Designing Cross-Domain Sustainability Instruction in Higher Education: A Mixed-Methods Study Using AHP and Transformative Pedagogy

Abstract

This study proposes an interdisciplinary instructional model tailored for Functional Ecological Carbon (FEC) education, combining Electronic, Mobilize, and Ubiquitous (E/M/U) learning principles with the Practical Transformational Teaching Method (PTtM). The research adopts a mixed-methods framework, utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to prioritize teaching objectives and interpret student evaluations, alongside qualitative insights from reflective journals, open-ended surveys, and focus group discussions. The results indicate that hands-on experience, interdisciplinary collaboration, and context-aware applications play a critical role in fostering ecological awareness and responsibility among students. Notably, modules such as biosafety testing and water purification prompted transformative engagement with sustainability issues. The study contributes to sustainability education by integrating a decision-analytic structure with reflective learning and intelligent instructional strategies. The proposed model provides valuable implications for educators and policymakers designing interdisciplinary sustainability curricula in smart learning environments.

1. Introduction

As global environmental issues intensify, the role of education in advancing sustainable development has become increasingly urgent. Education is no longer seen merely as a vehicle for knowledge transmission, but as a critical means of cultivating the competencies, values, and dispositions needed to navigate complex socio-ecological challenges. The United Nations’ Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) framework underscores this shift, calling for educational practices that foster critical thinking, systems literacy, and the capacity to act with responsibility and foresight [1]. Yet, conventional didactic approaches often fall short of this mandate, lacking the capacity to engage learners in ways that meaningfully transform their perspectives and behaviors [2] (Sterling, 2010).

Drawing on transformative learning theory, Mezirow (1991) [3] argued that genuine learning involves not only acquiring new information but also re-evaluating and reconstructing existing frames of reference through critical reflection. In the context of sustainability education, this process is especially salient: fostering ecological consciousness and social responsibility requires pedagogies that challenge assumptions and encourage learners to engage with complex realities. Freire’s (1970) [4] concept of education as a dialogical and emancipatory process further reinforces the importance of student voice, agency, and relational learning as cornerstones of meaningful change.

Scholars have increasingly pointed to the need for cross-disciplinary and practice-integrated teaching models that reflect the complexity of sustainability issues [5,6]. Functional Ecological Carbon (FEC) education has emerged at the intersection of environmental science, material design, and applied innovation. For instance, while sustainability education increasingly calls for interdisciplinary approaches, pedagogical strategies that effectively integrate cognitive, experiential, and ethical dimensions remain limited in both theoretical articulation and practical implementation [7,8].

Building upon foundational works in transformative education, the Practical Transformational Teaching Method (PTtM) proposed in this study is conceptually rooted in Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning [3], which emphasizes critical reflection and perspective transformation as core elements of adult learning. Additionally, it draws from Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed [4], which highlights dialogical learning, student agency, and the co-construction of knowledge as essential components for educational emancipation. PTtM extends these principles into a practice-oriented framework that emphasizes experiential engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration, and context-aware problem-solving. By doing so, it aims to bridge theoretical transformation with applied sustainability learning.

This study responds to that gap by presenting a design-based instructional model that combines Electronic, Mobilize, and Ubiquitous (E/M/U) learning strategies with the Practical Transformational Teaching Method (PTtM). The course design is informed by the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a structured decision-making framework used here to align pedagogical goals with evaluative practices. Together, these tools offer a coherent model for fostering student engagement, critical reflection, and interdisciplinary competence.

Accordingly, this study explores the following questions:

• How do students experience cognitive and reflective transformation through AHP-supported, cross-domain sustainability instruction?
• In what ways does interdisciplinary pedagogy shape students’ ecological identity and capacity to act on sustainability challenges?

2. Research Design and Method

Research Design and Teaching Framework

This study employed a qualitative case study approach [9], situated within a cross-domain instructional setting that integrates principles from intelligence science—defined here as the use of adaptive, digitally mediated, and context-aware learning strategies to enhance learner engagement and autonomy [10,11]. This framework emphasizes the role of smart learning environments in supporting interdisciplinary and experiential sustainability education. The program centered on Functional Ecological Carbon (FEC) as a thematic anchor, engaging students in applied, interdisciplinary inquiry. To guide the course design, the instructional model integrated Electronic, Mobilize, and Ubiquitous (E/M/U) learning strategies with the Practical Transformational Teaching Method (PTtM). This combination was intended to support learning that is experiential, cross-disciplinary, and grounded in authentic contexts (see Figure 1).

The participants were 32 undergraduate students in their third or fourth year, enrolled in the Department of Wood-Based Materials and Design at National Chiayi University, Taiwan. The course was offered as an upper-level elective and emphasized the development of sustainability competencies in FEC education. To enhance contextual relevance, the curriculum was co-developed through collaboration between academic departments and industry partners, integrating elements from agriculture, food science, environmental engineering, and materials science. Instruction was delivered in a blended format, combining electronic learning resources, mobile tools, and ubiquitous computing applications in alignment with smart learning environments [12,13]. This approach supports the integration of context-aware, adaptive learning pathways essential for sustainability education [14].

Students engaged in a range of experiential learning activities, including:

• Observational visits to manufacturing and production sites;
• Hands-on experimentation with biological bacteriostatic methods;
• Design and evaluation of small-scale water purification systems;
• Mentorship sessions led by professionals from relevant industries.

These practice-oriented modules were purposefully designed to foster ecological awareness and cultivate transformative learning capacities [15].

This study employed a qualitative case study approach, following the methodological principles outlined by Merriam (1998) [9], and was situated within a cross-disciplinary instructional context informed by intelligence science. The educational program centered on Functional Ecological Carbon (FEC) and was designed to integrate experiential and interdisciplinary learning opportunities. The instructional framework drew upon the Electronic, Mobilize, and Ubiquitous (E/M/U) learning model in combination with the Practical Transformational Teaching Method (PTtM), with the aim of cultivating context-aware engagement and practical skill development across domains (see Figure 2).

• Dimension A Questionnaire:

Evaluates student learning outcomes in relation to the E/M/U intelligence-based objectives, as integrated with the Practical Transformational Teaching Method (PTtM).

b.

Dimension B Questionnaire:

Assesses students’ perceived relevance and acceptance of E/M/U-oriented practical instruction within the FEC curriculum, offering a basis for refining instructional content and improving digital learning resources.

c.

Dimension C Questionnaire:

Examines how practical course modules are integrated with E/M/U-based intelligent learning strategies in ecological carbon education and identifies key areas for pedagogical enhancement.

d.

Dimension D Questionnaire:

Investigates students’ engagement and creative performance within cross-domain instructional contexts, with particular emphasis on supporting autonomous learning and fostering interdisciplinary innovation.

(1)

Administration of the AHP-Based Teaching Questionnaire:

The AHP questionnaire was systematically administered to students in accordance with the instructional schedule (see

Table 1. Implementation of AHP questionnaire for “FEC Science and Application”.

Week	Subject	Teaching Contents	Time for AHP Questionnaire
1	Teaching syllabus	+FEC science +Application Multi-functional FEC	Dimension A and B before class
2, 3	Course teaching
4, 5, 6	Practical courses	+Water activity	Dimension C before class
		+Absorption/desorption and water purification
		+Total bacterial count, and Escherichia coli and coliform group	Dimension C after class
10	Cross-domain teaching	+Characteristics suitable for plug system +Soil fertility factors and nutrient preserving properties +Analysis of bamboo charcoal properties +Water purification test and Mechanism +Water activity determination and biosafety assessment	Dimension D before class
11			Dimension D after class
14	Industry Internship—Bamboo Charcoal Kiln Visit (Canceled), due to COVID-19
13–16	Creative thematic publication	+Competence learning +Applied learning
17–18	Practical seminar	+Internship report/practice PowerPoint	Dimension A and B after class

), providing a structured basis for analyzing their perceptions of course priorities.

(2)

Quantification of AHP-Based Teaching Questionnaires:

The data obtained from the AHP-based instructional questionnaires were analyzed using Expert Choice 11 software [16]. Priority weights were calculated for each dimension to quantify students’ evaluations and to identify shifts in their perceived importance of the integrated E/M/U and PTtM instructional framework within the context of FEC education.

(3)

Validation of Questionnaire Consistency:

To ensure the reliability of the AHP analysis, consistency tests were conducted on the resulting pairwise comparison matrices. Both the consistency ratio (CR) for individual hierarchical levels and the overall hierarchical consistency ratio (CRH) were computed. A CR value below 0.10 was deemed acceptable, following Saaty’s criteria. If a CR exceeded this threshold, the corresponding hierarchical relationships were reviewed and adjusted to enhance internal consistency.

If the CR exceeded 0.1, further analysis was required to reassess hierarchical relationships among factors.

$$\mathrm{CI}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mathit{max} - n}{n - 1}}$$

(1)

$$\mathrm{CR}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{I}}{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}}$$

(2)

Among these metrics, the Random Index (RI) represents the average consistency index derived from a large set of randomly generated pairwise comparison matrices. These matrices are constructed using a 1–9 scale and vary in size according to the order of the matrix, providing a benchmark for evaluating acceptable consistency levels in AHP analysis.

(4)

Paired Samples t-Test Analysis:

To examine whether students’ perceptions of instructional priorities shifted over the course duration, a paired samples t-test was applied to compare the mean scores of pre- and post-course evaluations within the same cohort. The analysis drew upon data obtained from the AHP-based questionnaires and was processed using Expert Choice 11 software. A threshold of p < 0.05 was employed to determine statistical significance in the observed differences across instructional dimensions.

3. Data Collection

To explore the multifaceted nature of students’ learning experiences, a range of qualitative data sources was collected throughout the 12-week academic term. This multimodal approach supported data triangulation and enhanced the methodological rigor of the qualitative design [17].

Open-ended AHP questionnaires:

While the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is traditionally employed for structured decision-making through pairwise comparisons [18], this study incorporated open-ended prompts to elicit students’ reasoning behind their judgments. This hybrid approach reflects emerging practices in educational research that emphasize the value of integrating reflective elements into quantitative instruments [19].

Reflective learning journals:

Students maintained weekly journals to capture emerging insights, internal conflicts, and evolving perspectives. Reflective writing is recognized as a means of fostering metacognitive development and embedding sustainability values into personal learning trajectories [20,21].

Focus group interviews:

Semi-structured group interviews were conducted to examine students’ shifting attitudes toward interdisciplinary learning, ecological responsibility, and personal agency. These dialogues facilitated collective meaning-making and critical reflection, which are essential components of transformative educational practice [6].

Practical project presentations:

Final team-based projects were analyzed for evidence of systems thinking, cross-domain integration, and innovative problem-solving. Project-based learning has been shown to enhance sustainability education by grounding theoretical knowledge in authentic, collaborative tasks [22].

4. Data Analysis

Thematic analysis was conducted following the six-phase framework proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006) [23], which emphasizes a recursive, reflexive approach to identifying patterns within qualitative data. This method was particularly appropriate for uncovering recurring motifs across cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of student learning.

Prior to formal data collection, a pilot session of the focus group interview protocol was conducted with two students. Based on their feedback, minor adjustments were made to improve question clarity and flow.

The analysis proceeded through the following key steps:

• Familiarization with the data:

Researchers immersed themselves in the students’ journal entries, focus group transcripts, and open-ended questionnaire responses to gain a comprehensive sense of the data landscape.

2.

Initial coding:

Codes were generated inductively, focusing on salient concepts such as sustainability values, learner agency, epistemic shifts, and interdisciplinary sense-making.

3.

Theme development:

Codes were clustered into preliminary themes that reflected commonalities or tensions in students’ experiences.

4.

Triangulation:

Themes were refined and validated through cross-comparison of data sources, ensuring consistency and credibility across journals, interviews, and survey reflections.

5.

Theoretical interpretation:

The analytic process was informed by transformative learning theory [3], which emphasizes perspective transformation through critical reflection, and sociocultural learning theory [24], which highlights the role of mediated dialogue and scaffolding in knowledge construction.

6.

Validity strategies:

Researcher reflexivity was maintained throughout the analytic process. In addition, member-checking was conducted with selected participants to validate theme accuracy. Two participants recommended wording clarifications and thematic refinements, which were incorporated into the final framework to enhance credibility and transparency. This approach aligns with McKim’s (2023) [25] structured model of member-checking, which emphasizes iterative dialogue and co-construction of meaning as key strategies for enhancing the trustworthiness of qualitative research.

Through this systematic approach, the analysis yielded a nuanced understanding of how students constructed ecological identities and developed cross-disciplinary competencies within a sustainability-oriented instructional framework.

5. Results

The study triangulated quantitative findings from Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) surveys and paired samples t-tests with qualitative insights drawn from student journals and focus group interviews. This integration of data sources enabled a holistic understanding of how students engaged with and transformed their learning within the cross-domain Functional Ecological Carbon (FEC) curriculum, grounded in E/M/U intelligence-based instructional strategies. By combining numerical patterns with narrative evidence, the research captured both the measurable and experiential dimensions of transformative sustainability learning.

5.1. Reframing Sustainability as a Personal Responsibility

Quantitative analysis revealed a marked increase in students’ valuation of “manufacturing and production process practice and industry–classroom linked experimental learning”, as reflected in the AHP weight shift from 0.354 to 0.395 (Figure 3). This statistically significant change (p < 0.05) indicates a growing appreciation for practice-based, real-world instruction within the curriculum. (see Table S1 in Supplementary Materials).

Student reflections further substantiated this shift. Many participants emphasized how direct engagement with industrial production and testing contexts prompted a re-evaluation of their relationship to environmental issues. As one student noted:

“Learning about carbon material production made me think about how daily products I use affect the environment. It made sustainability real for me”.

This convergence of empirical data and student narratives suggests that experiential learning not only supports cognitive development but also facilitates affective and ethical shifts. These findings align with Taylor’s (2017) [6] perspective that transformative learning is often initiated when abstract ideas are anchored in personally meaningful experiences.

5.2. Developing Agency Through Cross-Domain Learning

In the analysis of Dimension B (Figure 4), the instructional component “cross-domain teacher-assisted teaching” exhibited a significant increase in priority weight, rising from 0.147 to 0.220. Results from the paired samples t-test (p < 0.05) confirmed that interdisciplinary teaching was perceived by students as increasingly valuable. This suggests that exposure to multiple disciplinary perspectives played a central role in shaping how students interpreted and engaged with course content. (see Table S2 in Supplementary Materials).

Insights from focus group discussions further illuminated this shift. Students frequently emphasized that interaction with faculty from diverse academic domains enabled them to integrate knowledge more effectively and assume greater responsibility for their learning. As one participant explained:

“Talking to teachers from different fields helped me realize learning isn’t just memorizing—it’s creating new ideas by linking different knowledge together”.

Such accounts resonate with Freire’s (1970) [4] notion of dialogical education, in which co-constructed meaning and reciprocal exchange foster intellectual autonomy. Within this context, cross-domain instruction functioned not merely as a delivery method but as a mechanism for empowering students to take ownership of their learning trajectories and actively participate in knowledge production.

5.3. Navigating Tensions Between Theory and Practice

The analysis of Dimension C (Figure 5) indicated that “biological bacteriostatic activity testing” showed the most pronounced increase in instructional weight, rising from 0.465 to 0.537. This substantial gain suggests that students were highly engaged with biosafety-oriented, hands-on experimentation. Conversely, the relative importance of certain practical activities, particularly “water activity testing”, declined from 0.321 to 0.228. Students attributed this decline to inconsistencies between theoretical expectations and the actual results obtained during the experiments. (see Table S3 in Supplementary Materials).

Reflective journal entries shed further light on how learners responded to these discrepancies. Several students expressed initial confusion, frustration, or even self-doubt when their empirical results diverged from textbook norms. One student reflected:

“Our water activity test results didn’t match what the book said. It made me feel lost at first, but then I realized real-world work isn’t perfect”.

Such moments of cognitive dissonance, while challenging, played a formative role in deepening students’ understanding of the complexity inherent in applied scientific practice. These experiences align with Biesta’s (2006) [5] argument that meaningful education involves navigating uncertainty and resisting oversimplified answers. By confronting the messiness of real-world experimentation, students began to develop not only technical competence but also epistemological humility—recognizing that learning involves negotiation between theory and lived experience.

5.4. Connecting Learning to Broader Ecological Systems

The analysis of Dimension D (cross-domain instructional elements, Figure 6) revealed modest increases in the perceived importance of “water purification mechanisms” and “biological safety evaluation” following the completion of the course. These incremental gains indicate that students began to develop a more nuanced understanding of how environmental technologies intersect with larger ecological and societal systems. (see Table S4 in Supplementary Materials).

Qualitative reflections further substantiated this shift in perspective. Students reported that experiential modules—particularly those involving water testing and biosafety protocols—encouraged them to think critically about the broader implications of scientific inquiry. One student remarked:

“I never realized how clean water links to environmental justice until we did those tests. It opened my eyes to the bigger picture”.

Such reflections underscore the emergence of systems thinking, wherein learners begin to connect localized scientific knowledge with global concerns such as equity, access, and sustainability. These outcomes are closely aligned with the goals of Education for Sustainable Development (UNESCO, 2017) [1], which emphasizes the cultivation of integrative, ethically informed, and action-oriented competencies in learners.

By linking technical content with real-world relevance, the course fostered not only disciplinary understanding but also the capacity to engage with socio-environmental complexity—an essential skill for future sustainability professionals.

The highest post-course importance ratings were attributed to modules focused on water purification testing, mechanism-related knowledge, and biological safety evaluation. Closely following were activities associated with “C3: Biological Bacteriostatic Activity of Charcoals, Biochar, and Activated Carbon”. These results indicate that students found the most value in practical components directly addressing real-world sustainability issues, particularly those with tangible applications in environmental health and resource management.

To strengthen instructional effectiveness, future iterations of the course should place greater emphasis on these high-impact themes. Incorporating additional cross-domain content that contextualizes ecological technologies within everyday scenarios may enhance students’ conceptual grasp and promote deeper engagement. For example, experimental activities involving commonly encountered materials and purification systems can provide a relatable entry point for systems thinking and sustainability problem-solving.

In parallel, the creation of dedicated digital learning materials for these application-focused modules is strongly recommended. Such resources can reinforce students’ conceptual understanding outside of class, promote self-directed learning, and extend the accessibility of interdisciplinary sustainability education. By aligning practical instruction with accessible digital content, educators can foster both autonomy and motivation, thereby enhancing the long-term impact of sustainability curricula.

6. Discussion

This study explored how students engaged with sustainability-focused learning through a cross-disciplinary educational initiative that combined E/M/U intelligence strategies with the Practical Transformational Teaching Method (PTtM). By integrating an AHP-informed instructional structure with qualitative reflection, the study captured multiple dimensions of students’ learning experiences. The findings highlight three major contributions: (1) promoting learner agency through interdisciplinary collaboration, (2) reframing sustainability as a lived and personal concern, and (3) strengthening epistemic resilience through the navigation of theory–practice dissonance.

6.1. Cross-Domain Learning as a Catalyst for Student Agency

The observed increase in students’ valuation of cross-domain, teacher-assisted learning (AHP weight: 0.147 → 0.220; Figure 4) suggests that interdisciplinary exposure significantly enhanced students’ sense of agency. This outcome resonates with Freire’s (1970) [4] notion of dialogic education as a means of empowering learners to become co-constructors of knowledge. Focus group data revealed that students gained not only conceptual clarity but also greater confidence as they engaged with instructors from diverse academic fields.

Drawing on Braun and Clarke (2006) [23] sociocultural theory, these interactions are best understood as socially mediated learning processes. Rather than isolating disciplines, the functional ecological carbon (FEC) theme allowed students to perceive knowledge as interconnected and problem oriented. This pedagogical approach aligns with Biesta’s (2009) [26] call for education to support learners in developing ethical judgment and contextual awareness—core attributes for navigating a complex, interdependent world.

To support this interdisciplinary design, instructors from environmental engineering, materials science, food safety, and design backgrounds engaged in weekly planning meetings to align course goals and ensure conceptual cohesion. A shared rubric was co-developed to evaluate student work across modules. Cross-module assignments and group projects were jointly supervised. The teaching team encountered coordination challenges, such as differences in terminologies and scheduling conflicts, which were mitigated through asynchronous communication tools and flexible planning. This structure not only enhanced instructional alignment but also modeled collaborative practice for students.

6.2. From Environmental Theory to Lived Sustainability

The increased importance assigned to manufacturing- and industry-integrated modules (AHP weight: 0.354 → 0.395; Figure 3) illustrates how experiential engagement facilitated a shift from abstract sustainability ideals to tangible, personal commitments. Students’ reflective journals often described how direct involvement in applied projects altered their perception of ecological responsibility.

These findings affirm the importance of embodied and situated learning in sustainability education. As Sterling (2010) [2] argues, transformative learning involves critical interrogation of values and behavioral change, not merely knowledge acquisition. When students carried out biosafety assessments or analyzed bacteriostatic properties in water systems, they actively interpreted and recontextualized scientific knowledge in ways that informed their worldview and actions. This supports UNESCO’s (2017) [1] emphasis on agency as a core outcome of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).

6.3. Embracing Uncertainty in the Theory–Practice Nexus

Some students encountered notable discrepancies between theoretical expectations and experimental results—most prominently in the water activity testing module (AHP weight: 0.321 → 0.228; Figure 5). While this initially provoked uncertainty, many students later viewed these experiences as catalysts for deeper learning and critical thinking.

Such responses are consistent with Mezirow’s (1991) [3] theory of transformative learning, where disorienting dilemmas serve as entry points to reflection and change. Biesta (2006) [5] similarly contends that meaningful education must challenge habitual ways of thinking to generate authentic engagement. The discomfort caused by incongruent data encouraged students to critically examine scientific assumptions and the limitations of laboratory methods—an important step in cultivating scientific literacy and adaptive capacity.

6.4. Implications for Transformative and Sustainable Pedagogy

The combined use of E/M/U strategies and PTtM illustrates a promising direction for sustainability instruction in higher education. By leveraging digital accessibility (Electronic), facilitating interdisciplinary knowledge transfer (Mobilize), and emphasizing contextual application (Ubiquitous), this pedagogical model enables learning that is both rigorous and responsive to real-world demands. The inclusion of AHP as a curricular design and evaluation tool further reinforces coherence between learning goals and instructional practices.

This approach supports the broader pedagogical goals of systems thinking, critical reflection, and experiential integration [6,25]. It also nurtures a sense of ecological citizenship by fostering students’ ability to engage with complexity, take initiative, and recognize interdependence.

While PTtM is presented as a novel instructional strategy developed in this study, its core pedagogical DNA is deeply rooted in the foundational works of transformative education theorists. The design’s emphasis on dialogical interaction, learner agency, and critical reflection closely parallels Freire’s and Mezirow’s frameworks [3,4]. By operationalizing these principles within a cross-domain, sustainability-focused instructional context, PTtM contributes to the evolving discourse on transformative learning—demonstrating how such frameworks can be translated into actionable pedagogies for addressing ecological challenges and promoting interdisciplinary engagement.

6.5. Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the study’s contributions, several limitations must be acknowledged. The research was confined to a single academic program at one institution, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings. While short-term transformations were captured effectively through qualitative inquiry, the durability of these shifts remains unknown. Longitudinal studies are needed to assess whether changes in perception and behavior persist over time.

Additionally, the instructional delivery was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which introduced constraints such as the cancelation of on-site visits and face-to-face interviews. In response, the research team adopted compensatory strategies, including asynchronous video demonstrations, virtual mentorship sessions, and revised project formats. These adaptations ensured instructional continuity but may have influenced the nature of student engagement and limited opportunities for real-world immersion.

Furthermore, the relatively small sample size (n = 32) and the specific disciplinary background of participants (wood-based materials) restrict the breadth and representativeness of the findings. As such, the insights derived from this study should be interpreted with caution and may not be fully generalizable to broader student populations or other academic domains.

Future studies are encouraged to replicate the instructional design across multiple cohorts, institutions, and disciplines. Inclusion of comparative control groups and extended timelines would help validate and refine the proposed model. Future work may also explore participatory curriculum co-design involving students and community stakeholders to enhance authenticity, relevance, and social impact. Such developments may help reposition higher education as a key driver of transformative learning aligned with global sustainability agendas.

7. Conclusions

This study explored how sustainability education can be strengthened through a carefully structured pedagogical model that integrates E/M/U intelligence learning strategies with the Practical Transformational Teaching Method (PTtM). Supported by the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and qualitative inquiry, this model helped students make tangible connections between cross-disciplinary knowledge and their own learning trajectories.

Rather than remaining at the level of abstract concepts, students encountered sustainability as something embedded in everyday practices—through biosafety experiments, carbon material testing, and reflections on water purification. These experiences fostered not only technical understanding but also a sense of personal responsibility and ecological agency.

As higher education institutions face growing pressure to prepare learners for complex and uncertain environmental futures, this research suggests a shift in emphasis: from knowledge transmission to meaning-making, from isolated skills to integrative judgment. A pedagogy that combines structure with openness—analytical clarity with dialogic learning—can help students develop the confidence and insight needed to navigate sustainability challenges not only intellectually, but ethically and practically.

Looking ahead, the proposed model offers a useful reference point for those designing curricula that aim to connect systems thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and lived experience. While further studies are needed to test its adaptability in other contexts, the results here suggest that such integrative approaches can move sustainability education beyond aspiration—toward transformation.