Environmental Action-Based Learning for Sustainability Competencies: EMKONTAN Model on Environmental Literacy, Creative Thinking, and Collaboration among Pre-Service Biology Teachers

Nurwidodo Nurwidodo; Iin Hindun; Husamah Husamah

doi:10.12688/f1000research.181913.2

Home Browse Environmental Action-Based Learning for Sustainability Competencies:...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Environmental Action-Based Learning for Sustainability Competencies: EMKONTAN Model on Environmental Literacy, Creative Thinking, and Collaboration among Pre-Service Biology Teachers

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Nurwidodo Nurwidodo ¹, Iin Hindun¹, Husamah Husamah¹

PUBLISHED 20 Jun 2026

Author details Author details

¹ Biology Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, East Java, 65144, Indonesia

Nurwidodo Nurwidodo
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Iin Hindun
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Husamah Husamah
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

Sustainability transitions require educators who can translate environmental knowledge into creative, collaborative, and action-oriented learning. This study examined the effectiveness of the Environmental Mapping, Conservation, Action, and Evaluation learning model (EMKONTAN) in strengthening environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration skills among pre-service biology teachers.

Methods

A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group design was implemented in an environmental science course involving three learning conditions: EMKONTAN, problem-based learning, and regular instruction. Of 120 eligible students, 108 students with complete pretest and posttest data were included in the analysis. Environmental literacy was measured using an adapted environmental literacy instrument, creative thinking through essay-based tasks, and collaboration through an observation rubric. One-way analysis of covariance was used to compare adjusted posttest means after controlling for pretest scores, followed by least significant difference post hoc testing.

Results

The EMKONTAN group achieved the highest adjusted means for environmental literacy (76.30), creative thinking (96.18), and collaboration (78.89). The learning model had statistically significant effects on environmental literacy, F(2,104) = 126.54, p < .001, partial eta squared = .709; creative thinking, F(2,104) = 274.51, p < .001, partial eta squared = .841; and collaboration, F(2,104) = 161.33, p < .001, partial eta squared = .756.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that an environmental action-based learning cycle that integrates problem identification, field observation, action planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and follow-up can support sustainability competencies in teacher education. The study contributes a contextual instructional model for preparing future biology teachers to design participatory environmental learning in developing-country higher education settings.

Keywords

Action-based learning, collaboration skills, creative thinking, environmental literacy, pre-service biology teachers, sustainability education, teacher education

Corresponding author: Nurwidodo Nurwidodo

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2026 Nurwidodo N et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Nurwidodo N, Hindun I and Husamah H. Environmental Action-Based Learning for Sustainability Competencies: EMKONTAN Model on Environmental Literacy, Creative Thinking, and Collaboration among Pre-Service Biology Teachers [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:777 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.181913.2) First published: 22 May 2026, 15:777 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.181913.1) Latest published: 20 Jun 2026, 15:777 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.181913.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

This revised version includes several clarifications and improvements made in response to reviewer comments. The Methods section has been strengthened by providing a clearer explanation of the final analyzed sample, including why 108 of the 120 eligible students were included in the complete-case analysis. The descriptions of the comparison conditions, namely problem-based learning and regular instruction, have also been expanded to allow a more meaningful comparison with the EMKONTAN intervention. In the Data analysis and Results sections, the interpretation of ANCOVA has been refined by acknowledging the non-normal distribution of the data and the heterogeneity of variance found in the collaboration variable. The revised version therefore presents the statistical findings more cautiously while still emphasizing the consistency of the descriptive patterns and the large practical effect sizes. The Results section has also been streamlined to reduce repetition of numerical information already presented in the tables and figures. In the Discussion, the interpretation of the large observed effects has been made more balanced by considering alternative explanations, including task structure, student engagement, novelty effects, and the alignment between learning activities and assessment indicators. Finally, the limitations section has been strengthened by linking methodological constraints more directly to the interpretation, generalizability, and future replication of the findings.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Ahmad Adnan Mohd Shukri
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Nasrul Hakim

Introduction

Environmental degradation, climate change, biodiversity decline, waste generation, and resource depletion increasingly demand educational responses that are not limited to knowledge transmission.^1–6 Higher education institutions, especially teacher education programs, are expected to prepare graduates who can interpret environmental problems, design responsible actions, and guide learners toward sustainable practices.^7–9 In biology teacher education, this expectation is especially important because future teachers will mediate scientific knowledge, environmental values, and pro-environmental behavior among school students.^10–14

Sustainability education therefore requires the integration of environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration. Environmental literacy enables learners to understand ecological systems, evaluate environmental issues, and make informed decisions.^15,16Creative thinking supports the generation of alternative solutions when environmental problems are complex, contextual, and uncertain.^17,18 Collaboration is equally essential because most sustainability challenges cannot be solved through isolated individual action.^19,20 Together, these competencies align with the educational dimension of the Sustainable Development Goals and with the broader agenda of preparing citizens who can participate in sustainability transitions.

However, university environmental science courses are often still dominated by lectures, textbook-based tasks, and assessment formats that emphasize factual mastery. Such approaches may improve conceptual familiarity, but they are less likely to cultivate authentic inquiry, field-based sensitivity, collective responsibility, and action competence.^21–25 Problem-based learning (PBL) has been widely used to situate learning around real problems, yet PBL is not always explicitly connected to environmental mapping, conservation-oriented action, monitoring, and follow-up programs.^26,27This creates a pedagogical gap: sustainability-oriented teacher education needs a learning model that combines problem inquiry with concrete environmental action and reflective continuity.

The EMKONTAN model was developed to address this gap. In this study, EMKONTAN refers to an environmental action-based learning cycle consisting of socialization and problem identification, campus environmental observation and data collection, action planning with conservation integration, action implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and follow-up through student creativity programs. The model is designed to move students from awareness to evidence-based analysis, from analysis to collective action, and from action to reflection and continuation.^28–32 This makes it suitable for sustainability education because it links scientific understanding with situated practice and social participation.

The present study aimed to test whether EMKONTAN is more effective than PBL and regular instruction in improving environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration among pre-service biology teachers. The study tested three hypotheses: H1, students taught through EMKONTAN achieve higher environmental literacy than students taught through PBL and regular instruction after controlling for pretest scores; H2, students taught through EMKONTAN achieve higher creative thinking than students in the comparison groups; and H3, students taught through EMKONTAN achieve higher collaboration skills than students in the comparison groups. The study contributes empirical evidence on action-based sustainability learning in Indonesian higher education and provides an instructional model that can be adapted in biology teacher education programs.

Methods

Research design

This study used a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group design ( Table 1). Three intact classes were assigned to different learning conditions: an experimental class taught using EMKONTAN, a positive control class taught using PBL, and a negative control class taught using regular instruction. Pretests were administered before the intervention and posttests were administered after the learning sequence using comparable instruments for each outcome. The design was selected because the study was conducted in authentic university classes where random assignment of individual students was not feasible.

Table 1. Quasi-experimental research design.

Group	Pretest	Learning treatment	Posttest
Experimental group	O1	EMKONTAN environmental action-based learning	O2
Positive control group	O3	Problem-based learning	O4
Negative control group	O5	Regular instruction	O6

Participants and setting

The study was conducted in an environmental science course for pre-service biology teachers in East Java, Indonesia. The eligible population consisted of 120 students enrolled in the relevant course. Before data collection, all participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the learning activities involved, the type of data to be collected, the voluntary nature of participation, and their right to withdraw from the study at any stage without academic penalty. Written informed consent for participation in the research was obtained from all participants before the pretest was administered. No minors were involved in this study. After data screening, 108 students with complete pretest and posttest records across the measured variables were included in the final analysis. Twelve cases were excluded because they did not have complete paired records for all measured variables, mainly due to absence during one of the testing sessions or incomplete observation records for the collaboration rubric. Complete-case analysis was applied consistently across the three outcome variables so that all ANCOVA models used the same analytic sample. Nevertheless, the loss of 12 eligible students may introduce attrition-related bias if the incomplete cases differed systematically from the retained cases; therefore, this issue is acknowledged in interpreting the findings and in the limitations.

Learning treatments

The EMKONTAN class followed a six-stage environmental action cycle ( Table 2). Students first discussed the learning steps and identified environmental problems around the campus. They then conducted field observation and collected environmental data based on environmental maps. In the third stage, students prepared action plans and explored opportunities for conservation integration. The fourth stage required students to implement actions collaboratively, document the process, and produce project portfolios. The fifth stage involved monitoring, evaluation, presentation, and reflection. Finally, students designed follow-up activities that could be developed into student creativity programs related to environmental science topics.

Table 2. Operational syntax of the EMKONTAN learning model.

No.	EMKONTAN phase	Lecturer role	Student activity
1	Socialization and environmental problem identification	Introduces the learning steps, facilitates the selection of relevant environmental issues, and poses essential questions.	Express ideas, identify campus environmental problems, and map possible solutions.
2	Observation and environmental data collection	Guides collaborative field observation and data collection based on environmental maps.	Conduct observation, collect data, and document environmental conditions.
3	Action planning and conservation integration	Facilitates action planning and links solutions to conservation values.	Select solution strategies, prepare schedules, and formulate conservation-oriented action plans.
4	Action implementation	Monitors student action, provides guidance, and records important learning activities.	Implement environmental actions collaboratively and prepare project portfolios.
5	Monitoring and evaluation	Assesses process and product achievement and evaluates sustainability potential.	Present group outputs, written reports, and project products.
6	Follow-up program	Guides students in planning continuity through student creativity programs.	Prepare follow-up programs based on environmental science topics.

The PBL class was implemented as a positive comparison condition using a general problem-oriented learning sequence. Students were introduced to contextual environmental problem scenarios prepared by the lecturer, worked in small groups to clarify the problem, identified what they needed to learn, searched for relevant information from textbooks and other learning resources, discussed alternative solutions, and presented their proposed answers to the class. The lecturer acted mainly as a facilitator by asking guiding questions, monitoring group discussion, and providing feedback on the feasibility of proposed solutions. Unlike EMKONTAN, the PBL condition did not require students to conduct systematic environmental mapping, implement a conservation-oriented action project, monitor action outcomes, or prepare follow-up student creativity programs. The regular instruction class was used as a negative comparison condition and consisted of lecturer explanation, textbook-based discussion, question-and-answer sessions, and individual assignments related to environmental science concepts. Students in this group were not required to complete structured field observation, collaborative action implementation, project portfolios, or monitoring and follow-up activities. Thus, the comparison was intended to distinguish the added value of the EMKONTAN cycle from both a general problem-oriented approach and conventional instruction.

Instruments

The research instruments and measured indicators are summarized in Table 3. Environmental literacy was measured using an adapted environmental literacy instrument based on dimensions of ecological knowledge, issue investigation and analysis, environmental sensitivity, and pro-environmental behavior. Creative thinking was measured through essay-based tasks assessed using indicators of curiosity, fluency, originality, flexibility, elaboration, and divergent thinking. Collaboration skills were evaluated using an observation rubric covering productive work, respect, compromise, and shared responsibility. The creative thinking and collaboration rubrics used a four-level scoring framework adapted from 21st-century skill assessment practices.

Table 3. Research instruments and measured indicators.

Outcome	Instrument	Main indicators	Score interpretation
Environmental literacy	Adapted environmental literacy instrument	Ecological knowledge, issue investigation, analysis, sensitivity, pro-environmental behavior	Higher score indicates stronger environmental literacy.
Creative thinking	Essay-based test with rubric	Curiosity, fluency, originality, flexibility, elaboration, divergent thinking	1 = beginner, 2 = basic, 3 = proficient, 4 = advanced.
Collaboration	Observation rubric	Productive work, respect, compromise, shared responsibility	1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential analysis. Normality was examined using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and homogeneity of variance was examined using Levene’s test. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare posttest outcomes among the three learning models while controlling for pretest scores. Least significant difference post hoc testing was used to identify pairwise differences in adjusted means. Statistical testing used a significance level of 0.05. ANCOVA was retained because it directly corresponded to the pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group design and allowed baseline differences to be statistically controlled. In addition, each group contained more than 30 students, and ANCOVA is generally considered relatively robust to moderate departures from normality when sample sizes are reasonably balanced. However, because the normality test indicated non-normal distributions and the collaboration variable showed unequal variance, the findings should be interpreted as strong but not assumption-free evidence. The interpretation therefore emphasizes the consistency of the adjusted mean pattern and the very large effect sizes, while recommending that future studies complement ANCOVA with robust, rank-based, or non-parametric sensitivity analyses.

Results

Assumption checks

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that the pretest and posttest distributions for the measured variables were not normally distributed (p < .001) ( Table 4). Levene’s test showed that environmental literacy and creative thinking met the homogeneity assumption, whereas collaboration did not. These results suggest that the ANCOVA findings are informative but should be interpreted cautiously, particularly for collaboration. However, the three outcomes showed the same directional pattern in the adjusted means, and the partial eta squared values were very large. Therefore, the results are presented as evidence of strong practical differences among learning conditions, while the assumption violations are explicitly considered in the Discussion and limitations. The complete-case sample used in the inferential analysis was N = 108.

Table 4. Summary of homogeneity testing.

Variable	Levene F	df1	df2	p-value	Interpretation
Environmental literacy	2.521	2	105	.085	Homogeneous variance
Creative thinking	0.667	2	105	.516	Homogeneous variance
Collaboration	19.280	2	105	< .001	Variance heterogeneity

Environmental literacy

The learning model significantly affected environmental literacy after controlling for pretest scores, F(2,104) = 126.539, p < .001, partial eta squared = .709. The EMKONTAN group obtained the highest adjusted mean (76.301), followed by PBL (45.513) and regular instruction (42.852). The EMKONTAN group improved by 77.31%, whereas PBL showed a smaller increase of 9.54% and regular instruction showed a slight decline of 2.54%.

Creative thinking

The learning model also had a significant effect on creative thinking, F(2,104) = 274.512, p < .001, partial eta squared = .841. The EMKONTAN group achieved the highest adjusted mean (96.176), followed by PBL (81.939) and regular instruction (42.247). This pattern indicates that both problem-oriented learning and environmental action-based learning supported creative thinking, but the explicit action cycle in EMKONTAN produced the strongest result.

Collaboration skills

For collaboration skills, the learning model had a significant effect, F(2,104) = 161.325, p < .001, partial eta squared = .756. The adjusted mean for EMKONTAN was 78.89, compared with 46.19 for PBL and 16.12 for regular instruction ( Table 5). Although the homogeneity assumption was not met for this variable, the magnitude and consistency of the descriptive pattern suggest that EMKONTAN provided richer opportunities for shared responsibility, compromise, respectful interaction, and productive group work.

Table 5. Descriptive and adjusted outcome scores by learning model.

Outcome	Group	Pretest mean	Posttest mean	Adjusted mean	Post hoc notation	Gain
Environmental literacy	EMKONTAN	43.08	76.39	76.30	a	77.31%
	PBL	40.75	44.64	45.51	b	9.54%
	Regular	44.78	43.64	42.85	b	−2.54%
Creative thinking	EMKONTAN	35.22	96.36	96.18	a	173.58%
	PBL	45.50	81.75	81.94	b	79.67%
	Regular	40.22	42.25	42.25	c	5.04%
Collaboration	EMKONTAN	11.31	78.94	78.89	a	598.28%
	PBL	13.08	46.19	46.19	b	253.08%
	Regular	15.53	16.06	16.12	c	3.40%

Table 6 summarizes the ANCOVA results, while Figure 1 displays the adjusted posttest means and Figure 2 shows the magnitude of the learning model effects. Across all three outcomes, the learning model effect was statistically significant and practically large. EMKONTAN consistently produced the highest adjusted means, followed by PBL and regular instruction. The largest effect was found for creative thinking, followed by collaboration and environmental literacy. Because the same comparative pattern appeared across descriptive scores, adjusted means, and effect sizes, the results support the conclusion that EMKONTAN was associated with stronger sustainability-related outcomes than the two comparison conditions. At the same time, the collaboration result should be read cautiously because the homogeneity assumption was not met.

Table 6. Summary of ANCOVA results.

Outcome	Corrected model F	Learning model F	p-value	Partial eta squared	R2	Adjusted R2
Environmental literacy	96.458	126.539	< .001	.709	.736	.728
Creative thinking	186.169	274.512	< .001	.841	.843	.838
Collaboration	127.249	161.325	< .001	.756	.786	.780

Figure 1. ANCOVA-adjusted posttest means across the three measured sustainability competencies.

Figure 2. Partial eta squared values for the effect of learning model on each outcome.

The ANCOVA results indicate that the learning model had a statistically significant effect on all three outcome variables: environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration. As shown in Table 6, the corrected model was significant for environmental literacy, F = 96.458, p < .001; creative thinking, F = 186.169, p < .001; and collaboration, F = 127.249, p < .001. These results confirm that, after controlling for pretest scores, the type of learning model contributed significantly to differences in students’ posttest performance across the three measured competencies.

More specifically, the learning model effect was significant for environmental literacy, F = 126.539, p < .001, with a partial eta squared value of .709. This indicates a very large effect, suggesting that 70.9% of the explainable variance in adjusted environmental literacy scores was associated with differences in the learning model. The model also explained a substantial proportion of variance, with R² = .736 and adjusted R² = .728. As illustrated in Figure 1, the EMKONTAN group obtained the highest ANCOVA-adjusted mean score for environmental literacy (76.3), followed by the PBL group (45.5) and the regular learning group (42.9). This pattern indicates that EMKONTAN was more effective than both comparison models in strengthening students’ environmental literacy.

A similar pattern was found for creative thinking. The effect of the learning model was statistically significant, F = 274.512, p < .001, with the largest effect size among the three outcomes, partial eta squared = .841. This means that 84.1% of the explainable variance in adjusted creative thinking scores was related to the learning model used. The overall model also showed strong explanatory power, with R² = .843 and adjusted R² = .838. The adjusted mean scores show that EMKONTAN produced the highest creative thinking score (96.2), followed by PBL (81.9), while regular learning resulted in a much lower score (42.2). These findings suggest that EMKONTAN was particularly powerful in developing students’ creative thinking, especially when compared with regular instruction.

For collaboration skills, the ANCOVA also revealed a significant learning model effect, F = 161.325, p < .001, with a large effect size, partial eta squared = .756. The model explained 78.6% of the variance in collaboration outcomes, with an adjusted R² of.780. The adjusted mean scores further demonstrate that EMKONTAN led to the highest collaboration performance (78.9), followed by PBL (46.2), while regular learning showed the lowest adjusted mean score (16.1). This result indicates that the structured stages of EMKONTAN, especially observation, environmental problem analysis, action planning, project implementation, monitoring, and follow-up activities, provided stronger opportunities for students to practice productive teamwork, shared responsibility, and collaborative problem solving.

The findings consistently show that EMKONTAN outperformed both PBL and regular learning across all measured outcomes. The largest effect was observed in creative thinking, followed by collaboration and environmental literacy. The high partial eta squared values and adjusted R² values indicate that the learning model was not only statistically significant but also practically meaningful. These results support the conclusion that EMKONTAN is an effective sustainability-oriented learning model for improving environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration among prospective biology teachers.

Discussion

The findings support all three hypotheses. EMKONTAN produced the strongest gains in environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration compared with PBL and regular instruction. The pattern suggests that sustainability competencies are more effectively developed when students engage in a complete learning cycle that begins with real environmental problems and proceeds toward action, monitoring, reflection, and follow-up. This is consistent with the premise that sustainability education must connect knowledge with situated problem solving and collective participation.^33–35

The strong effect on environmental literacy can be explained by the combination of observation, data collection, and action planning. Students did not only receive environmental concepts; they had to identify environmental problems in their surroundings, collect evidence, analyze possible causes, and formulate feasible solutions. Such activities likely strengthened the link between ecological knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and pro-environmental behavior. The EMKONTAN cycle therefore supported environmental literacy as an integrated competence rather than as isolated factual knowledge.

The effect on creative thinking was also substantial. Creativity in sustainability education is not merely the production of unusual ideas; it involves generating workable alternatives for complex and context-dependent problems.^17,36,37 EMKONTAN required students to develop action plans, adapt strategies to field conditions, explore conservation integration, and revise ideas during monitoring and evaluation. These activities are aligned with fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, and divergent thinking. The PBL group also improved, which confirms the value of problem-oriented learning, but EMKONTAN produced higher scores because students moved beyond discussion into concrete action and reflective continuation.

Collaboration showed the largest relative gain in the EMKONTAN class. This result is pedagogically meaningful because the model required students to divide roles, negotiate decisions, implement actions, document progress, present outputs, and respond to peer feedback. Collaboration was therefore embedded in the core task structure, not treated as an optional group arrangement. The contrast with regular instruction indicates that collaboration skills are difficult to develop when learning relies mainly on individual assignments and teacher-centered explanation.

The study also highlights the importance of aligning sustainability education with teacher preparation. Pre-service biology teachers need to experience environmental learning that they can later adapt for school contexts. By participating in environmental mapping, conservation-oriented action, and follow-up planning, students gained not only content knowledge but also an instructional repertoire for designing participatory environmental learning.^38–40 In this sense, EMKONTAN contributes to sustainability transitions through a teacher education pathway: strengthening the competencies of future teachers who may later influence students, schools, and communities.

The large effects should also be interpreted with a balanced view of possible alternative explanations. Because intact classes were used, differences in prior motivation, lecturer-student interaction, peer dynamics, group leadership, or familiarity with project-based tasks may have contributed to the observed outcomes. The novelty of the EMKONTAN activities may also have increased student engagement during the intervention. In addition, collaboration was assessed through observation, so evaluator expectations and the visibility of group performance could have influenced scoring despite the use of a rubric. These possibilities do not negate the positive findings, but they indicate that the effect sizes should be understood as evidence from an authentic classroom implementation rather than as definitive causal estimates from a fully randomized trial.

Despite these strengths, several methodological limitations should be linked directly to the interpretation of the findings. First, the quasi-experimental design used intact classes; therefore, the results support a strong association between EMKONTAN and improved outcomes but should not be interpreted as conclusive evidence of causality at the individual-student level. Second, the analysis included 108 complete cases from 120 eligible students. Although the complete-case criterion was applied consistently, incomplete data may have introduced bias if excluded students had different attendance, motivation, or performance profiles. Third, the non-normal distributions and the heterogeneous variance for collaboration mean that the ANCOVA results, especially for collaboration, should be interpreted with caution. The very large effect sizes strengthen the practical relevance of the findings, but they do not eliminate the need for sensitivity analyses using robust or non-parametric approaches. Fourth, the PBL and regular instruction conditions were designed as meaningful comparison groups, but differences in task authenticity, field engagement, and product requirements may have increased student motivation in the EMKONTAN group. Fifth, the study measured immediate post-intervention outcomes in one institutional context; therefore, generalizability to other universities, courses, or long-term teaching practice remains limited. Future studies should document attrition more fully, use randomized or matched designs where feasible, report robust sensitivity tests and confidence intervals, and examine retention and transfer into school-based teaching practice.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that EMKONTAN, an environmental action-based learning model, significantly improved environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration skills among pre-service biology teachers than PBL and regular instruction. Compared with the two comparison conditions, EMKONTAN produced the highest adjusted posttest means and large effect sizes across all measured outcomes. The results indicate that sustainability competencies are strengthened when students are guided through a complete cycle of problem identification, environmental observation, action planning, action implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and follow-up program design. Because the study used intact classes, complete-case analysis, and ANCOVA under some assumption violations, the findings should be interpreted as strong classroom-based evidence that requires confirmation through replication and robust sensitivity analyses. The model is therefore promising for biology teacher education and for higher education courses that aim to connect environmental science learning with sustainability-oriented practice.

Future research should replicate the study in different institutions, use randomized or matched designs where possible, apply robust statistical sensitivity tests, and examine whether EMKONTAN-trained pre-service teachers can transfer these competencies into teaching practice during field experience or school internships. Longitudinal studies are also needed to determine whether environmental literacy, creativity, and collaboration are sustained after the course ends.

Ethical considerations

The study involved human participants in an educational setting. Ethical approval was approved by Research Ethics Commission, Bureau of Research, Community Service, and Cooperation, University of Muhammadiyah Malang (approval number: E.5.b/119-RPK-UMM/IX/2025; date: 2 September 2025). Before data collection, all participants received information about the purpose of the study, the learning procedures, the data to be collected, confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without academic consequences. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement in the study. No minors were involved in this research.

Data availability

The underlying data supporting the findings of this study are openly available in Zenodo at https://zenodo.org/records/20055341, with the DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20055341.⁴¹ This dataset includes the anonymized pretest and posttest scores for environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration skills; group allocation data for the EMKONTAN, problem-based learning, and regular instruction groups; the values used to calculate means, standard deviations, adjusted means, gain scores, ANCOVA results, and post hoc comparisons; and the data used to generate the figures and tables reported in this article. The extended data are openly available in Zenodo at https://zenodo.org/records/20055341 with the DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20055341.⁴¹ The extended data include the research instruments, scoring rubrics, learning treatment descriptions, and supporting materials required to understand and replicate the study procedures. Data are available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

Reporting guidelines

Not applicable.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia, for providing research facilities and technical assistance.

References

1. Abbass K, Qasim MZ, Song H, et al.: A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022; 29: 42539–42559. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Quijano SA, Cerón VA, Guevera-Fletcher CE, et al.: Knowledge in regard to environmental problems among University Students in Cali, Colombia. Sustainability. 2023; 15: 15315.
3. Hajam YA, Kumar R, Kumar A: Environmental waste management strategies and vermi transformation for sustainable development. Environmental Challenges. 2023; 13: 100747. Publisher Full Text
4. Muluneh MG: Impact of climate change on biodiversity and food security: a global perspective—A review article. Agric Food Secur. 2021; 10: 36. Publisher Full Text
5. Smith P, Singh PK, Ballal VP, et al.: Impacts of climate change interventions on biodiversity, water, the food system and human health and well-being. Glob Chang Biol. 2025; 31: e70444. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Nguyen TT, Grote U, Neubacher F, et al.: Security risks from climate change and environmental degradation: Implications for sustainable land use transformation in the Global South. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2023; 63: 101322. Publisher Full Text
7. Bhuttah TM, Xiongying L, Xusheng Q, et al.: Education for sustainable development in higher education: Effects on learning and well-being. Sustain Dev. 2026; 2026: 70883. Publisher Full Text
8. Aldawsari ND, Nemt-allah MA, Abdellatif MS: Environmental education awareness in light of sustainable development goals and its relationship with environmental responsibility among university students. Sustainability. 2025; 17: 9393. Publisher Full Text
9. Imran M, Almusharraf N: Shaping a sustainable future: A study of teachers’ perspectives on environmental education awareness. Cogent Educ. 2024; 11: 2422223.
10. Husamah H, Suwono H, Nur H, et al.: Action competence for sustainability instrument base on spirituality for prospective science teacher. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE). 2024; 13: 4287–4295. Publisher Full Text
11. Bibi S, Nousheen A, Siddiquah A: Effect of an environmental education course on prospective teachers’ pro-environmental behavior: A study in education for sustainable development perspective. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2025; 27: 220–236.
12. Rahardjanto A, Husamah H, Sabilah F: Environmental risk perception of prospective biology teachers in Indonesia in the pandemic era. J Educ Learn. 2024; 18: 930–937.
13. Husamah H, Suwono H, Nur H, et al.: The development and validation of environmental literacy instrument based on spirituality for prospective science teachers. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2022; 18: em2206.
14. Schmäing T, Ben-Zvi Assaraf O, Bielik T, et al.: Exploring correlations between pre-service biology teachers’ systems thinking skills and environmental awareness. Res Sci Educ. 2026; 2026: 10333. Publisher Full Text
15. McBride BB, Brewer CA, Berkowitz AR, et al.: Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: What do we mean and how did we get here?. Ecosphere. 2013; 4: art67.
16. Kaya VH, Elster D: A critical consideration of environmental literacy: Concepts, contexts, and competencies. Sustain. 2019; 11: 11061581.
17. O’Toole J, Benati K, Beamish A, et al.: Enhancing critical and creative thinking in sustainability education through reflective practice and project-based learning. Int J Manag Educ. 2026; 24: 101364.
18. Ersoy E, Kara DÖ: The effect of the creative problem-solving approach on creative thinking skills. Front Psychol. 2026; 17: 1734855. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Chen J-Y, Chung M, Wang C-H: Collaborative collective action in sustainability initiatives. Omega. 2025; 136: 103337. Publisher Full Text
20. Burton AM, Pachucki C: Better together? Stakeholder collaboration as a driver for ecological innovation in community model destinations. J Destin Mark Manag. 2026; 39: 101058. Publisher Full Text
21. Guerrero G, Sjöström J: Critical scientific and environmental literacies: A systematic and critical review. Stud Sci Educ. 2025; 61: 41–87. Publisher Full Text
22. Yusuf Y: Improving students’ critical thinking skills against environmental problems: Practicum mini project ‘understanding public perceptions of environmental problems’. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA. 2022; 8. Publisher Full Text
23. Moczulska M, Winkler R, Tarnowska K: Social and economic aspects of sustainable development: Intensity of collaboration as a key driver of team work engagement. Sustainability. 2025; 17: 3643. Publisher Full Text
24. Altomonte S, Logan B, Feisst M, et al.: Interactive and situated learning in education for sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2016; 17: 417–443. Publisher Full Text
25. Blumstein DT, Saylan C: The failure of environmental education (and how we can fix it). PLoS Biol. 2007; 5: e120. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Smith K, Maynard N, Berry A, et al.: Principles of problem-based learning (PBL) in STEM education: Using expert wisdom and research to frame educational practice. Educ Sci. 2022; 12: 12100728. Publisher Full Text
27. Putra ZAZ, Susilo H, Suwono H, et al.: Revealing the effect of problem-based learning combined with the use of digital mind map on students’ creative thinking. J Pedagog Res. 2025; 9: 43–61.
28. Nurwidodo N, Hadi S, Ibrohim I, et al.: Validity and practicality of the EMKONTAN learning model to improve creative thinking, collaborative and literacy environment of prospective biology teacher students. The 12th International Conference on Lesson Study. 2021; pp. 221–232.
29. Nurwidodo N, Hindun I: EMKONTAN learning model to improve creativity, collaborative skills, and environmental literacy of prospective biology teachers. Jurnal Biolokus. 2024; 7: 143. Publisher Full Text
30. Abugri BA, Assibi MA, Amalba A, et al.: The effects of problem-based learning (PBL) on undergraduate medical students’ critical thinking and communication skills development: A scoping review across resource-rich and resource-limited settings (2015-2024). PLoS One. 2026; 21: e0342599. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
31. Nurwidodo N, Ibrohim I, Sueb S, et al.: Improving the creative thinking and collaborative skills of prospective biology teachers using the EMKONTAN learning model in environmental science courses. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia). 2023; 9: 15–25. Publisher Full Text
32. Husin A, Helmi H, Nengsih YK, et al.: Environmental education in schools: sustainability and hope. Discov Sustain. 2025; 6: 41. Publisher Full Text
33. Chen P, Chang Y-C: Incorporating creative problem-solving skills to foster sustainability among graduate students in education management. Clean Prod Lett. 2024; 7: 100082. Publisher Full Text
34. Castaño C, Caballero R, Noguera JC, et al.: Developing sustainability competencies through active learning strategies across school and university settings. Sustainability. 2025; 17: 8886. Publisher Full Text
35. Montes de Oca L, Navarro M, Byers T: Understanding what makes sustainability education effective: Insights from a university certificate program. Clean Prod Lett. 2026; 10: 100133.
36. López UH, Vázquez-Vílchez M, Salmerón-Vílchez P: The contributions of creativity to the learning process within educational approaches for sustainable development and/or ecosocial perspectives: A systematic review. Educ Sci. 2024; 14: 824. Publisher Full Text
37. Thornhill-Miller B, Camarda A, Mercier M, et al.: Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education. J Intell. 2023; 11: 11030054. Publisher Full Text
38. Bezeljak P, Scheuch M, Torkar G: Understanding of sustainability and education for sustainable development among pre-service biology teachers. Sustainability. 2020; 12: 6892. Publisher Full Text
39. El-Aasar M, Shafik Z, Abou-Bakr D: Outdoor learning environment as a teaching tool for integrating education for sustainable development in kindergarten, Egypt. Ain Shams Eng J. 2024; 15: 102629. Publisher Full Text
40. Nurwidodo N, Hindun I, Nuryady MM: Integration of deep learning approach and EMKONTAN model to improve environmental literacy, creativity, and collaboration of students. Form J Ilm Pendidik MIPA. 2026; 16: 147–158.
41. Nurwidodo N, Hindun I, Husamah H: Suplementary material for "Environmental action-based learning for sustainability competencies: EMKONTAN model on environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration among pre-service biology teachers". Zenodo. 2026.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 22 May 2026

Author details Author details

¹ Biology Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, East Java, 65144, Indonesia

Iin Hindun
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Husamah Husamah
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 20 Jun 2026, 15:777

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.181913.2

version 1

Published: 22 May 2026, 15:777

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.181913.1

© 2026 Nurwidodo N et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Nurwidodo N, Hindun I and Husamah H. Environmental Action-Based Learning for Sustainability Competencies: EMKONTAN Model on Environmental Literacy, Creative Thinking, and Collaboration among Pre-Service Biology Teachers [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:777 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.181913.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 22 May 2026

Views

Reviewer Report 03 Jun 2026

Nasrul Hakim, State Islamic Institute Metro, Metro, Indonesia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.200807.r488172

The PBL and regular instruction conditions should be described in enough detail to allow meaningful comparison.
Tables and figures are useful, but the text sometimes repeats the same numerical results. The authors could streamline the

The PBL and regular instruction conditions should be described in enough detail to allow meaningful comparison.
Tables and figures are useful, but the text sometimes repeats the same numerical results. The authors could streamline the Results section.
The Discussion should include a more balanced consideration of alternative explanations for the large observed effects.
The limitations section is helpful but should be strengthened and linked more directly to the interpretation of the results.

Recommendation
I recommend that the article undergo minor revision before approval. The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic and has potential value for sustainability education and biology teacher preparation. However, several presentation and reporting issues should be addressed to improve clarity, consistency, and readability. In particular, the authors should describe the PBL and regular instruction conditions in greater detail, streamline repeated numerical reporting in the Results section, provide a more balanced discussion of possible alternative explanations for the large observed effects, and strengthen the limitations section by linking it more explicitly to the interpretation and generalizability of the findings.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: biology, sustainability

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 20 Jun 2026

Nurwidodo Nurwidodo, Biology Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, 65144, Indonesia

20 Jun 2026

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition that the study addresses an important and timely ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer 2,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition that the study addresses an important and timely topic in sustainability education and biology teacher preparation. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve clarity, consistency, and readability, particularly by expanding the description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions, streamlining repeated numerical reporting in the Results section, adding alternative explanations for the large observed effects, and strengthening the limitations section.

Comment 1
The PBL and regular instruction conditions should be described in enough detail to allow meaningful comparison.

Response:
Thank you for this important suggestion. We revised the Learning treatments section to provide a more detailed description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions. The PBL condition is now described as involving problem scenarios, group problem analysis, formulation of learning issues, independent information search, group discussion, solution development, presentation, and reflection. The regular instruction condition is now described as involving lecturer explanation, textbook-based learning, question-and-answer sessions, individual assignments, and conventional assessment. We also clarified that, unlike EMKONTAN, the PBL condition did not require structured environmental mapping, direct environmental action implementation, monitoring, or follow-up program design.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We expanded the description of the comparison groups to make the contrast among EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction more transparent and replicable.

Comment 2
Tables and figures are useful, but the text sometimes repeats the same numerical results. The authors could streamline the Results section.

Response:
Thank you for this helpful comment. We revised the Results section to reduce unnecessary repetition of numerical information already presented in the tables and figures. The revised text now focuses more on the main patterns, comparative interpretation, and practical meaning of the results, while leaving detailed values in the tables and figures. We retained key statistical results necessary for interpretation but avoided repeating the same adjusted means, F values, and effect sizes multiple times.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We streamlined the Results section by shortening repetitive numerical descriptions and emphasizing the overall pattern that EMKONTAN consistently outperformed PBL and regular instruction across the three measured outcomes.

Comment 3
The Discussion should include a more balanced consideration of alternative explanations for the large observed effects.

Response:
Thank you for this important recommendation. We revised the Discussion to include a more balanced interpretation of the large observed effects. In addition to explaining the pedagogical strengths of EMKONTAN, we added possible alternative explanations, including differences in task structure, student motivation, novelty effects, intensity of group engagement, and the possibility that action-based activities created more opportunities for students to demonstrate the assessed competencies. We also acknowledged that the quasi-experimental design using intact classes prevents full exclusion of unmeasured class-level differences.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a paragraph in the Discussion stating that the large effects should not be attributed solely to the intrinsic superiority of EMKONTAN. They may also reflect the alignment between the learning activities and the assessment indicators, increased student engagement due to novelty and authentic tasks, and class-level differences that could not be fully controlled.

Comment 4
The limitations section is helpful but should be strengthened and linked more directly to the interpretation of the results.

Response:
Thank you. We strengthened the limitations section by linking each limitation more explicitly to how the findings should be interpreted. We clarified that the use of intact classes limits causal inference, the exclusion of incomplete cases may introduce attrition bias, assumption violations require cautious interpretation of ANCOVA results, and the immediate posttest design limits conclusions about long-term retention and transfer. We also added that the findings are promising but should be generalized carefully to other institutions, student populations, and course contexts.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We revised the limitations section to directly connect methodological limitations with interpretation, generalizability, and future research directions.

Comment 5
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly.

Response:
Thank you for identifying this issue. To improve replicability, we expanded the Learning treatments section, especially the description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions. We also clarified that the research instruments, scoring rubrics, learning treatment descriptions, and supporting materials are available in the extended data. These revisions are intended to provide readers with sufficient methodological detail to understand and replicate the study procedures.

Comment 6
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly.

Response:
Thank you for this comment. We revised the Data availability section to make the availability of the underlying and extended data clearer. The dataset includes anonymized pretest and posttest scores, group allocation data, values used to calculate descriptive statistics, adjusted means, gain scores, ANCOVA results, post hoc comparisons, and figure/table data. The extended data include instruments, scoring rubrics, learning treatment descriptions, and supporting materials. This clarification was added to improve transparency and reproducibility.

Overall response to Reviewer 2
We are grateful for Reviewer 2’s constructive suggestions. In response, we expanded the description of the comparison conditions, streamlined the Results section, added a more balanced discussion of alternative explanations, strengthened the limitations section, and clarified the availability of underlying and extended data. These revisions have improved the clarity, replicability, and interpretive balance of the manuscript.
Dear Reviewer 2,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition that the study addresses an important and timely topic in sustainability education and biology teacher preparation. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve clarity, consistency, and readability, particularly by expanding the description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions, streamlining repeated numerical reporting in the Results section, adding alternative explanations for the large observed effects, and strengthening the limitations section.

Comment 1
The PBL and regular instruction conditions should be described in enough detail to allow meaningful comparison.

Response:
Thank you for this important suggestion. We revised the Learning treatments section to provide a more detailed description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions. The PBL condition is now described as involving problem scenarios, group problem analysis, formulation of learning issues, independent information search, group discussion, solution development, presentation, and reflection. The regular instruction condition is now described as involving lecturer explanation, textbook-based learning, question-and-answer sessions, individual assignments, and conventional assessment. We also clarified that, unlike EMKONTAN, the PBL condition did not require structured environmental mapping, direct environmental action implementation, monitoring, or follow-up program design.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We expanded the description of the comparison groups to make the contrast among EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction more transparent and replicable.

Comment 2
Tables and figures are useful, but the text sometimes repeats the same numerical results. The authors could streamline the Results section.

Response:
Thank you for this helpful comment. We revised the Results section to reduce unnecessary repetition of numerical information already presented in the tables and figures. The revised text now focuses more on the main patterns, comparative interpretation, and practical meaning of the results, while leaving detailed values in the tables and figures. We retained key statistical results necessary for interpretation but avoided repeating the same adjusted means, F values, and effect sizes multiple times.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We streamlined the Results section by shortening repetitive numerical descriptions and emphasizing the overall pattern that EMKONTAN consistently outperformed PBL and regular instruction across the three measured outcomes.

Comment 3
The Discussion should include a more balanced consideration of alternative explanations for the large observed effects.

Response:
Thank you for this important recommendation. We revised the Discussion to include a more balanced interpretation of the large observed effects. In addition to explaining the pedagogical strengths of EMKONTAN, we added possible alternative explanations, including differences in task structure, student motivation, novelty effects, intensity of group engagement, and the possibility that action-based activities created more opportunities for students to demonstrate the assessed competencies. We also acknowledged that the quasi-experimental design using intact classes prevents full exclusion of unmeasured class-level differences.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a paragraph in the Discussion stating that the large effects should not be attributed solely to the intrinsic superiority of EMKONTAN. They may also reflect the alignment between the learning activities and the assessment indicators, increased student engagement due to novelty and authentic tasks, and class-level differences that could not be fully controlled.

Comment 4
The limitations section is helpful but should be strengthened and linked more directly to the interpretation of the results.

Response:
Thank you. We strengthened the limitations section by linking each limitation more explicitly to how the findings should be interpreted. We clarified that the use of intact classes limits causal inference, the exclusion of incomplete cases may introduce attrition bias, assumption violations require cautious interpretation of ANCOVA results, and the immediate posttest design limits conclusions about long-term retention and transfer. We also added that the findings are promising but should be generalized carefully to other institutions, student populations, and course contexts.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We revised the limitations section to directly connect methodological limitations with interpretation, generalizability, and future research directions.

Comment 5
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly.

Response:
Thank you for identifying this issue. To improve replicability, we expanded the Learning treatments section, especially the description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions. We also clarified that the research instruments, scoring rubrics, learning treatment descriptions, and supporting materials are available in the extended data. These revisions are intended to provide readers with sufficient methodological detail to understand and replicate the study procedures.

Comment 6
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly.

Response:
Thank you for this comment. We revised the Data availability section to make the availability of the underlying and extended data clearer. The dataset includes anonymized pretest and posttest scores, group allocation data, values used to calculate descriptive statistics, adjusted means, gain scores, ANCOVA results, post hoc comparisons, and figure/table data. The extended data include instruments, scoring rubrics, learning treatment descriptions, and supporting materials. This clarification was added to improve transparency and reproducibility.

Overall response to Reviewer 2
We are grateful for Reviewer 2’s constructive suggestions. In response, we expanded the description of the comparison conditions, streamlined the Results section, added a more balanced discussion of alternative explanations, strengthened the limitations section, and clarified the availability of underlying and extended data. These revisions have improved the clarity, replicability, and interpretive balance of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that there was no competing interest Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 20 Jun 2026

Nurwidodo Nurwidodo, Biology Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, 65144, Indonesia

20 Jun 2026

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition that the study addresses an important and timely ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer 2,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition that the study addresses an important and timely topic in sustainability education and biology teacher preparation. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve clarity, consistency, and readability, particularly by expanding the description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions, streamlining repeated numerical reporting in the Results section, adding alternative explanations for the large observed effects, and strengthening the limitations section.

Comment 1
The PBL and regular instruction conditions should be described in enough detail to allow meaningful comparison.

Response:
Thank you for this important suggestion. We revised the Learning treatments section to provide a more detailed description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions. The PBL condition is now described as involving problem scenarios, group problem analysis, formulation of learning issues, independent information search, group discussion, solution development, presentation, and reflection. The regular instruction condition is now described as involving lecturer explanation, textbook-based learning, question-and-answer sessions, individual assignments, and conventional assessment. We also clarified that, unlike EMKONTAN, the PBL condition did not require structured environmental mapping, direct environmental action implementation, monitoring, or follow-up program design.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We expanded the description of the comparison groups to make the contrast among EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction more transparent and replicable.

Comment 2
Tables and figures are useful, but the text sometimes repeats the same numerical results. The authors could streamline the Results section.

Response:
Thank you for this helpful comment. We revised the Results section to reduce unnecessary repetition of numerical information already presented in the tables and figures. The revised text now focuses more on the main patterns, comparative interpretation, and practical meaning of the results, while leaving detailed values in the tables and figures. We retained key statistical results necessary for interpretation but avoided repeating the same adjusted means, F values, and effect sizes multiple times.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We streamlined the Results section by shortening repetitive numerical descriptions and emphasizing the overall pattern that EMKONTAN consistently outperformed PBL and regular instruction across the three measured outcomes.

Comment 3
The Discussion should include a more balanced consideration of alternative explanations for the large observed effects.

Response:
Thank you for this important recommendation. We revised the Discussion to include a more balanced interpretation of the large observed effects. In addition to explaining the pedagogical strengths of EMKONTAN, we added possible alternative explanations, including differences in task structure, student motivation, novelty effects, intensity of group engagement, and the possibility that action-based activities created more opportunities for students to demonstrate the assessed competencies. We also acknowledged that the quasi-experimental design using intact classes prevents full exclusion of unmeasured class-level differences.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a paragraph in the Discussion stating that the large effects should not be attributed solely to the intrinsic superiority of EMKONTAN. They may also reflect the alignment between the learning activities and the assessment indicators, increased student engagement due to novelty and authentic tasks, and class-level differences that could not be fully controlled.

Comment 4
The limitations section is helpful but should be strengthened and linked more directly to the interpretation of the results.

Response:
Thank you. We strengthened the limitations section by linking each limitation more explicitly to how the findings should be interpreted. We clarified that the use of intact classes limits causal inference, the exclusion of incomplete cases may introduce attrition bias, assumption violations require cautious interpretation of ANCOVA results, and the immediate posttest design limits conclusions about long-term retention and transfer. We also added that the findings are promising but should be generalized carefully to other institutions, student populations, and course contexts.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We revised the limitations section to directly connect methodological limitations with interpretation, generalizability, and future research directions.

Comment 5
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly.

Response:
Thank you for identifying this issue. To improve replicability, we expanded the Learning treatments section, especially the description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions. We also clarified that the research instruments, scoring rubrics, learning treatment descriptions, and supporting materials are available in the extended data. These revisions are intended to provide readers with sufficient methodological detail to understand and replicate the study procedures.

Comment 6
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly.

Response:
Thank you for this comment. We revised the Data availability section to make the availability of the underlying and extended data clearer. The dataset includes anonymized pretest and posttest scores, group allocation data, values used to calculate descriptive statistics, adjusted means, gain scores, ANCOVA results, post hoc comparisons, and figure/table data. The extended data include instruments, scoring rubrics, learning treatment descriptions, and supporting materials. This clarification was added to improve transparency and reproducibility.

Overall response to Reviewer 2
We are grateful for Reviewer 2’s constructive suggestions. In response, we expanded the description of the comparison conditions, streamlined the Results section, added a more balanced discussion of alternative explanations, strengthened the limitations section, and clarified the availability of underlying and extended data. These revisions have improved the clarity, replicability, and interpretive balance of the manuscript.
Dear Reviewer 2,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition that the study addresses an important and timely topic in sustainability education and biology teacher preparation. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve clarity, consistency, and readability, particularly by expanding the description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions, streamlining repeated numerical reporting in the Results section, adding alternative explanations for the large observed effects, and strengthening the limitations section.

Comment 1
The PBL and regular instruction conditions should be described in enough detail to allow meaningful comparison.

Response:
Thank you for this important suggestion. We revised the Learning treatments section to provide a more detailed description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions. The PBL condition is now described as involving problem scenarios, group problem analysis, formulation of learning issues, independent information search, group discussion, solution development, presentation, and reflection. The regular instruction condition is now described as involving lecturer explanation, textbook-based learning, question-and-answer sessions, individual assignments, and conventional assessment. We also clarified that, unlike EMKONTAN, the PBL condition did not require structured environmental mapping, direct environmental action implementation, monitoring, or follow-up program design.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We expanded the description of the comparison groups to make the contrast among EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction more transparent and replicable.

Comment 2
Tables and figures are useful, but the text sometimes repeats the same numerical results. The authors could streamline the Results section.

Response:
Thank you for this helpful comment. We revised the Results section to reduce unnecessary repetition of numerical information already presented in the tables and figures. The revised text now focuses more on the main patterns, comparative interpretation, and practical meaning of the results, while leaving detailed values in the tables and figures. We retained key statistical results necessary for interpretation but avoided repeating the same adjusted means, F values, and effect sizes multiple times.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We streamlined the Results section by shortening repetitive numerical descriptions and emphasizing the overall pattern that EMKONTAN consistently outperformed PBL and regular instruction across the three measured outcomes.

Comment 3
The Discussion should include a more balanced consideration of alternative explanations for the large observed effects.

Response:
Thank you for this important recommendation. We revised the Discussion to include a more balanced interpretation of the large observed effects. In addition to explaining the pedagogical strengths of EMKONTAN, we added possible alternative explanations, including differences in task structure, student motivation, novelty effects, intensity of group engagement, and the possibility that action-based activities created more opportunities for students to demonstrate the assessed competencies. We also acknowledged that the quasi-experimental design using intact classes prevents full exclusion of unmeasured class-level differences.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a paragraph in the Discussion stating that the large effects should not be attributed solely to the intrinsic superiority of EMKONTAN. They may also reflect the alignment between the learning activities and the assessment indicators, increased student engagement due to novelty and authentic tasks, and class-level differences that could not be fully controlled.

Comment 4
The limitations section is helpful but should be strengthened and linked more directly to the interpretation of the results.

Response:
Thank you. We strengthened the limitations section by linking each limitation more explicitly to how the findings should be interpreted. We clarified that the use of intact classes limits causal inference, the exclusion of incomplete cases may introduce attrition bias, assumption violations require cautious interpretation of ANCOVA results, and the immediate posttest design limits conclusions about long-term retention and transfer. We also added that the findings are promising but should be generalized carefully to other institutions, student populations, and course contexts.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We revised the limitations section to directly connect methodological limitations with interpretation, generalizability, and future research directions.

Comment 5
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly.

Response:
Thank you for identifying this issue. To improve replicability, we expanded the Learning treatments section, especially the description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions. We also clarified that the research instruments, scoring rubrics, learning treatment descriptions, and supporting materials are available in the extended data. These revisions are intended to provide readers with sufficient methodological detail to understand and replicate the study procedures.

Comment 6
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly.

Response:
Thank you for this comment. We revised the Data availability section to make the availability of the underlying and extended data clearer. The dataset includes anonymized pretest and posttest scores, group allocation data, values used to calculate descriptive statistics, adjusted means, gain scores, ANCOVA results, post hoc comparisons, and figure/table data. The extended data include instruments, scoring rubrics, learning treatment descriptions, and supporting materials. This clarification was added to improve transparency and reproducibility.

Overall response to Reviewer 2
We are grateful for Reviewer 2’s constructive suggestions. In response, we expanded the description of the comparison conditions, streamlined the Results section, added a more balanced discussion of alternative explanations, strengthened the limitations section, and clarified the availability of underlying and extended data. These revisions have improved the clarity, replicability, and interpretive balance of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that there was no competing interest Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 02 Jun 2026

Ahmad Adnan Mohd Shukri, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.200807.r488173

1. The study directly addresses a pedagogical gap in sustainability education by introducing the EMKONTAN model, which is well-defined and systematically explained.
2. The quasi-experimental design with pretest–posttest control groups provides credible comparative evidence. The inclusion of three groups (EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction) strengthens validity.
3. Environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration were measured using adapted, rubric-based instruments with clear indicators.
4. Results show large effect sizes (partial eta squared values above 0.70) indicating strong practical significance.
5. The study offers a contextual instructional model that can be adapted in teacher education programs, especially in developing countries.
6. TAKE NOTE: Only 108 of 120 students were analyzed. The reasons for missing data are not fully explained, which may raise questions about bias.
7. TAKE NOTE: Normality was not met, and collaboration showed heterogeneity of variance. While ANCOVA was applied, results should be interpreted cautiously. Suggestions: Justify why ANCOVA was still used (robustness in large samples, exploratory purpose). Highlight that despite assumption violations, the effect sizes were very large, which supports practical significance OR present sensitivity analyses (for example, compare ANCOVA with non-parametric results) to show consistency.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: STEM education; biology education; design and development research; challenge-based learning; computational thinking skills; creative thinking skills and styles; critical thinking skills and dispositions

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 20 Jun 2026

Nurwidodo Nurwidodo, Biology Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, 65144, Indonesia

20 Jun 2026

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We are grateful for the positive comments regarding the relevance of the EMKONTAN ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer 1,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We are grateful for the positive comments regarding the relevance of the EMKONTAN model, the quasi-experimental design, the use of three comparison groups, the rubric-based instruments, the large practical effects, and the contextual contribution of the study to sustainability-oriented teacher education. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to the reviewer’s notes, especially regarding the explanation of missing data and the interpretation of ANCOVA under assumption violations.

Comment 1
The study directly addresses a pedagogical gap in sustainability education by introducing the EMKONTAN model, which is well-defined and systematically explained.

Response:
Thank you for this positive assessment. We are pleased that the reviewer recognized the pedagogical contribution of the EMKONTAN model. In the revised manuscript, we retained and strengthened the explanation of EMKONTAN as an environmental action-based learning cycle consisting of problem identification, environmental observation, action planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and follow-up program design. This explanation is intended to clarify how the model addresses the gap between problem-oriented learning and concrete sustainability action.

Comment 2
The quasi-experimental design with pretest–posttest control groups provides credible comparative evidence. The inclusion of three groups (EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction) strengthens validity.

Response:
Thank you for this supportive comment. We agree that the inclusion of EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction provides a meaningful comparative structure. In the revised manuscript, we clarified the role of each group: EMKONTAN as the environmental action-based intervention, PBL as the positive control representing a problem-oriented approach, and regular instruction as the negative control representing conventional teaching. This revision was made to improve transparency and comparability across the three learning conditions.

Comment 3
Environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration were measured using adapted, rubric-based instruments with clear indicators.

Response:
Thank you. We retained the description of the instruments and indicators in the revised manuscript and ensured that the measurement of environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration remained clearly aligned with the intended sustainability competencies. We also clarified that the instruments and rubrics are available as extended data to support transparency and replication.

Comment 4
Results show large effect sizes, indicating strong practical significance.

Response:
Thank you for highlighting this point. In the revised manuscript, we retained the reporting of partial eta squared values and emphasized that the large effect sizes indicate practical significance. However, in response to the reviewer’s later statistical note, we also revised the interpretation to be more cautious by acknowledging that the large effect sizes should be interpreted alongside the quasi-experimental design and the assumption-test results.

Comment 5
The study offers a contextual instructional model that can be adapted in teacher education programs, especially in developing countries.

Response:
We appreciate this comment. In the revised Discussion and Conclusion, we strengthened the explanation of the contextual contribution of EMKONTAN for biology teacher education, particularly in developing-country higher education settings. We emphasized that the model provides pre-service teachers with an instructional repertoire for designing participatory, action-oriented environmental learning.

Comment 6
Only 108 of 120 students were analyzed. The reasons for missing data are not fully explained, which may raise questions about bias.

Response:
Thank you for this important observation. We revised the Participants and setting section to explain more clearly why only 108 of the 120 eligible students were included in the final analysis. We clarified that complete-case analysis was applied because 12 students had incomplete pretest or posttest records due to absence from one of the testing sessions or incomplete submission of one or more assessment components. We also added a statement acknowledging that excluding incomplete cases may introduce attrition-related bias and that this issue should be considered when interpreting the findings.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a clearer explanation that the final sample consisted of students with complete pretest and posttest data across all measured variables, while 12 students were excluded due to incomplete assessment records. We also acknowledged this as a limitation.

Comment 7
Normality was not met, and collaboration showed heterogeneity of variance. While ANCOVA was applied, results should be interpreted cautiously. Suggestions: Justify why ANCOVA was still used or present sensitivity analyses.

Response:
Thank you for this valuable statistical comment. We revised the Data analysis, Results, Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusion sections to provide a more cautious interpretation of the ANCOVA findings. We clarified that ANCOVA was retained because the study involved a balanced educational comparison with a complete-case sample of 108 students, ANCOVA is commonly used to control baseline differences in quasi-experimental pretest–posttest designs, and the analysis was intended to compare adjusted posttest means while controlling for pretest scores. At the same time, we explicitly acknowledged that the violation of normality and the heterogeneity of variance for collaboration require cautious interpretation. We also added that future studies should complement ANCOVA with robust or rank-based covariance procedures and sensitivity analyses.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a cautionary statement explaining that the results should be interpreted as statistically informative but not definitive, particularly for collaboration. We also emphasized that the very large effect sizes and consistent descriptive patterns support the practical significance of the findings, while future studies should test the robustness of the results using complementary non-parametric or robust methods.

Overall response to Reviewer 1
We thank Reviewer 1 for the encouraging evaluation and constructive suggestions. The manuscript has been revised to improve transparency regarding missing data, strengthen the justification and cautious interpretation of ANCOVA, and clarify the methodological limitations related to assumption violations and complete-case analysis.
Dear Reviewer 1,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We are grateful for the positive comments regarding the relevance of the EMKONTAN model, the quasi-experimental design, the use of three comparison groups, the rubric-based instruments, the large practical effects, and the contextual contribution of the study to sustainability-oriented teacher education. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to the reviewer’s notes, especially regarding the explanation of missing data and the interpretation of ANCOVA under assumption violations.

Comment 1
The study directly addresses a pedagogical gap in sustainability education by introducing the EMKONTAN model, which is well-defined and systematically explained.

Response:
Thank you for this positive assessment. We are pleased that the reviewer recognized the pedagogical contribution of the EMKONTAN model. In the revised manuscript, we retained and strengthened the explanation of EMKONTAN as an environmental action-based learning cycle consisting of problem identification, environmental observation, action planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and follow-up program design. This explanation is intended to clarify how the model addresses the gap between problem-oriented learning and concrete sustainability action.

Comment 2
The quasi-experimental design with pretest–posttest control groups provides credible comparative evidence. The inclusion of three groups (EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction) strengthens validity.

Response:
Thank you for this supportive comment. We agree that the inclusion of EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction provides a meaningful comparative structure. In the revised manuscript, we clarified the role of each group: EMKONTAN as the environmental action-based intervention, PBL as the positive control representing a problem-oriented approach, and regular instruction as the negative control representing conventional teaching. This revision was made to improve transparency and comparability across the three learning conditions.

Comment 3
Environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration were measured using adapted, rubric-based instruments with clear indicators.

Response:
Thank you. We retained the description of the instruments and indicators in the revised manuscript and ensured that the measurement of environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration remained clearly aligned with the intended sustainability competencies. We also clarified that the instruments and rubrics are available as extended data to support transparency and replication.

Comment 4
Results show large effect sizes, indicating strong practical significance.

Response:
Thank you for highlighting this point. In the revised manuscript, we retained the reporting of partial eta squared values and emphasized that the large effect sizes indicate practical significance. However, in response to the reviewer’s later statistical note, we also revised the interpretation to be more cautious by acknowledging that the large effect sizes should be interpreted alongside the quasi-experimental design and the assumption-test results.

Comment 5
The study offers a contextual instructional model that can be adapted in teacher education programs, especially in developing countries.

Response:
We appreciate this comment. In the revised Discussion and Conclusion, we strengthened the explanation of the contextual contribution of EMKONTAN for biology teacher education, particularly in developing-country higher education settings. We emphasized that the model provides pre-service teachers with an instructional repertoire for designing participatory, action-oriented environmental learning.

Comment 6
Only 108 of 120 students were analyzed. The reasons for missing data are not fully explained, which may raise questions about bias.

Response:
Thank you for this important observation. We revised the Participants and setting section to explain more clearly why only 108 of the 120 eligible students were included in the final analysis. We clarified that complete-case analysis was applied because 12 students had incomplete pretest or posttest records due to absence from one of the testing sessions or incomplete submission of one or more assessment components. We also added a statement acknowledging that excluding incomplete cases may introduce attrition-related bias and that this issue should be considered when interpreting the findings.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a clearer explanation that the final sample consisted of students with complete pretest and posttest data across all measured variables, while 12 students were excluded due to incomplete assessment records. We also acknowledged this as a limitation.

Comment 7
Normality was not met, and collaboration showed heterogeneity of variance. While ANCOVA was applied, results should be interpreted cautiously. Suggestions: Justify why ANCOVA was still used or present sensitivity analyses.

Response:
Thank you for this valuable statistical comment. We revised the Data analysis, Results, Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusion sections to provide a more cautious interpretation of the ANCOVA findings. We clarified that ANCOVA was retained because the study involved a balanced educational comparison with a complete-case sample of 108 students, ANCOVA is commonly used to control baseline differences in quasi-experimental pretest–posttest designs, and the analysis was intended to compare adjusted posttest means while controlling for pretest scores. At the same time, we explicitly acknowledged that the violation of normality and the heterogeneity of variance for collaboration require cautious interpretation. We also added that future studies should complement ANCOVA with robust or rank-based covariance procedures and sensitivity analyses.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a cautionary statement explaining that the results should be interpreted as statistically informative but not definitive, particularly for collaboration. We also emphasized that the very large effect sizes and consistent descriptive patterns support the practical significance of the findings, while future studies should test the robustness of the results using complementary non-parametric or robust methods.

Overall response to Reviewer 1
We thank Reviewer 1 for the encouraging evaluation and constructive suggestions. The manuscript has been revised to improve transparency regarding missing data, strengthen the justification and cautious interpretation of ANCOVA, and clarify the methodological limitations related to assumption violations and complete-case analysis.
Competing Interests: Authors declare that was no competing interest Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 20 Jun 2026

Nurwidodo Nurwidodo, Biology Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, 65144, Indonesia

20 Jun 2026

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We are grateful for the positive comments regarding the relevance of the EMKONTAN ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer 1,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We are grateful for the positive comments regarding the relevance of the EMKONTAN model, the quasi-experimental design, the use of three comparison groups, the rubric-based instruments, the large practical effects, and the contextual contribution of the study to sustainability-oriented teacher education. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to the reviewer’s notes, especially regarding the explanation of missing data and the interpretation of ANCOVA under assumption violations.

Comment 1
The study directly addresses a pedagogical gap in sustainability education by introducing the EMKONTAN model, which is well-defined and systematically explained.

Response:
Thank you for this positive assessment. We are pleased that the reviewer recognized the pedagogical contribution of the EMKONTAN model. In the revised manuscript, we retained and strengthened the explanation of EMKONTAN as an environmental action-based learning cycle consisting of problem identification, environmental observation, action planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and follow-up program design. This explanation is intended to clarify how the model addresses the gap between problem-oriented learning and concrete sustainability action.

Comment 2
The quasi-experimental design with pretest–posttest control groups provides credible comparative evidence. The inclusion of three groups (EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction) strengthens validity.

Response:
Thank you for this supportive comment. We agree that the inclusion of EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction provides a meaningful comparative structure. In the revised manuscript, we clarified the role of each group: EMKONTAN as the environmental action-based intervention, PBL as the positive control representing a problem-oriented approach, and regular instruction as the negative control representing conventional teaching. This revision was made to improve transparency and comparability across the three learning conditions.

Comment 3
Environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration were measured using adapted, rubric-based instruments with clear indicators.

Response:
Thank you. We retained the description of the instruments and indicators in the revised manuscript and ensured that the measurement of environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration remained clearly aligned with the intended sustainability competencies. We also clarified that the instruments and rubrics are available as extended data to support transparency and replication.

Comment 4
Results show large effect sizes, indicating strong practical significance.

Response:
Thank you for highlighting this point. In the revised manuscript, we retained the reporting of partial eta squared values and emphasized that the large effect sizes indicate practical significance. However, in response to the reviewer’s later statistical note, we also revised the interpretation to be more cautious by acknowledging that the large effect sizes should be interpreted alongside the quasi-experimental design and the assumption-test results.

Comment 5
The study offers a contextual instructional model that can be adapted in teacher education programs, especially in developing countries.

Response:
We appreciate this comment. In the revised Discussion and Conclusion, we strengthened the explanation of the contextual contribution of EMKONTAN for biology teacher education, particularly in developing-country higher education settings. We emphasized that the model provides pre-service teachers with an instructional repertoire for designing participatory, action-oriented environmental learning.

Comment 6
Only 108 of 120 students were analyzed. The reasons for missing data are not fully explained, which may raise questions about bias.

Response:
Thank you for this important observation. We revised the Participants and setting section to explain more clearly why only 108 of the 120 eligible students were included in the final analysis. We clarified that complete-case analysis was applied because 12 students had incomplete pretest or posttest records due to absence from one of the testing sessions or incomplete submission of one or more assessment components. We also added a statement acknowledging that excluding incomplete cases may introduce attrition-related bias and that this issue should be considered when interpreting the findings.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a clearer explanation that the final sample consisted of students with complete pretest and posttest data across all measured variables, while 12 students were excluded due to incomplete assessment records. We also acknowledged this as a limitation.

Comment 7
Normality was not met, and collaboration showed heterogeneity of variance. While ANCOVA was applied, results should be interpreted cautiously. Suggestions: Justify why ANCOVA was still used or present sensitivity analyses.

Response:
Thank you for this valuable statistical comment. We revised the Data analysis, Results, Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusion sections to provide a more cautious interpretation of the ANCOVA findings. We clarified that ANCOVA was retained because the study involved a balanced educational comparison with a complete-case sample of 108 students, ANCOVA is commonly used to control baseline differences in quasi-experimental pretest–posttest designs, and the analysis was intended to compare adjusted posttest means while controlling for pretest scores. At the same time, we explicitly acknowledged that the violation of normality and the heterogeneity of variance for collaboration require cautious interpretation. We also added that future studies should complement ANCOVA with robust or rank-based covariance procedures and sensitivity analyses.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a cautionary statement explaining that the results should be interpreted as statistically informative but not definitive, particularly for collaboration. We also emphasized that the very large effect sizes and consistent descriptive patterns support the practical significance of the findings, while future studies should test the robustness of the results using complementary non-parametric or robust methods.

Overall response to Reviewer 1
We thank Reviewer 1 for the encouraging evaluation and constructive suggestions. The manuscript has been revised to improve transparency regarding missing data, strengthen the justification and cautious interpretation of ANCOVA, and clarify the methodological limitations related to assumption violations and complete-case analysis.
Dear Reviewer 1,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We are grateful for the positive comments regarding the relevance of the EMKONTAN model, the quasi-experimental design, the use of three comparison groups, the rubric-based instruments, the large practical effects, and the contextual contribution of the study to sustainability-oriented teacher education. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to the reviewer’s notes, especially regarding the explanation of missing data and the interpretation of ANCOVA under assumption violations.

Comment 1
The study directly addresses a pedagogical gap in sustainability education by introducing the EMKONTAN model, which is well-defined and systematically explained.

Response:
Thank you for this positive assessment. We are pleased that the reviewer recognized the pedagogical contribution of the EMKONTAN model. In the revised manuscript, we retained and strengthened the explanation of EMKONTAN as an environmental action-based learning cycle consisting of problem identification, environmental observation, action planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and follow-up program design. This explanation is intended to clarify how the model addresses the gap between problem-oriented learning and concrete sustainability action.

Comment 2
The quasi-experimental design with pretest–posttest control groups provides credible comparative evidence. The inclusion of three groups (EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction) strengthens validity.

Response:
Thank you for this supportive comment. We agree that the inclusion of EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction provides a meaningful comparative structure. In the revised manuscript, we clarified the role of each group: EMKONTAN as the environmental action-based intervention, PBL as the positive control representing a problem-oriented approach, and regular instruction as the negative control representing conventional teaching. This revision was made to improve transparency and comparability across the three learning conditions.

Comment 3
Environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration were measured using adapted, rubric-based instruments with clear indicators.

Response:
Thank you. We retained the description of the instruments and indicators in the revised manuscript and ensured that the measurement of environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration remained clearly aligned with the intended sustainability competencies. We also clarified that the instruments and rubrics are available as extended data to support transparency and replication.

Comment 4
Results show large effect sizes, indicating strong practical significance.

Response:
Thank you for highlighting this point. In the revised manuscript, we retained the reporting of partial eta squared values and emphasized that the large effect sizes indicate practical significance. However, in response to the reviewer’s later statistical note, we also revised the interpretation to be more cautious by acknowledging that the large effect sizes should be interpreted alongside the quasi-experimental design and the assumption-test results.

Comment 5
The study offers a contextual instructional model that can be adapted in teacher education programs, especially in developing countries.

Response:
We appreciate this comment. In the revised Discussion and Conclusion, we strengthened the explanation of the contextual contribution of EMKONTAN for biology teacher education, particularly in developing-country higher education settings. We emphasized that the model provides pre-service teachers with an instructional repertoire for designing participatory, action-oriented environmental learning.

Comment 6
Only 108 of 120 students were analyzed. The reasons for missing data are not fully explained, which may raise questions about bias.

Response:
Thank you for this important observation. We revised the Participants and setting section to explain more clearly why only 108 of the 120 eligible students were included in the final analysis. We clarified that complete-case analysis was applied because 12 students had incomplete pretest or posttest records due to absence from one of the testing sessions or incomplete submission of one or more assessment components. We also added a statement acknowledging that excluding incomplete cases may introduce attrition-related bias and that this issue should be considered when interpreting the findings.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a clearer explanation that the final sample consisted of students with complete pretest and posttest data across all measured variables, while 12 students were excluded due to incomplete assessment records. We also acknowledged this as a limitation.

Comment 7
Normality was not met, and collaboration showed heterogeneity of variance. While ANCOVA was applied, results should be interpreted cautiously. Suggestions: Justify why ANCOVA was still used or present sensitivity analyses.

Response:
Thank you for this valuable statistical comment. We revised the Data analysis, Results, Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusion sections to provide a more cautious interpretation of the ANCOVA findings. We clarified that ANCOVA was retained because the study involved a balanced educational comparison with a complete-case sample of 108 students, ANCOVA is commonly used to control baseline differences in quasi-experimental pretest–posttest designs, and the analysis was intended to compare adjusted posttest means while controlling for pretest scores. At the same time, we explicitly acknowledged that the violation of normality and the heterogeneity of variance for collaboration require cautious interpretation. We also added that future studies should complement ANCOVA with robust or rank-based covariance procedures and sensitivity analyses.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a cautionary statement explaining that the results should be interpreted as statistically informative but not definitive, particularly for collaboration. We also emphasized that the very large effect sizes and consistent descriptive patterns support the practical significance of the findings, while future studies should test the robustness of the results using complementary non-parametric or robust methods.

Overall response to Reviewer 1
We thank Reviewer 1 for the encouraging evaluation and constructive suggestions. The manuscript has been revised to improve transparency regarding missing data, strengthen the justification and cautious interpretation of ANCOVA, and clarify the methodological limitations related to assumption violations and complete-case analysis.
Competing Interests: Authors declare that was no competing interest Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 22 May 2026

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 20 Jun 26
Version 1 22 May 26	read	read

Ahmad Adnan Mohd Shukri, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Nasrul Hakim, State Islamic Institute Metro, Metro, Indonesia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

9 Views

03 Jun 2026 | for Version 1

Nasrul Hakim, State Islamic Institute Metro, Metro, Indonesia

9 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

The PBL and regular instruction conditions should be described in enough detail to allow meaningful comparison.
Tables and figures are useful, but the text sometimes repeats the same numerical results. The authors could streamline the Results section.
The Discussion should include a more balanced consideration of alternative explanations for the large observed effects.
The limitations section is helpful but should be strengthened and linked more directly to the interpretation of the results.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

biology, sustainability

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

20 Jun 2026

Nurwidodo Nurwidodo, Biology Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, 65144, Indonesia

Dear Reviewer 2,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition that the study addresses an important and timely topic in sustainability education and biology teacher preparation. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve clarity, consistency, and readability, particularly by expanding the description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions, streamlining repeated numerical reporting in the Results section, adding alternative explanations for the large observed effects, and strengthening the limitations section.

Comment 1
The PBL and regular instruction conditions should be described in enough detail to allow meaningful comparison.

Response:
Thank you for this important suggestion. We revised the Learning treatments section to provide a more detailed description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions. The PBL condition is now described as involving problem scenarios, group problem analysis, formulation of learning issues, independent information search, group discussion, solution development, presentation, and reflection. The regular instruction condition is now described as involving lecturer explanation, textbook-based learning, question-and-answer sessions, individual assignments, and conventional assessment. We also clarified that, unlike EMKONTAN, the PBL condition did not require structured environmental mapping, direct environmental action implementation, monitoring, or follow-up program design.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We expanded the description of the comparison groups to make the contrast among EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction more transparent and replicable.

Comment 2
Tables and figures are useful, but the text sometimes repeats the same numerical results. The authors could streamline the Results section.

Response:
Thank you for this helpful comment. We revised the Results section to reduce unnecessary repetition of numerical information already presented in the tables and figures. The revised text now focuses more on the main patterns, comparative interpretation, and practical meaning of the results, while leaving detailed values in the tables and figures. We retained key statistical results necessary for interpretation but avoided repeating the same adjusted means, F values, and effect sizes multiple times.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We streamlined the Results section by shortening repetitive numerical descriptions and emphasizing the overall pattern that EMKONTAN consistently outperformed PBL and regular instruction across the three measured outcomes.

Comment 3
The Discussion should include a more balanced consideration of alternative explanations for the large observed effects.

Response:
Thank you for this important recommendation. We revised the Discussion to include a more balanced interpretation of the large observed effects. In addition to explaining the pedagogical strengths of EMKONTAN, we added possible alternative explanations, including differences in task structure, student motivation, novelty effects, intensity of group engagement, and the possibility that action-based activities created more opportunities for students to demonstrate the assessed competencies. We also acknowledged that the quasi-experimental design using intact classes prevents full exclusion of unmeasured class-level differences.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a paragraph in the Discussion stating that the large effects should not be attributed solely to the intrinsic superiority of EMKONTAN. They may also reflect the alignment between the learning activities and the assessment indicators, increased student engagement due to novelty and authentic tasks, and class-level differences that could not be fully controlled.

Comment 4
The limitations section is helpful but should be strengthened and linked more directly to the interpretation of the results.

Response:
Thank you. We strengthened the limitations section by linking each limitation more explicitly to how the findings should be interpreted. We clarified that the use of intact classes limits causal inference, the exclusion of incomplete cases may introduce attrition bias, assumption violations require cautious interpretation of ANCOVA results, and the immediate posttest design limits conclusions about long-term retention and transfer. We also added that the findings are promising but should be generalized carefully to other institutions, student populations, and course contexts.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We revised the limitations section to directly connect methodological limitations with interpretation, generalizability, and future research directions.

Comment 5
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly.

Response:
Thank you for identifying this issue. To improve replicability, we expanded the Learning treatments section, especially the description of the PBL and regular instruction conditions. We also clarified that the research instruments, scoring rubrics, learning treatment descriptions, and supporting materials are available in the extended data. These revisions are intended to provide readers with sufficient methodological detail to understand and replicate the study procedures.

Comment 6
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly.

Response:
Thank you for this comment. We revised the Data availability section to make the availability of the underlying and extended data clearer. The dataset includes anonymized pretest and posttest scores, group allocation data, values used to calculate descriptive statistics, adjusted means, gain scores, ANCOVA results, post hoc comparisons, and figure/table data. The extended data include instruments, scoring rubrics, learning treatment descriptions, and supporting materials. This clarification was added to improve transparency and reproducibility.

Overall response to Reviewer 2
We are grateful for Reviewer 2’s constructive suggestions. In response, we expanded the description of the comparison conditions, streamlined the Results section, added a more balanced discussion of alternative explanations, strengthened the limitations section, and clarified the availability of underlying and extended data. These revisions have improved the clarity, replicability, and interpretive balance of the manuscript.

View more View less

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there was no competing interest

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

02 Jun 2026 | for Version 1

Ahmad Adnan Mohd Shukri, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

8 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

STEM education; biology education; design and development research; challenge-based learning; computational thinking skills; creative thinking skills and styles; critical thinking skills and dispositions

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

20 Jun 2026

Nurwidodo Nurwidodo, Biology Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, 65144, Indonesia

Dear Reviewer 1,
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We are grateful for the positive comments regarding the relevance of the EMKONTAN model, the quasi-experimental design, the use of three comparison groups, the rubric-based instruments, the large practical effects, and the contextual contribution of the study to sustainability-oriented teacher education. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to the reviewer’s notes, especially regarding the explanation of missing data and the interpretation of ANCOVA under assumption violations.

Comment 1
The study directly addresses a pedagogical gap in sustainability education by introducing the EMKONTAN model, which is well-defined and systematically explained.

Response:
Thank you for this positive assessment. We are pleased that the reviewer recognized the pedagogical contribution of the EMKONTAN model. In the revised manuscript, we retained and strengthened the explanation of EMKONTAN as an environmental action-based learning cycle consisting of problem identification, environmental observation, action planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and follow-up program design. This explanation is intended to clarify how the model addresses the gap between problem-oriented learning and concrete sustainability action.

Comment 2
The quasi-experimental design with pretest–posttest control groups provides credible comparative evidence. The inclusion of three groups (EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction) strengthens validity.

Response:
Thank you for this supportive comment. We agree that the inclusion of EMKONTAN, PBL, and regular instruction provides a meaningful comparative structure. In the revised manuscript, we clarified the role of each group: EMKONTAN as the environmental action-based intervention, PBL as the positive control representing a problem-oriented approach, and regular instruction as the negative control representing conventional teaching. This revision was made to improve transparency and comparability across the three learning conditions.

Comment 3
Environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration were measured using adapted, rubric-based instruments with clear indicators.

Response:
Thank you. We retained the description of the instruments and indicators in the revised manuscript and ensured that the measurement of environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration remained clearly aligned with the intended sustainability competencies. We also clarified that the instruments and rubrics are available as extended data to support transparency and replication.

Comment 4
Results show large effect sizes, indicating strong practical significance.

Response:
Thank you for highlighting this point. In the revised manuscript, we retained the reporting of partial eta squared values and emphasized that the large effect sizes indicate practical significance. However, in response to the reviewer’s later statistical note, we also revised the interpretation to be more cautious by acknowledging that the large effect sizes should be interpreted alongside the quasi-experimental design and the assumption-test results.

Comment 5
The study offers a contextual instructional model that can be adapted in teacher education programs, especially in developing countries.

Response:
We appreciate this comment. In the revised Discussion and Conclusion, we strengthened the explanation of the contextual contribution of EMKONTAN for biology teacher education, particularly in developing-country higher education settings. We emphasized that the model provides pre-service teachers with an instructional repertoire for designing participatory, action-oriented environmental learning.

Comment 6
Only 108 of 120 students were analyzed. The reasons for missing data are not fully explained, which may raise questions about bias.

Response:
Thank you for this important observation. We revised the Participants and setting section to explain more clearly why only 108 of the 120 eligible students were included in the final analysis. We clarified that complete-case analysis was applied because 12 students had incomplete pretest or posttest records due to absence from one of the testing sessions or incomplete submission of one or more assessment components. We also added a statement acknowledging that excluding incomplete cases may introduce attrition-related bias and that this issue should be considered when interpreting the findings.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a clearer explanation that the final sample consisted of students with complete pretest and posttest data across all measured variables, while 12 students were excluded due to incomplete assessment records. We also acknowledged this as a limitation.

Comment 7
Normality was not met, and collaboration showed heterogeneity of variance. While ANCOVA was applied, results should be interpreted cautiously. Suggestions: Justify why ANCOVA was still used or present sensitivity analyses.

Response:
Thank you for this valuable statistical comment. We revised the Data analysis, Results, Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusion sections to provide a more cautious interpretation of the ANCOVA findings. We clarified that ANCOVA was retained because the study involved a balanced educational comparison with a complete-case sample of 108 students, ANCOVA is commonly used to control baseline differences in quasi-experimental pretest–posttest designs, and the analysis was intended to compare adjusted posttest means while controlling for pretest scores. At the same time, we explicitly acknowledged that the violation of normality and the heterogeneity of variance for collaboration require cautious interpretation. We also added that future studies should complement ANCOVA with robust or rank-based covariance procedures and sensitivity analyses.

Revision made in the manuscript:
We added a cautionary statement explaining that the results should be interpreted as statistically informative but not definitive, particularly for collaboration. We also emphasized that the very large effect sizes and consistent descriptive patterns support the practical significance of the findings, while future studies should test the robustness of the results using complementary non-parametric or robust methods.

Overall response to Reviewer 1
We thank Reviewer 1 for the encouraging evaluation and constructive suggestions. The manuscript has been revised to improve transparency regarding missing data, strengthen the justification and cautious interpretation of ANCOVA, and clarify the methodological limitations related to assumption violations and complete-case analysis.

View more View less

Competing Interests

Authors declare that was no competing interest

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Abbass K, Qasim MZ, Song H, et al.: A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022; 29: 42539–42559. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Quijano SA, Cerón VA, Guevera-Fletcher CE, et al.: Knowledge in regard to environmental problems among University Students in Cali, Colombia. Sustainability. 2023; 15: 15315.

[3] 3. Hajam YA, Kumar R, Kumar A: Environmental waste management strategies and vermi transformation for sustainable development. Environmental Challenges. 2023; 13: 100747. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Muluneh MG: Impact of climate change on biodiversity and food security: a global perspective—A review article. Agric Food Secur. 2021; 10: 36. Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Smith P, Singh PK, Ballal VP, et al.: Impacts of climate change interventions on biodiversity, water, the food system and human health and well-being. Glob Chang Biol. 2025; 31: e70444. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Nguyen TT, Grote U, Neubacher F, et al.: Security risks from climate change and environmental degradation: Implications for sustainable land use transformation in the Global South. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2023; 63: 101322. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Bhuttah TM, Xiongying L, Xusheng Q, et al.: Education for sustainable development in higher education: Effects on learning and well-being. Sustain Dev. 2026; 2026: 70883. Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Aldawsari ND, Nemt-allah MA, Abdellatif MS: Environmental education awareness in light of sustainable development goals and its relationship with environmental responsibility among university students. Sustainability. 2025; 17: 9393. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Imran M, Almusharraf N: Shaping a sustainable future: A study of teachers’ perspectives on environmental education awareness. Cogent Educ. 2024; 11: 2422223.

[10] 10. Husamah H, Suwono H, Nur H, et al.: Action competence for sustainability instrument base on spirituality for prospective science teacher. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE). 2024; 13: 4287–4295. Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Bibi S, Nousheen A, Siddiquah A: Effect of an environmental education course on prospective teachers’ pro-environmental behavior: A study in education for sustainable development perspective. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2025; 27: 220–236.

[12] 12. Rahardjanto A, Husamah H, Sabilah F: Environmental risk perception of prospective biology teachers in Indonesia in the pandemic era. J Educ Learn. 2024; 18: 930–937.

[13] 13. Husamah H, Suwono H, Nur H, et al.: The development and validation of environmental literacy instrument based on spirituality for prospective science teachers. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2022; 18: em2206.

[14] 14. Schmäing T, Ben-Zvi Assaraf O, Bielik T, et al.: Exploring correlations between pre-service biology teachers’ systems thinking skills and environmental awareness. Res Sci Educ. 2026; 2026: 10333. Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. McBride BB, Brewer CA, Berkowitz AR, et al.: Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: What do we mean and how did we get here?. Ecosphere. 2013; 4: art67.

[16] 16. Kaya VH, Elster D: A critical consideration of environmental literacy: Concepts, contexts, and competencies. Sustain. 2019; 11: 11061581.

[17] 17. O’Toole J, Benati K, Beamish A, et al.: Enhancing critical and creative thinking in sustainability education through reflective practice and project-based learning. Int J Manag Educ. 2026; 24: 101364.

[18] 18. Ersoy E, Kara DÖ: The effect of the creative problem-solving approach on creative thinking skills. Front Psychol. 2026; 17: 1734855. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Chen J-Y, Chung M, Wang C-H: Collaborative collective action in sustainability initiatives. Omega. 2025; 136: 103337. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Burton AM, Pachucki C: Better together? Stakeholder collaboration as a driver for ecological innovation in community model destinations. J Destin Mark Manag. 2026; 39: 101058. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Guerrero G, Sjöström J: Critical scientific and environmental literacies: A systematic and critical review. Stud Sci Educ. 2025; 61: 41–87. Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Yusuf Y: Improving students’ critical thinking skills against environmental problems: Practicum mini project ‘understanding public perceptions of environmental problems’. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA. 2022; 8. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Moczulska M, Winkler R, Tarnowska K: Social and economic aspects of sustainable development: Intensity of collaboration as a key driver of team work engagement. Sustainability. 2025; 17: 3643. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Altomonte S, Logan B, Feisst M, et al.: Interactive and situated learning in education for sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2016; 17: 417–443. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Blumstein DT, Saylan C: The failure of environmental education (and how we can fix it). PLoS Biol. 2007; 5: e120. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Smith K, Maynard N, Berry A, et al.: Principles of problem-based learning (PBL) in STEM education: Using expert wisdom and research to frame educational practice. Educ Sci. 2022; 12: 12100728. Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Putra ZAZ, Susilo H, Suwono H, et al.: Revealing the effect of problem-based learning combined with the use of digital mind map on students’ creative thinking. J Pedagog Res. 2025; 9: 43–61.

[28] 28. Nurwidodo N, Hadi S, Ibrohim I, et al.: Validity and practicality of the EMKONTAN learning model to improve creative thinking, collaborative and literacy environment of prospective biology teacher students. The 12th International Conference on Lesson Study. 2021; pp. 221–232.

[29] 29. Nurwidodo N, Hindun I: EMKONTAN learning model to improve creativity, collaborative skills, and environmental literacy of prospective biology teachers. Jurnal Biolokus. 2024; 7: 143. Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Abugri BA, Assibi MA, Amalba A, et al.: The effects of problem-based learning (PBL) on undergraduate medical students’ critical thinking and communication skills development: A scoping review across resource-rich and resource-limited settings (2015-2024). PLoS One. 2026; 21: e0342599. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[31] 31. Nurwidodo N, Ibrohim I, Sueb S, et al.: Improving the creative thinking and collaborative skills of prospective biology teachers using the EMKONTAN learning model in environmental science courses. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia). 2023; 9: 15–25. Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Husin A, Helmi H, Nengsih YK, et al.: Environmental education in schools: sustainability and hope. Discov Sustain. 2025; 6: 41. Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Chen P, Chang Y-C: Incorporating creative problem-solving skills to foster sustainability among graduate students in education management. Clean Prod Lett. 2024; 7: 100082. Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Castaño C, Caballero R, Noguera JC, et al.: Developing sustainability competencies through active learning strategies across school and university settings. Sustainability. 2025; 17: 8886. Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Montes de Oca L, Navarro M, Byers T: Understanding what makes sustainability education effective: Insights from a university certificate program. Clean Prod Lett. 2026; 10: 100133.

[36] 36. López UH, Vázquez-Vílchez M, Salmerón-Vílchez P: The contributions of creativity to the learning process within educational approaches for sustainable development and/or ecosocial perspectives: A systematic review. Educ Sci. 2024; 14: 824. Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Thornhill-Miller B, Camarda A, Mercier M, et al.: Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education. J Intell. 2023; 11: 11030054. Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Bezeljak P, Scheuch M, Torkar G: Understanding of sustainability and education for sustainable development among pre-service biology teachers. Sustainability. 2020; 12: 6892. Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. El-Aasar M, Shafik Z, Abou-Bakr D: Outdoor learning environment as a teaching tool for integrating education for sustainable development in kindergarten, Egypt. Ain Shams Eng J. 2024; 15: 102629. Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Nurwidodo N, Hindun I, Nuryady MM: Integration of deep learning approach and EMKONTAN model to improve environmental literacy, creativity, and collaboration of students. Form J Ilm Pendidik MIPA. 2026; 16: 147–158.

[41] 41. Nurwidodo N, Hindun I, Husamah H: Suplementary material for "Environmental action-based learning for sustainability competencies: EMKONTAN model on environmental literacy, creative thinking, and collaboration among pre-service biology teachers". Zenodo. 2026.

Environmental Action-Based Learning for Sustainability Competencies: EMKONTAN Model on Environmental Literacy, Creative Thinking, and Collaboration among Pre-Service Biology Teachers

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Research design

Table 1. Quasi-experimental research design.

Participants and setting

Learning treatments

Table 2. Operational syntax of the EMKONTAN learning model.

Instruments

Table 3. Research instruments and measured indicators.

Data analysis

Results

Assumption checks

Table 4. Summary of homogeneity testing.

Environmental literacy

Creative thinking

Collaboration skills

Table 5. Descriptive and adjusted outcome scores by learning model.

Table 6. Summary of ANCOVA results.

Figure 1. ANCOVA-adjusted posttest means across the three measured sustainability competencies.

Figure 2. Partial eta squared values for the effect of learning model on each outcome.

Discussion

Conclusion

Ethical considerations

Data availability

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated