Context: Society is faced with “wicked” problems of environmental sustainability, which are inherently multiperspectival, and there is a need for explicitly constructivist and perspectivist theories to address them. Problem: However, different constructivist theories construe the environment in different ways. The aim of this paper is to clarify the conceptions of environment in constructivist approaches, and thereby to assist the sciences of complex systems and complex environmental problems. Method: We describe the terms used for “the environment” in von Uexküll, Maturana & Varela, and Luhmann, and analyse how their conceptions of environment are connected to differences of perspective and observation. Results: We show the need to distinguish between inside and outside perspectives on the environment, and identify two very different and complementary logics of observation, the logic of distinction and the logic of representation, in the three constructivist theories. Implications: Luhmann’s theory of social systems can be a helpful perspective on the wicked environmental problems of society if we consider carefully the theory’s own blind spots: that it confines itself to systems of communication, and that it is based fully on the conception of observation as indication by means of distinction.

Key words: Umwelt, phenomenology, biosemiotics, autopoiesis, perspectivism, Peirce, environment, observing, Luhmann, Uexküll, Maturana , Varela, observer

Open peer commentary on the article “Constructivism, Fast Thinking, Heuristics and Sustainable Development” by Hugh Gash. Abstract: Understanding how best to educate for sustainability must be a priority in this time of environmental uncertainty. This commentary examines the role of inquiry-based learning in education for sustainability, and the importance of learning in relationship with a world that is lively and sentient.

This paper is a discussion of the sustainability of a concept of “world” compatible with the “operative constructivism” and the operative conception of observation of systems theory of according to Niklas Luhmann. The paper scrutinizes the concepts of observation of H. von Foerster, H. Maturana, G. Günther and N. Luhmann, providing the general framework of “operative constructivism.” Particularly, the paper will focus on N. Luhmann’s understanding of the role of observation in the constitution of the self-reference of the social systems of the modern society. The case of the “systems of art” will be briefly inspected. What place shall we concede to the idea of an “objective” world, according to the systems theory? Are systems “objective”? According to N. Luhmann, for the description of systems only operations are “objective.” However, an operation is not an entity, which means that we need to depict a new kind of “objects,” very different from the ’thing-objectivity” of the ancient metaphysics and different from the Cartesian concept of “res.” What does objectivity mean according to systems theory? This question was at stake in the formulation of N. Luhmann’s Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft: Society is “weder Subjekt noch Objekt.” This paper attempts to address this formula. Relevance: The paper deals with the epistemological explanation of second-order observations in social systems according to Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory. It clarifies the world vision of the constructivism movement.

After its infant stage, a new science usually starts reflexing on its identity and theoretical roots. Sustainability science is not an exception, and the needs of self-reflection are even more pressing because of its inter- and trans-disciplinary characters, which involve a plenty of different approaches, theories and practices. In fact, such a variety does not provide a consistent ground for its future development. Without a solid grounding on a reliable base, the plethora of different theories that currently crowds its arena could in the near future produce a rejection from disciplinary specialized researchers, thus confining sustainability science to a scientific fad. Convincing theoretical roots can be found in systems science and cybernetics, and in particular second-order cybernetics, once amended from autopoiesis theory and radical constructivism, which raise serious doubts of validity and applicability. If sustainability science acknowledged its systemic and cybernetic nature and adopted second-order cybernetics in its amended version, it would gain a powerful reference paradigm and a theoretical common denominator and language to support its researchers and facilitate their knowledge exchange. From their part, systems science and cybernetics would be better understood and embraced as powerful sources of knowledge for understanding modern challenging problems, and second-order cybernetics, after decades of scarce relevance for other scientific disciplines, would be revitalized and would finally evolve adequately in a promising science and social practice.

Key words: complexity, cybernetics, first-person account, recursivity, second-order, self-organization, sustainability, systems science.

Context: Sustainability is among major societal goals in our days. Education is acknowledged as an essential strategy for attaining sustainability by activating the creative potential within young people to understand sustainability, bring forth changes in their everyday life, and collectively envision a more sustainable future. Problem: However, teaching and learning about sustainability and sustainability-related issues is not an easy task due to the inherent complexity, ambiguity, and context-specificity of the concept. We are in need of innovative pedagogical approaches and tools that will allow us to design learning activities in which learners will be empowered to develop new, alternative interpretations of sustainability in personally and collectively meaningful ways. Method: We argue that a constructionist perspective involving the use of expressive media for digital storytelling offers an appropriate frame for designing learning activities fostering collaborative creativity in thinking and learning about urban sustainability. Our study is based on the design of a learning activity following this rationale. We adopted a qualitative approach in the collection and analysis of different sources of data with the aim to explore collaborative creativity as a learning process based on the students’ collective processes and resulting in the co-construction of new ideas and insights about sustainability, and new tangible artefacts (the digital stories) encompassing them. Results: Our analysis of the collaborative creativity exemplified in the three digital stories produced identified important creative elements with regards to the three components of a digital story (script, technical characteristics, and ideas of urban sustainability) and how they were embodied in each digital story produced as a result of the students’ joint constructionist activity. Implications: Our study provides some preliminary evidence that collaborative creativity from a constructionist perspective can stand as an appropriate framework for designing learning activities addressing the difficult concept of sustainability. There are several implications for both theory and educational practice in environmental education and education for sustainable development, constructionism, and digital storytelling in education. Moreover, our study opens up new fields for research and theory in creativity.

Key words: Sustainability, urban sustainability, collaborative creativity, constructionism, digital storytelling, learning design.

Open peer commentary on the article “Learning about Urban Sustainability with Digital Stories: Promoting Collaborative Creativity from a Constructionist Perspective” by Maria Daskolia, Chronis Kynigos & Katerina Makri. Upshot: The target article by Daskolia, Kynigos and Makri shows the great potential of narrative learning to foster general learning skills, such as meaning-making, collaboration and creativity, while facilitating the construction of disciplinary content knowledge. This learning approach has much to recommend it, especially from a constructivist perspective, because it supports the implementation of collaborative and creative learning processes apt to promote reflective dialogue as a basis for knowledge construction, capitalizing on students’ previous knowledge and experience.

Abstract: In my response, I focus on themes that recur in the commentaries: (a) Radical constructivism’s neutrality and the need for and value of sustainability; (b) education and sustainability; (c) the relation between fast and slow learning; and (d) radical constructivism in the context of populism and fake news. I welcome the way the commentaries broaden the context of the target article, emphasising the contemporary international importance of the topic and providing examples that refine radical constructivism’s contribution to educational innovative practice.

Context: Radical constructivism prioritises the processes by which people make sense of their experience and people construct different worlds based on their individual experiences. Problem: It follows naturally from this that people may disagree about how they understand sustainability issues. Method: I consider a number of issues related to sustainability and examines processes by which they may have been constructed. Results: Examination of the processes of construction shows that shortcuts in thinking known as heuristics play a role in thinking about sustainability. Focusing on these shortcuts and the role they play in thinking offers a way to deconstruct thoughts produced in discussions. Implications: Understanding why people hold different views on sustainability makes it possible to open discussions on the viability of these views. The hope is that discussions about these issues in a context of mutual respect will facilitate an emerging consensus. Constructivist content: Radical constructivism has prioritised rational scientific processes in the emergence of an individual’s constructions of their reality. However, two aspects of this process constrain changes in cognitive constructions. First, individuals regularly construct thoughts that are based on heuristics rather than assessed on the basis of evidence. Second, ways an individual perceives peers’ constructions of their “realities” play a role in her identity and canalise how constructions change.

Key words: Constructivism, belief, identity, heuristics, testimony, sustainability

Open peer commentary on the article “Learning about Urban Sustainability with Digital Stories: Promoting Collaborative Creativity from a Constructionist Perspective” by Maria Daskolia, Chronis Kynigos & Katerina Makri. Upshot: Creativity, collaboration and learning are fascinatingly messy and interconnected processes. Does knowledge develop by engaging in a collaborative creative process, or does existing knowledge allow us to create more creative artefacts? Does one build upon the other in a bricolage process, familiar to constructionist learning experiences? If so, how can we best facilitate this type of learning? This OPC raises a number of questions that it does not attempt to answer but raises them to draw attention to the complexity of the phenomena under investigation.

Open peer commentary on the article “Constructivism, Fast Thinking, Heuristics and Sustainable Development” by Hugh Gash. Abstract: I examine the opportunities and challenges in focusing on heuristics and testimony as a means to deconstruct thinking about sustainable development. Also, I posit the use of the Visual Cues pedagogic approach as a means to reveal heuristic thinking pathways, and to engage learners in deeper introspection of their own and others’ perspectives, beliefs, and ethical-values bases vis-à-vis sustainability.