Technology Student Teachers Address Energy and Environmental Concerns on Plastic Usage and Disposal Through Experiential Challenge-Based Learning

Abstract

Despite the emphasis on consumption and production patterns in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), plastic pollution remains inadequately addressed. This research contributes to the limited literature on sustainable consumption and disposal of plastic in developing contexts and demonstrates how universities can effectively integrate sustainability competencies into a subject-specific curriculum. This study examined how teacher training programs can address plastic pollution through curriculum innovation and experiential challenge-based learning. Focusing on technology student teachers (TSTs) at a South African institution, the research explored their experiences with community-based problem-solving activities related to plastic consumption and disposal. The polymer module was restructured to combine theoretical knowledge with practical sustainability actions, engaging students in real-world environmental challenges. Data were generated via focus group interview, reflective journal, and photovoice. Working in teams across four communities, TSTs conducted plastic audits in households, shared findings with community members, and collaboratively developed sustainable solutions. This approach bridged the gap between academic learning and environmental action, addressing the critical global plastic crisis that contributes to fossil fuel depletion, ecosystem damage, and greenhouse gas emissions. The findings highlight the potential of teacher education to cultivate environmentally conscious educators who can inspire sustainable thinking and action across educational settings. The practical implications of this research extend beyond the classroom, offering a replicable model for teacher education programs to empower future educators as change agents who can facilitate sustainable community action through knowledge co-creation and context-specific environmental problem-solving.

1. Introduction

The world produced over 460 million tons of plastic in 2019. This alarming number confirms that plastics are an indispensable part of our daily lives—from toothbrushes to bank cards—and points to their resultant environmental impact. The sheer volume of production is intrinsically linked to disposal issues, as increases in plastic production inevitably lead to environmental degradation across multiple ecosystems.

The disposal and use of plastic have become a global environmental crisis with three critical dimensions. First, almost all plastics (99%) are made from fossil fuels, non-renewable energy sources. Second, 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes (MT) of plastic waste are dumped annually into the seas, causing damage to ecosystems, livelihoods, and human health. Third, 40% of plastics are disposed of by burning. When different types of plastic are burnt, they release harmful chemicals such as furans, dioxins, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (better known as BCPs) into the atmosphere [1].

Moreover, plastic production generates large amounts of greenhouse gases [2]. Using fossil fuels and releasing these gases into the atmosphere accelerates climate change, depletes fossil fuel resources, and increases pollution [3,4]. Addressing this complex issue requires a multi-dimensional approach to transform how we understand and interact with plastic.

This environmental crisis calls for an innovative educational response. While such transformation cannot develop by chance in individuals or be developed purely theoretically in classrooms, universities and schools play a critical catalytic role. These institutions can promote cognitive understanding and hands-on activities that develop sustainable competencies and foster solution-oriented thinking [5,6]. UNESCO’s Global Action Plan (“Sustainability Begins with Teachers”) has specifically tasked universities with teacher training programs to be drivers of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Teacher training programs are uniquely positioned to address environmental challenges through curriculum innovations, experiential learning, and critical engagement with sustainability issues. Student teachers occupy an important interspace where they can simultaneously learn about sustainable development, develop problem-solving skills and sustainable competencies during their training, and prepare to influence future generations by raising awareness about environmental challenges.

The 17 SDGs do not explicitly address plastic pollution. They do cover and include sustainable consumption, production patterns, and resource use. This gap foregrounds the importance of engaging student teachers in sustainable development processes related explicitly to plastics. Universities with teacher training programs can cultivate the necessary knowledge, skills, and actions in student teachers through assessments that engage them in sustainable thinking and actions to address environmental plastic-related challenges without being prescriptive. Studies by [7,8] emphasize that many student teachers have a fragmented understanding of energy concepts and find it difficult to connect scientific principles with environmental impacts.

SDG 12 emphasizes the importance of responsible consumption and production and is intrinsically linked to SDG 4 on quality education. Through innovative teaching and learning approaches, student teachers can be empowered to become catalysts for change who promote sustainable systems thinking, wise consumption, sustainable competencies, creative solutions, and responsible action in their community and their learners’ daily lives [9].

While many studies exist on climate change [10,11,12,13] and university challenges in driving sustainable development [14,15,16], few studies have explored environmental concerns around plastic usage and disposal in developing contexts and specific subject areas. This study addresses this significant literature gap by examining how technology education can promote sustainability competencies—a subject area with few skilled practitioners.

This research specifically focuses on two key questions:

• What do Technology Student Teachers (TSTs) learn about plastic consumption and disposal in community challenge-based tasks?
• What actions do TSTs engage in to address the issue of plastic consumption and disposal and related sustainability challenges?

This study draws from a redesigned polymer module taught to technology student teachers at a South African teacher training institution. South Africa produces 2.5 million tons of plastic waste annually, making this context particularly relevant. The module was restructured to promote cognitive understanding of polymer chemistry while engaging student teachers in hands-on problem-solving activities related to plastic use and disposal within their communities.

This teaching strategy bridges the divide between theoretical academic learning and real-world environmental issues, allowing students to apply content knowledge from the polymer module together with their knowledge of design to address actual environmental problems. Through this approach, TSTs learn from actual sustainability actions and experiences.

For the challenge-based task, TSTs identified four communities (A, B, C, D) close to the university where they would work. Based on convenience, TSTs formed four teams of 10 members each and selected the community they wanted to work with. The task comprised five sequential parts:

• Conduct a plastic audit in 10 randomly selected homes in their selected community, determining the types of plastics used daily, weekly, monthly, and annually, as well as their properties and disposal methods.
• Share audit findings with the community members to create awareness.
• Collaborate with the community to jointly address a sustainability challenge related to plastic use (drawing on their polymer module knowledge and design skills).
• Present their findings and solutions at a student seminar.
• Reflect on their learning experiences throughout the process.

The findings reveal how universities can advance Sustainable Development Goals through innovative teaching and learning approaches. Furthermore, the research in technology education showcases how subject matter knowledge can promote sustainability competencies. Insights into technology student teachers’ experiences contributes valuable knowledge on preparing future teachers who can champion sustainability across diverse educational contexts.

2. Literature Review

This literature review examines three interconnected dimensions of sustainability: the environmental challenge of plastic proliferation, the evolving role of universities in advancing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and educators’ perspectives on teaching sustainable development concepts. The review concludes by introducing the theoretical framework that guides this study.

2.1. Environmental Footprint of Plastic

Globally, the daily use and disposal of plastic products presents a critical environmental challenge. Plastics are classified into various categories based on their structure, heating properties, physical and chemical characteristics, type of resin, and identification code. Polyethylene shopping bags, the most commonly used plastic are carelessly disposed of in the environment. These bags release methane and ethylene into the environment, contributing to greenhouse gas accumulation.

The environmental footprint of the plastic industry extends far beyond individual products. Projections indicate that by 2050, 20% of the world’s total oil consumption and 15% of the global annual carbon budget will be used in producing plastic. The lifecycle of plastic—from production through disposal—has become a major driver of environmental pollution and climate change. Estimates suggest that, by 2030, greenhouse gas emissions from plastic proliferation could reach 1.34 gigatons per year, and, by 2050, they could reach 56 gigatons of CO₂. Additionally, about 40% of produced plastics are incinerated. When plastic is incinerated, it releases greenhouse gases that contribute to increased atmospheric temperatures and climate change impacts.

2.2. Universities and Sustainability Engagement

Universities have had to re-envision their role in society as environmental challenges increase and the Earth’s fragile condition worsens. Universities are not only information providers and research hubs [17], but they also drive the Sustainable Development Goals and act as catalysts for social change and community empowerment [18]. This re-envisaging entails moving away from traditional lectures and textbooks and refocusing research and academic assignments to emphasize broad societal impact [19]. The implications of this re-envisioning of university roles requires teacher educators to disrupt their traditional lesson design and teaching strategies. To address sustainability issues, they now need to develop students’ knowledge, skills, and talents, to help students build sustainable thinking and action competency. Teacher educators should link assessments and tasks to community participation. This will allow students to have practical experience tackling actual sustainability issues in their communities [20]. By encouraging students to actively participate and make informed decisions about their learning while working with peers and community members, experiential learning in community settings makes it easier to address sustainability challenges. Such activities in community settings can shape students’ viewpoints, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors when it comes to addressing environmental and sustainability concerns in their local communities.

2.3. Teachers’ Views on Teaching About Sustainable Development

While universities may have established frameworks for sustainability education, implementing these initiatives hinges on teacher educators. Scholars have identified several key barriers and recommendations for improving how sustainability is taught across educational settings. Corney and Reid [21] have identified that teachers themselves can be the most significant barriers to effective sustainability education. Research emphasizes that the effectiveness of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) largely depends on educators’ attitudes, knowledge, and pedagogical skills [22,23].

Multiple studies suggest teachers often lack specialized knowledge and confidence in teaching sustainability concepts, including plastic pollution and climate change [20,24,25]. This knowledge gap is particularly pronounced in science, technology, and mathematics education—disciplines critical for understanding and addressing environmental issues.

Thus, it is imperative to change students’ attitudes and actions toward sustainability to enhance the teaching of sustainable development education. Learner-centered, immersive, and participatory approaches that promote critical thinking and active participation could help bring about this change. Rethinking how topics such as plastic pollution and climate change are taught allows educators to empower students to address environmental and social challenges while embracing the notion of universities as drivers of sustainable development.

2.4. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory

Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) [26] provides the theoretical foundation for this study. ELT demonstrates how experiences drive learning beyond traditional theoretical instruction, enabling students to develop practical sustainability skills through direct engagement and reflection. The theory’s four-stage cycle—concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation—aligns well with the community-based plastic pollution project designed for this study.

This study leverages Kolb’s experiential learning approach by engaging technology student teachers in real-world plastic consumption audits and collaborative community problem-solving. Students move through all four stages: experiencing the reality of plastic pollution (concrete experience), reflecting on their observations (reflective observation), connecting their findings to broader sustainability principles (abstract conceptualization), and implementing community-based solutions (active experimentation). This approach enhances content knowledge and develops the sustainable competencies for future teachers to address environmental challenges effectively.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Background

Guided by ELT, this study adopted the interpretive paradigm. The interpretive paradigm recognizes that sustainability practices are deeply embedded in local contexts, lived experiences, and cultural frameworks rather than universal principles [27]. It highlights knowledge that emerges from personal experiences to understand consumption and disposal of plastic among participants. A qualitative methodology was chosen to capture how participants understand their lived experiences [28].

The study occurred at a teacher training institution in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Data was collected from 40 Technology Student Teachers (TSTs) enrolled in the 2018 polymers module. All ethical guidelines regarding consent and voluntary participation were followed. The criteria for participants’ purposive selection was that they had to be technology students enrolled for the polymer module. The participant group consisted of 40 TSTs (15 males and 25 females) living in university housing near campus. Before data collection could begin, TSTs chose a number from 1 to 40; this number served as their pseudonym and was also used to note which TSTs belonged to each of the four groups. They self-organized into four groups of 10 members each for the community challenge-based audit task. Each group self-selected polymer-related pseudonyms like PP, PET, PS, and PVC. All participants received training in community-based participatory research (CBPR) and their data-collection method. The CBPR training instructed TSTs on the CBPR fundamental principles, characteristics, and phases, enabling participants to apply these methods when they engage with their task in the community.

The training covered interactive approaches, including small group discussions and hands-on exercises. This ensured that TSTs were equipped with the skills to implement CBPR in their communities. Participants conducted waste audits in their communities at the beginning of the project. They were given masks and disposable gloves so that they could examine the types and quantities of discarded materials. The assignment was developed in response to South Africa’s challenges with plastic consumption and disposal [29] and was linked to the polymer’s module curriculum. The goal of the activity was to encourage introspection and behavior change about consumption patterns while allowing participants to use their understanding of plastic classification, chemical qualities, structure, and recycling techniques.

3.2. Instruments

Data collection involved semi-structured focus group interviews, reflective journals, and photovoice. Each of the four groups participated in one 45 min focus group interview. Interview questions explored plastic usage, consumption patterns, disposal methods, community-identified sustainability issues, potential solutions, experiences with CBPR activities, sustainability competencies, and agency. All interviews were audio-recorded and labelled according to the groups’ chosen pseudonyms.

Participants received guidelines on maintaining reflective journals, which instructed them to document their thoughts on consumption and disposal patterns, experiences addressing sustainability issues, emotional responses, and reflections on the CBPR activity. Each TST was assigned a number from 1 to 40 as a pseudonym for their journal entries.

Photovoice methodology was employed, involving photographs to document and share lived experiences related to specific issues—in this case, plastic consumption and disposal within communities. For parts two and three of the assignment, TSTs captured photographs and provided written descriptions of their observations and approaches to addressing plastic disposal challenges.

3.3. Data Analysis

The focus group interview transcripts were provided to TSTs for member-checking to verify the accurate capture of their responses [27]. This process strengthens data trustworthiness and validity by confirming that findings accurately represent participants’ experiences and perspectives. All the data collected was analyzed thematically.

The data was read many times to note patterns of similarity and difference before coding commenced. Codes were compared and organized before being grouped into themes. The identified themes were also subjected to member checking with participants to ensure accuracy.

4. Findings and Discussion

This section presents the audit findings to respond to the first research question: What do TSTs learn about plastic consumption and disposal in the community challenge-based task?

Data from the focus group interviews, reflective journals, and photovoice were used to respond to the second research question, what actions do TSTs engage in to address the issue of plastic consumption and disposal, and are there any sustainability-related challenges?

4.1. Community Audit: What TSTs Learn About Plastic Consumption and Disposal

The audit conducted in communities A to D is reflected in

Table 1. Categories and codes from interviews and reflective diaries.

Question/Statement	Codes	Theme
Actions to address plastic consumption and disposal	Building material Eco bricks Fossil fuels Food security Vertical gardens Upcycling	Repurposing discarded plastic
	Citizenship responsibility Agency Teacher voice Sustainable actions Pro-sustainable behavior	Brokers of sustainability

below. The audit conducted in communities A to D is reflected in

Table 2. Weekly plastic use and disposal in Communities A–D.

Community	A	B	C	D
First most commonly used plastic—per week among the 10 households sampled: LDPE/shopping bag	200	100	180	80
Second most commonly used plastic—per week among the 10 households sampled HDPE/juice/cool drink/milk bottles	120	80	100	150
Disposal of these plastics	Burning, dump in bin	Burning, dumping	Burning, dumping, burying	Burning, burying
Are they aware of and concerned about the consequence of their plastic disposal habits on the environment	Not aware, unconcerned	Not aware but know that many children and old adults have breathing difficulties in the community	Not aware, unconcerned	Not aware, unconcerned

below. Each household had between 6 and 8 occupants.

Community A uses the highest number of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic bags per week (200), meaning each household sampled in community A uses an average of 20 packets per week. In contrast, Community D uses the highest number of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles (150) per week, meaning each household sampled uses an average of 15 HDPE bottles weekly.

Burning and dumping are used for disposal of plastic in all four communities. Notably, while most communities are unaware of and unconcerned about environmental impacts, Community B shows a partial awareness of potential health effects, with residents noting that many children and older adults experience breathing difficulties in their area.

Despite this limited awareness in Community B, there appears to be a general lack of understanding across all communities about how these disposal methods affect the environment, contribute to climate change, and impact community health. The residents seem unaware that plastics are non-biodegradable materials that do not decompose and release nutrients into the soil and that when burnt they release harmful chemicals into the atmosphere. This gap between plastic usage habits and environmental awareness suggests an opportunity for educational interventions focused on proper waste management and the environmental consequences of current disposal practices.

To address the issue identified above across the four communities, TSTs used the data from the audit in Table 2 to show the communities the consequences of their plastic use and disposal of non-renewable resources, climate change, and the environment, as shown in

Table 3. Foot print of resources required and emissions given off when LDPE shopping bags are produced and disposed of. The calculations for each type of resource required is based on the values provide by the Royal Society of Chemistry (2014).

Community	A	B	C	D
First most commonly used plastic—per year among the 10 households sampled: LDPE/shopping bag: no. of bags used per week ×52	10,400	5200	9360	4160
Amount of crude oil required to produce the plastics bags used (8.12 g/0.00812 kg produces one LDPE bag with a mass of 7 g)	84.44 kg	42.22 kg	76.00 kg	33.77 kg
Amount of water used to produce plastic bags (1.4 L per bag)	14,560 L	7280 L	13,104 L	5824 L
Carbon emission in grams when one plastic bag is produced (33 g/0.033 kg per plastic bag)	343,200 g 343.2 kg	171,600 g 171.6 kg	308,880 g 308.88 kg	137,280 g 137.28 kg

below.

The data collected by TSTs provides a sobering perspective on the environmental impact of plastic shopping bags across the four communities. The differences between communities become even more pronounced when examining yearly consumption patterns. Community A uses twice (10,400) as many shopping bags as compared to community D (4160).

These usage patterns translate into significant resource consumption. Community A’s plastic bag usage requires approximately 84.44 kg of crude oil annually. This represents a substantial demand for non-renewable fossil fuel resources for a single-use item. Similarly, the water footprint is considerable, with Community A’s plastic bags requiring 14,560 L of water in production (which is the volume of water needed to fill over 48 standard bathtubs of 302 L capacity).

A large amount of carbon is produced during the production of plastic. For example, to produce the plastic used by community A, 343.2 kg of carbon is emitted annually. This significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and, consequently, to climate change.

These calculations indicate that what appears as an everyday convenience (plastic shopping bags) has far reaching implications for resource consumption and environmental pollution. The data provides compelling evidence for communities to rethink and reconsider their plastic usage and disposal habits. By understanding these metrics in Table 2, residents may be emancipated and motivated to adopt more sustainable alternatives and proper disposal methods, moving away from burning practices that compound the environmental damage already caused during production.

This evidence-based approach is a powerful educational tool for raising awareness about the actual cost of plastic consumption in these communities. The problems identified in the community included poorly structured informal homes, poor waterproofing, lack of furniture, and lack of space for gardening.

As evidenced by the community audit across Communities A–D, plastic consumption and improper disposal create significant environmental challenges [29], with a single community using up to 10,400 LDPE shopping bags annually (from just 10 households), consuming 84.44 kg of crude oil and 14,560 L of water in production alone. This environmental footprint is substantial. Moreover, burning these plastics—a common disposal method across all surveyed communities—releases carbon dioxide, contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions [30]. The numerical data compiled by TSTs regarding resource consumption provides powerful visual reference points. Environmental research indicates that concrete, relatable metrics are needed to initiate behavior change [31].

4.2. Actions to Address Plastic Consumption and Disposal and Challenges Related to Sustainability

4.2.1. Repurposing Discarded Plastic

An alternative to burning or dumping soft drink bottles, car tires, and plastic shopping bags is the repurposing of plastic, as evidenced by community audits in informal settlements:

The living conditions in these informal settlements are appalling, especially with the recent flooding; so many of the elderly are struggling to waterproof their walls and roofs, nor do they have a table and chairs. We have decided to show them how to make Eco bricks from empty cool drink bottles.

(Reflective journal, 21)

This initial intervention introduced sustainable building materials to address housing challenges while managing plastic waste. The educational component quickly showed results:

Instead of burning the plastics that they used, now that we have shown them how much fossil fuels are used to make the plastic they discard, I see they are keen to learn about repurposing and upcycling the plastics.

(Focus group interview, TST, 3)

The scope of repurposing expanded to meet multiple community needs:

We have demonstrated how to make chairs from discarded tyres, make toys with certain types of plastics, waterproof their roofs, and so now they have stopped burning plastics. What is good is that all 4 communities are now using the cool drink bottles for vertical gardening as space is an issue in these informal settlements, and the vertical gardening contributes to food security for them.

(Focus group interview, TST 15)

These examples in Figure 1i–vi illustrate how repurposing plastics reduces waste, saves energy (see Table 2), and conserves resources. This approach aligns with Sustainable Development Goals: SDG 12 (responsible consumption), SDG 4 (quality education), SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 13 (climate action), and SDG 10 (reduced inequalities). These findings align with several studies on plastic waste management. Jambeck et al. [30] demonstrated that creative reuse of plastics can divert up to 40% of plastic waste from landfills and improper disposal systems. The practice of using HDPE bottles (similar to the 150 weekly bottles used in Community D) packed with non-recyclable plastics to construct building materials (Eco bricks) shows how environmental liabilities become the platform for community assets [31,32].

The visual evidence further reinforces these applications.

Waste management and food security challenges, can be addressed by using plastic bottles for vertical gardening, in space-constrained informal settlements [33]. This dual-benefit approach is increasingly recognized as a sustainable intervention in resource-limited communities [34]. Educational applications of colorful HDPE bottles as toys and classroom resources demonstrate how waste materials can support learning in resource-constrained settings [35]. Upcycling plastic shopping bags through heat fusion to create waterproof materials for raincoats and home goods provides economic opportunities while addressing waste (Hopewell et al., 2021) [36]. Research by Waring et al. [34] indicates that plastic repurposing initiatives in communities has reduced local plastic pollution by 35%. It could also improve livelihood opportunities and resilience to climate-related challenges like flooding.

4.2.2. Brokers of Sustainability

Two important aspects of modern education: the role of teachers as sustainability brokers and the importance of teacher agency in fostering sustainable practices are expressed in the excerpts below. These testimonials elucidate that teachers can be powerful catalysts for environmental consciousness and action, extending their influence beyond classroom walls into the broader community.

I like this community-based assessment, it was good I could apply the knowledge on polymers to address the challenge of excessive plastic use, poor disposal of plastic and repurposing of plastic, this is how I see my teaching in the future to initiate sustainable competencies, actions and behaviour not just in learners but in the community as well.

(Focus group interview TST 5)

I am learning about the power of the teacher’s voice and how it can be used to bring about changes at a community and school level….to initiate citizen responsibility towards issues such as the use of non-renewable resources, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, consumption patterns, sustainable competencies and actions.

(Reflective journal, TST25)

The metrics on plastic use and its disposal, in communities A to D was very powerful, it stopped them in their tracks…when they realised how wasteful they are and the effect of their plastic usage ha bits on the environment. This spurred to be wise users of plastic and to start a plastic collection project for repurposing.

(Reflective journal, TST 39)

The concept of teachers as “brokers of sustainability” positions TSTs as intermediaries who translate complex environmental concepts into practical, actionable knowledge for both students and communities. As the first excerpt demonstrates, this role involves connecting theoretical knowledge (polymers) with real-world sustainability challenges (plastic waste management).

According to [37], sustainability brokers facilitate understanding and action across different domains by connecting scientific knowledge with social practices and values. This brokering function is evident when the TSTs state they “could apply the knowledge on polymers to address the challenge of excessive plastic use”. Thereby demonstrating how academic content becomes a tool for addressing community issues. This aligns with what [38] describes as “ESD” (Education for Sustainable Development), where learning is not merely about prescribed behaviors but about developing the capacity to think critically about sustainable futures.

The second excerpt clearly articulates the emergence of teacher agency. Biesta et al. [39] asserts that teacher agency is the ability to address societal challenges. When the TST reflects on “learning about the power of the teacher’s voice,” they are acknowledging their potential to influence change beyond traditional teaching responsibilities. This exemplifies what [40] describes as “ecological agency,” where teachers navigate professional contexts to achieve broader educational goals. The mention of initiating “citizen responsibility towards issues such as use of non-renewable resources, climate change, greenhouse gas emission, consumption patterns” demonstrates how teacher agency can bridge classroom learning with broader societal concerns, a process that [40] describes as “agency-in-context.”

The excerpts reveal how brokering sustainability and teacher agency are interconnected. The TSTs, who leverage knowledge of polymers to address community plastic waste, are exercising agency while simultaneously acting as a sustainability broker. This dual role is what [40] refers to as “transformative learning,” where teachers facilitate not just knowledge acquisition but social transformation. This intersection is compelling because it positions teachers not just as implementers of curriculum but as change agents who can respond to local sustainability challenges. Reid and Scott [41] argue that this localized, responsive approach is the cornerstone of sustainability education. The excerpt from TST 39 illuminates the spillover effect of teacher agency into the community. The transition from uninformed plastic consumers to consciousness in the use and disposal of plastic elucidates an important transforming trajectory for communities A to D.

Community members can address resource depletion, climate impacts, and health concerns by repurposing plastic whilst creating economic opportunities through its innovative reuse. The TST reflections provided demonstrate the evolving role of teachers as sustainability brokers and agents of change. Empowering teachers to connect classroom learning with community action is essential as climate change and environmental degradation become urgent. It also provides a conduit for sustainable competencies and behaviors in future generations.

5. Conclusions

The study demonstrates how experiential and participatory learning approaches effectively translate SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) principles into actionable knowledge. Specifically, these approaches address Consumer Awareness (Target 12.8), Waste Reduction (Targets 12.3–12.5), and Sustainable Production Patterns (Target 12.1). The findings reveal how personal experiences and interpretive approaches bridge awareness gaps by making abstract sustainability concepts tangible and relatable, reducing waste generation and demonstrating circular economy principles central to SDG 12. The research on community-based plastic repurposing illustrates how local production systems can be redesigned to be more sustainable, aligning with sustainable consumption and production patterns.

The research showcases how engaging Teacher Student Teachers (TSTs) in community challenge-based tasks around plastic consumption and disposal can foster sustainable competencies and transform communities. By participating in plastic audits across four communities, TSTs acquired invaluable insights into the environmental impact of plastic use. They uncovered that in a single community, 10 sampled households could use up to 10,400 shopping bags annually, consuming 84.4 kg of crude oil and generating significant carbon emissions when improperly disposed of.

Community Transformation Through Experiential Learning

The study highlights the dual transformation occurring through experiential learning: TSTs became brokers of sustainability while community members actively addressed environmental challenges. This occurred through engagement in practical hands-on solutions that transformed waste into valuable items, such as:

• Repurposing plastic waste into eco-bricks for construction;
• Creating vertical gardens for food security;
• Making toys and furniture from discarded materials.
• This experiential learning benefited the community in multiple ways such as:
• Knowledge acquisition: It bridged awareness gaps about plastic impacts on the environment;
• Direct participation: It allowed for audits on plastic usage, physically handling materials, seeing the volume of waste, and discovering creative solutions;
• Skills development: Community members learned repurposing and upcycling techniques.

  ▪

  Agency transformation: The experiential approach positioned community members as active problem-solvers rather than passive recipients of environmental education;

  ▪

  Community building: Working together on shared challenges strengthened community relations and social capital.

These education strategies—experiential learning, hands-on activities, audits, and skills development—diminished the communities’ awareness gap about the impact of plastic on the environment. Through TSTs serving as “brokers of sustainability,” the experiential model helped translate abstract sustainability concepts into practical understanding, making environmental principles accessible and relevant to daily life. In the process, many Sustainable Development Goals were addressed simultaneously.

Despite the successes, several practical challenges emerged during the community repurposing activities, such as:

• Maintaining consistent participation beyond initial enthusiasm;
• Lack of appropriate washing and sanitizing facilities for contaminated plastics;
• Creating sustained demand for repurposed plastic products at flea markets.

6. Recommendations

6.1. Universities and Teacher Education Program

The findings of this study elucidate the key role teacher education programs play in driving sustainability. Universities can catalyze sustainable development by positioning teachers as change agents who extend their influence beyond classrooms and apply theoretical knowledge to solve real-world problems. The findings emphasize that effective sustainability education requires both cognitive understanding and practical engagement that transforms consumption patterns and fosters responsible environmental stewardship.

Universities can implement several practical approaches to meaningfully integrate sustainability into their curricula:

• Develop university-wide sustainability competency frameworks that create a clear set of sustainability learning outcomes expected of all graduates.
• Audit existing courses to identify current sustainability content and gaps.
• Redesign foundational modules and implement problem-based and project-based learning around real sustainability issues.
• Partner with local organizations to identify sustainability challenges that students can address.
• Create assessments that reward systems thinking and transdisciplinary approaches.
• Develop ready-to-use teaching resources for faculty across disciplines, with professional development for integrating these modules.
• Establish faculty learning communities focused on sustainability teaching, with incentives for sustainability curriculum development.
• Create opportunities for school–community partnerships and mentoring networks for sustainability curriculum integration.
• Involve students in monitoring and improving campus sustainability initiatives, connecting theory with practice.

Universities can use the above-mentioned approaches to prepare future teachers to understand sustainability concepts and to equip communities in transformative learning experiences that address urgent environmental challenges.

6.2. Recommendations for Further Research

Based on the findings and methodological approach of this study, several recommendations for future research emerge:

• Conduct research to track the impact of the experiential learning interventions on communities’ consumption and disposal of plastics in order to gain insights into the durability of behavior changes and community initiatives beyond initial implementation.
• Use both quantitative measurements of waste reduction with qualitative assessments of attitudinal and behavioral changes to provide a better understanding of how experiential learning translates into measurable environmental impacts.
• Design studies that compare different pedagogical approaches to sustainability education (e.g., experiential learning versus traditional instruction) to identify the most effective strategies for different contexts and populations.
• Apply similar methodological approaches across different cultural and socioeconomic contexts to understand how experiential learning for sustainability may need to be adapted to diverse settings.

The above methodological recommendations would provide more robust approaches to researching sustainability education interventions and their impacts on communities and the environment.