Contributions of Expert Analysis to a Model of In-Service Teacher Professional Development in Environmental Citizenship Education

Abstract

An effective response to the socio-environmental crisis requires the education of critical citizens, capable of articulating local action with collective socio-political engagement. Teachers occupy a central position in educating for Environmental Citizenship (EC), yet in-service professional development models in this area remain scarce. Within a Design-Based Research framework, this article discusses the expert evaluation of a training prototype. 32 experts—comprising EC researchers, TPD researchers, and specialist teachers—responded to a qualitative questionnaire regarding the model’s design. Data underwent inductive content analysis, with categories emerging directly from the responses. While results strongly validate the prototype’s structure, crucial recommendations emerged for its improvement. Pedagogically, experts suggested focusing on structuring methodologies like Problem-Based Learning and Case Studies to avoid fragmentation. Conceptually, they highlighted the need to deepen critical theoretical foundations and incorporate explicit training in activism and communication skills, enriched by ethical considerations. These findings inform the redesign of a model whose implementation aims to reduce the gap between ecological awareness and transformative civic action, preparing teachers to foster genuine agency in their students.

1. Introduction

1.1. Education for Environmental Citizenship as an Imperative of the 21st Century

Contemporary socio-environmental crises, such as climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the growing inequalities arising from them, highlight the urgent need to rethink the relationship between society and nature. These challenges, which are complex and interdependent in nature, require not just technical solutions, but cultural and political transformations anchored in principles of social and environmental justice [1,2]. In this context, education for Environmental Citizenship (EC) has emerged as an educational approach aimed at cultivating critical, ethical and politically engaged individuals capable of actively participating in the reconstruction of this relationship [3,4,5].

EC is conceived as an approach that promotes the development of knowledge, skills and values necessary for individuals to understand and face contemporary socio-environmental challenges, contributing to sustainability and strengthening participatory democracy [4,5]. This approach is directly aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4.7, which calls for ensuring that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including through education for global citizenship [6]. A more critical perspective on environmental education goes beyond the informative and prescriptive nature of traditional practices, proposing situated, ethical and political learning that questions power structures, challenges anthropocentric paradigms and fosters socio-environmental justice [7]. Thus, training environmentally responsible citizens involves developing critical thinking skills, problem-solving, civic engagement, and transformative action [5].

Perspectives from the Global South further expand the concept by emphasising territoriality, biocentric ethics and the political nature of environmental action. Agreeing with Gudynas [7], this approach considers the heterogeneity of ecological contexts—which results in specific ‘meta-citizenships’—and views territory in a broad sense, incorporating the power dynamics, economic relations, and symbolic expressions that occupy it [8,9,10]. Furthermore, it relies on a biocentric ethic that acknowledges nature’s intrinsic value [10] and demands a political dimension focused on empowerment and the occupation of public spaces [11,12]. Consequently, EC cannot be detached from socio-political struggles or the historical marginalisation of specific groups. It must address how gender, class, and caste dynamics shape socio-environmental relations [13], and validate the situated experiences of Indigenous, Afro-descendant, and traditional communities [14,15]. By recognising the importance of socio-affective connections to place [16,17], this perspective advocates for comprehensive strategies that ensure all voices are respected in the pursuit of environmental justice.

In this sense, the consolidation of EC as an educational imperative of the 21st century depends not only on conceptual frameworks, but above all on their translation into concrete pedagogical practices. In fact, the literature emphasises that the potential of EC is realised when pedagogical practices succeed in developing critical knowledge and skills for problem-solving [18,19], fostering youth agency and civic engagement [20,21,22] and, fundamentally, promoting environmental justice by empowering young people to take collective action in defence of vulnerable communities [3,11,23]. This is where professional development takes on strategic relevance, as it is teachers who ultimately mediate the materialisation of these complex objectives in educational processes.

1.2. The Central Role of the Teacher and the Gap in In-Service Professional Development

The role of the teacher in EC education cannot be reduced to the mere transmission of content or the application of innovative methodologies. Based on the premise that teaching is a political act [24], every pedagogical decision involves ethical and social choices that can reinforce or question power structures. In this sense, the teacher acts as a mediator of the students’ critical reading of the world, promoting the problematisation of the socio-environmental contradictions that run through school and society.

Recent literature on in-service teacher professional development in EC shows, how- ever, that many teachers still understand citizenship in a way that is restricted to the in- dividual and private sphere, which limits the approach to socio-environmental challenges in their complexity [25,26]. Studies show that, even when engaged in environmental practices, teachers tend to favour low-impact or “safe” actions, such as recycling or school gardening, over controversial socio-political engagement. Činčera et al. [27] illustrate this in place-based projects, where outcomes often focus on non-controversial improvements (e.g., building benches) rather than addressing local socio-scientific conflicts. Similarly, Dunlop [28] describes teachers “treading carefully” to avoid professional risks or institutional pushback. Hart [29] characterises this pattern as a form of depoliticization; this tendency reveals the persistence of a model of citizenship criticised by authors such as Gudynas [7] and Krenak [30] precisely for its human-nature dualism, which makes the structural dimension of socio-environmental injustices invisible.

While such caution often stems from legitimate restrictions on partisan activity, distinguishing partisanship from the political nature of science and EC is essential. Critical and decolonial perspectives highlight that science is inseparable from the social and political realities in which it is produced [31]. In this context, Valladares [32] argues that science education necessarily engages with questions of power, justice, and situated knowledge. This perspective resonates with Santos’ [33] reading of Freire [24], regarding educational processes as inherently political acts rooted in the lived world. Consequently, even modest activities—such as researching local issues or producing posters—are not merely procedural but constitute meaningful dimensions of action competence [34] and legitimate forms of youth civic engagement [35]. The challenge, therefore, is to expand pedagogical frameworks to explicitly recognise the civic and structural significance of these practices.

In this context, professional development programmes in EC are strategically important. Although ENEC—European Network for Environmental Citizenship [4] established a conceptual basis for EC and its pedagogical approach was proposed by Hadjichambis & Paraskeva-Hadjichambi [36], the authors themselves recognise that there are no clear indications of how to prepare teachers to adopt and adapt such approaches in the classroom. In fact, despite some initiatives in higher education contexts [37] and initial training, e.g., [38,39], in-service professional development programmes remain scarce. As indicated by a systematic literature review conducted by the authors [40], the literature on this topic remains scarce, with only a few studies identified [35,41,42,43,44]. These works offer valuable case studies, focused on specific contexts, levels of education or disciplines, illustrating the diversity of possible approaches and highlighting that the debate on structuring EC training programmes remains open.

Thus, a number of challenges remain: (1) there is a lack of clarity about which training models are most effective; (2) it is not known to what extent such models need to be adapted to different teaching levels; and (3) studies that systematically listen to the teachers themselves to understand their training needs and preferences are rare. These gaps reinforce the urgent need to expand the repertoire of professional development proposals that combine theoretical foundations, pedagogical coherence and practical applicability, while at the same time promoting teacher empowerment and critical awareness of their political role in promoting socio-environmental justice.

It is clear that teachers occupy a strategic position in education for EC, with the potential to mediate the transition from isolated practices to processes of critical awareness, articulating ecological and civic knowledge with democratic participation [11,45]. For this potential to be realised, professional development must be conceived as a space for Freirean praxis, which offers tools so that teachers can recognise the civic value of their own practices and feel more secure and equipped to exercise the political dimension of their work in promoting socio-environmental justice with greater intentionality.

1.3. The DBR in the Construction of Training Solutions

In order to tackle the complex challenges inherent in developing teacher training in EC, this research is based on Design-Based Research (DBR). DBR is a type of research that intrinsically links theory and practice, with the aim of iteratively developing solutions to educational problems while generating validated theoretical knowledge [46]. Despite the different terminologies found in the literature, such as design experiments [47] or educational design research [48], their proposals share similar characteristics, as summarised in

Table 1. Characteristics of DBR.

Characteristic	Description
Interventionist	Contextualised in the real world.
Iterative	Includes cycles of analysis, design, development, evaluation and revision.
Process-orientated	Aims to understand and improve interventions.
Utility-orientated	Evaluated by practicality for users in real contexts.
Theory-driven	It is based on theoretical foundations and contributes to the construction of theory based on systematic evaluation.
Collaborative	Requires collaboration between different actors related to the problem being investigated.
Generalisable	Seeks to support a larger class of phenomena and scenarios.

Note: Based on Cobb, Jackson and Dunlap [49], McKenney and Reeves [46] and Plomp [50].

.

As illustrated, DBR conceives interventions from a theoretical framework that is continually adapted to the needs of the real context, emphasising collaboration between those involved, who are seen not as subjects, but as co-directors and co-participants in the process [51]. McKenney and Reeves’ generic model [46] structures this approach in three central phases that can occur in cycles: (i) analysis and exploration; (ii) design and construction; and (iii) evaluation and reflection. The research process as a whole constitutes a macro-cycle, which in turn is made up of micro-cycles of action specific to each phase, allowing for continuous improvement of the intervention.

In the specific context of this study, the object of analysis is specifically the evaluation process of prototype 1, which served as the basis for collecting data from experts. This prototype was designed in the first iteration of the research, which will be detailed in the next section. In this context, the aim of this article is to present the experts’ evaluation of Prototype 1 and to discuss how their feedback informed the development of the subsequent version (Prototype 2). This study addresses two central Research Questions (RQs):

RQ1: What are the recommendations of the different groups of experts (teachers, researchers in EC, and teacher trainers) for modifying Prototype 1?

RQ2: How were these recommendations incorporated to refine the design of the PD model?

2. Methods

As stated in the introduction, the design of this study follows the principles of DBR. The generic model of McKenney and Reeves [46] was adopted, with cycles of analysis, design, implementation and evaluation.

The research was therefore structured into three main iterations for the development and improvement of the in-service professional development programme, as shown in Figure 1. Each iteration is guided by objectives and research questions that guide its development.

The first iteration aimed to analyse the literature and teachers’ perspectives in order to develop the initial version of the prototype. This was divided into three stages: (1) a systematic review of the literature to identify the characteristics of effective in-service professional development programmes (see more details in 40); (2) listening to the training needs of practising teachers using a questionnaire; and (3) the design and construction of prototype 1, which systematised the results of the previous stages into a training proposal. Prototype 1 was structured as a hybrid course with a workload of approximately 30 h, organised into four progressive phases: diagnostic assessment and introduction; exploration and practice; curriculum integration and application; and evaluation and future planning (see Appendix A).

The second iteration, the central focus of this article, includes stages 4 and 5 and aimed to have the prototype evaluated by experts, and based on their contributions, to develop prototype 2.

Stage 4 focused on answering RQ1. To this end, the prototype was submitted for appraisal to a diverse panel of experts, intentionally selected and distributed into three distinct groups: researchers specialising in EC (called G1); researchers specialising in teacher professional development (G2); and teachers specialising in and with experience of applying EC-promoting activities in the classroom (G3). The selection of participants followed the criteria of experience, academic production and willingness to collaborate, detailed in

Table 2. Selection criteria for the experts’ panel.

Criteria	Researchers in Environmental Citizenship (G1)	Researchers in Teacher Professional Development (G2)	Specialist Teachers in Environmental Citizenship (G3)
Experience and background	- Participation in projects related to environmental citizenship; - Relevant professional career, including work in recognised environmental organisations or research institutions; - 5 publications in the last 3 years in specialised journals.	- Participation in research or practice projects in the area of teacher training; - Specialised knowledge of teacher training theories and practices; - 5 publications in the last 3 years in specialised journals.	- Experience in teaching environmental citizenship; - Participation in events, courses or projects related to environmental citizenship; - Evidence of a positive impact on teaching practices and student awareness of environmental issues and activism.
Willingness	- Interest in and willingness to collaborate with the research project; - Willingness to review and analyse the training programme proposal; - Commitment to providing valuable insights based on their expertise.
Number of Experts	- At least 5 - Consider the diversity of areas of expertise and participation in projects.	- At least 5 - Consider the diversity of institutional contexts and theoretical perspectives.	- Approximately 10 - Consider the diversity of disciplines, teaching levels and educational contexts.
Quality	Indirect indicators: publications, citations, years of experience, professional career.

.

Although the panel included experts ranging from early-career researchers in their thirties to senior academics, age or career stage were not adopted as analytical variables in this iteration. The central selection criterion was the participants’ praxis in EC or teacher professional development—demonstrated through active involvement in projects, publications, and concrete classroom or community-based experiences, as detailed in Table 2.

As a relatively recent educational approach, EC has a limited publicly documented body of practice, particularly regarding classroom implementation. For this reason, the identification of experts relied on professional visibility within EC, while for practitioners, the process included invitations to those whose work was known through prior collaboration, indications, or participation in the first iteration. This strategy was deliberately employed to broaden the contextual framework, ensuring the inclusion of diverse perspectives from Portugal, Cyprus, Spain and several regions of Brazil. At the same time, it acknowledges that, due to the current stage of development and dissemination of EC practices, not all relevant practitioners may yet be traceable through formal records.

For data collection, a qualitative questionnaire was used with seven open questions. To ensure rigorous operationalisation, the construction of the questionnaire was grounded in the quality criteria for educational design research proposed by Nieveen and Folmer [52]: relevance (need for the intervention), consistency (logical design), practicality (usability in context), and effectiveness (expected outcomes). As detailed in

Table 3. Questions sent to the experts.

Topic	Evaluation Criterion	Questions
Methodological suitability	Consistency & Relevance	Q1. Are the methodologies chosen suitable for promoting environmental citizenship education competences? Do you have any suggestions for adjustments or improvements? Q2. Are the methodologies chosen suitable for realising the objectives of the modules? Do you have any suggestions for adjustments or improvements?
Course design	Expected Practicality	Q3. Do you think the number of modules and the time allocated are feasible? Do you have any suggestions for adjustments or improvements? Q4. Do you think that all the modules can be taken online? Can you explain your vision?
Experiential and prospective validation	Expected Effectiveness	Q5. Considering other training models you know, is the prototype presented suitable? Can you explain your vision?
	Expected Practicality	Q6. Considering your experience, what difficulties do you foresee in applying the prototype? Can you suggest ways of overcoming them?
	Open recommendations	Q7. Would you like to leave any other recommendations for improving the prototype?

, these abstract criteria were translated into specific open-ended questions. For instance, questions on ‘methodological suitability’ operationalise the criterion of consistency, ensuring the construct validity of the pedagogical design, while questions on ‘feasibility’ address the criterion of expected practicality. Furthermore, to ensure instrument clarity, the term “methodology” was defined in the prototype as structured teaching-learning models, distinct from broad approaches or specific strategies, based on Libâneo [53] and Anastasiou and Alves [54]. The questionnaire was operationalised using Google Forms and made available in Portuguese, English and Spanish.

The answers were subjected to a thematic content analysis [55]. The analytical process was conducted inductively to ensure that the findings were grounded in the participants’ expert validation. Although the categories were not predefined, the coding process followed a rigorous validation strategy to ensure trustworthiness: (1) initial floating reading; (2) systematic coding using NVivo version 15; and (3) peer debriefing among the authors to verify the consistency of the ‘Context Units’ (CU) and ‘Recording Units’ (RU) assignment. The UR were then classified into analysis grids, as shown in

Table 4. Analysis grids used to categorise the data.

Analysis Grid	Description	Categories
Type of contribution	Nature of the expert’s response	Reinforcement, addition or modification
Focus of the contribution	Indicates which aspect of the prototype the expert’s contribution focuses on	Methodology, competences, activities, format and training dimensions
Cross-cutting aspects	Elements that cut across or contextualise the response	Difficulties, suggestions, sustainability of the action or mentions of third parties

. Crucially, the analysis aimed to advance beyond mere descriptive reporting by identifying latent theoretical patterns regarding teacher agency and structural constraints.

In addition to the categories presented in Table 4, where relevant, some responses were coded into specific subcategories, which do not add up directly to the main categories but make it possible to capture specific mentions. In the case of the ‘Methodology’ category, for example, references were made to strategies such as Problem-Based Learning (PBL), Community-Based Learning and Action Competence Learning. Similarly, subcategories such as assessment, materials, visual documentation and the use of controversies appeared under ‘Activities’. Under ‘Format’, there were mentions of the workload, the division of modules and the modality. Socio-emotional aspects, activism and engagement, among others, were identified under ‘Formative dimensions’. In the ‘Cross-cutting aspects’ grid, the ‘sustainability of action’ category included references to specific actors and contexts, such as local authorities, the community and school leadership. Thus, the numbers shown in the results correspond to the frequency of UR coded in each category, and the grids made it possible to organise the diversity of recommendations consistently, facilitating both comparison between groups of experts and the translation of contributions into adjustments to the prototype.

Stage 5, a micro-cycle of design and construction, focused on reconceptualising the prototype, seeking to answer the RQ2. The decisions to design prototype 2 were directly informed by the thematic categories that emerged from the analysis and guided by criteria of practicality (the usefulness of the intervention in the real context) and expected effectiveness (the likelihood of achieving the desired results), in accordance with Nieveen and Folmer’s quality framework [52].

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools were used on an ad hoc basis to support textual enhancement, checking the interpretative coherence of the results and clarifying aspects of the study design. No substantive content, including analyses, interpretations or conclusions, was generated by these tools, which are the full responsibility of the authors.

3. Results and Discussion: Reconfiguring the Prototype Based on the Experts’ Analysis

The analysis presented in this section is based on the responses obtained from the questionnaire sent to 49 experts, divided into three different groups. Of the questionnaires sent out, a total of 32 valid responses were obtained, which corresponds to an overall response rate of 65.3%.

Table 5. Response rate by expert group.

Expert Group	Questionnaires Sent (n)	Questionnaires Received (n)	Response Rate (%)
Researchers in environmental citizenship (G1)	10	6	60
Researchers in professional development (G2)	19	11	57.9
Specialist teachers in environmental citizenship (G3)	20	15	75
Total	49	32	65.3

details the distribution of participants by group.

An in-depth analysis of the 32 responses, which were coded and systematised, revealed four central axes of recommendations for improving the prototype. These axes, which structure the presentation of the results that follow, are: (1) the need for greater pedagogical consistency; (2) the demand for an ethical and critical foundation for EC; (3) the importance of adjustments to the course design to guarantee a feasible immersion; (4) the proposal of strategies for sustainability and institutional engagement.

In this section, each of these focuses of modification will be detailed, highlighting how the voice of the experts’ dialogues with the relevant literature and, fundamentally, how their suggestions informed the concrete changes implemented in prototype 2. A summary of the decisions derived from this analysis can be found in Appendix B.

3.1. Aiming for Pedagogical Consistency

The analysis of the experts’ responses reveals a tension between the conceptual validation of the methodologies proposed in prototype 1 and the need to refine their focus and operationalisation. It is important to mention that the participants were sent a list of the core methodologies informed by the literature review (stage 1 of the DBR). These strategies, such as collaborative learning, experiential learning, outdoor learning, and reflective practices, were selected because the mapping in the empirical literature demonstrated their effectiveness in promoting competences such as environmental literacy, critical thinking and transformative action [37]. In addition, the evaluation questions for the prototype directly asked for an assessment of its suitability (see Q1 and Q2). Figure 2 illustrates how the types of contribution were distributed specifically in the ‘Methodology’ category, allowing us to identify patterns of reinforcement, addition and modification.

A broad validation of the proposed methodologies was thus evident, with 56% of the UR reinforcing them. When the methodologies were explicitly named, the UR was assigned to a specific subcategory, considering that direct mention could give different nuances to the interpretation of the results (as will be shown below). The modifications were mostly associated with the implementation format, such as the need to adjust the workload or extend the debate time within a given topic, while the additions focused on the objectives and the articulation of the phases, bringing specific suggestions of activities to be incorporated, such as the use of role-playing games, controversy maps and co-design methodologies to encourage the protagonism of the participants.

The case of PBL illustrates these dynamics well: two UR of reinforcement and three of modification were identified. The modifications were concentrated in two distinct situations: (i) expert E6 suggested removing PBL, not because she rejected the methodology itself, but because she considered it to be not very distinctive in relation to others already mentioned (such as community-based learning or experiential learning); and (ii) expert E1 defended the focus on “one or two specific pedagogies (for example, PBL)”, reinforcing PBL as an example of a structuring methodology. Analytically, these suggestions indicate that while PBL is conceptually validated as a potent strategy for fostering critical thinking and agency, its implementation requires precise scaffolding to avoid cognitive overload and ensure it serves a distinct pedagogical purpose within the prototype.

Outdoor learning also received specific attention, with comments focusing on temporal and logistical adjustments to ensure its viability. This validation of its relevance dialogues with the literature, which highlights both the benefits of outdoor learning for teacher well-being and engagement [56,57], as well as its potential to deepen understanding of ecological systems and foster pro-environmental attitudes [58,59]. Critically, however, experts warned against ‘episodic’ outdoor activities that lack curricular integration, reinforcing the need for these experiences to be structurally linked to the investigation of local socio-environmental issues.

In addition, the experts mentioned other methodologies, such as Service-Learning (E11; E6), Action Competence Learning and Socio-Scientific Inquiry-Based Learning (SSIBL) (E9), which are known in the literature to be powerful for developing EC [35]. In the same direction, Citizen Science was highlighted (E21) as it favours the democratisation of scientific knowledge [60].

To operationalise these methodologies, specific strategies and techniques were suggested, such as simulations, controversy mapping (E3), comparative case analysis (E4) and data collection in the field (E25), the relevance of which has also been discussed in recent studies [38,61].

The alignment of the prototype with these active methodologies aims specifically at fostering Action Competence, understood as the integration of knowledge, values and skills with the willingness and perceived capacity to act on controversial issues [35]. This emphasis is supported empirically, as higher levels of action competence are associated with a greater likelihood of manifesting EC in practice [62]. In this perspective, environmental activism is not a ‘theory-free practice’, but a collective, inquiry-driven and democratic process of addressing socio-environmental problems—one that positions students as critical producers of knowledge rather than passive recipients [5,34].

The relevance of visual documentation was also emphasised, such as digital portfolios and logbooks (E3; E26), practices supported by evidence that reflective mechanisms of this nature favour professional teacher development [63].

This wealth of suggestions, however, brought a central challenge to the design: how to integrate multiple approaches without creating a fragmented training experience? This risk of cognitive overload, when different methodologies are presented without a clear purpose, is a recurring warning in the literature on effective teacher education design [64]. The meta-analysis by Sims et al. [65] reinforces this perspective by showing that successful training should integrate theory and practice in a progressive way, allowing teachers to consolidate new ways of teaching.

Therefore, to respond to both the wealth of contributions from experts and the structural warnings in the literature, the decision was made to structure the course around two central and structuring methodologies: PBL and Case Study. The others were kept as references and examples, presented at specific moments to broaden the participants’ repertoire without jeopardising the cohesion of the experience.

In addition, it was suggested that the training programme be anchored in the teachers’ reality (E27; E15) and that the EC activities developed throughout the course be mandatory (E27), ensuring that the training process and the professional context are linked. The importance of debating the school’s limits and potential in the face of socio-environmental problems was also highlighted (E18), as well as the need to discuss assessment methods and the use of AI (E9) as an auxiliary tool in the construction of criteria and grids (E12; E25).

These contributions were accompanied by warnings about potential difficulties. The main concern centred on the lack of a sufficiently solid initial theoretical and critical basis, which could compromise the consistency of the entire programme. Experts, especially from the teachers’ group, emphasised the need to include an expository-dialogued moment at the beginning of the course, in order to guarantee mastery of structuring concepts such as critical environmental education and socio-environmental justice (E27; E18). This demand for grounding was reinforced by the suggestion to link the case studies to national reference documents (E21) and to include explicit debates on ethics, philosophy and critical thinking (E26; E27), forming a conceptual foundation to guide subsequent practices. The absence of this basis was identified as the origin of other practical risks, such as the dispersion of strategies, imprecision in application, potential “pressure on teachers” and a potential driver for the “depoliticization” risks (see Section 1.2), where practices become fragmented and purely instrumental. We will go into this in more detail in Section 3.2.

Based on this analytical process, the modifications to the prototype aimed to enhance pedagogical consistency (RQ2). The course is organised around two core methodologies, case studies and PBL, which will cover topics such as assessment, stakeholder support, the relationship with the SDG and the curriculum (including national reference documents), and the critical use of technologies and AI, allowing teachers to integrate theory and practice reflectively. Outdoor Learning will take place through a field trip to observe and collect data on local socio-environmental problems.

The application of the EC-promoting activity developed by the participants is a compulsory component, and they can count on mentoring support. Various moments of debate and reflection based on the case studies allow participants to draw up a personal plan in line with their interests, objectives and challenges, relating the content to teaching practice and making them co-participants in the training process. The critical component of the training, including debates on different definitions of EC and ethical-political dilemmas, will be detailed in the next section.

3.2. The Demand for an Ethical and Critical Foundation for Environmental Citizenship

Analysing the answers to question 7 revealed a set of recommendations that point to the need to strengthen the critical and ethical dimension of EC in the prototype. The experts suggested including references from critical environmental education and moral philosophy, in order to put a strain on the classic notion of citizenship and broaden reflection on values, principles and ethical-political dilemmas. These proposals reinforce the critical-emancipatory nature of the prototype, which problematises the political and ethical reasons and implications of teaching in EC [5,11].

The contributions dialogue with criticisms of the liberal and anthropocentric nature of modern citizenship, which is often associated with the marginalisation of vulnerable groups and the separation between humans and nature [30,66,67]. In this sense, proposals such as ecological meta-citizenship [7] and forestry [68,69] offer alternatives that integrate biocentric ethics, environmental justice and political engagement, challenging the human-nature dualism that renders structural injustices invisible, positioning EC critically. This basis supports the need for a more robust conceptual foundation in the prototype, capable of articulating dimensions beyond the conceptual.

To move beyond the limitations of liberal models—which tend to individualise responsibility and obscure structural inequalities—EC must be framed as a political project grounded in justice and structural transformation. Recent contributions in science education reinforce this imperative: justice-centred perspectives argue that environmental problems are inseparable from racialised, economic and territorial inequities, requiring teaching that explicitly addresses their structural origins [70]. Complementing this, critical-decolonial standpoints [32,33] emphasise the need to examine the historical and political forces shaping socio-environmental conflicts, preventing their reduction to mere behavioural choices or apolitical competencies.

Furthermore, Gandolfi [31] argues that socio-scientific issues cannot be deeply understood without recognising how scientific knowledge and authority are embedded in power relations. This reinforces the need for EC to cultivate teachers’ critical reading of environmental problems, engaging with the political nature of science itself. Consequently, pedagogical approaches must foreground structural determinants and the economic systems underpinning environmental degradation [35,67]. While ENEC acknowledges the importance of identifying these structural causes [5,37], the experts’ recommendations highlight the specific need for a clearer political vocabulary that enables teachers to address such contentious issues without collapsing into partisan framings.

Another set of recommendations concerned the introduction of ethical and philosophical foundations. E26 proposed including issues of moral philosophy, with questions such as “Which life is worth living?”, capable of provoking questions about how teachers understand their work. E19 emphasised that the course should explore teachers’ values, beliefs and previous experiences, while E2 stressed the importance of helping them to “clarify their own values and actions in terms of local and global environmental issues”. These recommendations converge with critical pedagogy [24] and critical environmental education literature, which understands teachers as agents of social transformation [3,71,72]. Considering the ethical-political dilemmas of the sciences is a possible way of overcoming superficial approaches and developing critical and emancipatory competences [27,29]. This orientation aligns with recent calls to reimagine science education by confronting the historical injustices, power relations and structural inequalities inherent to scientific knowledge [31], thus preparing teachers to guide students in understanding science as socially embedded and politically consequential.

This vision of the teacher as a transforming agent is based on the principle that every pedagogical action is, in itself, a political act, as it expresses values that mould students’ perception of the world [24]. However, the materialisation of this dimension in everyday school life is complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, engaged teachers can develop robust practices with activist components without recognising them as such. On the other hand, many environmental education practices end up not transcending individual actions [27,28,29].

This duality between powerful but unnamed action and action that is limited to the superficial seems to be fuelled by a set of interconnected barriers. On a conceptual level, the narrow interpretation of EC, which translates into a “lack of theoretical clarity” (E25) and a tendency to favour awareness-raising over transformative action [26,29], is a primary obstacle. In addition, in terms of dispositions, the perception of low empowerment on the part of teachers directly feeds the “fear of tackling controversial topics” and the “preference for safe approaches” (E32), either because of the difficulty in recognising the activist potential of their own practice or because of scepticism about the school’s ability to produce results. This aligns with wider empirical evidence (as seen in 1.2) showing that teachers often prioritise non-controversial outputs—such as building benches [27]—and ‘tread carefully’ to avoid institutional pushback [28]. Fundamentally, these resistances are not merely individual but reflect broader structural and cultural barriers associated with initial training and school culture [73], contributing to a process of depoliticization [29], which together limit the exercise of genuinely critical and political teaching. In this sense, adopting a justice-centred pedagogy becomes relevant [70]: by framing socio-scientific issues as matters of social justice, it provides a coherent basis for confronting structural inequalities, embedding ecological concerns in broader struggles for equity. At the same time, this framework helps to recognise that even modest activities can constitute meaningful dimensions of action competence [34,35], empowering teachers and students to envision collective, systemic transformation.

In this context, E3’s suggestion to “add training in activism and communication skills” highlights the perception that education for EC faces a double challenge: broadening the conceptual framework and, at the same time, strengthening teacher empowerment. Although the speech itself is brief, it opens up space to discuss the need to make visible work that dialogues with the critical tradition of environmental education, but which differs by emphasising EC as its own field.

By articulating rights, responsibilities and political participation, EC shifts the focus from ecological awareness to the formation of subjects capable of intervening in social and environmental disputes. From this perspective, training in activism and communication skills reaffirms education as a political and emancipatory act [24], emphasises the centrality of the political dimension in teacher training [74,75,76] and situates EC as an exercise in critical and situated participation [22,34,36]. By shifting the focus from individual accountability to collective processes, teacher empowerment is strengthened, creating the conditions for teachers to recognise themselves as political subjects capable of challenging hegemonic narratives and opening up paths to fairer socio-environmental alternatives.

The realisation of this training proposal, however, requires the construction of a clear pedagogical architecture that faces basic obstacles. The need, pointed out by E25, to “make it clear from which perspective of environmental education the work is inserted”, refers to a deeper challenge than a simple lack of theory. This difficulty is often rooted in the very “philosophical barrier of the human/environment dichotomy” [66]. Overcoming this anthropocentric vision thus becomes a path towards transformative pedagogy, implying a biocentric turn. It is from this ethical repositioning that practical suggestions, such as anchoring training in real socio-environmental challenges and valuing dissent (E18), gain real meaning and critical potential.

It has already been mentioned that experts have proposed some activities and methodologies to flesh out this vision, such as the use of controversy mapping as a technique for dealing with complex problems [61], and SSIBL, which favours ethical debate and critical engagement [35,77]. These approaches bring the professional development of teachers closer to science education that is effectively geared towards socio-environmental justice [73].

These contributions were incorporated into Prototype 2 in a structured way. Phase 1 now includes a module on different visions of EC, as well as an analysis of the ethical and political dilemmas associated with EC education in teaching practice. The changes bring the prototype into line with the recommendations of experts and contemporary literature, consolidating training that aims not just to transmit methodologies, but to train teachers as critical intellectuals and agents of socio-environmental transformation.

3.3. Adjustments to the Workload, Modality and Pace for a Feasible Immersion

Analysing the contributions relating to the format of the course (n = 45 references) revealed three main axes: time, division of phases and modality. Time was the most debated aspect, with 24 modifications and 11 reinforcements, signalling a central tension over the sufficiency of the 30 h envisaged in prototype 1.

Table 6. Type of contribution and prototype design.

	Workload	Division of Phases	Modality
Reinforces	11	11	21
Adds	0	3	6
Modifies	24	5	8

shows the quantitative distribution of contributions.

However, Figure 3 shows that there was a divergence between groups of experts. Specialists in EC (G1) and teacher training (G2) considered the 30 h to be adequate, focusing their suggestions on internal adjustments to the distribution of time. On the other hand, specialists practising teachers (G3) considered the workload to be insufficient, emphasising the need for additional time to carry out field trips and to meet the minimum workload required for formal accreditation and progression in the teaching career.

The division of the phases also received suggestions (5 modifications, 11 reinforcements and 3 additions), especially the extension of Phase 1 to include ethical dilemmas and theoretical foundations (as mentioned in the previous section), and the reinforcement of the phase dedicated to the field visit. E26 pointed out that organising these experiences “always takes a lot of work because of bureaucratic issues and agreeing on common dates”, which reinforces the need for greater flexibility in terms of time.

The hybrid modality was widely validated (21 reinforcements; 8 modifications; 6 additions), with a consensus that field activities and immersive experiences cannot be replaced by online sessions. E9 suggested that the first and last sessions should be face-to-face, in order to “establish a connection and evaluate in person”. As an alternative in cases of logistical unfeasibility, E27 proposed the use of “virtual museums”, guaranteeing meaningful experiences even without physically travelling.

The hybrid model thus emerges as a pragmatic solution that balances the flexibility of online with the irreducibility of face-to-face in activities that involve embodied learning and community building. Recent evidence confirms that hybrid training programmes (b-learning) favour engagement and the collaborative development of skills, as long as they include meaningful face-to-face interactions, institutional support and spaces for shared reflection [78,79,80]. The combination of virtual and face-to-face sessions in Prototype 2, therefore responds both to the need for flexibility and to the experiential and relational dimension essential to EC training.

There were also reservations about bringing together teachers from different levels of education. E24 suggested “adapting strategies with the different levels of education in mind”, while E27 emphasised the difficulty of working simultaneously with primary and secondary school teachers. E21 emphasised the importance of explaining, in Phase 3, interdisciplinary strategies adapted to the 1st Cycle of Basic Education (6 to 9 years old students), considering the mono-teaching characteristic of this level. The literature supports this concern: heterogeneous groups can enrich learning by exchanging perspectives, but they require differentiated strategies and structured collaboration to avoid dispersion and unequal participation [81,82]. By making adapted strategies explicit in Phase 3, the model responds to the practical limitations pointed out and reinforces the value of dialogue between cycles, which is fundamental for curriculum integration and the development of a shared professional culture.

They reaffirm the value of experiential and situated learning, the effectiveness of which depends on sufficient time for the reflective appropriation of new practices [83,84]. Recent reviews indicate that time is one of the most important factors determining the effectiveness of teacher development programmes, and it is essential to guarantee multiple opportunities for practice, reflection and feedback over extended periods [85,86].

Thus, the extension to 50 h is in line with empirical evidence that associates longer programmes with deeper and more sustainable pedagogical changes. Prototype 2 was therefore redesigned as a 50 h course in a hybrid modality, divided into four phases: Phase 1 (8 h): extended to include ethical-political dilemmas and personal training plans; Phase 2 (8 h): incorporated two days of compulsory face-to-face immersion, guaranteeing the non-substitutability of field experiences; Phase 3 (18 h): prioritised the production of didactic sequences and their application in the classroom; Phase 4 (8 h): consolidated socialisation and evaluation, with digital portfolios, focus groups and a final evaluation.

These modifications respond directly to the difficulties identified, such as the condensed workload, the unfeasibility of online for immersive practices and the heterogeneity of the audience, and incorporate the proposed solutions, making the course more feasible, coherent and sustainable.

3.4. Strategies for Sustainability and Institutional Engagement

The experts’ contributions revealed a central concern with the longevity of the programme and overcoming the bureaucratic and cultural barriers present in the school environment. The most frequently anticipated difficulties were institutional resistance, a shortage of time and resources and the perception that environmental activities could be treated as “extras” rather than an integral part of the curriculum. As E22 warned, without the necessary support, learning runs the risk of being lost “in the roller coaster that is everyday school life, with its curricular demands and internal assessments”. They also pointed out the difficulty of maintaining teaching commitment over time, given professional saturation (E3), and the fragility of community partnerships and communities of practice without a support structure and prior trust (E26, E8). These observations echo what Wenger [87,88] describes as the challenge of transforming individual learning into sustainable institutional practices within communities of practice.

To meet these challenges, the proposals converged on a sustainability strategy based on three interdependent pillars: (1) institutional engagement, (2) community partnerships and (3) the creation of long-term support structures.

The first pillar, institutional engagement, focuses on the need to guarantee internal support. To this end, the experts recommended a “prior sensitisation phase aimed at managers and educational authorities” (E3) and the involvement of management positions in the course itself, so as to avoid the training falling on isolated teachers (E5). In addition, E5 emphasised that implementation becomes more viable when the school participates as a whole, and not just through individual teachers, highlighting the importance of including school managers in the process. In addition, the need to strengthen the school’s democratic culture was emphasised, including discussions about the role of school councils, parents’ associations and student unions in solving environmental problems (E22). The concern with whole-school engagement is consistent with recent studies showing that institutional commitment and leadership participation are decisive for embedding sustainability practices into school culture [89].

The second pillar focuses on community partnerships, extending the support network beyond the school walls. Proposals included involving the community from the earliest stages, through joint projects with local players and alliances with organisations and entities related to environmental causes (E3), as well as incorporating specific strategies to involve families and social collectives (E3). Also highlighted was the need for greater clarity on how this integration will be operationalised—which social actors will participate, at what time and for what purpose (E27). Another critical point was the realisation that collaboration can only be sustained by previously established bonds of trust (E26), which requires participatory methodologies that bring school and community together in co-design processes. This concern was reinforced by doubts about how teacher training will address the promotion of these partnerships (E8). To summarise, the pillar shows that community integration is promising but requires methodological detail and continuous relational investment. This view is consistent with Sarid et al. [90], who argue that communities of practice and open schooling initiatives strengthen collaborative networks of mutual support and co-authorship between teachers and community actors, making teacher learning a collective, situated and socially rooted process.

The third pillar focuses on support structures for long-term sustainability. Unlike training courses that end without continuity, this prototype was praised for proposing the consolidation of communities of practice as a differentiator (E17; E5). Recommendations included creating a collaborative repository of activities and resources as a permanent digital platform (E3, E7), as well as setting up ongoing support networks, including in virtual format (E21). Formal accreditation of the course was pointed out as a critical factor in legitimising the training and linking it to progression in the teaching career (E23, E29). Above all, sustainability would depend on the consolidation of an autonomous community of practice, capable of generating leaders to continue the work (E17, E28). Such communities favour the sharing of ideas, critical reflection and collaborative learning, fostering a culture of adaptability and innovation [91,92]. Furthermore, results show that teacher-led communities of practice can serve as sustainable infrastructures enabling long-term inclusive and pedagogical change, even in contexts of institutional constraints [93].

In response, Prototype 2 was enriched with actions aimed at strengthening these three pillars. A preliminary leadership sensitisation phase was designed (pillar 1), Phase 4 now includes the creation of a digital repository (pillar 3), and the process of formal accreditation of the course (pillar 3), considered a critical success factor, was started. These changes aim to ensure that the course is not a one-off event, but the starting point for an ongoing learning community, institutionally legitimised and sustained by support networks [88].

3.5. Limitations of the Study

This study presents limitations inherent to its qualitative nature and the specific phase of the DBR cycle. Firstly, the sample of 32 experts was selected through purposive sampling; consequently, the findings do not allow for statistical generalisation, aiming instead for analytical generalisation regarding the design principles of the PD model. Secondly, the selection criteria, which relied partly on professional visibility and academic production, may have excluded insights from highly competent practitioners who do not participate in formal academic circuits.

Furthermore, although the participation of experts from diverse national contexts enriched the theoretical debate, the structural and administrative differences between these educational systems require caution regarding the transferability of specific logistical solutions. Finally, the results presented here reflect the expected practicality and effectiveness based on expert perception. The validation of these constructs in a real-world setting will take place in the forthcoming third iteration of the DBR cycle, where the prototype will be implemented and empirically evaluated specifically within the Portuguese educational context.

4. Final Considerations

This article aimed to present and discuss the evaluation carried out by experts on the Prototype of an in-service professional development programme in EC education. The collaborative evaluation process made it possible to broadly validate the model’s structure and methodologies, while at the same time revealing key points for improvement relating to conceptual clarity, duration, critical focus and institutional sustainability.

4.1. Tensions and Challenges in the Evaluation Process

An in-depth analysis of these points for improvement revealed a set of latent tensions in the programme’s design, which manifest themselves in philosophical, logistical and engagement dimensions.

The first tension concerns the distinction between the objectives of the teacher professional development programme and those of the resulting research. While some experts (e.g., E8) questioned the relevance of the researcher participating as a listener in school practices and collecting data from students, others (e.g., E22) valued this presence as pedagogical support. This ambivalence shows that the integration of training and research needs to be continually negotiated in order to guarantee methodological clarity and ethical legitimacy.

Another tension concerns the heterogeneity of teaching levels. Although the prototype was restructured to include different modules, with case studies adapted to the age groups of each segment, experts (E27, E9) warned of the difficulty of sufficiently covering the specificities of each level in a single course. At the same time, the hypothesis was raised that moments of joint work between teachers from different levels could be advantageous, especially in the Portuguese context, where school groupings bring together institutions from various cycles, but do not always favour exchanges between them. Thus, training can also be an opportunity to strengthen pedagogical articulation within groupings.

A third tension emerged around methodological breadth. Although active methodologies have been widely recognised as appropriate, there was concern that the multiplicity of strategies in Prototype 1 could generate conceptual dispersion and overload for teachers. Some experts (E1, E7) recommended focusing on a smaller number of core pedagogies, such as PBL, and clarifying the terminology used, distinguishing methodologies from resources or learning experiences.

Finally, the tension between intrinsic engagement and formal accreditation was highlighted. Although teachers’ motivation depends on their interest and the practical relevance of the training, there was consensus that formal accreditation is fundamental to guaranteeing adherence and recognition in career progression. At the same time, experts (E15, E29) warned of the difficulty of maintaining teacher involvement over time, given the overload and the few incentives.

4.2. Implications and Lessons Learnt for the Redesign

The main conclusions drawn from the evaluation process can be summarised along four axes: (i) validation of the methodology and structure of the prototype, recognised as solid, coherent and with great potential for application; (ii) the need to deepen the conceptual and critical focus, including clearer theoretical bases and ethical and political discussions; (iii) adjustments to the format and workload, with reinforcement of face-to-face and interaction as indispensable elements; and (iv) sustainability and engagement strategies, which include institutional involvement, the creation of communities of practice and formal accreditation.

These learnings represent structuring issues that play a heuristic role in the DBR and guide the redesign of the prototype, which in turn seeks greater clarity in the modular organisation, methodological balance and integration between research and training. The article thus fulfils its objective of giving visibility to the experts’ evaluation and showing how their contributions point the way to improving the prototype. The journey confirms that teacher training in EC requires devices that articulate theory and practice, methodological clarity and institutional sustainability.

In the next stage of the research (Iteration 3), the focus will be on implementing and evaluating Prototype 2 in real training contexts, involving two groups of teachers (1st and 2nd Cycles of Basic Education—6 to 11 years old students; 3rd Cycle of Basic Education and secondary—12 to 17 years old students). Training sessions will be held in which participants will draw up activity plans to promote EC, which will then be applied in the classroom. The evaluation will combine qualitative and quantitative instruments. The results collected from teachers and students will feed into new micro-cycles of design and reflection, leading to the final version of the in-service teacher professional development model, evaluated not only for its relevance and consistency, but also for its practicality and real effectiveness in school contexts.