Students’ Learning for Action Through Inquiry-Based Science Education on a Local Environmental Problem

Abstract

This study examines students’ learning for action towards sustainability when addressing a local environmental problem related to mining through an Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) approach. A total of 54 eighth-grade students (ages 13–15) from a rural middle school participated in this study. Data collection included written group productions and group interviews, which were analysed using inductive and deductive processes. The results revealed three levels of the students’ learning for action: “What” (problem identification), “Why” (reasons for action), and “How” (local action). All groups successfully identified the environmental problem, and 64% demonstrated understanding of the reasons for action, showing concern for future generations and environmental preservation. At the “How” level, 50% of the groups recognised the importance of local action, 34% actively planned and implemented actions, and 29% developed specific competences for action, including systemic thinking, argumentation, and communication skills. This research demonstrates that using the IBSE approach to address relevant local problems facilitates the development of action competences for sustainability. Digital technologies emerged as important tools for the students’ actions. The study also provides a framework for understanding and analysing students’ learning for action.

1. Introduction

An ever-increasing planetary emergency brings with it cross-cutting and interconnected challenges linked to the environment, prosperity, and peace [1]. In this context, sustainability and global citizenship combined appear as beacons to discuss the transformative potential of education in building peaceful and sustainable societies, providing guidance to strive for social justice and address environmental issues and challenges of digital transformation [2,3,4,5,6].

Education for sustainability and sustainable development (ESD) has become part of national curricula in many countries, notably in Europe [7]. It is understood as a path to empower students to get to know and understand the world’s challenges and their implications, both globally and locally. It also seeks to develop students’ competences to take action for positive social and environmental change within their lives and communities [8,9,10]. All of which will require of students the ability to act, but also the willingness to act [3,11].

In this panorama, the development of students’ competences for sustainability has witnessed remarkable attention in scholarly work [5,12,13,14,15], particularly action competences [16] and digital literacy and competences [17]. However, there are claims that more empirical evidence is needed to support the claim that proposed key competences for sustainability contribute to successful real-world problem solving [13] and action-taking [16]. In addition, studies have emphasized that more should be known about the effectiveness of pedagogical approaches and integrated curriculum for sustainability in the promotion of students’ learning and (self-perceived) competences for action [8,9,18].

This study aims to contribute to the significant discourses on students’ competences for sustainability and to the reflection on the effect of specific pedagogical approaches in ESD. It offers insights into a group of eighth grade students’ learning for action towards sustainability when addressing a local problem related to mining exploration, which occurred in the context of an Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) approach. The following research question guided the study:

• What is the students’ learning for action towards sustainability when addressing a local environmental problem related to mining through an IBSE approach?

This paper is structured to provide an overview of education for sustainability and sustainable development. This is followed by a review of literature on students’ competences for sustainability, specifically targeting action competences. After this, we present the study and its methodological approaches. The findings are then displayed, offering insights into the students’ learning for action towards sustainability. Finally, we conclude with a discussion on the broader implications of our findings, notably in similar contexts.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Education for Sustainability and Sustainable Development

In 1987, the publication of the Brundtland Report, prepared by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), brought the concept of sustainability to the forefront of the global debate. This report introduced a definition that remains a reference to this day, stating that development is sustainable when it “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [19] (p. 15). This interpretation highlights the need to balance economic and social development with environmental preservation, emphasising the necessity of a more integrated approach to sustainability. Since then, the sustainability debate has intensified, expanding beyond environmental concerns to include economic and social contexts [20].

Within this framework, ESD plays a key role in fostering a broader understanding of the interconnections between environmental, economic, and social challenges [8]. Adopting a holistic and interdisciplinary approach, ESD goes beyond merely transmitting knowledge about sustainability; it aims to translate that knowledge into meaningful action, fostering active and responsible citizenship that materializes through concrete and transformative initiatives [8,21,22]. The recognition of ESD’s importance has strengthened over the years and is reflected in various international initiatives.

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, highlighted education as one of the fundamental pillars for achieving sustainable development [23]. Later, in 2005, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) reinforced this vision by launching the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014), emphasising that sustainability is not limited to environmental, social, and economic dimensions but also integrates a transversal cultural and educational dimension [4].

The global commitment to sustainability was reaffirmed in 2015 with the adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations member states. This plan established concrete goals to ensure the prosperity of both the planet and human societies [1] and serves as an essential reference for ESD, providing a strategic framework for educational action.

ESD establishes a structured framework for informed, competence-based, and action-oriented education, serving as a cornerstone for both the advancement of quality education and the development of more sustainable societies [3,4,15,24]. It moves away from normative traditions of education and information-deficit models towards more pluralistic and democratic ones, alongside holistic, integrated, whole-school approaches [2,3,9,10,16]. Critical approaches to ESD problematise the sole promotion of students’ abstract knowledge and behaviour change. It is claimed that the focus needs to be on the development of students as critical beings and ensuring that transformative learning occurs, meaning that learning for sustainability should not be disconnected from the context and students’ lived experiences and should lead to responsible and ethical action [5,8,10,16,18]. It also underscores that achieving the goals for a sustainable future would require that action competence for sustainability is at the core of education, so that the development of students’ sustainability knowledge, skills, and competences is supported [13,18,25].

2.2. Students’ Competences for Sustainability

In the last two decades, despite criticism [13], there have been several attempts to identify key competences relating to sustainability and ESD. This has resulted in reference frameworks proposed by different authors, with the overall aim to support curriculum rationale, design, and assessment. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that the in-depth development of key competences in sustainability is a complex endeavour and that it may vary depending on the educational level and program [13,25]. Also, such competences can have different relevance and meaning depending on different latitudes and on their regional and cultural particularities [26]. In this section, some such frameworks are addressed.

The term “shaping competence” (Gestaltungskompetenz) is suggested [27] to describe the capacity to act and solve problems, which encompasses a set of eight competences (foresighted thinking; interdisciplinary work and interdisciplinary learning to address complex problems; cosmopolitan perception, transcultural understanding and cooperation; participatory skills; planning and implementing skills; capacity for empathy, compassion, and solidarity; self-motivation and motivating others; distanced reflection in individual and cultural models). Accordingly, students with a shaping competence will be able to “help, through their active participation in society, to modify and shape the future of society, and to guide its social, economic, technological and ecological changes along the lines of sustainable development” [27] (p. 22).

A Delphi study [26] formulated a rationale of 12 key competences for curricula design: systemic, anticipatory, critical thinking; acting fairly and ecologically; cooperation in groups; participation; empathy and change of perspective; interdisciplinary work; communication and use of media; planning and realising innovative projects; evaluation; ambiguity and frustration tolerance. Similarly, a set of competences for sustainability was proposed by [28]: systems thinking; interdisciplinary work; anticipatory thinking; justice, responsibility, and ethics; critical thinking and analysis; interpersonal relations and collaboration; empathy and change of perspective; communication and use of media; strategic action; personal involvement; assessment and evaluation; and tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty.

For their part, [13,25] propose a six-competence framework, here briefly explained: systems thinking (ability to collectively analyse complex systems across different domains); anticipatory or futures-thinking competence (ability to collectively analyse, evaluate, and craft rich ‘‘pictures’’ of the future related to sustainability issues and sustainability problem-solving frameworks); normative or values-thinking competence (ability to collectively map, specify, apply, reconcile, and negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals, and targets); strategic or action-oriented competence (ability to collectively design and implement interventions, transitions, and transformative governance strategies toward sustainability); interpersonal or collaborative competence (ability to motivate, enable, and facilitate collaborative and participatory sustainability research and problem solving); and integrated problem-solving competence. The latter is a meta-competence that allows students to analyse and solve sustainability problems. Accordingly, students are “familiar with and able to apply different problem-solving frameworks to complex sustainability problems and develop viable solution options”, and thus “to meaningfully integrate problem analysis, sustainability assessment, visioning and strategy building” [13] (p. 251). This framework is further developed by [12], who suggest adding the implementation competence, according to which students would learn from stakeholders how they have implemented change but also “to practice it themselves by actually implementing a sustainability solution in a specific context” [12] (p. 24). The authors claim that it would lead to developing students as “sustainability researchers” and being involved in transformational sustainability action.

The idea of action competence as a core principle in ESD was primarily discussed in the field of environmental education by [3,9,16,29]. It fits radical and democratic interpretations of ESD, which intend to develop students as “critical, democratic and political human beings” [2] (p. 64), and their “ability, motivation and desire to play an active role in finding democratic solutions to problems and issues connected to sustainable development” [2] (p. 68). The concept of action is, therefore, aligned with the engagement of students with controversial problems and purposively finding solutions and bringing about change [2,3].

Action competence for sustainable development comprises three components [3]: (i) knowledge (involving issue, action possibilities, and individual and societal norms) and skills (such as critical reflection, flexibility, and a positive stance to possibilities); (ii) willingness, commitment, and passion to contribute to action; and (iii) confidence in one’s own influencing possibilities. Although the action competence is, similarly to sustainability, “a never-ending process” [2], as action-competent persons, a student would be “someone who is committed and passionate about solving a societal issue, has the relevant knowledge about the issue at stake as well as about the democratic processes involved, takes a critical but positive stance toward different ways for solving it, and has confidence in their own skills and capacities for changing the conditions for the better” [3] (p. 303).

According to [9], there may be several internal and external factors involved in the development of students’ action competence, some of them being students’ experience of participation, involvement in collective action, and their feeling of ownership in teaching and learning. Therefore, [2,9,15,16] underline the relevance of creating opportunities for students to get involved with the community and to plan and take action in authentic contexts through collective civic engagement, problem-based and project-oriented learning, service-learning, action research approaches, and digital technologies and social networks as tools for action [6,17,30,31].

Despite the potential of ESD, its implementation presents significant challenges, particularly in translating learning objectives into effective educational strategies [13,15,20]. The absence of a structured approach can lead to fragmented learning, delaying the implementation of effective solutions and the development of competences necessary for sustainability [14].

2.3. Inquiry-Based Science Education for Sustainability

To effectively implement ESD, it is essential to adopt approaches that foster self-directed learning, active participation, collaboration, and problem solving [15,32,33]. In this context, IBSE has been recognised as a powerful pedagogical approach for sustainability education, contributing to the achievement of the SDGs [34]. IBSE not only enhances critical thinking skills [34,35] but also provides academic and motivational benefits [36,37], making it a valuable methodology within the framework of ESD. Additionally, it cultivates essential 21st-century skills such as creativity, innovation, and problem solving [38].

IBSE engages students in questioning, data collection and analysis, and evidence-based reasoning [39]. It actively involves them in exploring, thinking critically, discussing, and articulating scientific concepts [40]. This approach integrates key scientific practices, immersing learners in a process that deepens their understanding of scientific concepts, methodologies, and the nature of science [41].

The knowledge gained through this inquiry-driven process empowers students to make informed decisions and take evidence-based action [42], contributing to the development of their action competences [43]. Furthermore, IBSE fosters a proactive mindset, encouraging students to engage with real-world challenges in the present rather than postponing action to the future [18]. When students engage in learning through IBSE, they participate in activities that enable them to actively construct knowledge [37]. This process is fundamental to both science and ESD, as it encourages learners to build upon their existing understanding while developing new insights [44].

IBSE often involves the use of the internet and various technological resources, strengthening the connection between students and the broader school community. To maximize the benefits of this approach, teachers must create a stimulating classroom environment equipped with diverse and accessible resources [45]. The rapid advancement of computer and network technologies has further amplified the potential of inquiry-based learning, with research highlighting how technology integration enhances both scientific understanding and student engagement [46]. By serving as a cognitive support, technology not only deepens conceptual comprehension but also fosters motivation, allowing students to visualise and interact with scientific phenomena in more meaningful and interactive ways [47].

IBSE can also be developed following different models. One such model was developed by [48]—the 5E’s model. His model is based on a constructivist vision of science and suggests the development of inquiry activities according to a five-phase cycle: engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate. Usually, the cycle starts with the phase Engage. This stage aims at motivating the students to study a certain topic. So, this stage seeks to raise students’ interest and curiosity, and, as such, it starts with a problematic situation. Upon being assigned the problematic situation, students are challenged (or they feel challenged) to question, identify, and define a problem. During the phase Explore, students can develop group work. Students make questions, raise a hypothesis, make plans to test their hypothesis, register observations, and discuss with colleagues the results obtained, compare results and possible explanations, and organise all the information collected. Explain’s phase aims at promoting an articulation between observations, ideas, questions, and hypothesis. So, students are stimulated to, using their own words, explain the concepts that emerged from the learning situation, to use the results (observations and measures) for sustaining their explanations, and to critically argue with their colleagues and the teacher. During the phase Elaborate, students make connections with other concepts and mobilise learnt concepts and competences in a new learning situation. Furthermore, students are challenged, one more time, to argue and sustain their arguments with collected evidence. Finally, on the phase Evaluate, students reflect on all the work that they have developed [48].

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Context

The participants in this study were 54 students attending the eighth grade from one middle school, aged between 13 and 15. The school was involved in a project funded by a public institution, and the students who took part in the study were engaged in this initiative, which aimed to promote IBSE and competences for sustainability through the exploration of locally relevant contexts. Located in a rural area, the school serves a student population whose interests are predominantly oriented towards agricultural issues. The students primarily came from lower-middle-class backgrounds, with most of their parents employed in agriculture-related occupations and service sectors.

They were involved in a learning sequence focused on IBSE about a local environmental problem related to mining. It was the first time the students had participated in an IBSE learning experience. However, they already had prior knowledge of environmental issues related to recycling, species preservation, and environmental conservation, as well as the greenhouse effect. The students worked in groups of three or four elements, in a total of 14 groups (2 groups of three elements, 12 groups of four elements). The learning sequence was carried out in three sciences classes (270 min) and involved autonomous work by the groups outside the classroom, especially during the implementation of the actions. Two sciences teachers were involved in the implementation of the learning sequence, acting as facilitators throughout the process.

The learning sequence was organized according to the 5Es instructional model, which consists of five phases—Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate [48]. The Engage phase was integrated into the sequence through a newspaper article about mining activity in the region where the students lived, highlighting some of the environmental consequences of this activity. The article did not provide extensive information; rather, it offered brief snapshots intended to spark the readers’ curiosity. After reading the article, the two teachers asked the students whether they were familiar with the mines and what they already knew about the topic. In the Explore phase, the students were required to identify and describe the main problem presented in the article, to share their interpretation of the issue and possible resolutions, to design an action plan, and to implement the planned actions. During the Explain phase, students had to present to the class the main effects of their actions on others. It should be noted that only five groups (see

Table 1. Examples of codes for the 3 levels.

Levels	Sublevels	Codes	Examples
What		Problem identification (1) Social implications (2) Environmental implications (3) Economic implications (4) Problem complexity (5)	The problem is related to the effects of mining on the environment (1), including water quality and soils. But it will also be important for us to understand, in order to take action, if the mines disappear what will happen to the people who work there and the number of people who would have to leave our city to look for work elsewhere (2). Therefore, we must analyse this problem by looking at the various aspects (5). (Written productions)
Why		Preserve the environment (6) Protection of the human species (7) Protection of animals and plants (8) Preserve the planet (9) Quality of life on the planet (10) Future generations (11)	It will be important for us to act because if we think about our planet, the only one that is known to be habitable (9), we have to think about how we protect it in order to continue to live here with health and quality of life (10). We don’t want our region sick (7) and [want] that future generations also be able to live here (11) and also the animals (8). (Interviews)
How	Sa	The importance of my action (12) We are prepared (13)	We have been able to do things to find solutions to the problem and raise aware-ness among people, our parents, friends, family, about what is happening (13). Even if it seems like a small thing, like sharing on Instagram or sharing a video on the YouTube channel about the impact of mining on the environment, it can help people think about it (12). (Written productions)
	En	Steps of the plan (14) Actions to be carried out (15) Resources to use in the actions (16) Technologies to use in the action (17)	First, our group will do research on the topic to be informed and know about the subject. Next, we will listen to people who are responsible for the mine and also the workers to understand their position and the advantages and disadvantages (14). Then we will make information leaflets for the entire population about the risks of (15, 16), especially to the elderly and we will make a post on Instagram and make a video for YouTube (17). (Written productions)
	Ev	Evaluate action and use scientific knowledge (18) Evaluate action and use technological knowledge (19) Mobilize competencies to evaluate action (20)	Yes, I have the idea that only now we know what they are and what they do. It was important for us to understand the different positions and see the advantages and disadvantages. It’s not just negative things, they bring jobs, wealth, people, but then there’s the other part that is important to the population and for us to be informed, alert and … (18). To do things. We had that. We were able to think and implement our ideas to alert ourselves and everyone about the bad effects on our environment and it was interesting that to act we used what we do every day (18). We communicated with each other with insta, WhatsApp, message and we had never used it for such an action intervention (19). (Interview)

) managed to complete both the Explore and Explain phases. By engaging in these tasks, the students were required to integrate various types of knowledge—scientific knowledge, technological knowledge, and an understanding of sustainability and the impact of human actions on nature. During the Elaborate phase, the teachers encouraged the students to think about new problems related to their local context that could lead to further actions. Finally, in the Evaluate phase, the students assessed the work carried out, reflecting on what they had learned, how they worked as a group, what they liked most and least, and what they would like to learn more about.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

This is a qualitative and interpretative study [49] that allows researchers to explore the issues in greater depth and detail. Accordingly, the data collected are qualitative in nature, containing descriptive details about the students [50]. It is therefore the researchers’ task to interpret the situations from the participants’ perspectives, taking into account their words and actions. Qualitative data are rich in detail and description, enabling the capture of individuals’ personal perspectives and lived experiences [51].

Based on this rationale, data were collected through teams’ written responses to the learning sequence and group interviews [52]. In total, 14 teams’ written productions were collected, and, at the end of the learning sequence, each working group was interviewed. The main objective of the interview was to know the student’s perspective on the learning sequence and the importance of acting on a local problem. The interviews lasted between 15 and 20 min. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed in full by the first author of the article. The interview protocols and the written production guidelines were first validated by a group of three researchers in the field of education. Then, the interviews were conducted with two groups of students from a different school (each group consisting of three students). These two student groups also provided feedback on the written production guidelines [49].

The data analysis process began with the first author reading all the students’ written productions and, using an inductive approach, conducting the analysis through an iterative process of coding and categorizing the data. Subsequently, the third author independently applied the predefined codes, categories, and subcategories to 20% of the students’ written productions. After this step, the two authors met to compare their coding and categorization. In cases of disagreement, they engaged in in-depth discussions, presenting examples from the data along with their interpretations. The inter-rater reliability achieved between the first and third authors was 0.90. This strategy enabled the authors to reach consensus on the coding decisions and to define three levels of students’ learning for action: what, why, and how. For the how level, three sublevels were identified: Self-awareness about the ability to act locally (Sa), Enact through local action (En), and Evaluation of local action (Ev). After completing this process, the first and third authors analysed the content of the interview transcript, considering the codes and categories that emerged from the written productions. Examples of the codes developed for the three levels are presented in Table 1.

Figure 1 presents the three-level framework resulting from the data analysis on students’ learning for action on a local problem.

4. Results

The results show that the fourteen groups were not able to progress equally at all levels (what, why, and how) regarding learning for action towards sustainability. Eight of the groups reached all three levels, but only three groups managed to include all sublevels of “how”. A summary of all groups’ (G1–G14) results is presented in

Table 2. Levels of students’ learning for action.

Levels of Students’ Learning		G1	G2	G3	G4	G5	G6	G7	G8	G9	G10	G11	G12	G13	G14	Total
What		•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	100%
Why			•		•	•	•		•	•	•			•	•	64%
How	Sa		•		•	•			•		•			•	•	50%
	En		•			•	•				•			•		34%
	Ev		•			•	•				•					29%

.

4.1. What?

All groups were able to identify the problem linked to their local context, and seven groups (G2, G4, G5, G6, G10, G13, G14) established the political, social, environmental, or economic implications of the problem. For example, when G2 was asked during the activity to identify and describe the problem, the group registered the following:

The problem is related to the effects of mining on the environment, including water quality and soils. But it will also be important for us to understand, in order to take action, if the mines disappear what will happen to the people who work there and the number of people who would have to leave our city to look for work elsewhere. Therefore, we must analyse this problem by looking at the various aspects (G2. Written productions).

G2 showed the need to discuss the balance between mining and environmental sustainability. In this first phase of identifying and describing the problem, the group acknowledged the need to analyse arguments related to environmental protection, referring to concerns with “water quality and soils”, as well as economic (e.g., employment) and social (e.g., demography) arguments. Another example was collected from the written record of G13:

Mines should or should not be dismantled, this is a problem on which the population must pronounce. We have, on the one hand, the issue of analysing the health of the population that is living here and breathing this air that may have lower quality. On the other hand, we also must see that mines attract people here to work and then generate money that we all need to live on (G13. Written productions).

As evidenced in the above written record, when describing the problem, G13 not only expresses concerns about health issues related to pollution and environmental quality but also reveals the need to analyse the socioeconomic impact of the possible non-existence of the mine for the region. Their argument considers job creation and the potential for attracting people to the area.

4.2. Why?

The written answers of nine groups (G2, G4, G5, G6, G8, G9, G10, G13, G14) revealed the reasons for acting in order to solve the local problem. In fact, they are aware of the importance of considering all the implications in articulation as a means to protect future generations, to preserve the environment, and to contribute to a better life on the planet Earth. For instance, G10, in the interview, explained the reasons for action:

Melanie: There is data that shows that the mine has negative effects on the environment. For example, the soils near the mine are contaminated and the environmental impact is enormous. It will be important for us to act because if we think about our planet, the only one that is known to be habitable, we must think about how we protect it in order to continue to live here with health and quality of life.

Paul: I also think it’s good, before we make a decision about whether or not to remove the mine, we have to analyse whether the owners of the mine are really doing everything to protect the environment and those who live here, including the animals and plants that are also living beings.

Anna: We don’t want our region sick and [want] that future generations also be able to live here and also the animals.

John: We are all one planet!

(G10. Interview)

As shown by the excerpt from the transcription of G10’s interview, this group presents several reasons for acting in the face of the environmental problem caused by the mines. G10 demonstrates concerns related to the planet Earth, their intergenerational responsibility, and the need for long-term sustainability. Their answer also reveals complex thinking, as they simultaneously recognise the intrinsic value of other forms of life and the importance of biodiversity when referring to animals and plants. In addition, they show a vision of the community as an integrated ecosystem where environment and people are interconnected, thus linking environmental and social issues.

Group 14’s written records also reveal the same type of awareness. For instance, G14 wrote the following reasons for action:

Having a good environment is important for us and for the planet. With the exploitation of mine’s resources, we cannot only think about the money earned, but it is important to think that we are contaminating our environment, depleting natural resources and that the future may be mortgaged.

(G14. Written productions)

The students understand the relationship between current human actions, notably the exploitation of resources by the mining industry, and their future implications. For instance, they seem to understand that if they spend all the natural resources, there will be nothing left for the future generations. The students advocate for environmental responsibility, suggesting that mining practices that prioritise only immediate profit can compromise both the environment and future generations.

4.3. How?

4.3.1. Self-Awareness of the Ability to Act Locally

Some groups (G2, G4, G5, G8, G10, G13, G14) understand the importance of their local action to solve problems and perceive themselves as individuals who can act on the problem. For example, G13, in response to the questions of the activity, wrote:

We have been able to do things to find solutions to the problem and raise awareness among people, our parents, friends, family, about what is happening. Even if it seems like a small thing, like sharing on Instagram or sharing a video on the YouTube channel about the impact of mining on the environment, it can help people think about it.

(G13. Written productions)

In their written records, the students emphasise the importance of individual action and collective awareness. From their perspective, they can, as citizens, raise greater awareness of the environmental impact of mining among those around them (parents, friends, family) through small actions and the use of technology and social networks. G5 also recognises that, as citizens, they have the power to take action.

A better world depends on each and every one of us. Thus, we are the key to intervene and take our intervention to others as well. An interesting point is that we talk to those who work in the mine because we also understand what they have to say about the subject and then think that we will be able to intervene with our ideas (…) we can spread the information quickly because we have access to the net and networks.

(G5. Written productions)

This written production reflects the group’s perspective on their responsibility to address the problem. According to the students, improving the world depends on both individual and collective actions. In addition, they consider important to their action to dialogue with those who work in this activity, to understand the various points of view, and, only after collecting various information, to act using the internet and social networks, which allow them to have a long reach and speed. Another example can be observed in the next dialogue in group interviews.

Maria: If each of us thinks of one thing we can do to raise awareness of the consequences of rampant mining, perhaps our voice together will be heard more.

Katja: Yes, we can do simple things and introduce small awareness campaigns for what happens.

Peter: We have this possibility to do that and go to the street, use TikTok. Ask for a meeting with the company, we have to act because we can, and we must.

(G14. Interview)

The sentence “Yes, we can do things” conveys the idea that if anyone is willing to and knows what to do, they can act. In these examples, students have the notion that small actions can make a difference, such as “go to the street” or act through social networks.

4.3.2. Enact Through Local Action

Their understanding of their responsibility for the state of affairs, along with the belief that they can contribute to solving an unsustainable situation, fostered a willingness to take action and influence both their own and others’ behaviours, as reflected in numerous responses. Five groups (G2, G5, G6, G10, G13) planned their actions and implemented them locally. The written documents and interviews provide insights into some of the groups’ action plans:

First, our group will do research on the topic to be informed and know about the subject. Next, we will listen to people who are responsible for the mine and also the workers to understand their position and the advantages and disadvantages. Then we will make information leaflets for the entire population about the risks of mining for the environment, distribute them on the streets, especially to the elderly and we will make a post on Instagram and make a video for YouTube. Our video can have several parts: we start by telling you what the purpose of the mine is and the advantages and disadvantages (we can use internet research and our information gathering with those responsible for the mine here), then we move on to the part of the exploitation of the minerals and their consequences for the environment. We can end with a slogan and our recommendations for the mine.

(G6. Written productions)

This group’s written work clearly reflects personal involvement with the topic, using first-person plural verb conjugation throughout their discourse and incorporating words like “our”. They actively plan their actions. For example, in relation to the video, they clearly expose its structure and consider the need to inform the population, showing in a substantiated way the advantages and disadvantages of the mine. It is interesting to note how the students plan to reach different audiences (elderly people through printed leaflets and other younger audiences through social networks), showing awareness about communication strategies suitable for various audiences. It is also visible that they have a sense that there are things that can be done; they point out some of those things and recognise themselves as capable of implementing some of the mentioned measures.

In the interview, some of the groups described their actions and how they got involved in them:

Laura: Instagram was what I thought was the most successful among us and some of our friends. We made some stories with videos and images about look, look, this is the mine, look, see what is happening to our environment and that we don’t see.

Mickael: Yes, let’s get together and alert about the pollution of the air, of the soil.

Laura: This was cool and turned out well. We had likes and I think that… we manage to reach friends and friends also pass on to others.

(G2. Interview)

As can be seen from the excerpt of the interview with G2, social networks played an important role in the development of the students’ actions on the local problem related to mines. Through messages such as “look, you see, this is the mine, look, look what is happening to our environment”, they have managed to draw attention to environmental issues. In addition, Laura highlights the multiplier effect when she says, “we can reach friends and friends also pass on to others”, demonstrating how social networks can amplify the message beyond the immediate circle of students. The mention of “likes” suggests that students received validation and positive feedback on their action.

4.3.3. Evaluation of Local Action

The students’ involvement in presenting solutions to a local problem enabled them to develop several important skills for action. For instance, they learned to simultaneously consider different perspectives and integrate them into a coherent position (revealing systemic and complex thinking and reasoning). They also strengthened their ability to defend and argue a position, as well as to plan and execute their actions, for example, through social networks, giving this tool a different functionality from the one they usually use. These skills developed while planning and developing the actions and were mentioned by the groups in the interviews.

Robert: This activity allowed us to see different perspectives that I had never thought of. We live very close to the mines, we know they exist, but I had never thought about it.

David: Yes, I have the idea that only now we know what they are and what they do. It was important for us to understand the different positions and see the advantages and disadvantages. It’s not just negative things, they bring jobs, wealth, people, but then there’s the other part that is important to the population and for us to be informed, alert and…

Emma: To do things. We had that. We were able to think and implement our ideas to alert ourselves and everyone about the bad effects on our environment and it was interesting that to act we used what we do every day. We communicated with each other with insta, WhatsApp, message and we had never used it for such an action intervention.

David: I agree with Emma, it was used for the purpose of saying: Enough of the mine contaminating our water, soil, air. Enough is enough, we must demand that those who have responsibility take care of the environment and reduce these bad effects.

(G5. Interview)

The previous example illustrates how the students enhanced their ability to argue and defend their positions. Additionally, the learning sequence enabled them to deepen their understanding of their local context and utilise tools commonly used in their daily lives (e.g., Instagram, WhatsApp, text messages) for active intervention. Another example can be extracted from the interview with G6.

James: We have our position that we are going to protect the environment, but it was important to combine all perspectives. The question is: can the mines get out of here? Are we going to finish with the mines? When we were preparing the action, we discussed it and informed ourselves. They can’t because there are also other sides. So what did we do? A video that we shared on YouTube about the things that can be improved by the mine on the environment, and it was important to say why and we used the research to support.

Sarah: Well, it’s good to give information about the subject. We were informed and we were able to discuss the matter. We also thought that making some flyers would also be good. We made the video and also distributed the pamphlets near the pharmacy.

(G5. Interview)

This example shows how the students from the G6 group developed a reasoned approach to addressing mine-related environmental problems. During the preparation of the action, the group researched and concluded that it would not be feasible to completely eliminate the mines, recognising that “there are also other sides”, suggesting an understanding of the economic and social benefits mentioned previously. In response, they created a YouTube video that focused on specific issues that could be improved by the mine in order to minimize its environmental impact. In addition to the video, the group also opted to communicate through a different channel—printed pamphlets. Both transcripts from the interviews show that the students not only learned about a local environmental problem but also developed skills to critically analyse it and intervene constructively, intentionally, and purposefully.

5. Discussion

This study sought to examine students’ learning for action towards sustainability when addressing a local environmental problem related to mining though a learning sequence focused on IBSE. The results reveal that students’ learning regarding environmental action progresses differently, according to different levels, corresponding to the What, Why, and How of the adopted three-level framework.

At the What level, all the groups were able to identify the local problem related to mining and establish links to the social, environmental, and economic implications of this problem. For example, G2 and G13 demonstrated an elaborate understanding by considering not only the environmental impacts of mining, but also its socio-economic implications for the local community, revealing an ability to analyse complex issues related to their local context. This ability to recognise the multiple dimensions of the problem (environmental, economic, social), its interdependence, and its long-term implications is consistent with what [2] identify as a fundamental element of action skills, in which individuals understand the causes and effects of environmental problems.

As for the Why level, 64% of the groups showed that they understood the reasons for acting in order to seek solutions to the identified problem. Such reasons were mainly related to their concern for the future of the planet and show that students have a sense of responsibility for society and the environment, for the planet, and for future generations, which is transformed into a will to act [11]. This type of awareness is essential for the development of lasting action skills [29], which, combined with the development of a willingness to act, is crucial in action-competent citizens [3]. These results are aligned with prior research, which also reported that when students are given the opportunity to be engaged with integrated problem-solving, inquiry, and action-oriented challenges at a local level, they tend to develop their analytical skills and systemic thinking. This ability to approach sustainability problems holistically, covering different domains (society, environment, economy), may lead to an awareness of global sustainability [13,14,24].

The How level is related to the action itself and includes three sublevels. The first, “Self-awareness about the ability to act locally (Sa)”, was mentioned by 50% of the groups. These students recognise their importance in local action and are prepared to act. For example, G13 and G5 exemplify this awareness, recognising that even seemingly small, individual actions can contribute to change when collectively amplified. These results are in line with [6], who argues for the importance of local initiatives and community participation as catalysts for broader environmental change.

The second sublevel of the How, “Enact through local action”, was observed by 34% of the groups and corresponds to a more complex and integrated dimension of action competence for sustainability. These groups planned the action and implemented it. The students who were able to attain this enactment sphere were able to mobilise, integrate knowledge about the problem at hand, anticipate possibilities, assess existing conditions, and make decisions regarding the ones they would like to change. These groups created and exercised concrete action. According to the literature, this action-oriented learning is crucial to the development of key competences, such as interdisciplinary learning, anticipatory thinking, and planning and implementing skills associated with realising innovative initiatives or projects [3,15,25,26,27,28,29]. Additionally, it was observed that social networks and the internet played an important role in the accomplishment of the actions planned by the students [30].

Finally, the third sublevel, “Evaluation of local action”, was referenced by 29% of the groups, and it may be understood as a meta-learning dimension, according to which the students demonstrate their ability to take a stance about their own action and about themselves as citizens. Self-evaluation processes and self-reflectiveness are structuring to the students’ development as citizens, since it allows them to assess strengths and setbacks of co-generated actions and of their own learning towards sustainability [2,3]. Students showed systemic thinking, argumentation, analysis of their planning and intervention, and communication competences. For example, groups G5 and G6 showed how their involvement in the learning sequence allowed them to develop reasoned arguments and use everyday communication tools for local action. In fact, it was possible to observe that the learning sequence enhanced the use of digital technologies and that students gave new meanings to the potential of these tools for sustainability action. The students repurposed platforms like Instagram, YouTube, and WhatsApp, transforming them from mere socialization tools into instruments for action, using them to raise awareness among the local population about the identified environmental issue. These results reflect the students’ ability to use communication technologies for intentioned awareness-raising and as intervention tools to try and improve joint living conditions. Simultaneously, the results also demonstrate students’ “critical consideration and evaluation of media” use [28] (p. 5). This is in line with the view of [31], who argues that action skills should include the ability to critically use available technologies regarding sustainability, or with [26], who pinpoint that communication and the critical use of media are fundamental competences in learning for sustainability.

All in all, the results underline that the students/groups that manifested learning in all three levels seem to show a sense of ownership and empowerment [9], a commitment and readiness to act [2], and, to a certain extent, confidence that their action may be influential regarding the mining problem in their region [3,29]. They also underline how IBSE provides opportunities for planning and action-taking in authentic contexts, with benefits for students’ social skills, such as collaborative and interpersonal competence development [16,27,28]. However, as the results highlight, it is important to note that not all groups were able to progress equally in learning at all levels. Only three groups went through all levels and sublevels. The differences observed between the groups may be related to several factors, such as group dynamics, prior knowledge, and previous experiences [11].

The findings therefore align with arguments that the development of action competences in sustainability, of students as “sustainability researchers”, and of critical and ethical actors is a complex and long-lasting process [2,12,13,25] requiring a continuous educational commitment to ESD and principles of pluralism and action.

6. Conclusions

Overall, this study reinforces that it is of utmost importance to embrace integrated, competence-based, action-oriented, and democratic approaches in ESD. It also highlights the potential of IBSE in developing students’ learning for action when addressing a local environmental problem. In line with existing literature, students’ learning for action towards sustainability is favoured when they are challenged to tackle and understand the complexity of the change processes of real-world problems through situated learning and inquiry [16,18,33,43]. This means that students move away from a receptive role based on the acquisition of facts and content by experiencing their participation in learning communities that trigger active participation and collaborative processes [15,27,34].

Accordingly, the study highlights the importance of contextualizing learning into local problems that are relevant to learners. Mining, being a central issue in the rural region where these students live, provided an authentic context that facilitated the meaningful involvement of the students. Furthermore, the critical use of digital technologies and social networks as tools for action emerged as a relevant result, suggesting that action competences are linked to digital literacy and the ability to use these tools for socially relevant purposes. Consequently, in terms of implications for practice, this study suggests that educators should create opportunities for students to engage with relevant local problems, supporting them in planning and implementing concrete actions. The role of the teacher as a facilitator of this process is fundamental, especially in terms of supporting students in progressing through the different levels of action skills.

The study also provides a framework for understanding and evaluating students’ learning for action. The three-level framework (What, Why, How) provides insights into how students progressively develop their action competence for sustainability. While all the students demonstrated the ability to identify complex environmental problems related to mining, fewer progressed to implementing and evaluating actions. In this respect, it is important to amplify the understanding of the reasons why not all the groups attained the enactment level to the fullest and how to pedagogically support more complex learning and empower students. Furthermore, future research can explore the use of this framework with other educational contexts and participants.