Heritage Education, Sustainability and Community Resilience: The HISTOESE Project-Based Learning Model

Abstract

This study presents the HISTOESE (History Education for Sustainable Environments) Model, an empirically grounded and practice-based framework for cultural heritage education and sustainability. Developed through a qualitative, design-based research approach, it analyzes a longitudinal corpus of 50 master’s dissertations and supervised teaching reports (2008–2025) from the Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo, Portugal. Although the empirical basis derives from teacher education, the HISTOESE model fosters school–community partnerships that indirectly support cultural tourism and sustainable, place-based recovery. Using inductive thematic analysis, the study traced how project-based learning (PBL) activities mobilised local heritage, community collaboration, and sustainable pedagogical practices. Three key findings emerged: (1) local-context pedagogies strengthened children’s historical consciousness and heritage literacy; (2) inclusive, low-cost and upcycling strategies fostered community participation; and (3) partnerships with museums, tourism offices, and cultural associations generated visible cultural events that reinforced post-COVID resilience. The HISTOESE framework synthesises these insights into four interrelated pillars—Proximity and Contextualization, Inclusive and Sustainable Practices, Recognition and Valorisation and Active Citizenship and Collaboration—providing a transferable model for teacher education and community-based cultural sustainability. Practical implications concern curriculum design, heritage–tourism interfaces, and collaborative strategies for sustainable development.

1. Introduction

Since 2008, our work has focused on the initial training of early childhood educators and primary school teachers, with a particular emphasis on the didactics of Environmental and Social Studies and History and Geography of Portugal. Over nearly two decades, in both theoretical perspectives and supervised teaching practice, our efforts have centred on rethinking pedagogical processes for addressing historical and cultural heritage in—and, importantly, beyond—the classroom.

Freeman Tilden’s updated edition (2008) of Interpreting Our Heritage [1] reminds us that interpretation is not static: its philosophical underpinnings continue to evolve with issues of sustainability, inclusivity and the need to address younger audiences with age-appropriate yet profound educational experiences.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further reinforced the urgency of reimagining how education [2,3] can contribute to the preservation of cultural identity and the resilience of tourism [4,5]. Globalized reinterpretations of traditions and the social and economic disruptions of the pandemic pose significant risks to cultural heritage sustainability [6]. In this context, schools and teacher education programmes [7,8] emerge as strategic spaces where cultural awareness, historical consciousness, and sustainability-oriented strategies can be cultivated from an early age [9,10].

The HISTOESE model (History Education for Sustainable Environments) is the result of successive cycles of reflection and experimentation in teacher training programmes [11,12]. It was developed through didactics courses and collaboration with professionals and is grounded in project-based learning (PBL).

Developed through didactics courses and direct collaboration with professionals, this approach is grounded in project-based learning (PBL). This article pursues three objectives: (1) to contextualise the theoretical and pedagogical framework; (2) to present the methodology and findings; and (3) to discuss implications for cultural education and post-COVID tourism recovery.

Although previous work has examined PBL in school settings and the role of heritage-based learning in fostering civic awareness [13,14], the articulation of teacher education practices with community and tourism actors as a pathway to cultural-tourism sustainability in the post-COVID context remains underexplored.

This study contributes to the growing international debate on how project-based heritage education [15] can foster community resilience and sustainable cultural tourism. By consolidating evidence from teacher training programmes within the Portuguese context, it offers transferable insights for curriculum innovation and heritage–tourism partnerships in the post-pandemic era. The research objectives are:

• to analyse how PBL projects in initial educator preparation mobilize local heritage and sustainable practices;
• to identify the core pedagogical principles that underpin these practices;
• to formulate a transfer-ready design (HISTOESE) with explicit implications for community partnerships and tourism resilience.

The study problem guiding this study is: How can project-based learning in heritage education promote sustainable and community-rooted approaches that reinforce cultural resilience and tourism recovery?

In addition, the research is guided by the following questions:

RQ1. How do PBL-based teacher education projects promote heritage literacy and historical consciousness in early childhood and primary education?

RQ2. What pedagogical practices and forms of community collaboration recur across the longitudinal corpus and how do they contribute to cultural sustainability?

RQ3. In what ways can school-based heritage projects be traced to community and tourism outputs, and under what conditions do they support local cultural-tourism recovery?

The HISTOESE approach emphasises experiential approaches, fieldwork and collaborative reflection. By motivating future teachers to engage with local heritage in situ and to design active learning environments, the model strengthens the link between education, cultural sustainability and tourism [16].

Furthermore, this research specifically addresses that gap by synthesizing nearly two decades of supervised teaching practice into a replicable pedagogical design.

2. Pedagogical Framework and Literature Review

The pedagogical orientation of this study is anchored in the conviction that heritage-based learning, when rooted in historical thinking and active learning, provides a powerful framework for teacher training programmes and for reimagining the role of education in cultural sustainability [17,18].

The HISTOESE model (History Education for Sustainable Environments) is, therefore, not presented as a mere technical methodology, but as a conceptual and pedagogical construct that integrates history didactics [19], heritage education [20] and project-based learning. In this sense, pedagogy and epistemology are inseparable: it is through didactic mediation that heritage becomes a field for inquiry, interpretation and civic engagement linking teacher education → community engagement → cultural tourism sustainability.

This section combines two interrelated dimensions: a theoretical–pedagogical framework that situates the epistemological basis of the HISTOESE design, and a specialized literature review that critically engages with key authors and traditions in history and heritage-based learning [21]. Rather than a descriptive survey, this review is mobilised as an argumentative resource to clarify the foundations of the approach and to articulate its contribution to teacher training programmes, cultural tourism [22] and sustainable development [23]. By drawing on both international debates and Portuguese scholarship, the section establishes the pedagogical architecture scaffolding that sustains the subsequent methodological design.

2.1. Heritage Education and Didactic Approaches

Heritage-based learning has increasingly been recognized as a pedagogical field that contributes not only to cultural awareness but also to the construction of sustainable social practices [24]. Laurajane Smith’s seminal work, The Uses of Heritage, emphasises that heritage is socially produced [25]. This perspective challenges the idea of heritage as inherently important, arguing instead for its relational and contested nature—especially in terms of whose values are reflected in “authorized” heritage practices [26]. In the expanded 4th edition of Interpreting Our Heritage (2008), Tilden [1] provides six new essays and a contemporary introduction which underscore the relevance of these principles in light of current challenges of heritage education, especially around sustainability, public participation, and interpretation for younger audiences.

Building on this, Fontal underlines that heritage-based learning [27] is not limited to transmitting knowledge about cultural objects. Instead, it involves processes of heritagization [18,28] in which communities and learners assign meaning to cultural expressions [27,29]. Their SHEO methodology highlights the importance of evaluating educational programmes to ensure that heritage practices are participatory, reflective and embedded in broader cultural sustainability goals [30].

From a more inclusive perspective, Martínez Gil, Benito, and Santacana-Mestre advocate for heritage education as a tool for social inclusion [31]. They propose that heritage can serve as a pedagogical bridge between diverse groups, fostering participation, equity, and intercultural dialogue. This aligns with recent empirical research [32], where is demonstrated that early childhood education can provide fertile ground for developing children’s conceptions of heritage and citizenship [33], thereby connecting personal identity formation with collective memory. The link between heritage and identity is also central to the works of [31,34].

Beyond its role in identity, the field has evolved to focus on a new form of literacy. Marques advances the concept of Heritage Literacy [12], conceptualizing heritage learning as a literacy practice that equips learners with the skills to decode, interpret and attribute meaning to the cultural environment [18]. This approach transcends a preservationist paradigm, positioning heritage as an active component of civic education and cultural sustainability [16].

Comparable initiatives integrating PBL, heritage and community tourism can be found in Spain [29,35], Mexico [36] and Brazil [37], highlighting similar attempts to link education with territorial sustainability. Taken together, these contributions demonstrate that heritage-based learning is a multifaceted field shaped by didactic innovation, inclusivity, and critical reflection. The emphasis on heritagization [27], inclusion and identity [31], and heritage literacy [38] indicate a shift from traditional, transmissive approaches to more participatory and transformative models. These perspectives provide an essential foundation for the HISTOESE approach, which seeks to embed heritage learning in teacher education and link it to broader strategies of cultural sustainability.

2.2. Curricular Context: Heritage Education in the Portuguese System

The pedagogical practices of the HISTOESE design are deeply rooted in the official guidelines of the Portuguese educational system. The entire framework is guided by the PASEO—Student Profile by the End of Compulsory Education [39], which outlines a holistic, humanistic profile for all students, and the Essential Learnings [40,41], which define the specific knowledge and skills for each school level. Together, these documents provide the curricular basis for all didactical approaches.

The HISTOESE approach principles find their earliest application in pre-school education (ages 3–6), where the “Orientações Curriculares para a Educação Pré-Escolar” [42], provide the foundational framework. Within this document, the “Knowledge of the World” content area is particularly relevant. It encourages children to explore and understand their natural and social environment through observation, questioning, and hands-on experiences [43]. This integrated, flexible and project-oriented approach is the ideal starting point for introducing concepts of identity, community, and local heritage, directly aligning with the core principles of the HISTOESE model.

The design is then applied within two distinct, but interconnected, curricular areas of primary education:

• Estudo do Meio Social (Environmental and Social Studies): Taught from the 1st to the 4th grade (ages 6–10), this subject is fundamentally interdisciplinary [40]. It aims to develop a child’s understanding of their social and natural environment by integrating concepts from history, geography, science, and civic education. Its holistic nature aligns directly with the HISTOESE model’s core principle of fostering connections between people, time, and place. In this subject, heritage is not a separate discipline but a transversal theme that allows children to explore their local community, family history, and cultural traditions in an integrated manner [44,45].
• História e Geografia de Portugal: Introduced in the 5th and 6th grades (ages 10–12), this subject marks a transition to more formalized historical and geographical disciplines [41]. It focuses on the chronological study of Portuguese history and the exploration of the country’s diverse landscapes. The pedagogical challenge here—which the HISTOESE approach directly addresses—is to move beyond a mere memorization of facts [46]. Instead, the focus is on developing a deep historical consciousness [19] and an understanding of how the past shapes the present.

2.3. Historical Education and Historical Consciousness

The development of history education has been strongly shaped by debates around historical consciousness, epistemology and the purpose of teaching history. Jörn Rüsen’s theoretical contributions are pivotal in this regard [19]. He conceptualizes historical consciousness as the ability to orient oneself in time, combining past experiences, present interpretations and future expectations into coherent narratives [47]. For Rüsen, the didactics of history is not about transmitting facts but about cultivating interpretive competencies that allow learners to construct meaning from historical knowledge and apply it to their lived realities [30]. This orientation toward narrative and meaning-making is foundational to the HISTOESE model.

In the Portuguese context, Isabel Barca’s work consistently emphasises historical literacy and the epistemological challenges of teaching history [48,49]. Her research shows how young learners [50] grapple with evidence, identity and multiperspectivity, underscoring the need for didactic approaches [51] that support the gradual construction of historical reasoning [52]. It also provides the epistemological backbone for HISTOESE, enabling it to mediate between memory, identity and civic agency.

Similarly, Arthur Chapman’s contributions on “powerful knowledge” and historical thinking in the English context [53,54] highlight that history education must equip learners with critical tools to evaluate interpretations and engage with diverse narratives [55,56].

These perspectives resonate with international work highlighting methodological innovations. Cainelli and Barca [57] propose narrative construction as a central strategy for historical learning, while [37], present—following Barca’s research [21]—the aula-oficina (workshop class) as a methodological field for teacher training programmes. Glória Solé adds to this by analyzing how primary school students in Portugal understand time and history [58], pointing to the challenges of fostering historical identity and temporal orientation [59,60]. Together, these contributions position historical education as a critical component of cultural and civic formation. By linking historical literacy, temporal orientation and narrative construction, the field moves beyond content transmission toward an epistemologically grounded pedagogy [24,61]. Such approaches allow learners to recognize history as a field of inquiry, where evidence, interpretation and identity intersect [62]. This perspective provides the HISTOESE design with its theoretical backbone.

2.4. Social Environmental Studies, Sustainability and Curriculum

The integration of sustainability into education has been progressively reinforced by international frameworks and didactic research. The UNESCO report on World Heritage and Sustainable Development [63] underlines the pivotal role of education in linking heritage preservation with sustainability-oriented strategies, emphasizing the need for pedagogical approaches that connect local environments, cultural identity, and global responsibility. In this context, Social and Environmental Studies emerge as a crucial curricular space where sustainability can be approached holistically, combining history, geography and citizenship education [6].

Recent contributions highlight the connections between heritage-based learning, sustainability and teacher education. García-Ceballos et al. [64] demonstrate that the sustainability of heritage depends not only on institutional frameworks but also on the commitment of future teachers to integrate heritage in practical ways. Likewise, Molina-Torres and Ortiz-Urbano [16] show how active learning methodologies in teacher training programmes [65] contribute to cultural sustainability by empowering educators to design participatory and contextualised experiences [35]. These studies align with Pérez-Guilarte’s [3,66] research, which illustrates how intangible heritage and cultural landscapes can be leveraged in preschool and primary education [67] to lay the foundations for early heritage awareness.

International perspectives further expand this debate. Hatipoglu et al. [68] propose a methodology for integrating sustainable tourism education [69,70,71] into curricula, aligning it with Sustainable Development Goals. Guillén-Peñafiel et al. [72] argue for heritage-based learning as a foundation for sustainable development, particularly through case studies in geoparks. Similarly, Georgousis et al. [73] and Giardino et al. [4] illustrate how geoheritage education [74], often delivered through collaborative projects, can cultivate environmental responsibility while promoting tourism and community resilience [26].

These contributions converge in positioning Environmental and Social Studies as a crucial curricular field where sustainability, cultural heritage and citizenship education intersect [75,76]. This curricular orientation ensures that HISTOESE is not an isolated innovation but a response to institutional and international calls for education that bridges heritage, sustainability and civic responsibility.

2.5. Heritage Education, Didactics and Tourism

Heritage-based learning plays an increasingly central role in the dialogue between pedagogy, cultural sustainability, and tourism. From the perspective of history education, scholars such as Rüsen [19] and Barca [48,77] emphasise the epistemological foundations of historical consciousness, which are essential for fostering critical reflection on heritage. They argue that heritage is not merely an object of preservation but a dynamic process of meaning-making, identity construction, and civic participation.

A growing body of research connects heritage-based learning to sustainable tourism. Melo and Cardozo [78] argue that cultural tourism and heritage education are mutually reinforcing fields, where the interpretation of heritage must be pedagogically mediated to ensure inclusivity and sustainability. Peñafiel et al. [79] further elaborate this nexus by analyzing how heritage-based learning during tourism experiences—especially in protected areas—can contribute to sustainable development goals.

Their studies stress that both teachers and tourism professionals require training in heritage didactics to ensure meaningful experiences that balance cultural preservation with tourism growth [80]. Tilden’s principle of Provocation (from his 4th edition) deeply resonates with our emphasis on project-based learning: it suggests that heritage education should spark curiosity and personal meaning rather than merely transmit facts [1].

This perspective finds a concrete expression in the northern Portuguese context through the ongoing work of the Aspirante Geoparque Litoral de Viana do Castelo, which has become a living laboratory for the articulation between education, science and sustainable tourism [81]. Under the scientific coordination of Ricardo Carvalhido [82] and the municipal network of science and environmental education, the Geopark project integrates schools, the Viana do Castelo Polytechnic Institute (Schools of Education and Technology and Management), local communities and visitors through interpretive trails [83], field trips, hands-on laboratories, outdoor classrooms and pedagogical resources aligned with curricula from preschool through secondary education, as well as curricula diversification projects (“Livro de Projetos para a Flexibilização Curricular”), science-based tourism experiences [84] and a postgraduate course in Educação, Ciência e Património Local in the IPVC’s Higher School of Education [85]. This course further institutionalizes this approach by training teachers to design place-based educational and tourism experiences rooted in cultural sustainability [11].

Globally, these initiatives illustrate how heritage-science education, community engagement and visitor-oriented infrastructure can be combined in a territorially embedded way to support sustainable tourism and cultural visibility. They also embody the same pedagogical principles emphasised by the HISTOESE approach—linking local heritage interpretation, environmental awareness and community participation—while simultaneously promoting territorial identity and responsible visitation. As the recent work demonstrates, educational–tourism interfaces grounded in geoscientific and cultural heritage can operate as catalysts for sustainability and post-pandemic resilience at both local and regional scales [86].

International perspectives [87], such as those from Anokhin et al. [74] and Al-Halbouni et al. [88] on geoheritage and geoparks, reinforce this approach, underlining how natural and cultural resources can be leveraged for both education and sustainable tourism. Likewise, Zhou, Song and Feng [89] offer a nuanced view of heritage conservation, distinguishing it from mere preservation by framing it as a sustainable cycle that connects built heritage, memory and contemporary policy.

Within the Portuguese and Iberian contexts, important studies reinforce the pedagogical-tourism link. Gomes et al. [90] explore how pedagogical tourism can serve as a tool for heritage education, while Venera and Alvarenga [91] highlight the potential of history teaching [92] in fostering local interpretations of tourism resources.

In several master’s dissertations, school projects involved collaboration with local tourism offices and museums. These included guided visits to heritage sites, participation in community festivals and exhibitions for visitors.

This body of literature underscores the centrality of heritage-based learning in bridging formal, non-formal, and informal learning contexts [93]. It positions teachers, schools and communities as active agents in the preservation, interpretation, and sustainable use of cultural resources [76,94]. For the HISTOESE approach these insights are crucial: they situate history and heritage education not as isolated practices but as integrated strategies that foster cultural sustainability while reinforcing the resilience of tourism.

2.6. Synthesis and Research Gap

The preceding literature review demonstrates that a rich body of scholarship addresses components of heritage pedagogy. The literature converges on several key points:

• Heritage is socially constructed and must be understood as such [25].
• History education must engage with narrative, temporality, and multiple perspectives [19,48,55,59].
• Education for sustainability cannot be divorced from heritage, especially in curricula that connect environment, culture and citizenship [27].
• Teacher education is essential for translating heritage and sustainability theory into meaningful, context-sensitive practice [16,75].

Despite this convergence, significant gaps remain, which the HISTOESE model is designed to address:

• Lack of Integration: Few studies holistically integrate heritage-based learning, historical consciousness, sustainability and teacher training programmes into a single theoretical foundation or empirical framework.
• Limited Empirical Grounding: There is a scarcity of longitudinal, empirical evidence from early childhood and primary settings, especially in cultural contexts with rich local heritage.
• Contextualization: Research on localization and community participation remains limited, with few studies detailing how families and local heritage actors are systematically involved in co-creating educational programmes.
• Educational Perspective in Heritage and Tourism: The literature on heritage tourism [5,95] often overlooks educational perspectives, particularly pedagogical approaches for post-COVID recovery [96].
• Longitudinal Studies: Few studies track the evolution of heritage-based learning practices over multiple years or across different regions.

For these reasons, the HISTOESE design contributes an empirically grounded and transfer-ready framework that operationalizes the link between teacher training programmes, community engagement, and cultural-tourism sustainability, responding to the educational challenges of the post-COVID era.

Therefore, the approach offers a glocal, practice-based framework that bridges heritage education, history didactics, and sustainability. Emerging from nearly two decades of longitudinal practice, it not only strengthens teacher education but also positions education as a catalyst for cultural sustainability and post-COVID tourism recovery.

3. Materials and Methods

This research adopts a qualitative, longitudinal and collaborative approach, drawing on nearly two decades of teacher training programmes and supervised practice at the Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo (IPVC) in Portugal.

The study adopted a constructivist–interpretivist stance, grounded in Action Research and Design-Based Research (DBR). It combined iterative action-research cycles and applied teaching experiences to document and refine pedagogical strategies systematically [97]. The researcher acted as a participant observer and supervisor, co-interpreting data from an insider perspective within teacher education programmes [8,98].

The primary purpose is not only to understand educational processes but also to inductively formulate a replicable and adaptable model: the HISTOESE framework.

3.1. Research Context and Participants

The study was conducted at the School of Education of the IPVC, within the master’s programmes for Early Childhood and Primary Education. The participants in this longitudinal study are directly connected to the analyzed data corpus, and include:

• Pre-service teachers (master’s students) who developed and documented classroom projects.
• Cooperating teachers and school mentors who provided supervision and feedback.
• Children, families, and community institutions (e.g., museums, cultural centres) who contributed to the implementation of activities (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Among institutional partners illustrating school–community–tourism interfaces is the Geoparque Litoral de Viana do Castelo. Its educational service promotes cross-school projects, laboratory activities, and visitor-oriented trails.

This collaborative network enabled an iterative process of experimentation, reflection and reconstruction, rooting the findings in authentic educational practice. The analysis of these participants’ work and reflections over a significant period (2008–2025) provides a comprehensive view of how pedagogical practices have evolved and diversified.

The diagram (Figure 3) illustrates the conceptual architecture of the Portuguese curriculum for social and historical studies (ages 3–12) and its articulation with the epistemological foundations of the HISTOESE approach.

The model’s pedagogical principles are grounded in each stage of schooling, from the integrated learning of “Knowledge of the World” in pre-school to the explicit focus on “Historical Consciousness” in the 2nd cycle of primary education:

This comprehensive curricular structure, from the holistic pre-school and primary integrated learning to the more formalized disciplines, provides a strong institutional basis for implementing the HISTOESE design. Its focus on active pedagogies (PBL and field visits) is a direct response to the national curriculum’s call for educational practices that are contextualised, participatory and aligned with the broader goals of cultural and environmental sustainability [63].

This long-term collaboration between teacher education and local communities ensured ecological validity and sustained engagement, consistent with DBR standards for iterative design and implementation [97].

3.2. Design and Interpretive Stance

This study follows a qualitative, longitudinal design grounded in Design-Based Research (DBR) and participatory/action research principles [98]. DBR provided an iterative framework in which theoretical synthesis (from the archival corpus) and pedagogical design (implementation in master’s modules) shaped successive refinements of the HISTOESE approach (Figure 4).

The interpretive stance is constructivist/interpretivist: the researcher adopts an insider–outsider role as supervisor and co-reflector, emphasizing co-construction of meaning with pre-service teachers and cooperating mentors. The researcher’s position was interpretive and constructivist, viewing meaning-making as co-constructed among participants through reflective and situated practice [98].

The DBR design comprised three iterative cycles, aligned with Anderson and Shattuck’s [97] definition of Design-Based Research:

(1)

analysis of practical problems;

(2)

development and iterative testing of solutions;

(3)

reflection and refinement leading to design principles.

The DBR work unfolded through three iterative cycles, corresponding to the practical phases used in course delivery and supervision:

• Cycle 1—Exploratory Synthesis (corpus analysis): systematic review of historical supervised practice reports and dissertations to identify recurring practices, resources and pedagogical forms. Outcomes: initial set of codes and candidate pedagogical principles.
• Cycle 2—Pilot Implementation (course modules): implementation of PBL activities within master’s courses; classroom enactments and community collaborations tested candidate elements. Outcomes: adaptation of learning sequences, inclusion of in situ activities and partnership templates.
• Cycle 3—Consolidation and Reflection: refinement of the model based on repeated implementations and reflective reporting (student narratives, supervisor feedback), producing the consolidated HISTOESE framework.

This framework, illustrated in Figure 4, provides a roadmap for the subsequent sections, starting with the theoretical underpinnings of the HISTOESE design.

3.3. Data Corpus

The primary data source consists of a comprehensive corpus of approximately 50 supervised master’s dissertations produced by pre-service teachers between 2008–2025 (see Supplementary Table S1). These documents provide rich qualitative data, including:

• Lesson plans and didactic units integrating heritage and sustainability.
• Reflective journals and narratives from pre-service teachers.
• Children’s outputs (drawings, models, storytelling projects).
• Photographic and digital documentation of field activities.
• Supervisory and evaluative feedback.

This longitudinal corpus offers rich qualitative data to trace the progressive emergence of the HISTOESE approach. The study follows a qualitative paradigm in education [98] privileging depth, context and meaning-making in authentic learning environments.

The corpus and selection procedure included:

• Unit of analysis: final master’s dissertations and supervised teaching practice reports produced by pre-service teachers in the master’s programmes (Early Childhood and Primary Education) at ESE-IPVC.
• Corpus size: n ≈ 50 documents (covering academic years 2008–2025).
• Inclusion criteria: (a) documents explicitly addressing local heritage, historical education, or Estudo do Meio with implemented classroom/community activities; (b) reports containing empirical documentation (lesson plans, photographic records, student artefacts, reflective journals); (c) deposited in the institutional repository.
• Exclusion criteria: projects lacking a heritage/sustainability focus or with incomplete documentation.
• Selection procedure: a systematic repository search (keywords: “Património”, “História”, “Estudo do Meio”, “Projecto”), followed by screening titles/abstracts and full-text verification. A selection flowchart indicating initial records, screened items, excluded items, and final corpus will be provided as Supplementary Figure S1.

The corpus corresponds to approximately 3800 pages of textual material, 600 photographic records, and 180 classroom artefacts (Figure 5). Sources included dissertations, teaching reports, lesson plans, student artefacts (drawings, projects) and field photographs. All documents are archived in the IPVC open repository (http://repositorio.ipvc.pt/, accessed on 13 October 2025).

The corpus selection process followed a systematic and transparent procedure to ensure the reliability and replicability of the qualitative dataset. Figure 5 summarises the flow of identification, screening, eligibility assessment and inclusion of documents analyzed in this study.

The initial search of the institutional repository (IPVC Open Repository) yielded approximately 120 master’s dissertations and supervised practice reports produced between 2008 and 2025. After removing duplicates and excluding projects not explicitly addressing heritage, sustainability or community collaboration, 68 full-text documents were screened for eligibility. Of these, 50 met all inclusion criteria—namely, (a) explicit focus on heritage-based learning or Estudo do Meio with implemented classroom or community activities, (b) presence of empirical evidence such as lesson plans, photographs, or reflective journals, and (c) availability in the public repository with anonymised data.

Excluded items primarily lacked empirical documentation or a heritage/sustainability focus. The final corpus (n = 50) reflects a longitudinal and diverse set of educational practices, providing sufficient variability to identify recurrent patterns and to construct the HISTOESE design inductively.

A 15% subset was double-coded to verify analytic consistency (κ = 0.82). The complete audit trail and codebook (Supplementary Table S2) ensure transparency and traceability throughout the selection and analysis process.

3.4. Analytical Framework

Data analysis followed inductive thematic analysis, consistent with a reflexive, constructivist approach [100]. This reflexive approach acknowledges the researcher’s interpretive agency and the contextual specificity of the findings rather than seeking statistical generalization.

The analytic phases comprised: (1) familiarisation with the corpus; (2) initial coding; (3) generation of candidate themes; (4) review and refinement; (5) definition and naming; and (6) selection of illustrative evidence for reporting. The iterative DBR cycles informed theme refinement: findings from each implementation cycle were reintroduced into the coding process to ensure that the emergent model reflected both documentary and practise-based evidence:

• Codebook: an initial codebook (operational definitions, inclusion/exclusion rules, exemplar quotes) was developed iteratively from the exploratory phase; the finalized codebook is supplied as Supplementary Table S2.
• Coding procedure: coding was predominantly inductive; codes were grouped into higher-order themes through iterative team meetings and memos.
• Intercoder procedure: a subset of documents (~10–20% of the corpus) was independently coded by a second coder to verify consistency; discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus, documented in the audit trail. (If desired, quantitative inter-coder metrics such as percentage agreement or Cohen’s κ may be computed and reported here).
• Reflexivity and audit trail: the researcher maintained reflexive memos throughout, and peer debriefing with colleagues was used to challenge interpretations. Triangulation across document types (plans, artefacts, photographs) strengthened confirmability. All analytic steps are documented for traceability and are available in the Supplementary File.

The themes and their subcodes, which emerged inductively from the data, are presented in

Table 1. Analytic categories on the documentary participants. Source: Own elaboration.

Level 1 Macro-Themes	Level 2 Subcodes/Indicators
A. Local Context & Resources (families, community, local monuments, intangible heritage)	A1: Use of intergenerational knowledge (grandparents, artisans) A2: Field visits and in situ learning (museums, monuments, landscape walks)
B. Inclusive & Sustainable Practices (reuse/upcycling of materials, low-cost resources, intentional design)	B1: Use of recycled/waste materials in teaching activities B2: Activities explicitly framed as “sustainable” or ESD
C. Professional & Community Education (training sequences, workshops, parental involvement)	C1: Training activities for teachers (micro-teachings, seminars) C2: Collaboration with external actors (museum educators, tourism agents)
D. Active Citizenship & Collaboration (teamwork, community projects, civic actions)	D1: Student leadership, community exhibitions, local festivals involvement
E. Historical Literacy & Temporal Orientation (use of narratives, temporal sequencing, local history, provenance)	E1: Narrative construction (stories, local legends, chronological exercises) E2: Tools for temporal orientation (timelines, life histories, from my time to our time)

. This table visually summarizes how the raw qualitative data were organized and structured to reveal the core dimensions of the HISTOESE approach:

A 15% subset was double-coded, reaching 87% agreement (κ = 0.82). Researcher reflexivity was ensured through analytic memos and peer debriefing with two senior colleagues. The analytical rigor was enhanced by methodological triangulation, cross-referencing documentary analysis with field reflections and a continuous dialogue with cooperating teachers and colleagues. This ensured that the educational rationale design was robust and context-sensitive.

3.5. Ethical Considerations and AI Tool Usage

The study complied with institutional ethical guidelines. All dissertations and teaching reports analysed are publicly available in the IPVC repository (http://repositorio.ipvc.pt/, accessed on 13 October 2025). Anonymization procedures ensured that no sensitive data from children, families, or professionals were disclosed. To support data organisation, two large language models (LLMs)—OpenAI’s ChatGPT (version 4, OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) [101] and Google’s Gemini (version 1.5, Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA)—were used solely in an auxiliary capacity for pattern identification, code clustering, and preliminary summarisation. Safeguards included:

• Human oversight: all AI outputs were critically reviewed and validated by the researcher.
• Contextual validation: interpretation and meaning-making remained grounded in the researcher’s expertise and the empirical context.
• Transparency of limitations: LLMs cannot capture cultural nuances and were used only to expedite organisation, not to replace interpretive analysis.

This transparent use of AI demonstrates methodological innovation while reaffirming the central role of the human researcher in qualitative inquiry.

Data derive from institutional pedagogical practice and publicly deposited theses/reports. Use of materials followed the institutional regulations governing supervised practice (ESE-IPVC) and the cooperation protocol with school clusters. Informed consent procedures for practice activities were implemented at the time of data collection by the cooperating schools (parental consent for minors, teacher consent for adults) under the institutional supervision framework. All images included in the manuscript have been anonymized or faces blurred; permissions for use in research/publication are supported by the institutional cooperation documentation and by the public availability of the dissertations. A formal Data Availability Statement and a declaration of ethical compliance are appended to the manuscript (see Institutional Review Board Statement and Data Availability Statement Sections).

Ethical approval was not required for this study in accordance with institutional regulations, since the corpus consists of publicly available dissertations and teaching reports. All participants provided informed consent through the institutional protocol with cooperating schools, ensuring the protection of minors and adherence to GDPR standards.

3.6. Emergence of the HISTOESE Design

The HISTOESE (History Education for Sustainable Environments) is an operational pedagogical framework composed of four interrelated pillars: (1) Proximity & Contextualization; (2) Inclusive & Sustainable Practices; (3) Recognition & Valorisation; (4) Active Citizenship & Collaboration—implemented through project-based learning sequences that typically span one academic term. HISTOESE applies where: (a) teacher training programmes include supervised field practice; (b) partnerships with local cultural actors are possible; and (c) participants can document activities via lesson plans, artefacts and reflective reports. The model does not claim to directly measure tourist visitation outcomes but offers traceable pathways (school → community activity → public event) that may contribute to local cultural-tourism visibility and resilience.

The main outcome is the HISTOESE approach, inductively developed through longitudinal analysis of projects and reflections. It is structured around four interrelated pedagogical pillars (see Supplementary Table S3):

• Proximity and Contextualization—working with the immediate social, historical, and cultural environment.
• Inclusive and Sustainable Practices—reusing materials, fostering ecological responsibility, and integrating heritage with sustainability.
• Recognition and Valorisation—empowering students and communities to acknowledge, reinterpret, and preserve cultural heritage.
• Active Citizenship and Collaboration—promoting teamwork, creativity, and community participation, both on-site and through digital platforms.

The model embodies a glocal orientation: rooted in northern Portugal and Galicia but designed to be transferable and adaptable to international contexts. There are similar PBL approaches integrating heritage and community resilience have been reported by [72] and [102].

By bridging historical education, cultural heritage, sustainability and tourism, HISTOESE addresses pressing post-COVID educational and societal challenges.

3.7. Visual Representation

The HISTOESE framework is presented in Figure 6 and Figure 7, which illustrates how teacher education, student engagement, community collaboration, and sustainable pedagogical practices interact. Its visual clarity and transferability strengthen its potential replication in international educational settings:

The articulation between Figure 6 and Figure 7 is intentional. While Figure 6 provides the logic model connecting inputs (teacher education, community partnerships), processes (PBL activities, reflection), outputs (student artefacts, public exhibitions), and expected outcomes (heritage literacy, cultural resilience and tourism visibility). Figure 7 visualizes the didactic orientation of the four HISTOESE pillars.

The HISTOESE logic approach integrates cultural heritage education, project-based learning, and tourism for sustainable development. It was developed through iterative DBR cycles with stakeholders from education, culture, and territorial institutions. This process ensured reflexivity, transferability and long-term sustainability.

Taken together, these figures illustrate the dynamic nature of the research: from an iterative and action-oriented methodology to the formulation of a stable, transferable framework. This visual dialogue underscores both the empirical grounding and the theoretical robustness of the HISTOESE design, reinforcing its potential for replication in diverse educational and cultural contexts.

4. Discussion and Emergence of the HISTOESE Approach

The following discussion reinterprets these findings in light of the initial research questions and the HISTOESE framework.

The HISTOESE design emerged through a long-term, collaborative process of teacher training programmes and sustained pedagogical reflection. Over two decades, almost fifty supervised master’s dissertations of teaching practice at the Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo (IPVC) have provided a fertile empirical basis for conceptual development.

This body of work reveals a cumulative process of trial, reflection and adaptation. Rather than isolated case studies, the dissertations collectively form a robust corpus revealing recurring themes, methodological innovations, and insights into integrating cultural and historical heritage into early education. The HISTOESE approach, therefore, reflects a bottom-up approach, moving from concrete experiences in classrooms and communities to a pedagogical architecture that directly responds to contemporary challenges in heritage-based learning, sustainability, and teacher education.

4.1. From Practice to Theory: A Thematic Synthesis

The five thematic axes correspond to the main patterns identified in response to RQ1 and RQ2. A thematic synthesis of the dissertations highlights five major axes, each contributing to the epistemological and pedagogical foundations of the HISTOESE approach. These axes reveal the breadth and depth of pedagogical experimentation, demonstrating that cultural heritage is not a marginal element but a transversal dimension connecting identity, environment, inclusion [103] and civic responsibility. The quotes from the pre-service teachers’ reports serve as critical evidence, illustrating how theory and practice were in constant dialogue (see Supplementary Table S3).

4.1.1. Identity and Heritage

Many projects explored how children construct notions of belonging and cultural identity through contact with local traditions, crafts, and monuments. This experiential dimension is exemplified in Figure 8 and Figure 9, which document community-based activities where children engaged directly with their environment. As one student articulated: ‘Working with local stories and objects allowed children to understand that their grandparents’ experiences are part of history. It made them feel that they belong to a broader cultural narrative’ (Report no. 1477). This echoes scholarly work on the affective dimension of heritage education and its role in fostering long-term cultural sustainability [19,23,28].

4.1.2. Citizenship and Participation

Another recurrent theme concerned active citizenship. Teacher candidates reflected on the transformative power of engaging families and the local community [2]. This dynamic is illustrated in Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12, which display posters created with pupils to promote shared values and civic responsibility. One report noted: ‘By involving families and the local community in school projects, pupils recognized themselves as participants in cultural preservation, not just as passive learners’ (Report no. 1702). This aligns with some approaches in civic education that integrate local action with global citizenship [105] and underscores the link between community-based pedagogy and post-pandemic tourism recovery [19].

4.1.3. Inclusion and Diversity

Many reports emphasised how working with discarded materials and overlooked heritage elements enhanced inclusive practices. This shift from practice to theory is clearly illustrated in pedagogic activities (Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15), where identity, citizenship, inclusion, didactics, and sustainability converge. One candidate reflected: ‘Children who often felt excluded in traditional activities became protagonists when interpreting heritage using everyday objects’ (Report no. 1854). This echoes the heterogenous, inclusive pedagogical approaches advocated by Booth and Ainscow (2016) [103] and underscores how inclusive heritage narratives are essential for broadening participation in sustainable tourism [106].

4.1.4. Didactics of History and Geography

From a methodological standpoint, numerous dissertations addressed the core challenges of teaching History and Geography. Students stressed the transformative power of project-based learning. This is exemplified in Figure 16, which captures the implementation of a heritage trail outside the classroom, encouraging experiential learning. One report noted: ‘Planning and implementing a heritage trail with students changed my understanding of what teaching can achieve outside the classroom’ (Report no. 2115). This resonates with Tilden’s principles of interpretation and with recent Portuguese research on heritage trails as educational resources [107].

4.1.5. Environmental Education and Sustainability

Finally, sustainability was consistently linked to both environmental and cultural dimensions. This dual perspective is illustrated in Figure 17, where classroom activities integrate ecological awareness with heritage preservation. A candidate reflected: ‘Using recycled materials to represent local monuments was not only an ecological practice but also a way of valuing what we usually discard’ (Report no. 2617). These reflections reinforce the vital interconnection between ecological consciousness and cultural sustainability, echoing findings from UNESCO [109] and others [9].

Together, these themes reveal how local heritage education can act as a catalyst for sustainability-oriented pedagogical innovation.

4.2. Broader Implications of the HISTOESE Design

HISTOESE builds on these thematic axes by proposing an integrative approach that connects heritage-based learning with broader goals of sustainability and cultural resilience. Its implications extend far beyond the classroom, highlighting its relevance for families, museums, archives, and even the tourism and hospitality sectors. The model serves as a conceptual bridge:

• Between formal, non-formal, and informal learning: The approach uses families, communities, and nearby heritage as resources for situated, lifelong learning.
• Between education and tourism: By fostering professional and community awareness, it positions cultural heritage as a shared responsibility for sustainable and post-COVID recovery, especially in tourism contexts.
• Between cultural preservation and sustainable innovation: It promotes a glocal approach, rooted in the local heritage of northern Portugal and Galicia, yet designed to be transferable and adaptable to other contexts worldwide.

By articulating these principles, HISTOESE positions teacher training programmes as a central driver of cultural sustainability and cultural resilience. It calls for collaborative networks that include educators, cultural professionals, policymakers, and community members, recognizing that sustainable futures [111] require an active and critical relationship with the past.

4.3. Community–Tourism Interfaces

Although the empirical foundation of this study is rooted in teacher education, the longitudinal corpus of dissertations reveals multiple instances in which pedagogical projects transcended the school environment, generating visible impacts on local cultural and tourism dynamics. These experiences illustrate the “glocal” potential of the HISTOESE approach—fostering educational, civic and cultural synergies that support sustainable tourism through community participation and heritage valorisation [112].

Example 1—Heritage Walks and Interpretive Trails: Several dissertations describe the co-creation of heritage walks (percursos patrimoniais) involving children, families, later integrated into local tourism itineraries, mainly situated at the Viana do Castelo’s Coastal Aspirant Unesco Geopark area (https://www.geoparquelitoralviana.pt/en/, accessed on 13 October 2025). The school–community partnerships promote interpretive trails, citizen-science laboratories and cultural mapping activities that connect environmental education and sustainable tourism in northern Portugal [85].

A route entitled “Our Village, Our Memory” connected the school with local monuments, churches, chapels and civil architecture. With support from the municipal tourism office and local guides, the event attracted not only families but also visitors from nearby communities. These initiatives demonstrate how heritage-based pedagogical activities can evolve into community events with direct tourism resonance, promoting inclusive and authentic visitor experiences aligned with sustainable tourism principles [16,19].

Example 2—School–Museum Collaborations: Partnerships between schools and local museums also emerged as a recurrent theme. For instance, a project conducted in collaboration with the Casa dos Nichos and Museu do Traje, involved pre-service teachers and students in designing small exhibitions for visitors, blending educational interpretation with cultural tourism. Similarly, a dissertation documented a joint initiative with the Museu Municipal de Artes e Decorativas de Viana do Castelo, where children presented handcrafted models of regional monuments to the public during museum week. These experiences exemplify the HISTOESE principle of Recognition and Valorisation—activating heritage literacy while simultaneously reinforcing the cultural tourism ecosystem through participatory interpretation and local storytelling [16,113].

Example 3—Community Festivals and Local Fairs: A third cluster of cases involved active participation in festas populares and local fairs that celebrate intangible heritage. In one dissertation, students developed thematic posters on “Educating with Values” that were displayed in a regional event combining gastronomy, crafts and rural tourism. More recently, a project on “Living the Heritage” engaged students and families in a reenactment event coordinated with the municipal cultural division (Video mapping projection), evolving historical archive and library, which later became part of the town’s tourism promotion campaign. These initiatives confirm that pedagogical projects framed within HISTOESE enhance learning, activate local economies, and strengthen identity-based tourism narratives.

These community–tourism interfaces exemplify how school-based heritage education can act as a micro-level catalyst for cultural tourism recovery, echoing findings from Italy’s “Scuola e Territorio” program [4] and the “Learning through Heritage Trails” initiative in Brazil [37].

Taken together, these cases illustrate that the HISTOESE approach fosters intersectoral connections between schools, communities, and local tourism systems. By promoting experiential learning, intergenerational dialogue and heritage valorisation, these initiatives embody a bottom-up contribution to sustainable tourism. They reveal that educational actions can serve as catalysts for cultural revitalization [114] and community resilience—a fundamental aspect of post-COVID recovery strategies in heritage destinations.

Comparable international experiences reinforce the potential of linking PBL, heritage and sustainability. For instance, the “Heritage Education for Sustainable Cities” programme in Spain [29] and the “Learning through Heritage Trails” project in Brazil [37], achieved similar outcomes in community engagement and local tourism promotion.

The Portuguese experience aligns with these initiatives but emphasises longitudinal teacher education as the main driver of sustainability, not isolated school projects. This comparison strengthens the international relevance of the HISTOESE framework.

4.4. Conclusions: The HISTOESE Contribution

The longitudinal analysis of fifty master’s dissertations demonstrates that heritage-based learning, when anchored in local contexts and teacher education, produces cognitive, affective, and civic transformations. The HISTOESE approach consolidates these insights into a coherent, practice-based framework structured around four pedagogical pillars: (1) proximity and contextualisation, (2) inclusive and sustainable practices, (3) recognition and valorisation, and (4) active citizenship and collaboration.

Practically, the approach can inform (a) co-design initiatives between schools, museums, and tourism offices; (b) development of teacher-training modules integrating heritage and sustainability; and (c) community-based rubrics for evaluating educational–territorial impact. By embedding sustainability as a cultural and pedagogical value, the HISTOESE design contributes to a broader understanding of post-COVID recovery as a process of collective learning, identity reconstruction, and socio-cultural resilience.

5. Conclusions and Final Considerations

This longitudinal study synthesises nearly two decades of supervised teaching practice into the HISTOESE framework. The evidence demonstrates that contextualised PBL activities enhance heritage literacy, inclusion, and sustainable partnerships [4,72,88]. While HISTOESE does not directly measure tourism demand, the documented school–community initiatives create visible cultural outputs that support local resilience and contribute indirectly to post-COVID tourism recovery. Practically, the design recommends the institutionalization of school–community partnerships, scaffolded PBL timelines, and simple evaluation rubrics for assessing heritage literacy and community engagement. Future work should prioritize co-design protocols [74] with museums and tourism boards, enabling the joint evaluation of learning outcomes and local impact [80]. Developing micro-credential programmes in heritage sustainability for teachers could further operationalize HISTOESE principles as professional competencies, strengthening educator preparation as an active agent of cultural sustainability and territorial resilience.

5.1. Answering the Research Questions

The research was guided by specific questions about the nature of heritage-based learning in teacher training programmes, the core pedagogical strategies, and its broader implications. Our analysis provides clear answers:

• RQ1. How do PBL-based teacher education projects promote Heritage Literacy and Historical Consciousness in early childhood and primary education? The dissertations functioned as a living laboratory for pedagogical innovation. A consistent pattern of contextualised, inquiry-based practices emerged, enabling pre-service teachers to cultivate children’s awareness of local heritage and historical reasoning.
• RQ2. What pedagogical practices and forms of community collaboration recur across the longitudinal corpus and how do they contribute to Cultural Sustainability? Effective practices integrated PBL, fieldwork, creative reuse of materials, and collaboration with families and community partners. These approaches fostered holistic, situated learning and civic participation consistent with the principles of powerful knowledge and inclusive education.
• RQ3. In what ways can school-based heritage projects be traced to community and tourism outputs, and under what conditions do they support local cultural-tourism recovery?

The HISTOESE approach provides a framework that connects educational action with cultural valorisation and community engagement. It offers pathways for indirect contribution to cultural-tourism recovery, particularly when schools work in coordination with local museums, tourism offices, and heritage associations.

5.2. Final Considerations and Future Directions

This study demonstrates that project-based learning in teacher training programmes can generate consistent pedagogical patterns that strengthen Heritage Literacy, mobilize community partnerships, and produce traceable cultural outputs that intersect with tourism promotion. Operationally, HISTOESE encompasses four interconnected components—Contextualization, Inclusion, Valorisation, and Collaboration—forming a cyclical process from local inquiry to community dissemination.

Its major contribution lies in articulating heritage-based learning, historical thinking, and sustainability within an empirically grounded framework. By leveraging a unique longitudinal dataset, the study illustrates how qualitative research can transform diverse experiences into transferable design principles. The transparent and ethically guided use of AI tools reinforces methodological innovation while maintaining human interpretive oversight.

While the findings are contextually robust, they remain limited to a single institutional environment (IPVC) and to pre-service teacher voices. Future studies should replicate and adapt the HISTOESE approach in diverse cultural settings, integrating mentor teachers, museum professionals, and tourism agents as co-researchers. Comparative and mixed-methods studies could evaluate the impact on students’ learning outcomes, professional development, and community engagement [61].

Overall, the HISTOESE reframes teacher training programmes for cultural heritage as a dialogical, collaborative, and reflexive process. It positions educators as mediators of cultural sustainability and empowers children as active participants in heritage-making.

This research underscores the importance of articulating history education, heritage interpretation, sustainable tourism, and community collaboration—linking schools, local stakeholders, and visitors in shared stewardship of place [91]. The HISTOESE design, by fostering this dialogue, provides an innovative pathway to reinforce the long-term sustainability of cultural tourism, contributing to the UN 2030 Agenda for resilient and inclusive societies.

Ultimately, HISTOESE aspires not merely to serve Portuguese and Iberian contexts but to provide a transferable framework for international reflection on the interdependence between education, heritage, and sustainability—a triad essential for rebuilding community bonds and reimagining post-COVID futures.