Is Consuming Avocados Equally Sustainable Worldwide? An Activity to Promote Eco-Social Education from Science Education

Abstract

The socio-environmental crisis in which we find ourselves makes it necessary to promote a citizenship capable of facing global challenges in an informed, critical, and participatory manner. Given the shortcomings of environmental education practices and the limitations of teachers to develop effective activities in their classrooms, it is necessary to review and redefine teacher training. In accordance with the case study research method, we present the results of the implementation of an activity for teacher training on environmental socio-scientific issues: the production and consumption of avocados in Spain. The aim is to find out how students use the evidence and what perspectives they integrate when making argued decisions, which will allow us to assess the didactic potential of the designed activity and contribute to the consolidation of the didactic dimension of eco-social education. The results show the students’ ability to use the evidence in a critical and reflective way, sometimes oriented toward the search for and proposal of solutions, and also their ability to address the problem using a systemic approach, integrating different perspectives, including political, economic, social, ecological, ethical, health, local, and global considerations. For this reason, the activity presented is considered suitable for promoting the didactics of eco-social education in teacher training.

1. Introduction

On a global scale, humanity is facing an uncertain and complex future due to significant environmental, social, economic, and geopolitical challenges [1]. All of them are related [2] and stem from legitimized life models and values [3]. Furthermore, they pose a global threat to human rights, particularly for certain social groups, due to the unequal distribution of their benefits and drawbacks [4,5,6].

Therefore, at the end of the 20th century, a human rights advocacy movement emerged, linked to the effects of environmental impacts. This is the environmental justice social movement, which aimed to expand the traditional discourse on environmental issues by incorporating a social justice approach [7]. Currently, with the publication of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the bidirectional relationship between human rights and sustainability has been highlighted [8]. Therefore, the environmental justice approach is more relevant than ever.

This scenario requires the promotion of an informed, conscious, reflective, critical, and participatory citizenship capable of facing global challenges by linking nature, democracy, and justice [9,10]. Education plays a fundamental role in promoting the formation of the citizenship we need [11]. Among the different perspectives defined in the framework of scientific education, there is one that is particularly suitable. This is the III vision defined by Sjöström and Eilks [12], which is oriented towards dialogic emancipation, socio-eco justice, and critical and participatory global citizenship. In the specific field of environmental education, Transformative Environmental Education (TEE) is considered the ideal vision for questioning the dominant socio-economic model, assessing current challenges, and acting toward a sustainable future [13].

The approach of the TEE involves redefining the current educational model, including a review of the role of teachers, given their extreme relevance in the educational field [14]. From the perspective of environmental education, teachers have the opportunity to prepare future generations by implementing didactic sequences aimed at the well-being of the global community [15]. Therefore, it is important to define appropriate training for them.

The regulations governing the study plans for bachelor’s degrees in early childhood education (DECE) and primary education (DPE), ECI/3854/200 and ECI/3857/2007 respectively, at Spanish universities outline the competencies that future teachers must acquire. Among the objectives and competences defined in these ministerial orders, there are some directly related to sustainable development: “To understand the function, possibilities, and limitations of education in modern society (DECE)”; “Critically analyze and incorporate the most relevant issues of current society that affect family and school education, including discrimination, social inclusion, and sustainable development” (DECE and DPE); “Develop didactic proposals related to the interaction between science, technology, society, and sustainable development” (DECE); “To promote interest and respect for the natural, social, and cultural environment through appropriate didactic projects” (DECE); “Appreciate individual and collective responsibility in achieving a sustainable future” (DPE); and “Recognize the mutual influence between science, society, and technological development, as well as the relevant citizen behaviors, to promote a sustainable future” (DPE). These competencies, although slightly outdated due to their year of publication, are part of some Spanish university curricula. However, Sureda-Negre et al. [16] argue that sustainability-related competencies have been given little consideration, as only a few have been introduced. This explains the perceptions and limitations that teachers have when teaching environmental education in their classrooms. Specifically, they have a low level of disciplinary knowledge [17], they have a reduced and fragmented view of the problems, as they tend to separate the economic and social spheres from the environmental [18,19], and they do not know which strategies or resources to use when developing effective educational proposals [20].

As teachers’ perceptions determine their teaching approach [21], the aforementioned limitations have led them to rely on routine activities with low cognitive demand [22]. Thus, teachers have mainly focused on presenting issues related to knowledge of the natural environment and universal solutions for protecting the planet. They suggest behaviors that involve loving nature [23,24]. In this sense, these topics have rarely been addressed from a global and controversial perspective [22], as required by recent Spanish educational regulations, including Organic Law 3/2020, RD 95/2022 and RD 157/2022. To achieve this, the term ‘eco-social education’ has been included in these documents, recognizing the need to approach content and contexts from multiple perspectives, including that of justice [12,25].

In order to enhance teacher training and facilitate the integration of eco-social education in early childhood and primary education classrooms, faculties of education should provide training focused on didactic knowledge of environmental education content [26,27]. This implies that future teachers should have a deep understanding of eco-social issues, as well as the tools, approaches, and resources that enable them to design and develop high-quality educational interventions on their own [28].

One way to contribute to the didactics of eco-social education is by using socio-scientific issues, a didactic tool that involves proposing solutions to address a current, complex, and controversial problem, considering scientific evidence as well as social, economic, religious, ethical, or political aspects [29,30]. In this sense, there is no single solution; it is a matter of resolving a dilemma by prioritizing certain issues over others [31]. This involves making justified statements and creating arguments to confront different points of view, which links socio-scientific issues with argumentation and the use of evidence [32].

These scientific practices are highly recommended in science education as they require students to develop critical thinking [33] and face decision making similar to everyday life [30,34], preparing them to become global citizens [32,35,36,37]. Furthermore, when the task is carried out in a group, the classroom becomes a democratic space [38], where students discuss and reflect, exchanging different perspectives to make informed decisions about the dilemma [39].

For all of these reasons, this paper presents the results of the implementation of an educational activity for teacher training on environmental socio-scientific issues: avocado production and consumption in Spain. The aim of this study is to investigate how students use the evidence (objective 1) and what perspectives they integrate when making informed decisions (objective 2). The goal is to evaluate the didactic potential of the designed activity and contribute to the consolidation of the didactic dimension of eco-social education.

2. Method

This work is framed within the case study research qualitative method, which allows for in-depth investigation of a phenomenon in a real context [40]. Specifically, the group discussions generated among the participants when solving an activity in a higher education context (teacher training) are analyzed. All of this is done to determine students’ performance regarding the use of evidence and to evaluate the perspectives they integrate when solving the task. Each work group is considered a different case study, allowing for a comparative analysis between groups to achieve the study’s objective.

2.1. Participants and Context

The study was conducted with students enrolled in a mandatory course in an education and innovation master’s program at a Spanish public university. Specifically, 20 students participated (19 females and 1 male), ranging in age from 23 to 50, divided into three heterogeneous work groups (six or seven members each), based on their knowledge, skills, and age. The session was developed using the methodology of interactive groups (IG), a successful educational performance of learning communities. This involves organizing the classroom into small groups to solve activities dialogically with the help of volunteers [41]. During a three-hour session, three activities were carried out simultaneously, each lasting 45 min, aimed at working on eco-social education. The students were not familiar with the dynamics of IG, but during the session, they were very participative and engaged in the task.

Regarding ethical considerations, student participation in this research was voluntary and signed informed consent forms were obtained. Anonymity has been ensured using pseudonyms, and the analysis has focused solely on academic issues rather than personal or moral evaluations.

2.2. Activity Design: Is Avocado Consumption Sustainable in Spain?

The activity titled ‘Is avocado consumption sustainable in Spain?’ was one of the activities developed during the IG session. Its aim was to enable students to solve cases based on environmental socio-scientific issues by integrating different perspectives, such as environmental, social, economic, political, health, and ethical perspectives. To do this, students must handle information presented in various formats, including textual, numerical, or visual. The activity began by providing students with a brief story (Figure 1), describing a controversial situation regarding avocado consumption in Málaga. Once read, each group was instructed to prepare a report that justified, with reasoned arguments, whether avocado consumption in Spain is sustainable or not.

To enable students to support their arguments with data, they were provided with seven materials from ecological, social, economic, and political perspectives (

Table 1. Materials provided according to perspective.

Perspective	Materials
Ecological	Material 1. Evolution of water levels in the La Viñuela reservoir (Figure S1). Material 2. Evolution of annual average rainfall and temperature (Figure S2).
Economic	Material 3. Evolution of the area and production of subtropical crops in the province of Málaga (Figure S3). Material 4. Comparison of rainfed and irrigated crop yields (Table S1).
Politic	Material 6. Extract from the call for applications for aid to improve irrigated crops in Andalucia (Figure S5).
Social	Material 5. Advertisements (Figure S4). Material 7. Evolution of the consumption of avocados in Spain (Figure S6).

).

To ensure that the session ran smoothly, each group had a facilitator who was responsible for monitoring the activity, encouraging interaction, and guiding the members of his or her group. To this end, the person in this role was provided with supplementary material consisting of a list of mediating questions to guide the debate and the answers of the other participants (Figure 2), and the reference response to solve the case (Figure 3).

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection was carried out using audio recordings, which allowed us to record the interventions in each group. These recordings were then transcribed and a discourse analysis [42] was conducted to find out how the students used the evidence and what perspectives they integrated when deciding whether avocado consumption in Spain was sustainable or not.

To analyze the participants’ discussions, the transcripts were divided into episodes (units of analysis). Gee [42] defines episodes as a series of interventions in which participants discuss the same topic or perform the same action. An episode is also defined as each of the participants’ interventions. In this study, an episode was a sequence of interventions on the same topic, determined by the dominant evidence on which the discourse was focused (groups A and B) or the mediating question that guided the discussion (group C). This double criterion was due to the autonomous and self-directed development of the activity, which is typical of IG [41]. In groups A and B, it was the students who set the pace of the activity, trying to give an answer to the case, checking each piece of evidence. The moderator therefore stayed on the sidelines and only intervened at the end. In group C, on the other hand, the moderator was the one who managed the activity, asking the rest of the classmates mediating questions that led them to review the evidence and respond to the case. In all situations, episodes in which students talked about topics unrelated to the task were discarded.

To find out how students in each group identified and used the evidence throughout the activity (objective 1), a category system modified from Esquivel-Martín et al. [43] was designed. The categories used ranged from identifying and/or interpreting evidence (level 1) to using evidence to propose solutions (level 6).

Table 2. Examples for each of the categories of analysis drawn from speaking turns.

Level	Category	Example of a Speaking Turn Assigned to a Level
6	Use evidence to propose solutions.	Group C. Mónica: Of course, that’s why [avocados are produced all year round]. At the end of the day, the fruit you have to eat is the fruit that is in season. If we are going to produce avocados all year round, maybe we should only produce them at one time of the year.
5	Use evidence to reflect critically.	Group C. Paloma: It is totally contradictory. I mean, at the end of the day, if you’re in a rainfed area and you’re harvesting and irrigating with more water, if you need more water, it doesn’t make sense. You have to produce something that doesn’t need as much water because you don’t have it.
4	Use combined evidence to answer a mediating question.	Group B. Ariadna: So, is avocado production economically sustainable? (mediating question) Alicia: But not only that [the farmers earn more with rainfed crops], but they also receive aid from the Board (material 7).
3	Use single evidence to answer a mediating question.	Group B. Ariadna: In economic terms, why do you think the area under avocado cultivation has increased over the years? (mediating question) Alberto: Because it is fashionable (material 7).
2	Identify and/or interpret two pieces of evidence at the same time.	Group A. Carlota: But here the peak is towards… there’s a lot of rain and then it goes down and here it’s the other way round. There is very little rain and then it goes up (compare the rainfall graphs of materials 1 and 2).
1	Identify and/or interpret evidence.	Group A. Inés: There was a very sharp fall in 2003, but it was more or less maintained thereafter (material 2).

illustrates the categories by means of speaking turns that show these levels. Thus, in each episode, different levels were observed simultaneously, depending on the turn of speech. However, in the analysis carried out (Section 3.1), each episode was assigned a single level of performance in the use of evidence (the highest level achieved by the group in the episode, considering all speaking turns).

On the other hand, to identify the perspectives that students integrated when making argued decisions (objective 2), a category system was developed based on the palette of perspectives defined by Kiili et al. [44].

Table 3. Grouping of categories and integrated perspectives in the activity.

Perspective Palette [44]	Adaptation of the Perspective Palette	Activity-Integrated Perspectives
		Directly	Indirectly
Political	Political	X
Judicial
Financial	Economic	X
Professional
Cultural	Social	X
Social
Psychological
Multicultural
Historical
Environmental	Ecological	X
Ideological	Ethic		X
Ethical
Religious
Educational	Educational
Education Policy
Medical	Health		X
Artistic	Artistic
Equality	Equality
Global	Global
International
Individual	Local		X

shows that the original 21 perspectives were consolidated into 11 new categories: political, economic, social, ecological, ethical, educational, health, artistic, equality, global, and local.

The integrated perspectives for the activity could be determined by referring to the provided materials and the reference response (Table 3). The activity addressed the problem from various perspectives, including political, economic, social, and ecological considerations (Table 1). Additionally, depending on the use of materials, the proposal may also have incorporated other perspectives, such as ethics, health, and local considerations.

After designing both category systems, two external experts validated and analyzed them. The transcripts were used to identify the learners’ level of performance when using the evidence in each defined episode. Based on these episodes, the perspectives incorporated in their discussions were identified. The categories in Table 2 and Table 3 were assigned using ATLAS.ti 7 software. During these processes, two external experts collaborated in triangulating the presented data. The evolution of categories in group discussions was then represented. Finally, to quantify the relationship between perspectives and levels of performance when using the evidence, the average value of intragroup and intergroup perspectives was calculated, as well as by episode and level of performance.

3. Results

3.1. How Did Students from Each Group Use the Evidence throughout the Activity?

To address the first objective, Figure 4 illustrates the level reached by each group based on their use of the provided evidence.

The discourse of group A was divided into eight episodes. Figure 4 shows that the group’s interventions followed the order of the provided evidence. They mainly used the evidence to reflect critically (4 out of 8 episodes), using only one piece of evidence (episodes 5 and 6), or using several pieces of evidence at the same time (episodes 4 and 8). In episode 4, the evolution of the area and production of avocado crops in Málaga (material 3), the profits of rainfed and irrigated crops (material 4), and the statement of the activity were contrasted to debate the economic sustainability of avocado production and consumption:

Marian: The farmer should be placed on the middle table. If I understand correctly, the supermarket pays the farmer 1.43. This is the amount that the farmer receives.

(Material 4)

[…]

Aina: In other words, in terms of profits we are losing.

Silvia: No, but it says here… Why, Mr. Mariano, do you make more money producing avocados than producing wheat? It does indeed. Besides, in 2010, we had high expectations due to the publicity surrounding this fruit.

(Statement)

Aina: But they are earning more due to having a larger surface area to sell their products.

(Material 3)

Marian: They do not earn anything.

However, in episode 8, the group members integrated all of the evidence to produce the final report from a critical perspective. It is possible that the moderator’s lack of involvement in the task was the reason why the compilation of evidence occurred only in the last episode, as she intervened by asking mediating questions at this point.

In the remaining four episodes, the group was limited to identifying and interpreting evidence individually (episodes 1, 3, and 7) and in combination (episode 2).

Secondly, the oral discourse of group B was divided into 12 episodes. In general, the members of this group predominantly used evidence for critical reflection (8 out of 12 episodes), using from one (episodes 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9) to five pieces of evidence at a time (episode 5). In contrast to the previous group, they proposed solutions twice to solve the problem presented in the case study. These solutions involved reducing consumption and growing avocados in tropical areas. As a result, they achieved the highest level of the categories defined in episodes 2 and 12, despite not using any of the materials provided in their arguments.

Alberto: I would say reduce it [sic]. I mean, you have to control everything, it doesn’t have to be bad to eat avocado.

Alicia: It’s very good.

[…]

Alba: Of course, but the thing is that it’s tropical, isn’t it? It’s a tropical fruit.

Alicia: Yes, but it’s produced here…

Alba: And here we have a semi-desert climate, so…

Alberto: Well, maybe it should be grown in another part of the world.

Sonia: That’s the ecological footprint.

Alba: But then the transport.

Alicia: Of course, it’s just that it can’t… But it’s also in Andalucia.

Sonia: No, no… local product…

On the other hand, they only worked at levels below critical reflection in two episodes. In episode 5, they briefly identified and interpreted material 2. By contrast, in episode 11, they reached level 4 by answering the mediating question ‘is avocado production economically sustainable?’. They referred to profits, aid received, and demand/consumption, thus combining materials 4, 6, and 7.

Ariadna: So, is avocado production economically sustainable? (mediating question)

[…]

Noelia: I think so because there is a lot of demand. (Material 7) It says here that the production cost is 2.54 and the market price is 2.65. In other words, they don’t earn anything.

(Material 4)

Sonia: No, and the purchase from the producer is 1.43

(Material 4)

[…]

Alicia: But not only that, but they are also receiving aid from the Board.

(Material 6)

Group C had the highest number of episodes (15) in their oral discourse. Their work mainly oscillated between critical reflection (8 out of 15 episodes) and proposing solutions (5 out of 15 episodes). This group exclusively used the provided materials to propose solutions. They integrated between two and four pieces of evidence, avoiding reliance on a single piece of evidence. An example of this is shown in the following intervention (episode 2):

Paloma: We have to consider that, well, we can understand that we can introduce avocado because at that time we had water (evidence 1 and 2), but over the years, the number of hectares devoted to avocado production has increased. (evidence 3). So, in the end, okay, one year you have water, but the rest you don’t, and you keep increasing production (evidence 3). They could have kept the same hectares or even reduced it when they realized that it was not sustainable, and yet they have continued to increase it.

Furthermore, the data showed a predominance of episodes in which critical reflection was based on individual evidence (episodes 7, 9, 13, and 14) and combined evidence (episodes 3, 5, 6, and 8). Only in two episodes (1 and 12) did they limit themselves to identifying and interpreting the evidence.

When comparing the three groups,

Table 4. Use of materials at each level.

	Material 1	Material 2	Material 3	Material 4	Material 5	Material 6	Material 7	Statement
Level 6	3	2	3	0	0	1	2	3
Level 5	5	6	5	10	7	4	3	6
Level 4	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0
Level 3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Level 2	1	2	0	1	1	0	1	0
Level 1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0

shows that most episodes in all groups reached a level of performance of 5 (use evidence to reflect critically), which was maintained over time. The most commonly used material to achieve this was material 4, which involved comparing rainfed and irrigated crop yields, despite being the most difficult evidence for all groups to interpret. The next most used material at level 5 was advertisements (material 5), followed by material 2, which covered the evolution of average annual rainfall and temperature. The least commonly used pieces of evidence were those referring to the subsidies provided (material 6) and avocado consumption (material 7).

Regarding the combined use of materials, it was noted that when proposing solutions (level of performance 6), it was common for groups B and C to make the following combinations of materials: (a) materials 1 and 2 with others provided or not; (b) materials 3 and 7 with others provided in the activity. The reason why these were the most frequent combinations had to do with the information contained in each of them: on the one hand, they were related to water resources (materials 1 and 2), and on the other hand, they were related to production and consumption (materials 3 and 7). In this sense, material 4 was not used to propose solutions because by showing the economic benefit, the participants did not visualize it as a problem. They did not use material 5 because they viewed advertising as an information channel rather than a source of information bias.

3.2. What Perspectives Did Students Integrate when Making Argued Decisions?

To address the second objective,

Table 5. Perspectives addressed by each group in the development of the activity.

Perspective Palette [44]	Activity-Integrated Perspectives		Perspectives Addressed by Groups
	Directly	Indirectly	Group A	Group B	Group C
Political	X		X	X	X
Economic	X		X	X	X
Social	X		X	X	X
Ecological	X		X	X	X
Ethic		X		X	X
Educational
Health		X	X	X	X
Artistic
Equality
Global			X	X	X
Local		X		X	X

details the perspectives that could be worked on in the activity, as well as those that were included in the arguments of each of the groups.

In general, it can be observed that all three groups dealt in their discussions with the four perspectives directly integrated in the activity: political, economic, social, and environmental. This was because they all used all of the materials to solve the case and, as shown in Table 1, each of them allowed to work mainly on one of these perspectives.

There were differences between the groups in terms of the perspectives indirectly integrated into the activity. On the one hand, all of them referred to the health perspective. On the other hand, the ethical and local approaches were only mentioned by groups B and C.

It should also be noted that, although the activity did not aim to work on the global perspective, it encouraged the three groups to integrate it into their discourse. This was positive from the point of view of the design of the activity, as it reflected how a local problem can be linked to a global problem at the same time, which is called glocality.

To further explore the perspectives considered by the groups, we present which perspectives the students incorporated according to the level of performance and the evidence used in each episode (Figure 5).

Firstly, it can be observed that the members of group A directly addressed the four perspectives that the activity worked on (political, economic, social, and environmental) at the different levels of performance that they moved through during their discourse. On the other hand, they only integrated other indirect perspectives (health or global) to reflect critically (level 5 use of evidence).

It should also be noted that, in general, group A approached the problem of avocado production and consumption from independent perspectives, depending on the evidence used in each episode. In other words, they rarely worked on the same evidence from different approaches, except for the last episode in which they gathered all of the evidence and worked on it from different perspectives for the final report. Below is an extract from the transcript (episode 8) in which they critically reflected on material 6, incorporating political, economic, social, environmental, and global perspectives.

Soraya: It has economic losses (economic perspective), and we are also talking about environmental losses. In other words, you are using more water than is necessary [sic] (ecological perspective).

Marian: It’s the government’s fault. They do not subsidize it (political perspective).

Soraya: Well, it’s also true that this is often done for… it’s sold, so it has to be produced. Like with meat. By eating so much meat, cows also consume a lot. Of grass and water, right? (social and economic perspective).

Marian: It’s true that this… It is true that this was not known before.

Soraya: That’s what I was telling her. This is from Latin America (global perspective). I’ve been eating this since I was a child. And here this was not very popular (social perspective). And it costs a lot of money (economic perspective).

[…]

Soraya: I don’t understand how they charge you 2€ for avocados in the supermarket when the person who produces them does it for… (economic perspective).

Inés: Yes, but that happens with all production.

In the case of group B, they also included direct perspectives at all levels of performance at which they worked. Regarding indirect perspectives, in contrast to group A, some emerged from lower levels of evidence use (health and local) and others, such as ethics, were only addressed when critically reflecting or proposing solutions. Similarly, the global perspective appeared at all levels. On the other hand, members of this group integrated different perspectives as they worked on each of the materials. To do this, they initially went through a level of identifying and/or interpreting individual pieces of evidence using one or two perspectives at most. Then, as they reached higher levels of performance, they increased the number of approaches (

Table 6. Average number of perspectives worked per episode and level of performance (N.A: Not applicable).

	Group A	Group B	Group C
Level 6	NA	3.5	2.0
Level 5	2.3	2.6	2.1
Level 4	2.0	2.5	1.6
Level 3	2.0	1.6	1.0
Level 2	1.0	NA	NA
Level 1	1.0	1.6	1.0

). An example of this was in episode 6, in which they first interpreted (level 1) evidence 3 from an economic perspective. They then used the same evidence to answer a mediating question (level 3), incorporating both the social and economic approaches. Finally, they critically reflected (level 6) on the evidence from economic, social, environmental, and global perspectives.

Thirdly, group C included all of the direct perspectives at the different levels of performance on which their discourse focused. By contrast, the indirect perspectives (ethics, health, local, and global) appeared only at high levels (4–6), perhaps because most of their episodes were at levels 5 and 6.

Similarly, in group C, the number of perspectives considered in each episode increased as the level of performance in the use of evidence increased (Table 6). It should also be noted that they sometimes worked on the material without integrating any perspective. This was because they worked with the data provided, but they did not construct a piece of evidence that was useful for them to use in solving the case.

Finally, if we look at the dominant perspectives on which each group focused most of its discourse (

Table 7. Absolute frequency of perspectives included in the resolution of the case.

	Group A	Group B	Group C	$\mathbf{Average} \mathbf{\left(}\overline{\mathbf{X}}\mathbf{\right)}$
Political	2	2	1	1.6
Economic	12	15	15	14
Social	8	14	17	13
Ecological	7	18	14	13
Ethic	0	1	1	0.6
Health	2	7	1	3.3
Global	2	4	2	2.6
Local	0	4	5	3

), we can see that group A approached the problem mainly from an economic perspective, group B from an environmental perspective, and group C tried to solve the case from a social perspective. However, considering all of the approaches used by the three groups, the economic perspective ($\overline{\mathrm{X}}$ = 14), followed by the social perspective ($\overline{\mathrm{X}}$ = 13) and the environmental perspective ($\overline{\mathrm{X}}$ = 13) were the predominant perspectives used to solve the case.

4. Discussion

The work carried out has made it possible to find out how students use evidence and what perspectives they integrate when solving a case related to environmental socio-scientific issues. In this way, it has been possible to assess the potential of the activity, which was designed to help consolidate a new dimension of environmental education aimed at teacher training: the didactics of eco-social education.

First, the results show that participants were able to autonomously approach the problem of avocado production and consumption from multiple perspectives. This is an improvement on previous research that acknowledged that students do not often consider multiple perspectives when tackling complex and controversial problems [45,46], and that when they do, it is because they have been explicitly asked to do so [47]. In the case presented, the design of the activity itself may have favored the integration of the systemic approach, as on the one hand, working through IG encouraged dialog and interaction between participants [48,49]. Therefore, combining this way of organizing the classroom with socio-scientific issues can be an efficient solution to the difficulty of considering alternative points of view, since the debate among peers can increase the diversity of perspectives. On the other hand, providing the groups with a wide variety of materials in terms of information (environmental, economic, political, or social) and format (textual, numerical, or visual) may have facilitated the integration of the systemic approach, something that has already happened in previous experiences [50].

Also, the fact that the facilitator had mediating questions from the beginning of the activity made it possible to direct the discussions and reflections of his or her peers toward the aspects that the teacher considered important to address [51,52]. This is very useful in IG sessions where the teacher remains outside the activity. In this case, the mediating questions helped the students to approach the problem in a systemic way, which leads us to recommend their use in the classroom.

Secondly, the results show that the participants were able to use evidence mainly at a high level of performance, reaching a critical and reflective perspective, sometimes oriented toward the search for and proposal of solutions. This is very positive, considering that previous studies have highlighted the uncritical and conformist attitudes of student teachers [28]. Such attitudes may be due to shortcomings in teacher training, where activities that awaken the critical sense are usually not developed [24], although when they are developed, they are positively valued by students [53]. All of this reflects the need to design and implement activities, such as those presented in this paper, that promote the development of critical thinking and the skills associated with it, including deciding, reasoning, solving problems, or arguing [54], in order to question and transform the dominant models. In this way, we will promote teacher training framed by TEE [13] and environmental justice [6].

Considering these results and given the need to create and disseminate resources to improve teacher education [27], it can be affirmed that this activity is considered appropriate to promote the didactics of eco-social education in teacher education. In this sense, its design makes it possible to overcome the limitations in the teaching of environmental education, since instead of requiring the rote learning of disciplinary content based on the imposition of concrete and generalist actions [55], it requires the implementation of scientific skills while working on problems in a deep and systemic way, taking into account social injustices and inequalities, something that has been rare until now [56]. Moreover, its implementation will allow future teachers to live didactic experiences so that they can develop similar activities in their professional practice.

Finally, to transform the didactics of environmental education, it is important to continue working on the design of eco-social activities that promote scientific reasoning. The activity presented is a concrete and specific example that could be considered as a model to develop other research on environmental issues close to the students.

For future research, with respect to the didactic methodology (IG), it would be relevant to analyze the role of the facilitators given their influence on the performance of each of the groups. Regarding the research method (case study), it would be interesting to incorporate in the proposal a previous phase of individual reflection before the group discussion. This new phase would improve the research method (case study), although it would imply modifying the didactic methodology used in this activity (IG).