Preparing Teachers as Environmental Change Agents: A Longitudinal Study of Experiential Learning in a Master’s Program

Abstract

This study examines how graduates of a Master’s degree program in Environmental Education describe the long-term impact of experiential learning on their professional development, educational identity formation, and willingness to act as social–environmental change agents. A qualitative phenomenological design was employed, involving in-depth interviews with 24 alumni (17 women and 7 men), conducted on average 8 years after graduation. Data were analyzed using a two-stage coding process to identify emergent themes. Findings indicate five central themes: personal growth and professional self-efficacy, practical environmental engagement and connection to nature, integration of environmental values into educational practice, emotional bonding and collective belonging, and systemic challenges tempered by enduring optimism. The study is distinctive in tracing the impact of a longitudinal, 2-year program through retrospective accounts gathered years after graduation, focusing on professional identity and change agency, dimensions still underexplored in environmental education research.

Keywords

environmental education experiential learning higher education knowledge–action gap professional identity

Introduction

Problem-solving, action-based, and interdisciplinary learning are not yet standard practice in higher education (Idoiaga Mondragon et al., 2023). Universities tend to remain within their comfort zones, offering primarily scientific knowledge to students who attend lecture halls (Novaes, 2025). In other words, while knowledge is transmitted, the competencies required for action do not develop on their own; thus, a different mode of instruction is needed in higher education (Idoiaga Mondragon et al., 2023).

Moreover, although universities frequently declare a commitment to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and the Sustainable Development Goals, in practice, the prevailing pedagogical model remains focused on disciplinary knowledge transfer. The persistent challenge lies in integrating the values and practices of sustainability into curricula in a meaningful way (Abo-Khalil, 2024). Students often study from textbooks without opportunities to connect their learning to real-life contexts, creating a misalignment between academic content and the needs of the labor market and society (Serafini et al., 2022; Yu, 2024; Cornet et al., 2023). Evidence of this gap can be found in the abundance of declarative and theoretical publications compared to the scarcity of applied research and skills development initiatives in higher education institutions (Alcántara-Rubio et al., 2022).

At Israel’s largest college for educator training, a deliberate effort was made to bridge the gap between academia and the field. To accomplish this, a Master’s degree program (M.Ed.) in Environmental Education was established. The program’s chief aim is to equip its students with educational tools and practical strategies for fostering sustainable living environments, facing the climate crisis, and developing a broad, interdisciplinary approach to education that confronts fundamental challenges in environmental and social issues. The program adopts Kolb’s experiential learning model (Kolb, 1984), which emphasizes sustained and cumulative learning processes. This approach, as demonstrated throughout the findings, underpins the development of professional and emotional competencies in a longitudinal framework (Cornet et al., 2023; Egan et al., 2023).

Accordingly, the guiding research question of the present study is: How do graduates of the Master’s in Environmental Education describe the ways in which their long-term experiential learning within the program has contributed to their professional development, the shaping of their educational identity, and their willingness to act as social–environmental change agents, several years after completing their studies?

Existing literature on experiential learning in higher education reveals three critical gaps: first, most studies examine short-term or episodic interventions rather than sustained, longitudinal programs (Egan et al., 2023; Blankesteijn et al., 2024); second, retrospective long-term impact assessments remain scarce (Novaes, 2025); third, empirical exploration of how experiential learning specifically cultivates change agency and professional identity in environmental education is limited (Yu, 2024; Cornet et al., 2023). This study addresses these gaps by examining a 2-year Master’s program through alumni reflections 8 years postgraduation, focusing on identity transformation and systemic engagement. Collectively, these gaps point to the need for longitudinal, phenomenological studies that center participants’ lived experiences and explore the interplay between individual transformation and community-based support structures, precisely the focus of this research.

This study extends existing research in four important ways. First, building on prior experiential learning research that has predominantly focused on short-term interventions (Cano-Ortiz et al., 2025; Motta and Galina, 2023), this study examines a longitudinal, 2-year program and traces its influence 8 years after graduation (Novaes, 2025). Second, the study contributes to ongoing scholarship on professional identity formation in environmental education by examining how such identities persist and evolve several years after graduation. Third, it contributes empirical insight from the Israeli higher education context, adding a culturally situated perspective to the growing international literature. Last, the findings deepen current understandings of experiential learning by foregrounding the learning community as a mediating structure between individual transformation and institutional engagement.

Theoretical Framework

Although the benefits of experiential learning are well documented, three conceptual debates remain unresolved in the literature. First, the distinction between short-term versus longitudinal impact: most studies examine isolated interventions (Blankesteijn et al., 2024; Motta and Galina, 2023), yet scholars increasingly recognize that sustained programs yield qualitatively different outcomes (Novaes, 2025). Second, the role of community in sustaining individual transformation: experiential learning theory traditionally emphasizes individual development (Kolb, 1984), yet emerging research highlights collective belonging as a critical mediator of long-term behavioral change (Cornet et al., 2023). Third, the mechanisms through which experiential learning translates into civic agency: although competency development is widely studied (Abo-Khalil, 2024), the pathways from experience to systemic engagement remain undertheorized (Yu, 2024; Corscadden and Kevany, 2017). This study contributes to these debates by examining a longitudinal, community-based program and positioning the learning community as a critical mediator between individual experience and systemic change.

Experiential learning is an educational approach that emphasizes growth through direct experience, reflection, and the integration of theoretical knowledge with practical application (Novaes, 2025). It is not merely a pedagogical method for teaching, but rather an operational framework and a driver for transformative change in identity, society, and behavior (Novaes, 2025; Egan et al., 2023; Blankesteijn et al., 2024; Issa et al., 2025). Numerous sources indicate that these principles are not exclusive to a single discipline, but rather represent a cross-disciplinary approach—in fields such as medicine, entrepreneurship, management, formal and informal education, and the environment (Cornet et al., 2023; Montalvan Castilla et al., 2025).

Kolb’s experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) provides a foundational framework, conceptualizing learning as a four-stage cycle: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Engaging with all stages deepens learning, fosters identity development, and supports lasting behavioral change (Cornet et al., 2023; Cano-Ortiz et al., 2025; Issa et al., 2025).

Research demonstrates that experiential learning cultivates not only cognitive competencies (knowledge acquisition and higher-order thinking) but also affective and relational dimensions: professional identity formation, values transformation, and sustained community engagement (Abo-Khalil, 2024; Cano-Ortiz et al., 2025; Grund et al., 2024). At the same time, the implementation of experiential learning is not without its challenges. Reports highlight difficulties at the individual level (motivation, anxiety, and challenges in navigating Kolb’s learning stages), the group level (team management, unequal role distribution, and interpersonal dynamics), and the institutional level (limited resources, time constraints, infrastructural barriers, and cultural or organizational resistance). Another critical challenge lies in transforming opportunistic or short-term experiences into sustained learning processes that shape identity, as well as in assessing value-based and emotional outcomes that are not easily measurable. Nevertheless, the literature recommends approaches such as longitudinal research, the structured inclusion of reflection, diversified assessment metrics, and interdisciplinary collaborations to address these challenges effectively (Cornet et al., 2023; Egan et al., 2023; Cano-Ortiz et al., 2025; Motta and Galina, 2023; Tran and Herzig, 2026).

Given these challenges and debates, this study asks: How do graduates of a longitudinal, community-based experiential learning program in environmental education describe its long-term impact on their professional identity, values integration, and change agency? By centering alumni voices and examining retrospective accounts, the research positions experiential learning not merely as a pedagogical technique but as a transformative process that shapes enduring professional commitment and civic engagement.

Methodology

Research approach

The present study adopts a qualitative approach with a phenomenological perspective. In line with phenomenological methodology, the researchers engaged in a process of reflexive bracketing (epoché) prior to and throughout data collection and analysis. Given that the first author is affiliated with the hosting institution, reflexive memos were maintained to identify and suspend preconceptions regarding the program’s impact. Regular analytic discussions were conducted to interrogate assumptions and ensure that interpretations remained grounded in participants’ lived descriptions rather than researcher expectations.

According to phenomenology, individuals exercise agency over their lives and are not solely determined by external forces. They possess the freedom to make decisions and set personal goals, which makes them responsible for their choices. Their responses to experiences are shaped by a holistic viewpoint, taking into account their subjective interpretations and the overall complexity of their lived experiences (Larsson and Holmström, 2007; Strandmark and Hedelin, 2002). The phenomenological approach is widely recognized across diverse research domains, including education (Selvi, 2008) and environmental studies (Nazir, 2016). To ensure a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under investigation, this research utilizes in-depth interviews with graduates of the Environmental Education Master’s program. Phenomenology emphasizes the subjective lived experience of individuals, making it particularly suitable for exploring how graduates perceive and make meaning of experiential learning processes. In this study, phenomenology was operationalized through a focus on lived experience (Erlebnis), privileging participants’ first-person descriptions and seeking to identify the essence of how experiential learning shaped identity and agency over time. The analytic aim was not frequency or categorization alone, but the interpretive reconstruction of shared meaning structures.

Researcher positionality

The first author serves as a faculty member within the broader institutional context in which the program operates, although he was not directly responsible for the graduates’ assessment at the time of the study. This dual positioning required ongoing reflexive awareness. The research team explicitly discussed power dynamics, potential desirability bias, and institutional loyalty throughout the analytic process. Participants were informed that the research was independent of academic evaluation and that critical reflections were welcome.

Research context

The need to train educators with vision, courage, and a strong sense of responsibility to act as leaders of socio-environmental change has never been more evident or relevant than today (Massiah et al., 2025; Heggestad et al., 2022; Worline and Dutton, 2022; Jamil et al., 2024). Global trends in both academia and education reveal the significant difficulties higher education institutions face in embedding sustainability principles pedagogically, preparing faculty, and engaging students in initiating and advancing meaningful changes within communities and educational systems (Ülker, 2025; Thomas et al., 2025; Shih et al., 2015). In response to the magnitude of this challenge, the M.Ed. program in Environmental Education emphasizes an interdisciplinary approach, integrating scientific, social, and ethical dimensions under one framework and placing at its core three foundational pillars.

Contemporary Pedagogy and the Empowerment of Systems Thinking

The program fosters the development of systems thinking, integrating environmental issues with societal dynamics and cultivating essential skills such as inquiry, problem-solving, and reflection, key tools for addressing complex challenges like the climate crisis. Graduates are expected not only to acquire in-depth theoretical knowledge but also to demonstrate civic responsibility and to lead interdisciplinary dialogues grounded in a critical perspective and a socio-ecological vision.

Academic Quality and Research Excellence

Instruction in the program is anchored in rigorous academic standards, combining courses in the natural sciences, social sciences, and education. Students are consistently encouraged to engage with current literature, participate in applied and research-based projects, and undertake continual reflective assessment and evaluation of educational initiatives. Special emphasis is placed on transforming academic knowledge into an instrument for active engagement, bridging research and practice, and moving fluidly from theory to application.

Cultivating Active Citizenship and Educational Leadership

A distinctive feature of the program is the empowerment of students as citizens and leading educators, public opinion leaders, drivers of environmental projects, and agents of change within schools and the broader community. This learning community nurtures a moral-educational identity, facilitates values-based discussions, equips participants with practical tools, and inspires an enduring sense of mission in promoting responsibility and environmental action.

Moreover, the program adheres to the principle of experiential learning as a lever for greater engagement, continuity, and transformative professional identity, through ongoing dialogue between field experiences, reflective processing, and conceptual renewal. In this way, the program responds not only to theoretical and scholarly requirements but also to the practical challenges of preparing educators capable of cultivating in their students an ecological consciousness, research skills, solidarity, civic responsibility, and relevance to the ethos of education for sustainability. Accordingly, the study of the program’s graduates provides a unique contribution to understanding longitudinal models of action-oriented environmental education and their long-term impact, in bridging academia and the field, and in shaping behaviors, attitudes, and pedagogical as well as communal identities.

Participants

Twenty-four graduates of the Master’s degree program in Environmental Education participated in this study, on average, approximately 8 years after completing their studies in the program. Graduates who had completed the program more than 5 years prior were contacted via the institutional alumni mailing list and follow-up personal e-mail invitations. The invitation explained the study’s purpose, voluntary nature, and confidentiality procedures. Interested alumni responded directly to the research team to schedule interviews. In total, 17 women and 7 men agreed to take part. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all participants, lasting between 60 and 90 min (average duration: 74 min). Interviews were conducted either face to face or via secure videoconferencing, depending on participant availability. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The sample size was guided by the principle of data saturation, ensuring sufficient depth and richness of qualitative insights. Moreover, regarding sample size, qualitative studies using thematic analysis commonly rely on approximately 12–20 interviews when the research objective is in-depth exploration rather than generalization (Guest et al., 2006; Malterud et al., 2016). In this context, 24 interviews were deemed sufficient to reach thematic saturation and to ensure variation across institutional backgrounds and gender. As this is a qualitative study, no statistical tools were employed. Instead, we conducted an in-depth thematic coding analysis as outlined below.

Research tools

The sole research instrument employed in this study was the semi-structured interview, selected as the most appropriate tool for exploring the complex, nuanced experiences of Environmental Education Master’s program graduates and their long-term reflections on experiential learning processes. Semi-structured interviews represent a hybrid approach between structured and unstructured formats, combining predetermined questions with flexibility to explore emerging themes and follow unexpected directions during conversation. This methodology enables researchers to maintain focus on key research questions while allowing participants’ freedom to elaborate on topics they consider most significant to their experience. Each interview was audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and enable comprehensive analysis of participants’ authentic reflections on their educational experiences (Mashuri et al., 2022; Quintela Do Carmo et al., 2024; Kallio et al., 2016).

The following are some of the questions asked during the interviews: Tell me about yourself? Background? Occupation? Connection to environmental education? What are your most significant memories from the Master’s program in Environmental Education? Which content or activity from the program was particularly etched in your memory, and why do you think so? What was the central value you learned from the program, in your opinion? How did you experience the teaching methods in the program? How do you think the environmental education program influenced your perspective on nature and the environment? Do you currently use knowledge or skills you learned in the program? If so, how?

Data analysis

Data analysis followed an interpretative phenomenological approach, informed by Saldaña’s (2009) coding procedures as a structural guide. The analytic process involved: repeated immersion in each transcript to capture holistic meaning units (Idoiaga Mondragon et al., 2023); identification of significant statements (Novaes, 2025); clustering these into emergent experiential themes (Abo-Khalil, 2024); and iterative interpretation to construct composite descriptions of the shared phenomenon (Serafini et al., 2022). This process entailed several stages of coding to extract significant themes and patterns from the data. Initially, an open coding approach was employed, in which preliminary codes were assigned to segments of data reflecting the emotions expressed by the graduates of the Environmental Education Master’s program. These codes were then organized into broader categories based on similarities and relationships among the codes. The first-cycle analysis identified a range of emotions expressed by participants, such as excitement, curiosity, happiness, and surprise. Each instance of emotional expression was coded accordingly to enable the identification of recurrent patterns and themes. The next stage involved second-cycle analysis, focusing on interpreting the coded data and developing categories based on the identified emotions. This process required examining connections among first-cycle codes and consolidating them into higher-level categories. The development of these categories was an iterative process entailing constant comparison and refinement to ensure the coherence and comprehensiveness of the analysis. To enhance analytic rigor, a second researcher independently coded a subset (30%) of transcripts. Inter-coder agreement was discussed through analytic dialogue rather than statistical calculation, consistent with qualitative phenomenological standards. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus to ensure credibility and interpretive depth. The findings from this data analysis provided valuable insights into key aspects of the emotional responses of the Environmental Education Master’s graduates. Overall, the analysis followed a systematic approach to investigating and understanding the emotional dimensions of participants’ experiences, contributing to a deeper comprehension of their engagement and reactions.

Ethics

The study was conducted in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the hosting academic institution. This approval ensured full compliance with the principles of privacy, confidentiality, and the protection of participants’ welfare, alongside the requirement of informed consent from all participants. Participants were given the option to withdraw from the study at any stage without consequence. All data were collected and stored anonymously and securely. Adherence to the committee’s requirements contributed to ensuring integrity, transparency, and the safeguarding of participants’ rights throughout all stages of the research.

Findings

Analysis of the interviews yielded five interrelated themes that together portray a sustained process of professional and personal transformation: personal development and professional self-efficacy (Idoiaga Mondragon et al., 2023); practical environmental engagement and connection to nature (Novaes, 2025); integration of environmental values into educational practice (Abo-Khalil, 2024); emotional bonding and collective belonging (Serafini et al., 2022); and systemic challenges accompanied by sustained hope (Yu, 2024). Although presented separately for analytic clarity, participants’ narratives suggest that these dimensions were deeply intertwined.

Theme 1: Personal development and professional self-efficacy

A central theme across interviews was the development of professional confidence and self-efficacy. Many participants described entering the program with limited environmental background and experiencing initial discomfort in unfamiliar field-based contexts. Over time, these experiences were reframed as formative turning points.

Participant #15 recalled: “I was completely urban, with no environmental background… I had never slept in a tent before; at first, these trips were difficult for me… but it was a transformative experience that completely changed my perspective.”

The movement from hesitation to confidence was echoed by others. Participant #10 described a shift toward educational leadership: “I now lead environmental projects at school, things I would never have done in the past… I set up hydroponic crops, I taught about recycling bins.” Similarly, Participant #7 reflected: “I gained confidence, you know, in dealing with these things.” Several participants emphasized the academic rigor of the program as part of this growth. As Participant #5 stated: “My sense of self-efficacy really, really increased.” Across accounts, professional identity was not described as a simple accumulation of knowledge but as a restructuring of self-perception. Participants framed the program as enabling them to see themselves as capable initiators rather than passive implementers within educational systems.

Theme 2: Practical environmental engagement and connection to nature

Field-based immersion and embodied encounters with natural environments were repeatedly described as deeply influential. Participants emphasized that direct engagement with unfamiliar landscapes and communities reshaped their environmental consciousness.

Participant #6 shared: “I entered the program as a complete city person… Sleeping by a bonfire in a tent was completely foreign to me… but it opened a whole new world.”

For many, these experiences extended beyond the academic setting. Participant #17 explained: “I live in Tel Aviv, and this connection to nature is important for my mental health. Nature matters more to me than anything else.” Experiential learning translated into concrete educational initiatives. Participant #2 described: “I established hydroponic crops… teaching children that vegetables are not only bought at the supermarket.” Similarly, Participant #16 noted: “I was always a ‘green kindergarten teacher.’ Every kindergarten I joined included recycling and establishing gardens.” Participants did not describe nature as an abstract curricular topic but as an embodied and relational dimension of their professional and personal lives.

Theme 3: Integration of environmental values into educational practice

Graduates consistently described environmental education as a values-driven commitment embedded within their professional identity. Rather than viewing sustainability as a discrete subject area, they framed it as a guiding orientation shaping daily pedagogical decisions. Participant #23 articulated this perspective: “It’s a calling… everything operates according to the spirit of environmental education. It must be central.” Others described concrete classroom practices. Participant #18 stated: “I taught them about recycling bins, about different types of bins.” Participant #8 emphasized the ethical dimension: “There isn’t always a clear right or wrong… there is an overall perspective on values.” Environmental education was therefore described not only as content transmission but also as an ethical stance influencing decision-making, classroom culture, and interactions with students and colleagues.

Theme 4: Emotional bonding and collective belonging

A strong sense of community emerged as a significant and enduring element of the program experience. Participants described the cohort as a supportive social and professional network that continued to shape their trajectories years after graduation.

Participant #24 reflected: “I gained friendships for life… I was happy to talk, to share.”

Similarly, Participant #15 stated: “It was a small group and I was not just a number… I received a great deal of help and support.” Participant #9 emphasized: “The mutual support in class and the bonds among the students.” The program was described not merely as an academic framework but as a relational space in which trust, dialogue, and shared purpose were cultivated. This sense of belonging appeared to function as an emotional infrastructure sustaining professional motivation beyond the formal duration of studies.

Theme 5: Systemic challenges, critique, and sustained hope

Participants were acutely aware of institutional constraints and systemic resistance to environmental initiatives. Frustration with bureaucratic structures and policy limitations was a recurrent feature of their narratives. Participant #19 noted: “With the current government, these subjects simply don’t interest them.” Participant #3 shared: “The system stabs you in the back every time… principals just didn’t get it.” Yet, these critiques were frequently accompanied by continued commitment. Participant #14 expressed: “I would like to try to influence things at the national level.” Participant #21 described resistance to change: “Changing adults’ patterns of thought is hard… it was seen as just a ‘habit.’” Despite institutional barriers, participants conveyed an orientation toward persistence rather than withdrawal. Hope was framed not as naïveté but as a deliberate stance sustaining engagement within complex systems.

Synthesis of themes

Taken together, the five themes depict a multidimensional process through which sustained experiential learning shaped graduates’ professional identity, environmental commitment, relational belonging, and capacity to navigate systemic challenges. The narratives suggest that the program functioned not only as an academic curriculum but also as an extended formative environment influencing long-term orientations toward educational practice and civic engagement.

Discussion

This study explored how graduates retrospectively interpret the long-term influence of a longitudinal experiential learning program on their professional identity and change agency. Rather than reiterating the thematic findings, the discussion critically examines three analytical dimensions: the conditions and limits of experiential learning (Idoiaga Mondragon et al., 2023); methodological constraints inherent in retrospective accounts (Novaes, 2025); and the contextual boundaries of transferability (Abo-Khalil, 2024).

Experiential learning: Conditions and limits

The findings support the growing body of literature suggesting that experiential learning can foster professional identity formation and values integration (Novaes, 2025; Cornet et al., 2023; Algurén, 2025). However, the present data indicate that transformation was not the result of isolated experiences but of sustained, longitudinal engagement embedded within structured reflection and a cohesive learning community. This nuance aligns with critiques that warn against romanticizing experiential pedagogy as inherently transformative (Idoiaga Mondragon et al., 2023; Shih et al., 2025).

Experiential learning, in this program, functioned within a deliberate architecture: field immersion was accompanied by reflective dialogue and conceptual integration. Without such scaffolding, experiential activities risk remaining episodic rather than identity shaping (Novaes, 2025; Cornet et al., 2023). The graduates’ accounts suggest that it was the continuity of the 2-year framework, rather than any single activity, that contributed to sustained professional confidence and values-driven practice.

At the same time, the narratives reveal clear structural constraints. Participants described institutional resistance and policy indifference, echoing international findings regarding the difficulty of embedding sustainability within formal systems (Idoiaga Mondragon et al., 2023; Abo-Khalil, 2024). Thus, experiential preparation alone does not guarantee systemic change. Change agency appears to be relational and context dependent, mediated by opportunity structures and organizational climates (Arteaga et al., 2024; Bermudez, 2025). The study, therefore, complicates optimistic interpretations of experiential learning by highlighting its reliance on institutional ecology.

Retrospective interpretation and recall bias

Interviews were conducted approximately 8 years after graduation. As such, the data represent phenomenological reconstructions of meaning rather than contemporaneous behavioral documentation. Memory is selective and narrative; participants may interpret past experiences through the lens of their current professional identity. Retrospective coherence-making may amplify formative aspects while attenuating discontinuities or unsuccessful initiatives.

This limitation does not invalidate the findings but situates them epistemologically. The study captures how graduates make sense of experiential learning over time, not a causal measurement of behavioral outcomes. Future research employing prospective longitudinal tracking or mixed-method designs could strengthen empirical claims regarding sustained environmental engagement (Novaes, 2025; Cornet et al., 2023).

Survivor bias and sample dynamics

Participation in the study was voluntary. It is plausible that graduates who maintained alignment with environmental education were more likely to participate. Those who disengaged from sustainability-oriented practice may be underrepresented. This potential survivor bias suggests that the narratives analyzed here may disproportionately reflect sustained commitment rather than professional divergence. Such bias is common in retrospective alumni studies and should temper interpretive claims regarding prevalence. Future research could purposefully sample graduates with varied trajectories to explore both persistence and attrition in change agency development.

Gendered dimensions and relational identity

The predominance of women in the sample mirrors broader gender distributions in environmental and care-oriented educational professions. Feminist phenomenological scholarship highlights how relational identity formation and values-based practice often intersect with gendered socialization patterns (Hekman, 1997). At the same time, the inclusion of male graduates demonstrates that identity transformation, community bonding, and systemic critique are not exclusive to one gender group. Rather than attributing differences, the findings suggest that relational belonging functions as a cross-gender mediator of professional resilience (Corscadden and Kevany, 2017).

Transferability and contextual boundaries

Although parallels exist with international sustainability education literature (Novaes, 2025; Cornet et al., 2023; Algurén, 2025), the program operates within a specific institutional and sociopolitical context. Israeli higher education and teacher training structures shape curricular possibilities, community formation, and graduate trajectories. Therefore, the findings are analytically transferable rather than statistically generalizable. Institutions seeking to implement similar models should adapt longitudinal experiential structures to their cultural and organizational environments rather than replicate them directly (Idoiaga Mondragon et al., 2023; Abo-Khalil, 2024).

Reframing the contribution

The study does not claim an unprecedented transformation. Instead, it extends existing experiential learning scholarship longitudinally, deepens understanding of identity persistence over time, and highlights the mediating role of learning communities in sustaining change agency within resistant institutional systems. By foregrounding alumni voices 8 years postgraduation, the study contributes to an underdeveloped dimension of sustainability education research: the temporal durability of professional identity and civic orientation.

Limitations

Several limitations should be acknowledged in interpreting the findings of this study.

First, the research relies on retrospective interviews conducted approximately 8 years after graduation. Such accounts are subject to recall bias and narrative reconstruction. Participants may interpret past experiences through the lens of their current professional identity, emphasizing formative elements while downplaying discontinuities or unsuccessful initiatives. The findings therefore represent phenomenological meaning-making rather than direct behavioral verification.

Second, participation was voluntary. Graduates who remained engaged with environmental education may have been more inclined to participate, introducing potential self-selection and survivor bias. Alumni who disengaged from sustainability-oriented practice may be underrepresented, which may shape the predominance of sustained commitment narratives.

Third, the study was conducted within a single institutional context. Although parallels exist with international literature (Cornet et al., 2023; Novaes, 2025), institutional culture, national policy environment, and teacher education structures in Israel likely shape both program design and graduate trajectories. The findings should therefore be considered analytically transferable rather than statistically generalizable.

Fourth, the data are based exclusively on self-reported interview material. The study does not include observational data, classroom artifacts, employer perspectives, or institutional performance indicators. The absence of triangulation with external data sources limits the ability to corroborate reported practices or assess objective behavioral change.

Future research could strengthen the evidence base by incorporating longitudinal prospective designs, observational components, multi-institutional comparisons, and triangulation with employer- or school-level data.

Conclusions

This study offers longitudinal qualitative insight into how graduates retrospectively interpret the sustained impact of a community-based experiential learning program in environmental education. Rather than demonstrating causal behavioral change, the findings illuminate how participants construct enduring professional meaning, articulate values-based commitment, and position themselves as agents within complex institutional systems.

The study suggests that experiential learning may contribute to long-term identity persistence when embedded within longitudinal continuity, structured reflection, and cohesive learning communities. These conditions appear central in mediating the translation of academic learning into sustained professional orientation. At the same time, institutional resistance and structural constraints remain powerful moderators of change agency, underscoring that identity transformation does not automatically yield systemic transformation.

Methodologically, the research contributes to the literature by foregrounding alumni voices years after graduation, highlighting the interpretive durability of experiential programs over time. Conceptually, it reframes experiential learning not as a discrete pedagogical technique but as a relational and temporal process whose influence unfolds across professional trajectories.

Future research should incorporate prospective longitudinal designs, include graduates with divergent trajectories, and examine cross-cultural adaptations of similar models. Such inquiry would further clarify the conditions under which experiential learning can move beyond episodic engagement toward sustained professional commitment in sustainability education.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to express sincere gratitude to the graduates of the Master’s program in Environmental Education who generously shared their time, experiences, and insights, making this research possible. Their openness and willingness to reflect on their journeys greatly enriched the study. Special thanks are extended to Hagit Barsheshet, the research assistant, for her invaluable support in conducting the interviews and for her thoughtful contributions throughout the research process.

Author’s Contributions

The author conceived and designed the study, formulated the research questions, collected the data, conducted the analyses, and wrote the article in its final form.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Statements

The study received approval from the ethics committee of the institution where the study was conducted. Approval number is ET26_2025.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to ethical and privacy restrictions, as they contain information that could compromise the confidentiality of the participants. De-identified data may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and subject to approval by the relevant ethics committee.

Author Disclosure Statement

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding Information

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abo-Khalil

. (2024). Integrating sustainability into higher education challenges and opportunities for universities worldwide. Heliyon [Internet], 10(9), e29946; 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29946

Alcántara-Rubio

, Valderrama-Hernández

, Solís-Espallargas

, & Ruiz-Morales

. (2022). The implementation of the SDGs in universities: A systematic review. Environ Education Research, 28(11), 1585–1615; 10.1080/13504622.2022.2063798

Algurén

. (2025). Toward behavioral learning outcomes: A case study of an experiential learning approach and students’ self-reported facilitators and barriers for pro-environmental behavior. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 26(9), 265–280.

Arteaga

, Biesbroek

, Nalau

, & Howes

. (2024). Across the great divide: A systematic literature review to address the gap between theory and practice. Sage Open, 14(1), 1–16.

Bermudez

. (2025). Developing and validating a multidimensional framework for SDG competencies in higher education. Journal of Exceptional Multidisciplinary Research, 2(2), 31–36.

Blankesteijn

, Houtkamp

, & Bossink

. (2024). Towards transformative experiential learning in science- and technology-based entrepreneurship education for sustainable technological innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3), 100544; 10.1016/j.jik.2024.100544

Cano-Ortiz

, Piñar-Fuentes

, Musarella

, & Peña-Martínez

. (2025). Education for environmental sustainability component: Innovative strategies for experiential learning in natural contexts. Education Science, 15(6), 1–35.

Cornet

, Barpanda

, Guidi

, & Viswanathan

. (2023). Sustainability education and community development in higher education using participatory and case based approaches in India. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25(9), 78–93.

Corscadden

, & Kevany

. (2017). The TREEhouse: A hybrid model for experiential learning in environmental education. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 16(1), 56–67; 10.1080/1533015X.2017.1282334

10.

Egan

, Tolman

, McBrayer

, & Ballesteros

. (2023). Reconceptualizing Kolb’s Learning Cycle as episodic and lifelong. Experiential Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 24–33.

11.

Grund

, Singer-Brodowski

, & Büssing

. (2024). Emotions and transformative learning for sustainability: A systematic review. Sustainability Science, 19(1), 307–324; 10.1007/s11625-023-01439-5

12.

Guest

, Bunce

, & Johnson

. (2006). How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.

13.

Heggestad

, Konow-Lund

, Christiansen

, & Nortvedt

. (2022). A vulnerable journey towards professional empathy and moral courage. Nursing Ethics, 29(4), 927–937.

14.

Hekman

. (1997). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2), 341–365. Available from: https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/3175275

15.

Idoiaga Mondragon

, Yarritu

, Saez de Cámara

, Beloki

, & Vozmediano

. (2023). The challenge of education for sustainability in higher education: Key themes and competences within the University of the Basque Country. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1158636.

16.

Issa

, Thai

, & Saad

. (2025). Empowering social entrepreneurial intentions through experiential learning and self-efficacy. The International Journal of Management Education, 23(2), 101154; 10.1016/j.ijme.2025.101154

17.

Jamil

, Humphries-Kil

, & Dey

. (2024). Infusing courageous love for universal dignity and environmental response-ability through management education and learning: Inspired by Freire’s dream. Management Learning, 55(1), 41–62.

18.

Kallio

, Pietilä

, Johnson

, & Kangasniemi

. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965.

19.

Kolb

. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall; 1984.

20.

Larsson

, & Holmström

. (2007). Phenomenographic or phenomenological analysis: Does it matter? examples from a study on anaesthesiologists work. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 2(1), 55–64.

21.

Malterud

, Siersma

V. D.

, & Guassora

A. D

. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760.

22.

Mashuri

, Sarib

, Rasak

, & Alhabsyi

. (2022). Semi-structured interview: A methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies Ruslin. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 12(1), 22–29. Available from: www.iosrjournals.org

23.

Massiah

, Shotte

, Rowe

, & Minott

. (2025). Educational leadership for social transformation: An inclusive approach for schools as places of belonging. Power and Education, 17(2), 142–158.

24.

Montalvan Castilla

, Korkou

, Sageidet

, & Mawira Tarigan

. (2025). Urban green spaces in early childhood education and care: Insights from teachers in Stavanger, Norway. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 33(4), 709–726; 10.1080/1350293X.2024.2412782

25.

Motta

, & Galina

. (2023). Experiential learning in entrepreneurship education: A systematic literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103919 Contents.

26.

Nazir

. (2016). Using phenomenology to conduct environmental education research: Experience and issues. The Journal of Environmental Education, 47(3), 179–190.

27.

Novaes

. (2025). Participatory and experiential learning methodologies in university extension programs: Integration proposal using an application to promote climate action initiatives and active learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 26(6), 1267–1283.

28.

Quintela Do Carmo

, Vinuesa

, Dembélé

, & Ayotte-Beaudet

. (2024). Going beyond adaptation: An integrative review and ethical considerations of semi-structured interviews with elementary-aged children. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 1–15.

29.

Saldaña

. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications; 2009. p. 240.

30.

Selvi

. Phenomenological Approach in Education. In: Tymieniecka

A T

., editor. Education In Human Creative Existential Planning. Springer, Dordrecht; 2008. pp. 39–51.

31.

Serafini

, Moura

, Almeida

, & Rezende

. (2022). Sustainable development goals in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 370, 133473.

32.

Shih

, Chin Hsu

, & Liang Chang

. (2025). Sustainability transformations in higher education: Global perspectives on the challenges and solutions. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 5(1), 126–139. Available from: http://i-jeh.com/index.php/ijeh/index

33.

Strandmark

, & Hedelin

. Phenomenological methods reveal an inside perspective on health and ill health. In: Hallberg

., editor. Qualitative Methods in Public Health Research. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden; 2002. pp. 71–103.

34.

Thomas

, Muscat

, Zuccolo

, Luguetti

, & Watt

. (2025). Navigating pedagogical innovation in higher education: Education academics’ experiences with active and inquiry-based learning in intensive teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 50(6), 1917–1943; 10.1007/s10755-025-09807-y

35.

Tran

, & Herzig

. (2026). Team roles and challenges in experiential learning in sustainability accounting education: A four-stage learning cycle. Journal of Accounting Education, 35(2), 170–197; 10.1080/09639284.2024.2421851

36.

Ülker

. (2025). Reflecting trends of the contemporary academic landscape in the context of Higher Education 4.0. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1522647.

37.

Worline

, & Dutton

. (2022). The courage to teach with compassion: Enriching classroom designs and practices to foster responsiveness to suffering. Management Learning, 53(1), 33–54.

38.

. (2024). Experiential learning for applying green patents in sustainable education. Sustainability, 16(15), 6591.