Fostering Student Engagement in Sustainability Through Strategic Sessions in Higher Education

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of the strategic session format in teaching sustainable development within a university ecology course, with a particular focus on fostering student engagement. A pedagogical experiment was conducted with first-year undergraduate students, who were divided into four stakeholder groups—Ecologists, Developers, Residents, and Authorities—to work on the following question: “What should a sustainable city of the future be like?” Team roles were assigned based on a diagnostic survey assessing individual collaboration styles. The online session was structured in two stages, combining small-group discussions and plenary meetings, and was moderated by third-year students. The collaboration was supported by digital tools, including online boards and structured templates. Data collection involved student surveys, discussion transcripts, and moderator observations. The results indicate that students preferred the interactive strategic session format over conventional instruction methods. Participants demonstrated high levels of engagement, an ability to analyze complex sustainability issues, and a willingness to reconcile differing stakeholder perspectives. The findings also revealed areas for improvement, which informed further adjustments to the format. This paper offers a documented example of using the strategic session as an educational tool for sustainable development, aligning with active learning principles. It highlights the format’s potential for interdisciplinary learning and its adaptability through accessible digital platforms.

1. Introduction

Sustainable development refers to a mode of development that fulfills the needs of the present generation while ensuring that future generations are not deprived of the ability to meet their own needs [1]. In 2015, the United Nations adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), covering three main areas: ecology, economy, and society [2]. Among them are quality education (SDG 4), innovation and infrastructure development (SDG 9), ecosystem preservation (SDG 15), and the design of sustainable cities (SDG 11). Sustainable cities are those that provide a high quality of life, inclusivity, safety, and resilience for their residents, with minimal environmental impact and long-term economic development.

According to the Tbilisi Declaration, adopted at the UN Intergovernmental Conference (1977) [3], environmental education helps to develop citizens’ knowledge, values, and skills for addressing environmental issues. The awareness of each individual’s role in sustainable development enhances the effectiveness of decision-making on global issues in the future.

In order to develop students’ competencies in sustainable development, alongside passive learning methods (lectures, reading literature) and active methods including Project-Based learning (PBL) and Peer-Review (e.g., Journal Club format), become essential [4]. The unique feature of those is the interaction of students not only with their instructors, but also with each other [5]. Interactive project-based tasks enhance students’ motivation, strengthening their sense of professional self-realization, cooperation, and growth [6].

The method of strategic sessions is widely applied in business, public administration, scientific research, and technological development for developing strategies, analyzing markets, and finding innovative solutions [7]. Government authorities use this format in the development of reform programs, crisis management, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of public initiatives [8]. In scientific and technological research, strategic sessions are used to explore new approaches to technology development and assess their feasibility, while in educational organizations, they are employed to identify and structure problem areas and form project initiatives in collaboration with social partners—educators, administrators, and leaders [7,9]. Strategic sessions can be adapted for educational purposes as an interactive group work format based on critical communication, aimed at analyzing complex problems, finding solutions, and developing strategies for their implementation [10]. One of the very few studies in this area is [5], which analyzed the adaptation of strategic sessions to professional education in the field of advertising and public relations, describing methodological principles, key stages, and advantages of the format. However, beyond this example, there is a clear lack of research on the use of strategic sessions in education, which further emphasizes the need for systematic investigation of their potential in higher education.

Several active learning methods are close to Strategic Sessions, such as Collaborative Learning, Design Thinking, Case-Based Learning, and Scenario Planning, as they all focus on solving problems through group work and discussion. In Design Thinking, participants progress through empathy, research, and idea testing, which requires flexibility and creativity, much like the group-oriented problem-solving in Strategic Sessions [11,12]. Case-based learning centers on finding solutions (often the only correct one) to specific situations, such as medical cases [13,14]. Scenario planning involves strategic analysis of potential scenarios, similar to the planning and forecasting phases in strategic sessions [15,16,17]. Of the methods listed, scenario planning is the most closely related to strategic sessions. It involves creating detailed and plausible narratives about how to move from point A to point B by focusing on causal processes and decision points, developed by professional analysts [16]. However, the distinction lies in the fact that strategic sessions emphasize finding compromises and making long-term strategic decisions amidst multitasking and uncertainty, with input from multiple stakeholders, while other methods tend to focus on narrower tasks or quick problem-solving.

Strategic Session approach seems promising because in the educational process, it can serve as an effective tool for developing students’ critical thinking skills, information structuring, problem analysis, and optimal solution finding. One of the key strengths of this method is that it addresses complex problems situated at the intersection of diverse stakeholder interests. Collective discussion promotes teamwork, the consideration of diverse perspectives, and the construction of reasoned positions [18,19]. This method not only helps consolidate theoretical knowledge, but also applies it in practice by simulating real professional situations. It also contributes to the development of soft skills, including communication abilities, the formulation and defense of viewpoints, information analysis, and decision-making [20].

Participation in a strategic session brings students a dual outcome: substantive—deepened understanding of the topic and its detailed analysis; and methodological—the development of discussion, argumentation, and application skills in professional practice. This tool, originally from management, will help students effectively analyze complex situations and make informed decisions in the future [5].

Although the use of strategic sessions and scenario planning in higher education remains limited, some studies have explored their potential in sustainability education. For example, Ref. [15] applied scenario planning in a postgraduate educational management course, where students created sustainability scenarios through a two-stage workshop, including creative exercises and group discussions. Beecroft and Schmidt used an iterative scenario-based approach, combining individual and group work to analyze future sustainability challenges and enhance student engagement [21]. These examples demonstrate that active learning formats based on scenario planning and related approaches are effective in higher education. However, their application has been restricted mainly to postgraduate programs and selected sustainability contexts.

To our knowledge, no studies have examined the use of the strategic session format in undergraduate environmental education, particularly with an emphasis on stakeholder roles, negotiation, and group decision-making. This gap in the literature highlights the lack of evidence on how strategic sessions can support active engagement and critical thinking in early stages of higher education.

Student engagement is widely discussed in the literature and interpreted in various ways. Some authors define it as the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion that students show when learning [22], while others emphasize the psychological investment a student makes, encompassing the extent of their participation in academic, social, and extracurricular activities [23]. In this study, student engagement refers to students’ active involvement in the learning process, including both behavioral and cognitive aspects. This involves participation in discussions, careful preparatory work, and commitment to individual tasks, which together help students remain focused and contribute meaningfully to the group’s objectives.

This study continues the trend of applying active learning, collaborative and problem-based formats in sustainability education but differs in its focus and context. Its contribution lies in testing a management-origin method in a new educational domain and evaluating its potential to develop critical thinking, teamwork, and negotiation skills among students. It is the first to test the strategic session format in undergraduate environmental education with an emphasis on stakeholder roles, negotiation, and group decision-making. The aim is to assess how this format supports active engagement, complex problem analysis, and acquisition of course knowledge in the context of sustainable development. The effectiveness of the method was evaluated based on student surveys, moderator feedback, discussion transcripts, and an analysis of the depth and quality of proposed solutions.

The study was guided by the following hypotheses:

H1. 

Participation in a strategic session fosters student engagement, ensuring broad involvement in oral discussions and enhancing interest in sustainability topics.

H2. 

Team formation with assigned roles and an interactive format support effective collaboration and the development of well-reasoned solutions to sustainability challenges.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Methods

The study employed theoretical method, such as literature analysis to build the foundation of the research. Academic and non-academic publications were reviewed to understand the present concepts related to sustainable urban development, including the integration of smart traffic management, artificial intelligence, renewable energy, and advanced materials to enhance urban resilience [24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Literature analysis allows a comprehensive understanding of existing frameworks and provides a solid conceptual background. Its advantages include broad coverage and accessibility of knowledge, while limitations are related to reliance on the available literature and potential gaps in existing studies.

The major empirical method was a pedagogical experiment—the development and implementation of a strategic session on sustainable development—which enabled direct observation of student interactions, engagement, and group dynamics in a controlled learning environment. A key advantage is that it provides insights into real student behavior and collaborative problem-solving, whereas a limitation is that findings may be specific to the group composition and the particular session.

Another empirical method was survey-based data collection to assess students’ perceptions of the novel teaching method, analyze their educational outcomes, and determine their roles within the group. Surveys were chosen due to their efficiency in collecting data from multiple participants, the possibility of standardizing questions, and convenience for participants. They included a combination of closed-ended questions (allowing quantitative analysis) and several open-ended questions (providing qualitative insights). Limitations include potential self-report bias and variations in participants’ interpretation of questions.

Finally, qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted on the collected empirical data—survey results, moderator feedback, textual transcripts of discussions, and final presentations. These analyses allowed a detailed examination of student engagement, group dynamics, and the quality of proposed solutions. Their advantage is that they provide both measurable and nuanced information about the outcomes, while their limitation lies in the specificity to this particular study, which may reduce generalizability.

2.2. Strategic Session Design

The study was conducted in February–March 2025 with 15 first-year bachelor students; the average age of participants was 19, and two-thirds were female. Additionally, three third-year students from the same program joined as moderators, selected for their strong academic performance, extracurricular involvement, and prior experience in a university strategic session. Additionally, the course instructor also acted as a moderator.

The strategic session was conducted remotely via videoconferencing, with students working in breakout rooms assigned to each team. Discussions were recorded using a built-in AI tool and then transcribed.

The topic of the strategic session, “The Sustainable City of the Future: What Should It Be Like?” was chosen in accordance with SDG 11. The aim of the session was to develop a concept of a sustainable city, considering ecological, economic, and social interests. The participating students were pre-assigned to four teams, each representing the interests of different stakeholders: ecologists, developers, residents, and authorities. One team (ecologists) consisted of three student participants, while the other three teams each had four students, not counting the moderators.

During the session, teams developed solutions from the perspective of their group: ecologists insisted on strict standards, developers sought to maximize profit, residents defended the interests of the urban environment, and authorities responded to requests. The task was for each group of stakeholders to present their position in a joint discussion and attempt to reach a consensus that took into account the interests of all parties. The expected outcome was identifying the problem, finding compromise solutions in conflict situations, and developing actions to resolve them.

Each team consisted of participants in the following roles: group leader, secretary, expert, and analyst. Roles were assigned based on a preliminary survey, which assessed students’ preferences and inclinations in group work. The survey included five questions evaluating factors such as extroversion/introversion, leadership tendencies, personal qualities, preferred work style, and problem-solving approach. A role matrix was developed based on the collected data. Each response was evaluated on a scale from 1 to 4, and team roles were assigned according to the total scores.

During the strategic session, participants completed four additional surveys. The first was conducted before the task explanation and assessed students’ initial opinions on the topic, satisfaction with their assigned team roles, attitude toward the event, and perception of the new format. The second evaluated their understanding of sustainable urban development concepts before the initial discussion. After the session, a single-question survey asked for the best solution to the problem posed. The final survey recorded changes in perceptions of sustainability issues, difficulties in reaching compromises, challenges faced, skills gained, preferences for practical ecology class formats, and satisfaction with the event’s organization, preparation, and subgroup work. All questionnaires were developed by the authors for this study. The complete dataset, including all survey questions and student responses, is openly available.

2.3. Facilitation of the Strategic Session

To prepare participants for the session, they were encouraged to familiarize themselves in advance with topics related to various aspects of sustainable urban development. These included urban environmental issues, the ecological aspects of construction, the role of municipal authorities, and citizen engagement in urban development. The preparation aimed to help students develop well-reasoned positions and proposals for discussion.

The strategic session timeline is presented in Figure 1. It lasted four academic hours and included two working stages, each for 50 min. Each stage concluded with group presentations and discussions (30 min each). At the beginning of the stages, participants received instructions outlining the session’s objectives and tasks. The first phase focused on identifying and analyzing challenges in creating a sustainable city. Participants selected several problems from a predefined list, discussed stakeholder conflicts associated with them, and prioritized the most urgent problems. The second phase was dedicated to developing balanced solutions that accounted for the interests of at least two stakeholder groups without harming others. Students relied on the conflicts and issues identified in the first phase to formulate concrete and realistic proposals.

To support effective group work, each team used an interactive online workspace Miro (Greenfly Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA) with templates and guiding questions to structure discussion and organize ideas; an example of such questions is provided in

Table 1. Illustrative example of guiding questions for Stage 1 (Urban Sustainability Problems) for residents group.

Stage/Block	Guiding Questions/Tasks
Stage 1: urban sustainability problems	- What problems does your group face in city development? - Select 3–4 most important problems, discuss them and justify why they are critical (there were 10–12 pre-formulated problems for each team, examples include high cost of “green” housing, lack of green areas and recreation spaces, poor quality of low-cost construction). - Add any other problems if needed. - Why is each problem important for your group? Use “Five Whys” technique.
Problem analysis	- For the selected problems, which are caused by actions of other groups? - Whose interests conflict with yours? - What exactly is the conflict? - Which problems require priority resolution?
Presentation preparation	- Prepare two slides: 1. Selected problems and their description 2. Conflicts with other teams, proposed compromises - Discuss short-term vs. long-term solutions and acceptable compromises for your group

. The templates, specific for each team and for two stages, consisted of sequential blocks with open questions and pre-formulated problems, directing students on what to discuss at each step and helping them stay focused while reasoning and exploring issues. Teams applied brainstorming and the “Five Whys” technique [31,32] to generate ideas and explore root causes. Each group had a moderator to maintain focus, answer task-related questions, encourage constructive dialog, and prevent conflicts. Three teams were moderated by third-year students, and one by the course instructor.

Students moderators received the same materials as participants in advance and additionally underwent a preparatory briefing by the instructor, which included a detailed explanation of the session’s objectives, format, and mechanics, as well as guidance on handling potential conflicts. This preparation ensured that moderators could effectively support the workflow and stimulate discussion within the group.

2.4. Evaluation of Results

The effectiveness of the strategic session was assessed based on two criteria: engagement in the discussion and the quality of proposed solutions. Student engagement was evaluated through surveys and observations (qualitative assessment), as well as through the analysis of textual transcripts (quantitative assessment) to determine the level of participation of each student. During each stage of the group discussion, the number of contributions made by each participant was counted and expressed as a percentage of the total.

The second criterion focused on the quality of the team’s proposed solutions and their practical applicability. Special attention was given to the depth of problem analysis, the logical coherence, and the structured presentation of ideas.

2.5. Quantitative Data Analysis

The number of participants in the surveys ranged from 15 to 17. In the first survey, only first-year students participated (N = 15), and all of them answered the questions. In the anonymous and voluntary surveys conducted during the strategic session (surveys N 2–5), moderators also took part; however, one of them did not participate. Therefore, surveys N, 2, 4, and 5 received 17 responses each (15 participants + 2 moderators). In survey N 3, only 16 responses were received; the most likely cause for this is that one person either did not manage to submit his response or was absent at the time of the survey.

Due to the small cohort size, the results are presented not only as percentages, but also as absolute numbers, both in the figures and in the text.

In some questions, multiple-choice answers were allowed. This means that each participant could select one, two, three, or more options. Consequently, the total number of responses in such cases exceeded 100%. To facilitate the interpretation of the results, the number of responses received for each option is indicated above the corresponding bar in the graphical representation (histogram).

3. Results

3.1. Role Distribution in Teams and Group Dynamics

It is well established that participant roles are crucial for successful collaborative learning [33,34]. Under time constraints, role distribution within groups may pose challenges for students. Random assignment of roles does not take individual characteristics into account and may lead to low engagement or ineffective interaction. Allowing students to select roles can be time-consuming, as some may have difficulty making decisions or may prefer to avoid responsibilities. A preliminary survey enables the instructor to assign students to groups in an optimal way, taking their character and preferences into consideration.

Students’ personality types were assessed based on Carl Jung’s model, distinguishing orientation toward the external world (extraversion) or internal world (introversion), with consideration of intermediate or ambiverted tendencies (Figure 2a) [35]. To create more balanced teams, each group was formed with approximately equal numbers of introverted and extraverted participants.

3.1.1. Assessment of Leadership Qualities and the Influence of Leadership Style

The most challenging task was identifying leaders within each group, as their impact on the effectiveness of teamwork is significant [36]. We define a leader as a person who assumes responsibility for the team’s decisions and is willing to take on tasks that others tend to avoid. As shown in Figure 2b, 3 out of 15 participants (20%) preferred to take responsibility for decision-making and coordination, while 4 (27%) preferred to delegate decisions to a more competent team member. Additionally, five students (33%) aimed to propose new ideas, and three (20%) focused on critically evaluating existing solutions.

It is important to consider that the outcomes of team performance depend on leadership style. According to [36], servant and agile leadership most positively influence project success, while laissez-faire and autocratic styles show only weak correlations with team dynamics. Servant leadership involves supporting team members and fostering their growth through empathy, active listening, and individual support. In our study, 9 out of 15 (60%) students reported striving to listen to others and consider all aspects of a problem—traits typical of servant leadership.

3.1.2. Alignment of Students with Assigned Roles

Analysis of all responses revealed that most participants did not exhibit a clear predisposition toward a specific role. In some questions, they demonstrated leadership qualities; in others, they showed traits characteristic of other roles. Based on the test score, leaders were defined as those willing to assume responsibility for the team, coordinate discussions, and summarize outcomes, as well as those who tended to actively listen to all team members’ opinions. Secretaries were those inclined to accurately document key ideas and arguments. Participants who actively proposed solutions and engaged in discussions were assigned the role of experts, while those who were capable of analyzing the discussion process and asking clarifying questions were designated as analysts.

At the beginning of the strategic session, students were given the opportunity to exchange roles within the team by mutual agreement. None of the teams made use of this option. When asked about their satisfaction with the assigned role before the session, the majority of respondents stated that they believed the role suited them (11 out of 15 or 65%) (Figure 2c). After the session, 3 out of 17 participants selected the option that the role did not fully suit them. On the other hand, students noted that “the preliminary preparation, particularly the role distribution, was especially appreciated, as it provided a clear understanding of individual tasks, which improved teamwork” in the post-event survey. Thus, the effectiveness of students’ collaborative work increases when responsibilities are clearly defined and individual preferences are taken into account.

Although students were generally satisfied with their assigned roles, moderators observed some mismatches during group work. For instance, two students designated as leaders did not exhibit leadership behavior; in one case, a secretary assumed the leadership role. This suggests that group dynamics can reveal latent leadership traits not captured by the initial survey, which assessed only theoretical predispositions. Leadership often emerged from those with stronger communication or organizational skills, regardless of formal role. In another group, the assigned leader may have been inhibited by the presence of the course instructor acting as moderator. To avoid such influence, instructors should, where possible, avoid moderating teams.

3.1.3. The Impact of Moderators on Group Dynamics

Involving third-year students as moderators proved to be an effective decision that was highly appreciated by the participants. One of the responses stated, “Special thanks for the presence of the moderators. Working with them was much more comfortable and reassuring. We had someone to turn to when questions arose or to check if our discussion was aligned with the planned direction.”

Positive feedback was also provided by the moderators themselves: “Thank you so much for the opportunity to take part in such a great event! I’d be happy to participate in similar initiatives in the future if you ever need assistance.”

3.2. Analysis of Student Activity and Engagement During the Strategic Session

3.2.1. Students’ Expectations of the Novel Format of Work

According to a survey by the [37], young people aged 18 to 24 are more likely to think about environmental issues than older generations—70% compared to 48%, respectively. This trend supports the assumption that students would be motivated to participate in the strategic session on sustainable cities. According to the survey results (Figure 3a), although most students had not previously been involved in sustainability-related projects, 10 out of 17 (59%) expressed interest. Around one third had prior experience, while two participants (12%) were not interested.

None had participated in strategic sessions before; however, most responded positively (Figure 3b): 4 out of 17 people (24%) showed strong interest and willingness to try the format, the majority—9 students (53%)—had some doubts but were ready to engage, and 2 (12%) felt unconfident. Only three students selected the option indicating anxiety about the new format (multiple responses were allowed).

3.2.2. Students’ Evaluation of Their Experience in the Strategic Session

The overall assessment of the strategic session after it was finished was largely positive: 10 (59%) and 5 (29%) out of the 17 participants rated the event as ‘very interesting’ and ‘interesting’, respectively (Figure 3c). A total of 6 out of 17 (35%) rated the organization as excellent, and 10 (59%) as good.

When asked what they liked about the strategic session, the most frequent responses were “the interactive format and teamwork” and “the opportunity to discuss real-world problems” (Figure 4a). The useful skills that students reported gaining from participating in the strategic session were fairly evenly distributed, as shown in Figure 4b. The most frequently mentioned were ‘improved teamwork skills’, ‘improved argumentation and discussion skills’, and ‘deeper understanding of the topic of sustainable development through specific examples.’ Slightly fewer students noted skills related to the digital tools and learning new methods of problem analysis. According to self-assessments, the group interaction was mostly seen as very effective, with some respondents considering it fairly effective or moderate, and one participant marked it as ineffective (Figure 4c).

When asked what they found challenging, the majority pointed to a lack of time for discussion (Figure 5a). Each round of discussion was allocated 50 min (Figure 1), which is the maximum possible time within a four-hour session, in order to allow time for discussing the results. To address this issue, we suggest decreasing the number of problems for discussion, for instance, two–three problems per group instead of three–four.

From the organizers’ perspective, another challenge was the limited time available for presentations. First-year students are inexperienced speakers and have difficulty adhering to time limits, so their responses had to be cut short. One possible solution would be to introduce time-limited presentations during seminar sessions prior to the strategic session. This would help students improve their public speaking skills.

One student selected the option “I didn’t understand what we were doing” (Figure 5a) and gave several other negative responses, indicating a poor experience. A lack of task clarity may have hindered communication and workflow, reducing effectiveness. To prevent this, students should be clearly encouraged to consult moderators when in doubt. If the instructor does not moderate a group, they could offer individual consultations. It is also possible the student missed the preparatory session, did not read the task, or was otherwise unprepared, but anonymity prevents confirmation.

The other challenges included formulating proposals and conclusions, with six responses, and completing the self-study assignments (home tasks), with five responses (Figure 5a). For first-year students, drawing conclusions is objectively one of the most difficult tasks, and addressing it is one of the didactic goals of the session. To support students in this aspect, it may be helpful to prepare templates for formulating conclusions.

Self-study assignments were given two weeks before the session as topics for independent research. No specific references were provided intentionally to encourage independent information search. Some students asked about the assignment format and report requirements. It is possible that knowing the task would not be formally assessed led some to take it less seriously. For future sessions, clearer instructions and a required reading list are recommended.

Despite the noted shortcomings, most students prefer active formats for ecology practical, as depicted in Figure 5b. The minority of respondents chose only conventional work formats, such as algorithm-based tasks and written essays or reports. A quarter of the participants preferred a combination of conventional and innovative methods (e.g., algorithm-based tasks or conducting laboratory work in combination with business games, case studies, or strategic sessions). Finally, the majority of students (10 out of 17 or 59%) selected only innovative methods. These results were obtained through the analysis of each questionnaire individually. In one of the open-ended responses, students commented that “the strategic session is truly an interesting and productive format of work.” It was ranked second in popularity among practical learning formats, following business games (Figure 5b).

3.2.3. Studying of Student Engagement in the Work

The engagement was analyzed through both qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative assessment was based on a survey where students evaluated not themselves, but their teammates. The highest number of votes were given to the high level of engagement (59%) and “fairly high” (24%). “Fairly low” and “low” responses each received one vote. This confirms the previously made conclusion about effective intra-team interaction.

Another qualitative tool for measuring engagement was feedback from the moderators. “The students really worked as a team, each contributed equally,” “The participants were very active, serious, had their own opinions, and actively exchanged them, but had difficulties with time management and were not able to respond succinctly to the questions at first,” “The team’s workflow looked like this: participants made comments on the solutions to specific problems (each took a problem and described methods for solving it); based on the methods of solving, actions, responsible groups, and required resources were clarified; general theses were formulated and compiled.” It confirmed a high level of student engagement, highlighting active participation, teamwork, and constructive discussion, despite some challenges with time management and concise communication. Two types of teamwork were observed: in three teams, ideas were generated and discussed collectively; and in the fourth, participants worked in parallel, each addressing a separate part of the task before compiling a joint result.

The quantitative assessment of engagement was based on the analysis of transcriptions of team discussions. The number of comments made by each participant is presented in

Table 2. Number of comments made by students during team discussions according to transcription data.

Team	Leader		Secretary		Expert		Analyst		Moderator		Total Number, pcs	Average per Participant, pcs
	pcs	%	pcs	%	pcs	%	pcs	%	pcs	%
Ecologists	211	36.9	51	8.9	211	36.9	-	-	99	17.3	572	143
Developers	157	26.2	129	21.5	208	34.7	77	12.8	29	4.8	579	116
Authorities	35	10.4	15	4.5	48	14.3	95	28.4	142	42.4	335	67
Residents	95	44.4	12	5.6	21	9.8	35	16.4	51	23.8	214	43

Note: The ecologists team included three student participants, while the other teams (developers, authorities, residents) included four students each. Each team also had one moderator. To enable valid comparison across teams of different sizes, the number of comments is presented both as totals and normalized per participant. Percentages indicate the share of each role’s comments within the team.

. In this part of the study, only the number of comments was analyzed, without considering their content or length.

The number of comments varied notably across teams. When normalized per participant, the ecologists team showed the highest average activity (143 comments per participant), followed by the developers (116), authorities (67), and residents (43). The residents team had notably fewer comments per participant than the ecologists and developers, consistent with the group’s working style: participants divided the task into sub-tasks and worked individually for part of the time. In the authorities team, the high share of comments (42.4%) came from the moderator (the course instructor), who was actively involved in the discussion. The developers team showed the most even distribution of comments, while in the residents team, the leader dominated the discussion.

Leader activity data supported the observations of moderators: in the developers and authorities teams, leaders were not prominent, while in the ecologists and residents teams, they were most active (36.9% and 44.4%, respectively). Experts were generally engaged, except in the residents team (9.8%). Secretaries made the fewest comments, as they focused on documentation, with the exception of the developers team, where the secretary also delivered both presentations.

Moderator involvement also varied. In the ecologists and developers teams, moderators mainly answered questions (17.3% and 23.8%). In the developers team, a student-moderator initially helped but then let the group work autonomously. As a result, the team failed to finish the presentation within the allotted time, completing it during other participants’ speeches. Thus, the first strategic session revealed two main moderation mistakes: excessive activity that suppressed student engagement, in general, and the leader in particular and insufficient participation that led to the failure to adhere to the schedule.

3.3. Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Strategic Session in the Context of Deepening Knowledge and Developing Skills in Sustainable Development

3.3.1. Changes in Perception of Urban Sustainability and Decision-Making Complexity

The strategic session was conducted as the final class for the section “Global Environmental Problems” of the ecology course and focused on the topic of sustainable urban development. During the session, first-year students analyzed urban problems, sought solutions through role-playing interactions, voted on initiatives, and reflected on the decision-making process. Special attention was given to the interconnection between the ecological, social, and economic aspects of urban development. Participants were able to practically observe the difficulties of implementing initiatives due to conflicts of interest among different stakeholders.

Before the strategic session (but after completing the theoretical course), the majority of respondents identified air, water, and soil pollution, as well as the lack of green spaces, as the main urban problems. Additionally, students highlighted the distant location of new city districts and waste management issues (Figure 6a). As a result of the session, more than a half of the students noted that their initial perceptions of the challenges of transitioning to a sustainable city had changed: 2 out of 17 (18%) students reported significant changes in their views, and 8 (41%) noted moderate changes (Figure 6b).

The strategic session provided students with compromise-building practice. Before it began, only a quarter expected no serious difficulties, half anticipated moderate challenges, and none believed that reaching agreement would be easy (Figure 6c). However, after the discussions, more students found the compromise process easier than expected, while others still noted minor or moderate difficulties. Breaking down problems into more specific tasks and considering the interests of different parties helped students understand that compromise is a key element in solving complex issues. This conclusion proved to be useful not only in the context of sustainable development but also in a broader sense, when making decisions in the face of multiple interests.

3.3.2. Collaborative Development of Sustainable Urban Strategies

The team’s final presentation included an action plan and compromises between stakeholder interests. The Ecologists highlighted issues of shrinking green spaces and water pollution, proposing both practical steps (e.g., clean-up events, educational lectures) and institutional measures (e.g., stricter laws, developer obligations). A compromise was reached: Developers agreed to preserve some green areas, while ecologists accepted residential construction. For water pollution, residents contributed through clean-ups, raising awareness, and authorities strengthened oversight, gaining public trust. Despite lacking an analyst, the team produced a high-quality report and presentation, with arguably the most developed solutions.

The developers identified three main issues: low ecological standards in new buildings, including poor waste management; high housing costs due to the need to ensure comfort; and the strain on urban infrastructure caused by integrating new residential areas. Their proposed solutions included sustainable building design, improved waste collection, balancing cost and quality, and attracting investments for infrastructure development. A compromise with residents involved creating a comfortable living environment while minimizing environmental impact, accepting higher housing costs. Collaboration with authorities aimed to synchronize housing development with infrastructure upgrades, increasing the city’s investment appeal and tax revenue. However, their proposals appeared less developed than those of other teams, as they largely repeated existing, inefficient practices and lacked a detailed implementation plan.

The residents raised concerns about the quality of modern construction, the lack of green spaces and recreational areas, and the shortage of social infrastructure in new neighborhoods. As potential solutions, they proposed standardizing construction practices and involving residents in the planning and funding of infrastructure. They found common ground with the authorities in offering tax incentives to companies implementing environmental projects, which could improve the urban environment. However, reaching a compromise with the developers proved more difficult, as the residents’ agreement to bear the financial burden of infrastructure development in new neighborhoods seemed premature.

The authorities considered transportation problems, the formation of depressed “ghetto” areas, and the shortage of social infrastructure facilities. In response to these challenges, they proposed stricter requirements for personal transport, the development of public eco-friendly transport, tax incentives for developers when building social facilities, and promoting the renovation of urban areas through infill construction and competitions among the population. Their compromises with residents and developers were both stimulating and restrictive. On the one hand, the authorities offered subsidies and grants for environmentally friendly projects for city dwellers, and on the other hand, they imposed strict conditions on the construction of social facilities, requiring developers to build schools and kindergartens, which could potentially lead to a conflict of interests.

Overall, the discussion was quite productive. Interaction between the teams allowed for solutions that took into account the interests of different parties, although in some cases, compromises remained formal or insufficiently developed. This was especially the case with the interaction between the authorities and developers, where alongside supportive measures, there were strict conditions that could limit developers’ flexibility in implementing projects.

After the strategic session, the proposed solutions were put to a vote, and compared to the initial survey (Figure 6b), students’ priorities changed. The initiatives of the authorities group received the most votes: stricter requirements for personal transport and support for public eco-friendly transport (five votes), updating the old housing stock, developing infrastructure, and greening urban spaces (nine votes), and constructing eco-friendly buildings (nine votes). The initiatives of the ecologists group also received significant support, such as organizing volunteer campaigns to clean natural sites (eight votes) and installing mandatory filtration systems in industries, introducing fines for violating environmental standards, and rewards for environmentally responsible businesses (seven votes). The initiative of the residents group to introduce and tighten building standards and certification, as well as to develop “green” infrastructure, received five votes.

4. Discussion

In recent decades, there has been a paradigm shift in education from conventional didactic practices focused on the accumulation of knowledge during the learning process towards more inclusive, dialogic models [38,39]. Collaborative learning practices, compared to conventional methods, enhance learning outcomes by positively influencing academic performance, motivation, emotional engagement, and cognitive skills [40,41]. As routine tasks are increasingly performed by machines and AI systems, the human role is shifting toward process management, complex decision-making, and creative problem-solving [42]. Consequently, there is a growing emphasis in education on the development of soft skills—critical thinking, teamwork, and leadership [20]. Strengthening these skills should be a consistent effort across all courses within an educational program, rather than being limited to specialized subjects such as “Project Work” or “Leadership.”

This study employed a personalized collaborative learning approach, based on assigning roles within teams according to individual student characteristics, to deepen students’ understanding of sustainable development concepts. Students were divided into small groups, which promotes effective teamwork with personal contributions from each participant [40]. Digital learning tools, such as videoconferencing for remote collaboration, shared online workspace for organizing teamwork, and AI-based tools for discussion transcription, were used to support active student interaction, increase productivity, and strengthen teamwork skills.

Analysis of the results showed that students prefer active learning methods, such as business games and strategic sessions in particular, and demonstrate a willingness to work on real tasks, which is consistent with the trend described above. This confirms H1, as high interest and willingness to participate indicate strong student engagement. A positive attitude before the session indicated openness of youngsters to new educational formats and readiness for active interaction.

The effectiveness of group work increases when responsibilities are clearly distributed and participants’ preferences are taken into account. This provides evidence for H2, confirming that structured role assignments contribute to effective collaboration. This is consistent with Stempfle’s findings, which emphasize the importance of structured interaction and role clarity in collaborative problem-solving [34]. Moderators play a key role in keeping discussions focused. Student moderators are preferable to instructors, as the presence of a teacher may inhibit participation—not only due to fear of making mistakes, but also because teachers tend to assume a leading role, limiting student autonomy. This aligns with previous findings indicating that educators often place strong emphasis on the cognitive aspects of learning, which may result in the underdevelopment of collaborative components during instruction [43].

The teams intuitively chose their working style. In the future, they could be encouraged to use collective work during the initial phase to generate a wide range of ideas. Group interaction has been shown to foster creativity and innovation [44], and while individuals may produce more original ideas at first, groups often develop them more effectively and cover a broader range of topics [45]. In the second phase, selected ideas can be refined individually to meet time constraints. Combining both approaches may ensure more balanced participation—extroverted students engage actively in group discussions, while parallel work gives introverted or reserved participants a chance to contribute.

Students demonstrated high engagement, as confirmed by surveys and moderator feedback. Quantitative analysis of participants’ contributions during the discussion helped assess both the consistency with assigned roles and overall team activity. This confirms H1, indicating broad participation and engagement. According to the reflection results, satisfaction with the format was high: students noted the productivity of teamwork and appreciated that discussions focused on real rather than hypothetical problems.

As a result of the strategic session, students reported changes in how they perceived and prioritized the urban challenges discussed. Participants were prompted to critically analyze the underlying causes and consequences of urban challenges, moving beyond superficial judgments to develop well-reasoned personal positions. This process aligns with findings from Brown [46], who noted that role-playing exercises encourage students to think more critically about complex and controversial subjects and to see situations from a different perspective. Furthermore, during discussions and particularly the final presentations, students were exposed to the perspectives and interests of other stakeholders, requiring them to consider viewpoints beyond their own. This experience facilitated an understanding that complex issues often lack singular solutions and that multiple, valid perspectives exist. As highlighted in [47], role-playing exercises can prepare learners for real-life situations by allowing them to practice critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving skills in a simulated environment. These pedagogical approaches promote critical thinking, perspective-taking, and a deeper engagement with complex problems.

During the strategic session, students not only learned about sustainable development content, but also simulated the democratic process, discussing and seeking compromises among diverse positions and interests. This format reflects key democratic principles: inclusiveness, deliberation, and collaborative decision-making. Although participants played roles, they practiced considering diverse perspectives, articulating their arguments, and listening to opponents, which fosters the development of civic competencies. This experience not only broadens their understanding of the complexities of sustainable development but also cultivates skills for democratic interaction, an important component of sustainable development goals, particularly SDG 4.7 (education for sustainable development and global citizenship) as well as SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions) [2].

The practical value of the strategic session format lies in its relevance to future professional activities. By proposing concrete solutions, students gained insight into real-world urban planning and sustainable development processes, which helped them to find out typical barriers, and effective strategies. These activities support the idea that knowledge is constructed through interaction, mutual responsibility, and intellectual effort [48]. The use of a shared online workspace, noted in student reflections, helped the visualization of ideas, structuring of arguments, and clear presentation of solutions—skills directly applicable to complex professional tasks [49].

Although not all teams developed equally effective action plans, most succeeded in reaching compromises and proposing meaningful solutions. The process itself was more important than the outcome, as it provided practical experience in negotiation and collaborative problem-solving.

Strategic sessions can be integrated into educational programs across various disciplines—from social sciences to life sciences—where interdisciplinary collaboration and complex decision-making are required. This format is suitable for both undergraduate and graduate levels. For advanced students, the complexity can be increased by having them define the problems themselves. Regular experience in strategic sessions contributes to faster and more effective analysis of multifaceted situations.

The study has several limitations. The cohort included only 15 students divided into small teams of 3–4 participants plus one moderator per team, which indicates that the findings should be interpreted as preliminary and requiring further validation in broader contexts. The small variation in team sizes, along with differences in moderator involvement—particularly in the group led by the course instructor—may have influenced discussion dynamics. All participants were from a single university and enrolled in the same academic programs, so the applicability of results to other institutions, disciplines, or larger student groups remains to be confirmed in future studies. The role-assignment survey and matrix have not yet been externally validated, and therefore require further verification in future studies. Data were collected solely from team discussions and comment counts based on transcriptions, without consideration of comment content or quality, and no inter-rater reliability checks were performed. The reliance on student self-assessments also introduces a potential for bias and subjectivity, particularly social desirability bias. In addition, while the present study did not aim to examine the long-term benefits, future longitudinal research would be valuable to explore potential lasting effects. A comparison with conventional formats, such as standard group work or written assignments, was not included in this study, which should be considered when interpreting the observed effects of the strategic session format.

One possible direction for further development involves engaging students from different academic backgrounds in role-specific positions—for example, business students as developers, law students as authorities, sociology students as residents, and natural science students as ecologists. Although sustainability topics may not be part of all curricula, such activities can be offered as interdisciplinary voluntary modules under the broader umbrella of the university’s sustainable development agenda. This approach may help address a well-recognized systemic issue: important decisions affecting sustainability are often made by individuals without sufficient knowledge. Participation in such activities can provide future professionals with a broader understanding of sustainability-related challenges and interdependencies. Future research should also focus on systematically addressing the above limitations by including larger and more diverse cohorts, integrating qualitative and quantitative data, including comparisons with conventional formats, and conducting longitudinal studies to examine possible long-term outcomes.

The study confirmed both hypotheses. Participation in the strategic session fostered high levels of student engagement (H1), as reflected in their willingness to actively contribute to discussions, their preference for interactive learning methods, and their sustained interest in sustainability topics. Team formation with assigned roles and an interactive format proved to be an effective strategy for collaboration (H2), as clear distribution of responsibilities enhanced group dynamics, supported balanced participation, and facilitated the development of well-reasoned solutions to sustainability challenges.