Rethinking transformations in sustainability education: project-based approach to sustainability for primary school student teachers Open Access

Global concerns regarding nature loss and climate change indicate the need for a green transition (Cortese, 1999). Also, the survival of humankind depends on maintaining the well-being of our planet’s environmental systems (Scott and Vare, 2018). Furthermore, our actions as a society are threatening the possibilities of our children fulfilling their basic needs in the future (Cortese, 1999). Consequently, universities globally are committed to the United Nations sustainability development goals through various agreements, like the Bologna Charter. Therefore, they are striving to develop curriculums with shared learning objectives to support the green transition through education and work life (Brundiers et al., 2021; Lozano et al., 2019; Weiss et al., 2021). Most often, these learning objectives are defined through sustainability competency frameworks. Various conceptualisations regarding core sustainability competencies have been elaborated (Bianchi et al., 2022; Brundiers et al., 2021; Wiek et al., 2011), but the five key competencies framework (Wiek et al., 2011, 2016) remains prevalent as the most cited and frequently used conceptualisation. This framework has been widely applied as a basis for educational programmes, including learning objective development (Redman and Wiek, 2021; Wiek et al., 2011, 2016).

As a pedagogical solution, project-based learning (PjBL) is found to be supportive of a broad range of sustainability competencies (Lozano et al., 2019). PjBL is a student-centred learning method characterised by students’ autonomy and active role as explorers in a project. Students learn to define their own learning demands and goals, collaborate successfully with others and practice communication and (self) reflection in problems that are based on real-world practices (Chiang and Lee, 2016; Kokotsaki et al., 2016). In addition, in PjBL learners involve themselves actively in the learning process to achieve their own learning goals. Through interactions with group members and instructors, students share knowledge and understanding (Von Kotze and Cooper, 2000). In completing real-world-based assignments, groups can negotiate alternative ideas to solve problems and gain new, collective knowledge (Pan et al., 2019). It is also important that the project topic engages students and creates the motivation to learn (Aldabbus, 2018).

However, there are some identified challenges in PjBL. For example, a lack of validated assessment methods that enable students to show their learning through PjBL (Chen et al., 2021; Hellström et al., 2009) is challenging the instructors. In addition, there are many student-related challenges, such as incompatible schedules between the students, unmatched priorities, uncertainty about the project product or learning during it (Hussein, 2021) and student adaptation to PjBL (Alarfaj et al., 2024). The instructors are addressing the challenges by, for example, structuring student learning, including roles and responsibilities (Hussein, 2021), giving sufficient feedback and providing clear and structured project instructions (Alarfaj et al., 2024). Nevertheless, many problems remain unsolved, such as the complications in the PjBL assessment (Watz, 2020). Exploring the possibilities of PjBL assessment is one of the aims of this study.

Concurrently, the idea and applications of transformative learning (Mezirow, 1978) are trending in higher education. Transformative learning can be defined as a transformation enabling changes in the learner’s meaning-making systems or “frames of reference” (Mezirow, 2009). Many expectations and hopes are directed at transformative learning (Thomas, 2009), since the green transition requires cultural and systemic changes in our society. There are several contradictions and complexities when applying transformative learning models in university programmes. For example, applying transformative learning-based approaches to enhance sustainability competency could promote deeper, more meaningful changes in learners (Thomas, 2009), but transformative learning and sustainability are often linked to each other on very light grounds—even in current research literature (Rodríguez Aboytes et al., 2020). This could lead to an instrumental approach to sustainability. In addition, transformative learning is also not free from assessment challenges (Romano, 2017).

As a university programme, primary school teacher education is also experiencing sustainability reforms. Teacher education has an identified potential to enhance the green transition of society through cultural change (Corcoran and Wals, 2004; Mulà and Tilbury, 2023), since teachers can significantly impact future generations and their sustainability competencies. Unfortunately, higher education teachers and teacher educators still lack instructions and guidance for sustainability competency-promoting pedagogies (Watz, 2020). Therefore, this study is exploring PjBL as one of the effective sustainability education pedagogies in line with current pedagogical research. The study produces information to support higher education teachers in applying sustainability competency-promoting pedagogies in their work.

A wide range of research has been conducted regarding the effects of PjBL on the learning outcomes of higher education students (Ayaz and Söylemez, 2015; Balemen and Keskin, 2018; Widarbowo et al., 2023). A meta-analysis on PjBL demonstrated that PjBL can promote creativity and improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Muzer et al., 2023). Moreover, PjBL can exert a positive effect on students’ independence in learning (Parwata et al., 2023) and satisfaction in studies (Sulong et al., 2023). Finally, there are suggestions that PjBL increases students’ collaboration skills (Mulyadi et al., 2023).

As is evident in the literature, PjBL and sustainability are already applied and studied in the context of education. For example, studies have researched attitude changes towards the environment through PjBL in prospective teachers (Genc, 2014) as well as developing the sustainability competency of pre-service chemistry teachers (Paristiowati et al., 2022), and the sustainability competency of primary school student teachers (Karvonen et al., 2023) and pre-service secondary school teachers (Cebrián et al., 2019) has been reviewed. In summary, previous studies have focused on the learning results of individual students during and after PjBL. However, very little is known about the quality and social dimensions of the PjBL process or primary school student teachers’ perceptions of PjBL. The perceptions and beliefs of primary school student teachers need to be considered when supporting their preparedness for work as sustainability education professionals. In addition, the social nature (Gillies and Ashman, 2003) and expressed quality of PjBL require research methods that examine more than an individual student’s learning outcomes. The purpose of this research is to fill this knowledge gap.

This study was conducted to understand the social nature and quality of learning transformations (LT) in PjBL rather than the learning impacts of PjBL. The LT model originally proposed by Kurt Lewin (1951) and later developed and researched by Pan et al. (2019) was applied. The assumptions behind the application of the LT model are that PjBL processes include learning as a social process, containing situations with competing forces that may encourage students to either accept or reject ideas, and evoke resistance or withdrawal in learners (Pan et al., 2019). Also, it is known that the LT process is intense and requires both expertise from the instructor and structural support (Pan et al., 2019). The LT model enables the researcher to analyse the conflicting forces in student groups during PjBL. It also allows the researcher to describe changes in student groups’ learning processes during PjBL for sustainability competency (Pan et al., 2019).

The LT model by Pan et al. (2019) presented in Figure 1 consists of three stages: unfreezing, changing and refreezing beliefs. Firstly, during the stage of unfreezing beliefs, the project assignment creates a motivation to change learners’ previous beliefs with the support of the instructor, whose role is essential in the PjBL process. Also, the motivation to change previous beliefs is induced through the phases of disconfirmation of expectations, creating learning anxiety and psychological safety. Secondly, in the changing stage, students start to change their beliefs concurrently with learning new knowledge, skills and attitudes as they set goals to their actions. Notably, this process starts only if learning demand is accepted through the phases of identifying with a role model and scanning the environment for relevant information. Finally, during the refreezing stage, students stabilise the changes made in their beliefs through integrating them into actions and attitudes. Finally, students assess the social acceptability of their newly developed beliefs.

Primary school student teachers are defined as teacher students who are studying to become class teachers. After graduating, they teach pupils aged 7–12. In the previous literature, primary school student teachers’ sustainability competencies have been studied (Karvonen et al., 2023), and PjBL approaches are known to promote sustainability competency (Lozano et al., 2019). In addition, many studies have focused on science education (Ayaz and Söylemez, 2015; Balemen and Keskin, 2018) without a clear emphasis on sustainability and primary teacher education. Also, no clear instructions remain on how to assess PjBL in higher education (Chen et al., 2021); and concurrently, very little is known about the actual quality of sustainability competency LT during PjBL (Pan et al., 2019). Various meta-analyses have been conducted to summarise the effects that PjBL methods have on learning outcomes (Ayaz and Söylemez, 2015; Balemen and Keskin, 2018; Widarbowo et al., 2023), but the social nature of learning in groups (Gillies and Ashman, 2003) has been ignored. In this research, these knowledge gaps are addressed with the following research questions:

The data for the research were gathered in 2023–2025 in a course entitled Introduction to the Pedagogy of Sustainability and Outdoor Education. The course is a mandatory part of classroom teacher education, namely the Sustainability and Outdoor Education programme (SOE) in the University of Lapland. In total, 40 primary school student teachers participated in the study. This covers about 20% of the population of second-year teacher students from all the class teacher programmes in the University of Lapland, in this particular univeristy. In addition, participants formed a total of nine PjBL groups. To assess the saturation of the data, the code meaning approach (Hennink et al., 2017, 2019) was applied. To define code meaning saturation criteria, the researcher’s full understanding of the codes (Hennink and Kaiser, 2022) to achieve saturation is required. After the third-year data collection, sufficient code saturation was achieved, as the codes were consistent and repetitive each year (Hennink and Kaiser, 2022). For this reason, additional data collection was unnecessary.

The convenience sample was drawn from the population in this research since it provides satisfactory sample in this specific research context while saving the researcher’s resources (Golzar et al., 2022). Moreover, other forms of sampling methods would be very challenging to apply in this study mainly because of the study design. Conducting this specific study design requires the researcher to teach the participants throughout a whole course with specific pedagogies described in the introduction and research methodology sections. Regarding time resources, work contracts and varying study programmes and courses in different universities, other sampling techniques would be impossible to conduct. Therefore, the usage of the convenience sample was justified in this research.

The research data consist of 15.5 h of video recordings during the projects, combined with group reports written after the projects. The data were made anonymous with number codes to protect the participants’ privacy. Participants signed informed consent forms before taking part in the study. Participants were able to drop out of the study at any time. The data are appropriately stored in accordance with the ethical guidance for research and data collection [Finnish National Board on Research integrity, 2024].

The idea of the course was that primary school student teachers apply PjBL to learn sustainability competency with peer teaching. Students were instructed to plan learning modules as groups to teach each other sustainability competency. The course included 24 h of lectures combined with groupwork. Also, a 4-h-long seminar was held for students to introduce the learning modules to peers. The course was arranged in a similar structural manner three times over three consecutive years. It was designed to support students’ LT in accordance with the unfreezing–change–refreezing model depicted in Figure 1.

The LT model was applied in this study in structuring the planning, instruction and execution of the course participants attended as well as in analysing the collected data by using the model as a theoretical lens. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022; Naeem et al., 2023; Riger and Sigurvinsdottir, 2016). The method was chosen to identify and interpret frequent themes and patterns from the data by also embracing the subjectivity of interpretations (Naeem et al., 2023). At its best, thematic analysis (TA) can lead the researcher towards new ideas and understanding regarding the research subject (Naeem et al., 2023). Reflexive thematic analysis is a form of TA highlighting, in particular, the researchers’ subjective interpretations during the analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022). The researcher aimed at ruling out the distorting effect of previous beliefs and theoretical assumptions with continuous self-reflection (Naeem et al., 2023). The viewpoint of reflexive TA was especially adopted, since the knowledge production concerned is situated and context-bound (Braun and Clarke, 2022; Von Kotze and Cooper, 2000). The themes and categories were formed by precisely basing them on the context. In addition, the themes and categories were constructed to describe participants’ shared meanings or ideas reflecting their perceptions (Braun and Clarke, 2022). When applying reflexive TA by Braun and Clarke (2022), the researcher can choose whether they want to use qualitative research analysis software or not since both options are valid (Ahmed et al., 2025). In this research the analysis was conducted manually to ensure researcher’s full engagement and familiarisation with the data (Ahmed et al., 2025; Braun and Clarke, 2022).

The approach to the data and analysis perspectives in this study can be described through the following: orientation towards the data, focus of meaning, qualitative framework and theoretical framework (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Firstly, the orientation towards the data can be defined as deductive, since already-existing theoretical constructs and concepts guided the analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022; Naeem et al., 2023; Pan et al., 2019). Secondly, the focus of meaning can be described as latent, due to the analysis focusing on implicit meanings and meaning structures from the data instead of on the semantic, explicit level (Braun and Clarke, 2022; Byrne, 2022). Thirdly, the qualitative framework of the analysis was experimental, as the focus of the analysis was to capture and describe participants’ subjective experiences and perceptions (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Finally, the theoretical framework was relativistic and constructionist (Riger and Sigurvinsdottir, 2016) to capture the realities and perceptions expressed in the data (Braun and Clarke, 2022).

The analysis progressed through the phases of:

• familiarisation;

• coding;

• generating initial themes;

• developing and reviewing themes; and

• refining, defining and naming themes (Braun and Clarke, 2022).

The data sets from three separate years were first analysed differently, directly after the data collection. The first data set was analysed in 2023 and the last in 2025. In the familiarisation phase, the data were listened to and read through multiple times to gain analytic sensibility of the implicit meanings in the data. After the first step, the coding process progressed from very specific, narrow concepts such as avoiding the task, challenging task, trying to “get off easy” towards more substantial themes such as negotiating demand for learning or rejecting learning demand, combining the narrow ones together. Parts of the data as well as the whole data set were coded multiple times to ensure the functionality of the codes. Next, generating initial themes to combine codes to form themes such as learning demand was conducted using visual mapping. This was followed by developing and reviewing themes with the supervisor to ensure inter-coder reliability (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Finally, after all three years of data collection and analysis, the themes were refined, defined and named to present the findings clearly and accurately. Finally, the data sets from different years were compared to each other and combined into one data set to ensure code and theme function after the data collection ended in March 2025 (Braun and Clarke, 2022). The long analysis process gave the researcher a chance to deeply understand and reflect the data multiple times during the years 2023–2025 to gain deep insights on the phenomenon.

The result of the analysis is comparable to the model of Pan et al. (2019). After an extensive analysis, the following categorisation is proposed in Figure 2 to describe the LT process primary school student teachers experienced and expressed when learning sustainability competency with PjBL.

The first stage of the LT process depicted by Lewin (1951) and Pan et al. (2019) is unfreezing beliefs. This stage is defined by creating a motivation to change students’ previous beliefs. The PjBL began with lectures familiarising students with sustainability themes as well as giving instructions for the project. Shortly after, all nine groups discussed the assignment. Interestingly, all groups expressed confusion about the assignment, clearly in relation to the target group being peers:

Interestingly, all nine groups understood the assignment incorrectly and started preparing the teaching module with special reference to the children:

Two groups also tried to base their projects on the national core curriculum for children:

These quotations indicate confusion created by the assignment representing Step 1 at the “Unfreezing Beliefs” stage. Even though the instructor guided students clearly to teach peers instead of pupils, all nine groups expressed enormous confusion regarding the assignment. The students seemed to be reluctant to abandon the idea of primary school student teachers teaching pupils and refused to see any other options.

This disconfirmation of expectations with regard to the target group may be explained by discussing previous research. Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the teaching profession have been studied frequently throughout the world (Balyer, 2017; Çakmak and Bulut, 2005; Fajet et al., 2005; Khalid et al., 2017; Lim and Chan, 2007; Minor et al., 2010; Richardson, 2002; Wall, 2016; Wan et al., 2011; Witcher et al., 2001). It is noteworthy that while previous research has examined the preconceptions of pre-service teachers, not all studies have explicitly clarified whether the term refers exclusively to primary school student teachers or includes pre-service teachers from other educational levels. Unfortunately, there are no established practices on how to unambiguously define the concept of pre-service teachers between various countries and the concept can include all student teachers at varying school levels in international literature. Therefore, comparisons of the results with previous literature about pre-service teachers’ beliefs should be made with caution.

Still, studies have revealed that students’ own school experiences, referred to as “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975), significantly affect the beliefs and practices pre-service teachers construct during their education (Fajet et al., 2005; Lim and Chan, 2007; Richardson, 2002; Wall, 2016). This apprenticeship leaves students with persistent beliefs about what it is to be a teacher (Fajet et al., 2005). Also, it is highly probable that these experiences are not in line with modern pedagogies and schools’ practices, even though they are accepted as “school and teacher prototypes” (Fajet et al., 2005). According to Pajares (1992), teacher candidates’ own school experiences significantly influence their knowledge acquisition in training in addition to how they understand and interpret assignments. In conclusion, students may not have witnessed anything but teachers teaching pupils in previous life experiences, which gave no room to alternative ideas.

After the initial disconfirmation of expectations, all nine groups expressed and negotiated the evoked learning demand:

As a result, the statements revealed the existence of conflicting forces: rejecting or accepting the learning demand and represented Step 2: processing learning demand. The groups had two kinds of reactions. Two of the groups accepted the learning demand by embracing the need to develop their sustainability competency and, also, additional pedagogical knowledge to master peer teaching:

Alternatively, seven of the groups rejected the learning demand. The common theme in their learning demand rejecting-conversations was to control the workload of their studies:

Interestingly, in step 3, certain aspects in the video record data and in the group reports indicated that two groups accepted the learning demand during the project whilst, on the contrary, the lack of the same aspects were clearly associated with rejecting the learning demand by seven of the groups. These aspects are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 presents the aspects related to accepting or rejecting the learning demand. Numbers in the parentheses represent the number of groups displaying each aspect. As a result, aspects that indicated the acceptance of learning demand during the group work process were innovative conversations during groupwork; momentary resistance to the assignment that turned into accepting the learning demand; excitement and intrinsic motivation for the assignment; negotiating the practicality ethos critically; and good, supportive and humorous group dynamics. The role of the group reports will be discussed later in the Results and Discussion section.

Firstly, innovative conversations in the groupwork typically reflected good group dynamics bolstered by humour and sharing experiences, along with trust in one another:

During these conversations, groups clearly negotiated their beliefs regarding both sustainability competencies and teaching. Among the two learning demand-accepting groups, the conversations clearly made them explore options and solutions beyond previous beliefs:

Secondly, the resistance expressed regarding the learning demand was only momentary, and learning anxiety was successfully converted into motivation. Two of the groups expressed only momentary resistance:

The two groups also expressed intrinsic motivation and excitement about the project. Intrinsic motivation can be defined as one’s motivation to fulfil their psychological needs without the presence of an external reward (Ryan and Deci, 2002):

Interestingly, intrinsic motivation and enthusiasm in PjBL have been studied previously. In these studies, PjBL projects tended to make students fascinated and excited about learning (see Parwata et al., 2023; Sulong et al., 2023).

A practicality ethos was identified and brought into the negotiation in only one of the learning demand-accepting groups. Based on this study, a practicality ethos is defined as a socially shared scheme or manner primary school student teachers use to speak about pupils or teaching. It consists of an emphasis on child-centredness (Wilson and Cameron, 1996) and on practical, child-level thinking. This finding resonates with former research about the importance of child-centredness in pre-service teachers’ perceptions (Witcher et al., 2001). The data were showing that eight groups constantly reminded themselves and others that the projects should stay at a child’s level and be as practical, relatable and everyday life-related as possible, regardless of the target group. Only one learning demand-accepting group recognised this manner and actively started changing it:

In addition, good group dynamics and humour were observed in total five groups. Fascinatingly, the good group dynamics in two groups encouraged students to continue their learning process and accept the learning demand while also evoking motivation and excitement:

Nevertheless, humour and good group dynamics were unable to encourage three learning demand-rejecting groups to accept the learning demand based on other criteria used. Interestingly, this research suggested that good group dynamics alone are insufficient to promote acceptance of the learning demand if other aspects are lacking.

On the other hand, the rejected learning demand was expressed in seven groups through schematic groupwork with no innovative conversation, frustration with the assignment and prevalent resistance to changing beliefs, no excitement for the assignment and expressed extrinsic motivation, not negotiating the practicality ethos and challenging group dynamics. The schematic conversation flow held by seven groups was revealed through conversations such as:

Through these conversations, students aimed at completing the project as quickly and easily as possible, which can be seen as a sign of an extrinsic motivation driven by completing the course (Ryan and Deci, 2002). Also, resistance to the assignment and rejecting the learning demand were clearly expressed by these seven groups:

Extrinsic motivation by the seven groups was displayed in conversations that did not include any reflections about challenging or negotiating previous beliefs. Students even tended to reject any attempts other group members made regarding innovative conversation, just to complete the project:

The seven learning demand–rejecting groups and also, one of the learning demand-accepting groups had conversations that were declarative in nature, including socially accepted and shared beliefs about what good teaching is (Çakmak and Bulut, 2005; Fajet et al., 2005; Minor et al., 2010; Wan et al., 2011; Witcher et al., 2001) and what it is not. These eight groups engaged in discussion marked by the importance of practicality, time management and the practical structure of the presentation. The practicality ethos was revealed especially through statements highlighting child-centredness during the projects:

In particular, the seven learning demand–rejecting groups engaged in a child-level practicality ethos. It was evident that the practicality ethos hindered the learning of sustainability competency by challenging the acceptance of the learning demand. As a result, it seemed that teaching sustainability competency to peers did not fit well in prevalent beliefs of what it is to be and act as a teacher. Still, one of the learning demand accepting groups also engaged in the prevalent practicality ethos. Interestingly, their project as a whole displayed learning demand acceptance. Possibly, other aspects in their PjBL process supported the acceptance of the learning demand enough to reach the goal of PjBL. This suggests that engaging in the practicality ethos alone does not totally prevent accepting the learning demand.

Finally, four of the groups experienced groupwork challenges during the project. Three of these groups ended up rejecting the learning demand, whereas one group managed to accept the learning demand, regardless of the challenging group dynamics. With respect to the rejection of the learning demand, bad group dynamics or the lack of resources were evident in the recordings and manifested through the lack of humour, tiredness (e.g. yawning) and a mechanical and linear style to progress with the groupwork without negotiating beliefs:

Notably, it has been reported that group dynamics can be a central challenge in PjBL. For example, Aldabbus (2018) stated that if some students “take over” the project without letting others participate, it weakens the willingness of “outsiders” to work in the project. Also, the uncertainty with the project assignment challenges collaboration during PjBL (Hussein, 2021). It is necessary to consider whether students’ abilities to tolerate uncertainty affected acceptance of the learning demand.

The second stage of the LT model is “Changing Beliefs”. This includes Step 1: seeking affirmation from the instructor, which can be seen as a form of identifying with a role model (Pan et al., 2019), and Step 2: producing relevant information by exploring beyond previous “borders of beliefs” through conversation. The two learning demand-accepting groups went through these steps successfully. Conversely, the seven learning demand rejecting groups did not fully engage in seeking affirmation or having explorative conversations.

The two learning demand-accepting groups displayed their affirmation seeking through statements such as:

Previous research has shown that the intrinsic motivation of the instructor in the project theme predicts students’ intrinsic motivation in it (Lam et al., 2009), so the role of the instructor is essential in awakening student motivation. The difference between the learning demand-accepting and rejecting groups was that rejecting groups did not ask for guidance at all or did not appreciate the feedback given, whereas accepting groups actively sought guidance and affirmation.

Scanning the environment for information was displayed as negotiating with other groups and searching for sources, such as books or articles, to learn more about the subject and produce relevant information. The learning demand rejection delimited the information scanning in seven groups:

Instead, the two learning demand-accepting groups started seeking relevant information:

The rejected learning demand clearly hindered students’ PjBL progress and prevented them from exploring beyond the borders of their beliefs. The learning demand rejection may be explored and understood through pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the teacher’s profession (see, e.g. Çakmak and Bulut, 2005; Fajet et al., 2005; Minor et al., 2010; Richardson, 2002; Wall, 2016; Witcher et al., 2001). When the perceptions are combined with the nature of sustainability competency–enhancing pedagogies, such as PjBL, the combination might cause a disconfirmation of expectations (Pan et al., 2019). As Moore (2005) concluded, the traditional learning process is considered subject-oriented and related to knowledge that can be “transferred” to students through lecturing. However, teaching and learning the problem-solving skills needed for the current sustainability crisis is nothing like the previously pictured idea. Moreover, pedagogies supporting a broad range of sustainability competencies found in previous studies often lean on problem-based approaches (Lozano et al., 2019). These pedagogies are defined by student-centredness and students’ autonomy regarding their learning goals and results (Chiang and Lee, 2016; Kokotsaki et al., 2016). Also, the learning process is far from linear with controlled outcomes (Evans and Ferreira, 2019). In addition, sustainability crises are often called “wicked problems”, due to their complex, uncontrollable and systemic character (Waddock, 2013), which makes them hard to grasp and understand properly. As a result, it could be wondered if the foundation that primary school student teachers have built through their own school experiences is even relevant when considering modern teachers’ expertise.

Researchers have identified qualities that pre-service teachers often report as “effective” or “good” teacher qualities. These are having good content knowledge about the subject; having friendly and good relationships with pupils; the personal characteristics of the teacher; pedagogical skills; and classroom management skills (Witcher et al., 2001). Also, student-centredness and ethicality are often mentioned (Minor et al., 2010; Witcher et al., 2001). Related to the effectiveness of teaching, pre-service teachers also highlight a nurturing and caring attitude towards pupils instead of teachers’ own academic competence (Mahlios and Maxson, 1995). Moreover, these preconceptions are often resistant to change (Wall, 2016; Wan et al., 2011). As a result, this study suggests that sustainability competency–enhancing pedagogical methods collide with students’ previous beliefs. For example, pursuits to control and manage the classroom and learning outcomes become challenging, since the sustainability crisis is anything but familiar, pupil-centred, or easy to grasp (Waddock, 2013). In addition, when up-to-date sustainability knowledge develops constantly, it is hard to keep up with content knowledge about the wicked problems as a teacher:

In the data, four groups expressed concerns about staying up to date with sustainability information as well as their aims to stay in control during the learning experience.

During the final seminar, group projects were implemented into practice. All nine groups practiced their new or prevalent beliefs through executing the projects, as described in Stage 3, Step 1. Also, all nine groups received feedback from the instructors and other groups. They also made self-assessments to support their learning transformations. Moore (2005) stated that it is essential that teacher educators practise “ideals of sustainability” in classrooms, to give students real experience in learning sustainability. Also, as noted earlier, modern sustainability pedagogies driven by PjBL and transformative learning approaches probably shatter the teacher beliefs acquired through the “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975). It is unreasonable to believe that students would acquire pedagogical skills that they have had no chance to practise in their educational programme. Therefore, offering alternative experiences for students is essential.

Regardless of whether the learning demand was accepted or not, all nine groups finished their projects with the product of a teaching module. To protect the privacy of the participants, the discussion about project outcomes regarding ranking and contents is excluded, as it is non-essential in meeting the aims of the current research. Nevertheless, a brief description of the finished products would support the interpretations about the differences between learning demand-accepting and rejecting groups.

The final decision about whether the groups seemed to accept or reject the learning demand was based on the combined information from the video recordings and group reports. The five group work process aspects from Table 3 described earlier in Results and Discussion acted as a guiding tool to complement the data received from group reports. Ultimately, the group reports displayed the rejected or accepted learning demand based on the criteria below:

• The language used in the reports. The accepted learning demand displayed as a language that includes mentions about students, peers or adults. On the other hand, the rejected learning demand was displayed in language including mentions of pupils or children, evidently expressing misunderstanding of the assignment.

• The justification of choices (Stage 3, Step 2 in Table 2). All groups justified their choices to assess the social acceptability of their beliefs. The learning demand-accepting groups (2) assessed their changed beliefs through consistent references to the scientific, educational and pedagogical literature suitable for adult learners. They produced learning modules including pedagogically justified learning activities supporting their peers’ understanding about the chosen sustainability subject through, for example, action-based teaching. Their group reports highlighted theoretical orientation and the choice of pedagogical solutions suitable within this specific context of adult education.

On the contrary, the rejected learning demand (7) was displayed through the lack of any justification for pedagogical choices compensated as opinions or preferences. These groups could not convincingly justify the choices made during the project or profoundly base their thinking on pedagogical reasons or models on their group reports. In conclusion, these seven groups ended on repeating their prevalent beliefs.

When the social acceptability of beliefs was discussed in all nine group reports, it was mostly related to feelings of success, identified learning demands and pedagogical, future-oriented thinking:

• The project description in the report. The learning demand-accepting groups (2) clearly articulated that the purpose of their project was to educate peers about sustainability competencies with pedagogies suitable for adults. However, the learning demand-rejecting groups (7) did not express their aims clearly, or they reported a completely different purpose. For example, some groups were not actually trying to teach their peers sustainability knowledge during the learning module, at least on a deeper level. Instead, they offered peers material packages ready to use in the class with pupils. In this case, the learning module consisted mostly of educating peers in how to use their materials for children, rather than deepening the critical thinking or content knowledge of their peers.

Interestingly, there was one particular belief about teaching and learning sustainability that all of the nine groups agreed on at the end of the course: the important and various roles of conversation during the project work:

In conclusion, it is vital to research the role of conversation in refreezing newly acquired beliefs after the change process. Compellingly, the role of conversation in learning and meaning-making is studied among health care workers (Jordan et al., 2009), which suggests that learning and sense-making are enhanced through conversation. In addition, research about academics developing as teachers through conversation (Thomson and Trigwell, 2016) has found that conversations with colleagues support academics developing as teachers in multiple ways (Thomson and Trigwell, 2016). Both informal and formal conversations with peers are important in learning how to teach (Thomson and Trigwell, 2016).

In this study, primary school student teachers expressed their learning experiences during PjBL in a manner compatible with the LT model. The study revealed aspects about the PjBL process that affect both the learning experience of the students and the resulting product. It would be interesting to apply the LT model in pre-service teacher education generally and research its applicability in transdisciplinary fields. Moreover, this research has explored the social nature of LT bringing a new, important understanding of students’ socially shared learning transformation processes to complete the individual, transformative learning emphasis (Mezirow, 1978, 2009). This information is crucial in supporting the sustainability reform in education by understanding the role of the social norms students share. Even so, the possibility of considering revision of these norms requires further discussion. Fascinatingly, the practicality ethos of primary school student teachers appeared to hinder the learning of sustainability. The ethos links reasoning to a practical level, leaving no room for collective growth beyond the borders of vocational competency. Higher education aims to promote primary school student teachers’ sustainability competency. As a result, it should be considered whether primary school student teachers’ initial beliefs about teaching should be challenged during their educational programme.

Also, the role of the instructor cannot be highlighted enough to encourage students to challenge their beliefs by creating psychological safety through structure and interaction. In brief, the instructor has a crucial role in motivating and exciting students in PjBL (Aldabbus, 2018). Therefore, if the aim is to change primary school student teachers’ beliefs about the teaching profession, the instructor should encourage students to embrace the learning demand rather than reject it. Also, teacher educators need to be informed on how to instruct during projects. Finally, the role of conversation in transforming beliefs should be noted. In conclusion, this research encourages universities to offer instructed discussion arenas for primary school student teachers, since challenging their old beliefs and refreezing new ones through dialogue are required.

The assessment of the PjBL process is challenging, and shared instructions are lacking (Chen et al., 2021). The findings of this research provide some suggestions on how to assess the sustainability competency learning process during PjBL. Interestingly, the acceptance or rejection of the learning demand affects the PjBL process and the final products of the project. Therefore, it can be suggested that Table 1 could be applied as an assessing tool for LT during PjBL because the aspects of Table 1 indicate if beliefs are challenged or remain preserved. As a result, the following conceptualisation is proposed as an assessment protocol for PjBL in pre-service teacher education:

• What kind of conversations do groups have during the project? Are they innovative or schematic in nature?

• How is resistance tolerated and processed? Can it be turned into an accepted learning demand?

• What type of motivation do groups display?

• Can groups discuss and overcome the practicality ethos?

• What is the quality of group dynamics?

• Does the group report display learning demand acceptance or rejection?

The proposed assessment tool could offer higher education teachers the much-needed support and instructions asked for (Watz, 2020). Still, it is important to remember why assessment tools and instructions for PjBL are lacking. From the viewpoint of an instructor, PjBL includes the challenge of assessing students’ individual learning outcomes after the projects (Hellström et al., 2009). Since the PjBL is based on the self-determined learning objectives (Von Kotze and Cooper, 2000), it is challenging to ensure student learning. It also needs to be ensured that students’ efforts can be compared and evaluated. Therefore, it should be considered if it is at all reasonable to assess students’ individual learning outcomes over PjBL or whether the assessment should be drastically modified. Even so, letting go of the individual student assessment would require a huge reform in higher education structures. Moreover, if the assessment reform was to take place, it would be required to inform the students about the change.

While being a justified sampling choice, a convenience sample is also prone to errors such as sample biases and, can limit the generalisability of the results (see e.g. Golzar et al., 2022). The fact that participants were taking part in the SOE programme was likely affecting the results of this study. It may be assumed that participants were already fascinated by sustainability themes. Still, the course was an initial introduction to further studies in the SOE programme, suggesting that the students had a knowledge base comparable to peers outside the programme. In addition, it is important to note that the prototypical PjBL progression presented in the results is a theoretical simplification of the LT process interpreted by the researcher based on the data analysis. The simplification highlights some aspects that affected the students’ learning experience without being absolutely conclusive. Also, the division between learning demand-accepting and rejecting groups is based only on researcher’s observations and the data analysis.

This research includes various forms of data and, video recordings combined with the group reports written by the participants provide a robust outlook to answer the research questions. Still, in the future studies, it would be important to give participants a chance to explain their own experiences using their own words. Therefore, to ensure the communicative validity (see e.g. Onwuegbuzie and Burke Johnson, 2006) of the results with studies to come, additional data should be collected from the participants with, for example, structured interviews. Also, it is essential to research whether primary school student teachers’ beliefs differ significantly from those of other pre-service teachers to scale the results in the fields of teacher education.

Interestingly, it is possible that in this study, a different study design might have provided different results. For example, if applying participant interviews instead of the video recordings, the concept of “practicality ethos” might have left undiscovered since constructing the concept was a result of years-long researcher’s observations and reflections. As a result, introducing this new concept can enable researchers and students to describe their experiences in the future studies in a way that has not been possible before due to the lack of concept.

The author would like to extend their gratitude to Ilkka Ratinen and Ulla Kemi for their excellent feedback and advice.