Place-Based Education and Heritage Education in in-service teacher training: research on teaching practices in secondary schools in Galicia (NW Spain)

The study examines the rollout of the optional secondary school subject Landscape and Sustainability (L&S) in Galicia (Spain), introduced in 2015–2016 for students aged 12–14 with one hour per week. Because the subject has flexible curriculum guidelines, lacks textbooks, and emphasizes environmental, social, and critical approaches to landscape, it offers a unique opportunity to observe teaching from its inception and to innovate beyond traditional, decontextualized treatments of physical geography. The research question centers on what happens in classrooms when teachers confront this new, weakly regulated subject and whether gaps in training beyond disciplinary knowledge hinder teaching performance and pupil learning. The study aims to provide a critical reference point to discuss or redirect approaches, hypothesizing that teachers may show deficiencies related to the subject’s interdisciplinary, socio-critical nature that impede optimal learning outcomes.

The paper proposes a methodological model for L&S rooted in Place-Based Education (PBE) and Heritage Education (HE). It conceptualizes landscape as a place-based, evolving entity tied to local identities and social meanings, integrating rights of residents and empathetic engagement as a basis for sustainability. The model emphasizes: working with nearby places and landscapes; a local approach; pupil-centered, active, and participatory methodologies; integrating history, culture, and local heritage; interdisciplinary inquiry; fostering emotional connection; appropriation of local places; acquisition of social, civic, and academic skills; and impact on the local community. It foregrounds a socio-critical approach that brings to light both publicly recognized and hidden or conflict-laden places, engaging students in debates and reflections. Local history and social memory are key entry points, connecting documents and lived memories to landscape, identity, and heritage. The literature supports a “new localism” that promotes ethical care for the environment, draws connections to broader socio-economic structures, and positions pupils as agents of change. Activities grounded in specific spaces enrich curricula, promote citizenship, research, value clarification, problem-solving, and decision-making. This theoretical framework informs the analysis of practices observed in the study and defines ten dimensions guiding L&S implementation.

Design: Qualitative study with quantitative elements in analysis, aiming to explain, understand, and interpret the reality of a new subject (bounded, inductive design). Quality criteria addressed: credibility, transferability, reliability, and objectivity. Participants and setting: three secondary schools in Galicia; informants include 38 teachers (across the wider context) and 70 pupils; observed initiatives spanned diverse urban/rural contexts and socio-economic profiles. Data collection occurred mainly in 2017/2018 (observation and interviews) and 2018/2019 (wider teacher survey), with pupil questionnaires in June 2018. Instruments and axes: - Axis 1 (Observation of teaching/learning in 3 schools): Participant observation covered over half of sessions per initiative. A validated field-note form captured who/what/where/when/how/why of teaching activities. Seventy-four forms were produced, computerised, and coded. Data were stored in Atlas.ti, coded into 15 code groups with 78 codes, yielding 1034 quotes. Initiatives were ranked against the proposed model using a 5-level scale (5=fully incorporated to 1=not incorporated). - Axis 2 (Teachers’ conceptions): Semi-structured interviews with the three participating teachers (E1–E3) covering background, innovation context, methods/evaluation, and competencies/transfer. Interviews were transcribed into Atlas.ti, generating 213 quotes across 9 categories and 50 codes; 14 recurrent ideas were identified through constant comparison. A follow-up online closed-ended survey (50 items; multiple-choice, dichotomous, and scaled responses) was sent to all 39 L&S teachers in Galicia; 35 responded (~90%). Data were summarized via frequencies and means. - Axis 3 (Pupils’ reflections): Seventy pupils (n=70; initiatives 1.1 n=28; 1.2 n=22; 1.3 n=20) completed a 10-question, five-block questionnaire using images of socio-environmentally unsustainable landscapes to elicit formal vs. critical/emotional responses. Questionnaires were imported into Atlas.ti; 94 codes were developed, and co-occurrence tables created, with illustrative quotes. Context of initiatives: - Initiative 1: City, run-down seafaring neighborhood, high-medium SES, 2nd year secondary. - Initiative 2: Town, well-kept center near semi-abandoned rural traditional buildings, high-medium SES, 1st year secondary. - Initiative 3: Dormitory suburb, very run-down peri-urban area with few traditional/community spaces, medium-low SES, 1st year secondary. Measures and ranking: A 5-point ranking assessed incorporation of each dimension: 5 fully incorporated; 4 generically incorporated; 3 superficial; 2 hardly incorporated; 1 not incorporated.

Overall synthesis: Teachers generally align their designs with Place-Based Education and Heritage Education, but insufficient specific training blurs holistic, local place-focused approaches, particularly in run-down contexts. Teachers share similar conceptions; most students value the methodology and show emergent socio-critical awareness. Quantitative highlights: - Observation corpus: 74 observation forms; 15 code groups/78 codes; 1034 quotes. - Interviews: 213 quotes; 9 categories; 50 codes; 14 recurrent ideas. - Teachers’ survey (n=35): Means (1–5): prior research on environment yields new disciplinary knowledge mean 4.23; professional well-being 3.94; active/participatory approaches linked to pupil involvement 4.40 and critical learning 4.06; study of landscape associated with heritage 4.60; heritage strengthens link with everyday places 4.69; awareness/protection of landscape 4.31; importance of social sustainability lower 3.46 vs environmental sustainability 4.20; usefulness in signifying absent/forgotten groups 3.54; transfer to community 4.14. - Pupils (n=70): Overall positive view of L&S (59 positive, 8 negative). Collaborative work viewed positively by 48/70 (11 could be improved, 11 negative). Importance: 48 rated the subject important; 50 would recommend it. Emotional connection: only 6/70 explicitly linked landscape with emotions. Concept of landscape: idealized nature 29, geographical categorization 27, humanized/emotional 15. Sustainability definitions: environmental 55, social 3, no answer 12. Landscape-heritage association: 58 yes, 12 no. Values attributed to landscape (total mentions): emotional 26, natural 12, identity 9, aesthetic 6, historical 4. Civic commitment scenario (ruined factory): 40 would renovate (public/social reasons 24/40), 18 would demolish. Thematic blocks and rankings across initiatives: - TB.1 Nearby places/local approach: strong in 1.1 and 1.2 (rank 5), weak/local detail limited in 1.3 (rank 2). - TB.2 Pupil-based active methodologies: 1.2 and 1.3 rank 5; 1.1 rank 4; pupils generally positive about collaboration (48/70), though 1.3 shows more non-positive responses. - TB.3 History/culture/heritage and interdisciplinarity: 1.1 and 1.2 integrate heritage strongly (rank 5); 1.3 weak (rank 2). Interdisciplinarity strongest in 1.2 (rank 5), moderate in 1.1 (4), limited in 1.3 (3). - TB.4 Emotional connection and appropriation: emotional connection modest (1.1=3; 1.2=4; 1.3=2). Appropriation varied (1.1=3; 1.2=2; 1.3=4), with 1.3 showing appropriation without broader environmental awareness. - TB.5 Social, civic, academic skills: 1.1=4; 1.2=4; 1.3=3; civic awareness broadened, especially environmental; social inequalities addressed more clearly in 1.1 and 1.2. - TB.6 Community impact/transfer: tangible transfer limited; only 1.2 demonstrated clearer community-facing activities; rankings: 1.1=2; 1.2=2; 1.3=4. Illustrative qualitative findings: - Teachers report learning new local history and increased professional satisfaction through L&S. - Pupils appreciate learning about familiar places, group work skills, and propose socially oriented uses for derelict spaces. - Pupils’ sustainability understanding skews environmental; social sustainability is seldom articulated. - Pupils often hold stereotypical, idealized notions of landscape; fewer adopt integrated, socio-environmental perspectives.

The findings indicate that while teachers intuitively structure L&S around PBE and HE—using local environments, active inquiry, and heritage lenses—they lack specific theoretical training to consistently enact a holistic, socio-critical, place-based model. This partially confirms the hypothesis: deficits beyond disciplinary knowledge constrain practice and student learning, especially in run-down or less recognized local contexts. Where teachers developed interdisciplinary collaborations and integrated tangible/intangible heritage (notably initiative 1.2), pupils’ engagement, critical discussions (including conflictive pasts), and community-oriented outputs were stronger. However, emotional connection to place was weakly evidenced in student responses, and understandings of sustainability were predominantly environmental, with limited attention to social dimensions—mirroring teachers’ own lower confidence in social sustainability. Despite these constraints, pupils reported positive experiences, increased awareness of local heritage and environmental issues, and emergent civic dispositions (e.g., favoring renovation for public/social good). The work suggests that L&S can foster critical citizenship and contextualized learning when supported by coherent, theoretically informed design, interdisciplinary collaboration, and opportunities for community transfer.

This study contributes a theoretically grounded model for implementing Landscape and Sustainability through Place-Based and Heritage Education and provides an empirically based assessment of how in-service teachers and pupils engage with the subject in its early stages in Galicia. It documents common strengths (active, pupil-centered methods; integration of local history/heritage; emergent civic awareness) and key gaps (limited theoretical grounding in PBE/HE; uneven interdisciplinarity; weak emotional-place connections; underdeveloped social sustainability). Future directions include: - Targeted teacher professional development in PBE/HE and socio-critical pedagogy, with exemplars in run-down and low-recognition contexts. - Structural support for interdisciplinary planning and co-teaching across social and natural sciences. - Purposeful design to cultivate emotional-place connections via memory work and inclusive heritage, including controversial and hidden histories. - Stronger emphasis on social sustainability (equity, justice, wellbeing) integrated with environmental concerns. - Mechanisms and partnerships to enhance authentic transfer to local communities and to evaluate longer-term impacts on community practices and student civic action.

The study is bounded to three observed initiatives in Galicia and, while survey data broaden teacher perspectives (n=35/39), transferability relies on resemblance to practices in most L&S schools. Community impact was difficult to measure directly from pupil responses, and many survey and pupil items rely on self-report. Emotional connection and social sustainability were inferred from coded textual responses, which may undercapture nuanced understandings. The absence of longitudinal follow-up limits assessment of sustained community impact and lasting changes in pupil conceptions.