. Slovenian legislation stipulates that fifth grade home economics can be taught by a primary school teacher (El - ementary School Act, 2016). Banič and Koch (2015) have found that in Slovenia, 5th grade home economics is mostly taught by primary school teachers who have acquired general teaching competence during their studies, but not the subject-specific competencies essential to carry out home economics educa - tion (Information Booklet …, 2017-18). This may be one of the factors influ - encing teachers’ perceptions of the potential of the home economics subjects to integrate ESD. Kostanjevec et al. (2018) found that these teachers perceive themselves to be the least competent to teach the Economics and Textile and clothing teaching modules. Gisslevik et al. (2017) point out that inadequate pro - fessional qualifications of a home economics teacher can influence the quality of home economics education. This can be one of the factors influencing teach - ers’ perceptions of whether the Economics, and Textiles and Clothing modules were suitable for the inclusion of SD topics. Modules of Home Economics curricula differ in different school sys - tems (Pendergast, 2012). Considering the key orientations of the home eco - nomics discipline (IFHE, 2008) and the findings of some authors (Dixon, 2017; Gale Smith, 2015), it is expected that home economics topics are dealt with in the perspective of SD. The present research aimed at establishing which top - ics related to SD are integrated by in-service teachers. A connection between a teacher’s attitude towards the suitability of home economics teaching mod - ules to integrate sustainable topics and their actual integration in a particular module was established. Sustainable topics are most often integrated into the Nutrition, and Living and Environment teaching modules, less so in the Eco - nomics module and the least in the Textiles and Clothing teaching module. Qualitative data analysis of answers showed that various sustainable topics are integrated into the home economics education process by in-service teachers, classified in three main-categories: goods, consumption, and health; moreover, their integration differs depending on the particular module (Figure 1). There are good opportunities for the integration of sustainable topics in all home eco - nomics teaching modules. Thus, it might be beneficial to supplement the Slo - venian Home Economics curriculum with topics related to sustainability, since the sustainable aspect is at present not explicitly emphasised and the notion of SD is imperceptible in the curriculum. Torkar and Koch (2012) maintain that home economics teachers should pay more attention to the integration of in-service home economics teachers’ attitudes to the integration of sustainable ... 42 root sciences (such as natural, social and human sciences) in home economics education as this is important for achieving sustainable living. Literature cur - rently reveals a trend of updating the Home Economics curricula (Dixon, 2017; Gisslevik et al., 2017; Lind et al., 2009; Ma & Pendergast, 2011; Olafsdottir et al., 2017; Pace et al., 2015; Pridāne, 2017; Tamm & Palojoki, 2012; Tuomisto et al., 2017). The actualisation of the curricula primarily tends to satisfy the needs of an individual and society. The process emphasises knowledge and skills that en - able children and youths to carry out everyday activities at home and to adopt decisions leading to responsible behaviour (Tamm & Palojoki, 2012). This ad - ditionally refers to ESD as being one of the key starting points for the effective functioning of the home economics discipline. At the same time, it would be reasonable to give in-service teachers clear guidelines for dealing with home economics topics in terms of sustainability, which can significantly influence the quality of home economics literacy, the aim of which is also ESD. Conclusions The results of the research have shown that participating Slovenian in- service teachers of home economics believe that compulsory home economics school subjects could encourage primary school students to learn about SD. The teachers found all four teaching modules in the Slovene Home Econom - ics curriculum useful for integrating topics that encourage SD. However, the teachers do not view the importance of the selected teaching modules equally. In their opinion, the most appropriate module was the Nutrition module, while the Textiles and Clothing module was of lesser importance. The results have shown that this opinion is also reflected in their integration of sustainable topics into home economics courses. As mentioned, it was found that the integration of sustainable topics in home economics is inadequate and also less frequent in some teaching modules. Reasons for that may be in the fact that topics and competences related to SD are not clearly defined in the Slovenian Home Eco - nomics curriculum. This may also be the reason that in-service teachers often lack suitable ideas about how to teach in the context of ESD. Therefore, some improved university study programmes and high quality permanent profes - sional development of teachers should be offered. The results also suggest that in-service home economics teachers understand SD primarily as environmen - tal education. Therefore, we suggest the Slovenian Home Economics curricu - lum be updated so that SD topics are more clearly defined, and where all three dimensions of SD (economic, environmental and social) are clearly evident. c e p s Journal | V ol.11 | N o 1 | Y ear 2021 43 Limitations of this study The limitation of the present study is that the participating in-service home economics teachers were not given a definition of SD prior to complet - ing the survey. Therefore, there is a possibility that their limited understanding of the concept influenced their views on the integration of ESD into the home economics subject. References Banič, M., & Koch, V . (2015). Izkušnje učiteljev razrednega pouka s poučevanjem gospodinjstva [Experiences of primary school teachers in Home Economics teaching]. In M. Orel (Ed.), Sodobni pristopi poučevanja prihajajočih generacij (pp. 752–767). EDUvision. Benn, J. (2008). Some Danish remarks. A response to the IFHE position statement. Home economics in the 21 st century. International Journal of Home Economics, 1 (1), 8–9. 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. Pavlova, M. (2013). Towards using transformative education as a benchmark for clarifying differences and similarities between Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development. Environmental Education Research, 19 (5), 656–672. Burmeister, M., Schmidt-Jacob, S., & Eilks, I. (2013). German chemistry teachers’ understanding of sustainability and education for sustainable development—An interview case study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 14, 169–176. Haapala, I., Biggs, S., Cederberg, R., & Kosonen, A. J. (2012). Home economics teachers’ intentions and engagement in teaching sustainable development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 41–54. Buza, L. (2010). Environmental education: Teaching in the present, preparing students for the 21st century. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 22 , 8–15. Dale, A., & Newman, L. (2005). Sustainable development, education and literacy. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6 (4), 351–362. DeFries, R. S., Ellis, E. C., Chapin, F. S., Matson, P . A., Turner, B. L., Agrawal, A., et al. (2012). Planetary opportunities: A social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience, 62 (6), 603–606. Devetak, I., & Krek, J. (2013). EDITORIAL - Sustainable development in education. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3 (1), 5–8. Dewhurst, Y ., & Pendergast, D. (2011). Teacher perceptions of the contribution of Home Economics to sustainable development education: A cross-cultural view. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35 (5), 569–577. in-service home economics teachers’ attitudes to the integration of sustainable ... 44 Dixon, R. (2017). Teachers’ hopes for the future of home economics education in New Zealand. International Journal of Home Economics , 10(1), 12–20. Dresner, S. (2008). The principles of sustainability . Earthcsan. Elementary School Act. (2016). [Zakon o osnovni šoli /ZOFVI-K / (2016)]. Uradni list RS, 46 (30. 6. 2016). Retrieved from http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO448 Elementary school programme, Home Economics, Curriculum. (2011). [Program osnovna šola. Gospodinjstvo. Učni načrt. (2011). Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport: Zavod RS za šolstvo. http://www. mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/os/prenovljeni_UN/UN_gospodinjstvo.pdf Eurydice. (2019). Slovenia Overview. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/ slovenia_en Gale Smith, M. (2015). What does “bring back home ec” mean for us: Challenging the discourses of obesity and cooking. In Proceedings of the Canadian Symposium XIII Issues and Directions for Home Economics/Family Studies/Human Ecology Education. Manitoba. Gisslevik, E., Wernersson, I., & Larsson, C. (2017). Teaching sustainable food consumption in Swedish home economics: A case study. Journal of Home Economics, 10 (2), 52–63. Grayson, J. (2013, December 19). Innovation earth: Make ‘home ecologics’ the new home ec. http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-grayson/innovation-earth-home-ecologics_b_4463702.html Hira, T. K. (2013). Home economics literacy: Investing in our future. Journal of ARAHE, 20 (3), 113–118. Höijer, K., Hjälmeskog, K., & Fjellström, C. (2011). ‘Food with a purpose’ – Home economics teachers’ construction of food and home. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35 (5), 514–519. Holden, E., Linnerud, K., & Banister, D. (2014). Sustainable development: Our common future revisited. Global Environmental Change, 26 , 130–139. Information Booklet. First Level University Study Programme. First cycle of elementary school . (2017- 18). [Predstavitveni zbornik. Univerzitetni študijski program prve stopnje. Razredni pouk . (2017- 18)]. https://www.pef.uni-lj.si/fileadmin/Datoteke/Studijski_ programi/Predstavitveni_zborniki/ Zborniki_17-18/Predstavitveni_zbornik_RP_17-18.pdf International Federation for Home Economics. (2008). IFHE Position Statement – Home Economics in the 21 st Century. http://www.ifhe.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=fileadmin/ user_upload/redaktion/Publications/IFHE_Position_Statement_2008.pdf&t=1276950317&hash=0878 b56fbd9ea1b52ab4858efac2927c Kalin, J., Krek, J., Medveš, Z., Valenčič Zuljan, M., & Vogrinc, J. (2011). Osnovna šola. [Elementary school]. In J. Krek, & M. Metljak (Eds.), Bela knjiga o vzgoji in izobraževanju v Republiki Sloveniji (pp. 107–179). Zavod RS za šolstvo. Kostanjevec, S., Lovšin Kozina, F., & Erjavšek, M. (2017). Izzivi gospodinjskega opismenjevanja v osnovnošolskem izobraževanju [The challenges of Home Economics literacy in elementary school education]. In M. Sardoč, I. Ž. Žagar, & A. Mlekuž (Eds.), Raziskovanje v vzgoji in izobraževanju danes: zbornik povzetkov: 2nd nacionalna znanstvena konferenca (pp. 72–73). Pedagoški inštitut. Kostanjevec, S., Lovšin Kozina, F., & Erjavšek. M. (2018). The relationship between teachers’ c e p s Journal | V ol.11 | N o 1 | Y ear 2021 45 education and their self-perceived competence for teaching home economics. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 76 (2), 175–188. Līce, I., & Reihmane, S. (2015). Education for sustainable development at Home Economics. In V . Dišlere (Eds.), Rural Environment. Education. Personality. (REEP) (pp. 230–236). The Latvia University of Agriculture, Institute of Education and Home Economics. Lichtenstein, A. H., & Ludwig, D. S. (2010). Bring back home economics education. JAMA, 303(18), 1857–1858. Lind, E., Pappel, K., & Paas, K. (2009). Handicraft and home economics as designers of citizen who are able to cope in society. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 8 (1), 54–62. Lorek, S., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2014). Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy – beyond green growth and green economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63 , 33–44. Luppi, E. (2011). Training to education for sustainable development through e-learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15 , 3244–3251. Ma, A., & Pendergast, D. (2011). The past, the present and the preferred future for home economics education in Hong Kong. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35 (5), 58 –594. Meadowcroft, J. (2007). Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex world. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9 (3–4), 299–314. Olafsdottir, S., Juniusdottir, R., & Olafsadottir, A. S. (2017). Health promotion and home economics belong together-progress towards extended curricula in teacher education. International Journal of Home Economics, 10 (2), 180–190. Pace, E. M., Aiello, P ., Sibilio, M., & S. Piscopo. (2015). Applying the theory of simplexity in home economics education for the acquisition of transversal competencies to face complexity. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 11 (2), 71–87. Pendergast, D. (2006). Sustaining the home economics profession in new times – a convergent moment. In A. L. Rauma, S. Pollanen, & P . Seitamma Hakkkarainen (Eds.), Human perspectives on sustainable future (pp. 3–32). University of Joensuu, Faculty of Education. Pendergast, D. (2012). The intention of home economics education: A powerful enabler for future –proofing the profession. In D. Pendergast, S. L. T. McGregor & K. Turkki (Eds.), Creating home economics futures: The next 100 years (pp. 12–23). Australian Academic Press. Pendergast, D., & Dewhurst, Y . (2012). Home economics and food literacy: An international investigation. International Journal of Home Economics, 5 (2), 245–263. Renold, U. (2008). The role of education in equipping individuals and families to be resilient and active participants in the global community. International Journal of Home Economics, 1 (2), 69–74. Slater, J., & Hinds, A. (2014). University student perceptions of home economics: food and nutrition education. International Journal of Home Economics, 7 (2), 68–80. Sproles, K. E., & Sproles, B. B. (2000). Careers serving families and consumers. Prentice Hall. Summers, M., Corney, G., & Childs, A. (2004). Student teachers’ conceptions of sustainable development: the starting-points of geographers and scientists. Educational research, 46 (2), 163–182. Tamm, J., & Palojoki, P . (2012). New Curriculum, new directions? Using socio-cultural perspective to in-service home economics teachers’ attitudes to the integration of sustainable ... 46 develop home economics education in Estonia. https://tuhat.helsinki.fi/portal/sv/publications/new- curriculum-new-(4fea8382-ba55-475e-9041-99437e29d460).html Torkar, G. (2013). Live what you teach & teach what you live: Student views on the acceptability of teachers’ value-related statements about sustainability and climate change. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3 (1), 45–58. Torkar, G., & Koch, V . (2012). Factors hindering teachers from integrating natural sciences and mathematics into home economics courses. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11 (3), 216–223. Tuomisto, M., HaapaniemI, J., & Fooladi, E. (2017). Close neighbours, different interests? Comparing three Nordic home economics curricula. International Journal of Home Economics, 10 (2), 121–131. Unesco. (2014). Roadmap for implementing the Global Action Programme on education for sustainable development. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Vartiainen, L., & Kaipainen, M. (2012). Textile craft students’ perceptions of sustainable crafts. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 43 , 131–140. Wahlen, S., Posti-Ahokas, H., & Collins, E. (2009). Linking the loop: Voicing dimensions of home economics. International Journal of Home Economics, 2 (2), 32–47. WCED. (1987). Our common future: World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press. Zsóka, A., Szerényi, Z. M., Széchy, A., & Kocsis, T. (2013). Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48 , 126–138. UNESCO. (2009). Training guideline on incorporating education for sustainable development (ESD) into the curriculum . http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/COPs/News_ documents/2009/0905Bangkok/ESD_training_guidelines_-3.pdf Biographical note Martina Erjavšek is a teaching assistant for home economics edu - cation at the Department of Biology, Chemistry and Home Economics at the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. She is a PhD student at the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana. Her main areas of research are: home economics and nutrition literacy, home economics education and society needs, sustainable and responsible living in connection with home eco - nomics education. Francka Lovšin Kozina, PhD, is an Assistant professor of home eco - nomics education at the Department of Biology, Chemistry and Home Eco - nomics at the Faculty of Education in Ljubljana. Her main research areas are consumer education and development of financial literacy for primary school students, sustainability, teaching and teacher professional development. c e p s Journal | V ol.11 | N o 1 | Y ear 2021 47 Stojan Kostanjevec, PhD, is Assistant professor in the Study of Home Economics at the Faculty of Education at University of Ljubljana in Slo - venia. He is a lecturer for Home Economics and Nutrition education at De - partment of Biology, Chemistry and Home Economics. His research interests are home economics, nutrition literacy, consumer education and sustainable consumer behaviour.