Fostering Education for Sustainable Development Through Narrative Competence: A Mixed-Methods Study of a Life Design Thinking Module

Abstract

This study responds to the urgent need for education that fosters sustainable, self-directed development by introducing a five-phase narrative instruction pre-module grounded within the Life Design Thinking (LDT) framework. Integrating design thinking with narrative theory, LDT promotes learner agency, identity coherence, and adaptive future planning through structured autobiographical reflection. The intervention was conducted in a group setting with 14 adult learners (n = 14) from China. Although participant demographics were not the primary focus, the study emphasized theoretical and methodological development through iterative instructional design. A mixed-methods approach was employed, including rubric-based scoring of 101 written narratives and a thematic analysis of the reflective content. The results demonstrated significant improvements in narrative competence, especially in technical application (+80.91%), reflective depth (+70.0%), with thematic clarity (+58.11%), also showing notable gains related to meaning synthesis and narrative focus. Learners also exhibited enhanced thematic continuity and future-oriented integration. These outcomes highlight the value of narrative pedagogy as a transformative learning approach aligned with SDG 4.7. By cultivating metacognitive awareness and future-readiness, the module contributes to education for sustainable development and provides initial evidence for a potentially scalable and transferable model that supports learners in navigating complexity with meaning and purpose.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Rationale

In the context of accelerating global change and technological advancement, traditional paradigms of career development and educational planning have become increasingly inadequate [1,2]. The postmodern condition—marked by labor precarity, identity fragmentation, and non-linear life paths—demands adaptability and self-agency [3,4]. Today’s learners must not only make informed decisions but also continually realign their life goals amid shifting contexts [5,6].

Sustainability-oriented education highlights the need for reflective, future-oriented self-direction [7]. In alignment with SDG 4.7, which promotes education for sustainable development and global citizenship, scholars call for cultivating metacognitive and narrative competencies for lifelong learning [8,9].

However, dominant models often lack integrative strategies that connect identity development, narrative meaning making, and future adaptability [10,11]. While therapeutic or individualized formats exist, structured group-based pedagogies that develop these capacities remain underexplored [12,13]. Educational innovations are needed to empower resilient self-authorship in uncertain contexts.

In addition to supporting SDG 4, this study aligns with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), by addressing psychological uncertainty and identity discontinuity [3], and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), by cultivating learners’ adaptability and career resilience [1,5].

1.2. Research Problem

While design thinking and narrative learning are increasingly applied in education [10,14], their integration remains underdeveloped in career and life design contexts [12]. Narrative methods tend to focus on individualized or therapeutic use [11], and design thinking is often confined to design and engineering domains [15,16]. Currently, no empirically tested, group-based pedagogical model exists that combines these approaches within a coherent, teachable structure aimed at sustainable self-development. In particular, the Life Design Thinking (LDT) framework—though conceptually promising—has yet to be empirically evaluated in a group learning context. This study addresses this gap by testing a narrative-based instructional module grounded in LDT principles, aiming to assess its impact on learners’ narrative competence and adaptive self-authorship.

1.3. Purpose and Significance of the Study

This paper introduces and empirically evaluates a five-phase narrative instruction module embedded within an original pedagogical framework: Life Design Thinking (LDT). LDT conceptually integrates the iterative, human-centered processes of design thinking with the narrative–constructivist underpinnings of career construction theory and life design education [5,16]. Rather than treating career development as a linear sequence of choices, LDT frames it as an ongoing process of adaptive, meaningful self-authorship [6].

The five-phase narrative module serves as a pre-module that operationalizes selected principles of the LDT framework. It guides learners through stages of narrative development—from chronological recall to autonomous story construction—promoting reflective engagement and future-oriented identity construction [10]. The module was implemented in a group setting to explore how narrative-based design pedagogy can foster the development of learners’ narrative competence and agency within a collaborative educational context [11,13].

This study offers three key contributions to the field of sustainability education and interdisciplinary pedagogy:

• It proposes an integrated pedagogical framework that unites design thinking and narrative learning to promote sustainable self-authorship;
• It introduces a structured, assessable narrative module that builds learners’ reflective and future-oriented capacities in group settings;
• It provides empirical evidence of the module’s effectiveness in cultivating narrative competence, contributing to the implementation of SDG 4.7 in practice.

This paper proceeds to elaborate on the theoretical rationale, methodological approach, and key findings, concluding with implications for research and practice.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Challenges of Career and Learning in the Postmodern Era

In the context of rapid social, technological, and economic transformation, traditional paradigms of career development and learning have become increasingly inadequate. The shift from linear, stable occupational trajectories toward nonlinear, fragmented, and self-authored pathways has placed new demands on individuals’ adaptive capacity [3,8]. Learners today are required not only to make choices but also to continuously revise and reconstruct their educational and life narratives in response to ambiguity and change.

This instability is especially pronounced in the postmodern era, characterized by unstable job markets, flexible labor structures, and accelerated digitalization [4,17]. Global reports reflect the extent of this volatility. According to the World Economic Forum (2023), over 44% of workers’ core skills are expected to change within five years due to rapid automation and artificial intelligence integration [18]. Furthermore, the OECD (2020) notes that nearly one-third of jobs across member countries are at high risk of automation, with younger and less-educated workers disproportionately affected [1]. In parallel, Gallup (2022) reports record levels of workplace stress globally, with 60% of employees experiencing frequent burnout or uncertainty about future roles [19].

These dynamics have blurred the boundaries between learning, work, and life, giving rise to systemic challenges such as identity discontinuity, fragmented learning experiences, and psychological vulnerability [4,17]. Individuals often face disrupted career narratives, making it difficult to sustain coherent identity formation or long-term life planning.

In response, educational systems are now called upon to cultivate sustainable self-directed development—a holistic capacity that integrates personal meaning making, metacognitive reflection, emotional resilience, and adaptive strategy formation. This imperative is not only pedagogical but structural, requiring new educational paradigms that empower learners to author their life paths under conditions of fluidity and uncertainty. These challenges underline the urgent need for educational paradigms that cultivate reflective, future-oriented competencies.

2.2. Narrative Learning and Competence in Collaborative Contexts

Narrative is widely regarded as a foundational mode of human meaning making, enabling individuals to interpret past experiences, construct identity, and envision future possibilities [20,21]. In educational settings, it fosters reflective learning and coherent life authorship across fragmented experiences [22]. This capacity is especially crucial in complex environments that demand adaptive revisions of goals and values [10].

Foundational works by Savickas [22] and McAdams [21] have conceptualized career construction and identity development as inherently narrative processes, shaping the theoretical basis for narrative-based interventions. More recently, empirical studies have demonstrated that structured narrative reflection promotes metacognitive awareness, adaptive decision making, and psychological resilience [23]. Hammond et al. (2020) [23] synthesized evidence across higher education contexts, concluding that narrative learning fosters students’ ability to navigate transitions and develop future-oriented agency.

Empirical studies have affirmed the role of narrative pedagogy in enhancing learner agency, reflective capacity, and identity coherence. For instance, Meijers and Lengelle (2012) found that structured narrative reflection significantly improved students’ career clarity and sense of meaning [10]. In a meta-synthesis of narrative-based interventions in higher education, Hammond et al. (2020) concluded that narrative learning improves students’ metacognitive awareness, enhances their ability to navigate transitions, and fosters a sense of future control—core attributes of sustainable lifelong learning [23].

However, the dominant applications of narrative pedagogy remain largely individualized—limited to settings such as counseling, therapy, or one-on-one coaching—while pedagogically grounded, group-based implementations are comparatively underdeveloped [24]. Key challenges include a lack of personalization in group settings, limited scaffolding for peer interaction, and insufficient assessment tools for measuring developmental growth in narrative competence [11,13]. Moreover, few studies offer longitudinal, process-based instructional designs that align narrative practice with sustainable development goals.

Recent research has begun to explore innovative applications of narrative pedagogy in digitally supported and AI-enhanced learning environments. For instance, Pellas (2023) investigated the impact of generative AI platforms on undergraduates’ narrative intelligence and writing self-efficacy, finding that AI-enhanced digital storytelling tools significantly improved both outcomes [25]. Similarly, Huang and Chan (2022) demonstrated the efficacy of online story-mapping tools in helping students articulate life goals through multimodal narratives [26]. These findings suggest that digital augmentation can address traditional limitations of narrative instruction, especially in scaling access and facilitating real-time feedback.

At the same time, critical perspectives have raised concerns regarding the cultural specificity and epistemological assumptions of narrative methods. Some scholars argue that narrative coherence as a marker of maturity may privilege Western norms of selfhood and continuity, potentially marginalizing alternative modes of meaning making. Others note that the emphasis on verbal articulation may disadvantage learners with differing communication styles or cognitive profiles [27]. These critiques underscore the need for culturally responsive, flexible designs that accommodate diverse narrative expressions and avoid prescriptive narrative ideals.

While acknowledging concerns that narrative coherence may reflect culturally specific ideals, this study adopts a developmental perspective—viewing coherence not as a fixed standard, but as a flexible capacity for learners to meaningfully integrate life experiences and envision future possibilities through personally resonant storytelling.

In response to these gaps and critiques, this study introduces a five-phase instructional framework for developing narrative competence in collaborative learning environments. The module combines structured sequencing, process scaffolding, and embedded assessment to support learners’ progression from chronological recall to autonomous storytelling. Though designed for group settings, the modular structure ensures adaptability across various instructional formats. The model empowers learners to engage in reflective and self-directed identity construction through a scaffolded, collaborative process designed for sustainable learning environments.

2.3. Design Thinking and Educational Transformation

Design thinking (DT), originally developed within the domains of engineering and product innovation, has increasingly been adapted for use in educational contexts. Its human-centered, iterative, and problem-reframing approach is recognized for cultivating creativity, empathy, and strategic action planning in learners [14,16,28]. One influential adaptation is the Design Thinking for Educators Toolkit developed by IDEO (2012), which reformulates DT into a five-phase process tailored for learning environments: discovery, interpretation, ideation, experimentation, and evolution [16].

In this educational model, learners are guided to (1) explore complex challenges, (2) interpret meaningful patterns, (3) generate actionable ideas, (4) prototype and test solutions, and (5) iterate based on feedback and reflection. Each phase fosters a balance between divergent and convergent thinking, encouraging flexible engagement with real-world ambiguity and iterative solution-building.

While this five-phase model was not directly implemented in the present study, its design logic and pedagogical ethos—particularly its emphasis on learner agency, exploratory framing, and iterative refinement—conceptually informed the development of the Life Design Thinking (LDT) framework.

Beyond institutional toolkits, a notable example of DT applied to life and career development is Stanford University’s “Design Your Life” program [29]. This approach demonstrated how reframing and prototyping could support individualized decision-making and personal development. While the Stanford model centers on personal application, the present study expands upon it by modularizing its principles into a structured group-based curriculum that integrates narrative learning, reflective writing, and design-based instructional scaffolding.

The broader significance of design thinking in educational transformation lies in its alignment with key 21st-century learning goals: fostering metacognition, adaptability, and future-oriented strategy formation [15]. These qualities render DT a powerful complement to narrative pedagogy, as both promote meaning making, learner autonomy, and transformative flexibility.

By embedding design thinking into structured, learner-centered pedagogy, this study aligns with ESD’s call for innovative, interdisciplinary educational practices that enable learners to engage in sustainable action planning. It addresses the conceptual gap by extending DT into a cohesive educational framework grounded in sustainability values, integrating reflective identity construction with strategic life design as a means of fostering long-term adaptability and agency.

2.4. The Life Design Thinking (LDT) Approaches

Building on the synergy between design thinking and narrative learning, this study introduces Life Design Thinking (LDT) as a multi-dimensional educational innovation, serving simultaneously as a pedagogical approach, a methodological framework, and a conceptual model for sustainable learner development. While this paper focuses on the pedagogical implementation of LDT through a pilot instructional module, it also lays the groundwork for future theoretical and methodological expansion.

LDT integrates the iterative, solution-oriented logic of design thinking with the identity-focused, reflective depth of narrative theory. From design thinking, it adopts the five-phase cycle of discovery, interpretation, ideation, experimentation, and evolution to support learner engagement with complexity, ambiguity, and transformation. From narrative theory, it incorporates autobiographical storytelling, identity construction, and personal meaning making to foster reflective and future-oriented learning [11,21,22].

This framework departs from traditional life planning or vocational counseling models. Rather than providing prescriptive decisions, the LDT equips learners with symbolic, strategic, and process-oriented tools to reauthor life stories, construct adaptive trajectories, and navigate uncertainty through reflective self-authorship.

The five-phase narrative instruction module implemented in this study serves as a preparatory application of LDT. It was designed to cultivate narrative competence in group-based educational settings, positioning storytelling as a pedagogical pathway to enhance learner agency, coherence, and sustainable learning capacity. By operationalizing key principles of LDT within a structured, assessable curriculum, this study demonstrates the feasibility and relevance of a design-informed narrative pedagogy in real-world learning environments.

The full theoretical articulation and methodological system of LDT will be elaborated upon in subsequent publications. For the current study, the primary aim is to empirically validate its educational potential in initiating sustainable self-directed development through structured narrative engagement. This empirical validation offers a foundation for future curricular innovations that foster reflective and future-oriented learning capacities.

3. Theoretical Foundation and Research Framework

3.1. Theoretical Rationale

This study is grounded in a novel pedagogical approach referred to as Life Design Thinking (LDT), an original conceptual synthesis that integrates the iterative problem-solving strategies of design thinking with the narrative orientation and future-directed focus of life design theory. As an emerging framework, LDT was developed specifically for this study to address the demands of sustainable, self-directed learning in dynamic life and career contexts. Unlike existing models, LDT emphasizes both reflective narrative construction and strategic ideation for future action, positioning learners as autonomous agents of meaning making.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the pedagogical foundation of LDT integrates key theoretical principles from both design thinking and life design theory. Human-centered iteration and narrative-constructivist learning are consolidated into a structured framework that supports both psychological adaptability and long-term developmental agency [5,16].

These foundational elements are conceptually grounded in three core domains: (1) narrative learning theory, which views autobiographical storytelling as a means of constructing identity and making sense of personal change [20,21]; (2) sustainable self-directed learning, emphasizing learner autonomy, adaptability, and long-term developmental capacity [9]; and (3) design-inspired educational logic, which introduces structured iteration, visual mapping, and reflective experimentation as cognitive tools for future action planning [15].

Within this pedagogical orientation, narrative competence is not only a communicative ability but also a developmental resource. Its enhancement supports metacognitive awareness, emotional articulation, identity coherence, and future scenario construction—all essential attributes of sustainability-oriented education.

3.2. Conceptual Framework

To clarify the distinction between theoretical foundation and pedagogical implementation, this study differentiates between Life Design Thinking (LDT) as a conceptual framework and the five-phase narrative module as one of its applied instructional strategies. LDT integrates principles from design thinking, narrative psychology, and sustainability education, emphasizing not only the reflective construction of past life stories but also the design of sustainable future pathways. As a dynamic and expandable pedagogical paradigm, LDT incorporates multi-perspective reframing, scaffolding for reflective practice, and the development of visual tools to facilitate adaptive identity construction and future-oriented action planning. Within this broader framework, the five-phase narrative module introduced below represents a structured instructional application in group learning settings, translating core LDT principles into a flexible and teachable process.

The instructional design adopted in this study is structured around a five-phase narrative module aligned with the pedagogical logic of LDT. Each phase targets a specific facet of narrative development, guiding learners to progressively retrieve, structure, and re-author life stories in reflective and future-oriented ways:

• PH1: Temporal sequenced narrative (TS)—initiating autobiographical recall through temporal segmentation of past life stages;
• PH2: Focused narrative (FS)—extracting meaningful personal experiences of success and failure;
• PH3: Process narrative (PS)—reconstructing developmental trajectories through design thinking processes;
• PH4: Structured narrative (SS)—enhancing narrative coherence and emotional resonance through plot structuring;
• PH5: Autonomous narrative (AS)—composing a cohesive and future-oriented life story with personal agency.

This modular process supports the cultivation of five core dimensions of narrative competence: (1) Chronological Logic; (2) Structural Coherence; (3) Thematic Clarity; (4) Technical Application; and (5) Reflective Depth [11]. These dimensions are progressively developed through instructional scaffolding, enabling learners to transform fragmented experiences into integrated self-narratives with both educational and developmental relevance.

The framework also facilitates semantic evolution and thematic continuity, reinforcing learners’ ability to critically reflect, project future pathways, and navigate complex life contexts with sustainable self-authorship. As illustrated in Figure 2, each instructional phase is mapped to a specific facet of narrative growth, creating a coherent pathway for cumulative narrative skill development.

By bridging theory and empirical inquiry, this research framework contributes to the development of ESD-aligned pedagogical strategies that empower learners to enact sustainable self-authorship. Specifically, it operationalizes SDG 4.7’s emphasis on lifelong learning, global citizenship, and the cultivation of critical, reflective, and self-directed capabilities needed for navigating uncertainty in rapidly evolving social landscapes.

3.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses

To investigate the effects of the LDT-based instructional module, this study focuses on two core outcome constructs: narrative competence and sustainable self-directed learning readiness. Narrative competence is operationalized through five assessable dimensions: (1) Chronological Logic, (2) Structural Coherence, (3) Thematic Clarity, (4) Technical Application, and (5) Reflective Depth, each rated on a five-point rubric scale [11]. Sustainable self-directed learning readiness is evaluated through qualitative indicators embedded in participants’ future-oriented narratives, metacognitive awareness, goal projection, and adaptability—key competencies that are essential for navigating complexity and uncertainty.

The research questions and corresponding hypotheses, along with the operational definitions and evaluation strategies, are summarized in

Table 1. Research questions, hypotheses, and operational definitions.

RQ	Hypothesis	Core Variable	Operational Definition	Evaluation Method
RQ1	H1: Participants will demonstrate significant gains in narrative competence.	Narrative Competence	Five-dimension rubric: Chronological Logic, Structural Coherence, Thematic Clarity, Technical Application, Reflective Depth (5-point scale)	Pre- and post-module scoring by trained raters
RQ2	H2: Participants will independently construct coherent life narratives in the final phase.	Narrative Autonomy	Thematic integration, personal agency, and coherence in PH5 narratives	Holistic coding of PH5 text products
RQ3	H3: Participants will show progressive thematic continuity and semantic development across phases.	Thematic Continuity and Semantic Growth	Cross-phase tracking of repeated narrative motifs and enriched vocabulary usage	Semantic analysis and thematic tracking from PH1 to PH5
RQ4	H4: Narrative development will correlate with indicators of sustainable learning readiness.	Future Learning Readiness	Evidence of reflective identity construction, future planning, and metacognitive insight	Narrative coding of future-oriented segments (PH4–PH5)

RQ = research question; PH = phase; narrative competence was rated across five dimensions using a 5-point rubric by trained raters. Narrative autonomy and future learning readiness were assessed via qualitative coding of final-phase narratives. Thematic continuity and semantic growth were analyzed across PH1 to PH5.

.

3.4. Research Design Overview

The five-phase narrative instruction module was implemented as a pre-module within a larger life design learning program. The participants engaged in guided narrative writing tasks, with each aligned with one instructional phase. The data were collected through written narrative outputs, scored using a validated rating scale, and analyzed for thematic and semantic patterns.

This design enabled the investigation of both individual progression and group-level trends, offering a robust empirical basis for evaluating LDT as a sustainable educational strategy. The instructional sequence and evaluation logic are elaborated upon in Section 4.

4. Materials and Methods

This section details the overall research design, including the instructional module framework, participant recruitment, data collection methods, data analysis procedures, ethical considerations, and research limitations.

4.1. Research Design

Contrary to the impression that this study applied a pre-validated instructional framework, the five-phase narrative module—though grounded in theoretical concepts from life design thinking and narrative pedagogy—had not been empirically tested or finalized prior to implementation. Rather, its structure and applications evolved through an iterative process of practical experimentation, reflection, and refinement over multiple instructional cycles. This study adopts a constructive research paradigm, in which pedagogical models are not tested in isolation but gradually built and validated through empirical teaching interventions. The aim was not to confirm a static intervention but to co-develop and refine a practice-based framework that fosters narrative competence and sustainable learner development. In this sense, the findings reflect the emergent validity of the framework through cycles of design, implementation, observation, and reconstruction.

This study employed a narrative-based instructional intervention design grounded in Life Design Thinking (LDT) principles, aiming to enhance participants’ narrative competence and foster sustainable self-directed development. A mixed-methods approach was adopted, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques to comprehensively capture the structural improvements, semantic evolution, and internalization patterns in participants’ narratives across sequential learning phases [30].

The overall research process encompassed five major stages: (1) Pre-Intervention Preparation, (2) Implementation of the Five-Phase Narrative Instruction Module, (3) Post-Intervention Data Collection, (4) Data Analysis, and (5) Integrated Interpretation and Model Validation. These stages were designed to systematically scaffold participants’ narrative construction abilities and to evaluate the developmental trajectories and thematic continuities resulting from the intervention.

At the outset, the participants were recruited through voluntary enrollment and provided informed consent, ensuring ethical compliance. A pre-intervention orientation session familiarized participants with the objectives and expectations of the study. Subsequently, the Five-Phase Narrative Instruction Module was implemented, sequentially guiding participants through initial reflection (PH1), incremental narrative development (PH2), process training (PH3), structure construction (PH4), and autonomous storytelling (PH5). Each instructional phase was designed to build upon the previous one, reinforcing reflective scaffolding and narrative skill acquisition.

Following the instructional module, final narrative products were collected from all participants, forming the primary dataset for subsequent analysis. The data analysis integrated two complementary dimensions: (a) a quantitative scoring of narrative competence across structural and reflective indicators and (b) a qualitative semantic analysis to trace the thematic consistency and meaning-making evolution [11].

Finally, the synthesized results of both analyses informed an integrated interpretation process, culminating in the formulation and refinement of a conceptual model that links narrative development processes to sustainable self-directed learning outcomes. This design aligns with the goals of Education for Sustainable Development (SDG 4.7), enabling learners to reflect on their life trajectories, construct meaningful identities, and develop narrative-based strategies for future growth and adaptive learning.

The complete research design and sequential procedural flow are illustrated in Figure 3.

4.2. Participants

A total of 14 adult learners voluntarily participated in this study, representing a heterogeneous sample across educational backgrounds, occupational statuses, and life stages. The participants were recruited through open invitations distributed via academic networks, professional communities, and social media platforms. The inclusion criteria required the participants to be legally recognized adults in their respective jurisdictions and willing to engage fully in all instructional phases and associated narrative tasks. No exclusion based on occupational status or prior narrative experience was applied, ensuring sample diversity and enhancing the ecological validity of the instructional design.

Although the participants were not informed in advance that the course was designed around narrative learning principles, it is possible that individuals with stronger reflective tendencies were more likely to participate. This potential motivational bias is acknowledged in Section 6.5 as a limitation of the voluntary sampling approach.

The participant group included individuals enrolled in undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs, as well as early-career professionals, university instructors, and family caregivers. The ages ranged from 21 to 36 years, with a gender distribution of 4 males and 10 females. This demographic distribution ensured the representation of various transitional life stages, providing a robust basis for examining the developmental dynamics of narrative competence.

All participants completed the full five-phase narrative instruction module and submitted narrative outputs at each phase. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the study, ensuring compliance with ethical research standards. The participants were assigned unique identifiers (P01–P14) to anonymize their identities throughout the data collection and analysis processes.

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of study participants.

Participant ID	Age	Gender	Educational Level	Occupational Status
P01	26	Male	Bachelor’s Degree	Graduate Student
P02	25	Female	Bachelor’s Degree	Practicing Professional
P03	26	Female	Bachelor’s Degree	Early-Career Job Seeker
P04	24	Female	Bachelor’s Degree	Graduate Student
P05	36	Male	Master’s Degree	University Faculty
P06	25	Male	Bachelor’s Degree	Early-Career Job Seeker
P07	24	Female	Bachelor’s Degree	Entry-Level Professional
P08	23	Female	Bachelor’s Degree	Entry-Level Professional
P09	36	Female	Associate Degree	Homemaker
P10	36	Female	Master’s Degree	University Faculty
P11	22	Male	Bachelor’s Degree	Graduate Student
P12	22	Female	Bachelor’s Degree	Undergraduate Student
P13	25	Female	Bachelor’s Degree	Entry-level Employee
P14	21	Female	Bachelor’s Degree	Undergraduate Student

This table presents the demographic profiles of the study participants, detailing their age, gender, educational attainment, and occupational status.

summarizes the demographic characteristics of the participants.

4.3. Instructional Module Design

The instructional module adopted in this study is a five-phase curriculum integrating the principles of design thinking and narrative-based approaches, situated within the broader framework of LDT pedagogy. This preparatory module focused on cultivating the participants’ narrative competence through structured narrative construction tasks, supplemented with reflective writing, visual mapping, and dialogic exploration techniques. Its primary aim was to systematically guide participants through processes of retrospective reflection, thematic focusing, process reconstruction, and expressive development, ultimately leading to the creation of life narratives characterized by self-reflection and future-oriented strategic awareness.

The instructional design systematically scaffolded narrative skill development from basic temporal reflection to advanced autonomous storytelling. Each phase emphasized distinct narrative focuses, employed designated instructional techniques, and generated specific narrative outputs. Instructional delivery was conducted within a group-based setting, facilitating individual narrative construction in a collective learning environment.

The first four phases (PH1–PH4) were conducted under structured instructor guidance, aimed at progressively empowering participants to enhance their narrative abilities through targeted facilitation. In the fifth phase (PH5), the participants completed their narratives independently without expert support, allowing for the assessment of internalized narrative competence and sustainable autonomous learning development.

The five instructional phases are detailed as follows:

• TS (PH1): Temporal Sequenced Narrative

The participants recalled and organized significant life events chronologically using the timeline method. The narrative focus was on constructing segmented experiential narratives based on temporal progression [11];

• FS (PH2): Focused Narrative

The participants extracted and elaborated on meaningful experiences of personal success and failure through thematic focus techniques. Each participant independently composed one success story and one failure story, emphasizing pivotal personal events;

• PS (PH3): Process Narrative

The participants restructured prior narratives by describing the developmental processes embedded within their experiences, guided by the five-step framework of design thinking [16,28]. The output emphasized growth trajectories and adaptive strategies;

• SS (PH4): Structured Narrative

The participants refined the narrative structure and plot coherence using self-distancing techniques combined with the Four-Act Narrative Framework [16,21]. This phase focused on enriching story architecture and reinforcing thematic continuity;

• AS (PH5): Autonomous Narrative

The participants independently synthesized and expanded their narratives by integrating reflective insights with autonomous storytelling techniques. The final outputs demonstrated a high degree of thematic integration, structural completeness, and reflective depth.

During the course implementation, the 14 participants collectively produced a total of 101 valid narrative texts. On average, each participant completed six narratives, including two distinct narratives during Phase 2 (success and failure stories). Several participants voluntarily submitted multiple versions during Phases 3, 4, and 5, reflecting a high level of engagement and proactive internalization of the learning process. All participants successfully completed the five phases without missing data, providing a comprehensive empirical basis for subsequent analyses of narrative competence development and thematic transformation. The structured sequencing of reflective writing and narrative construction not only enhances narrative competence but also fosters deep learner engagement and sustained meaning-making across phases.

Each instructional session incorporated a combination of structured short lectures, method demonstrations, individual writing assignments, and peer feedback discussions. Short lectures delivered concise, focused instruction on narrative techniques and methods, serving as targeted preparatory activities for the corresponding narrative tasks. The overall instructional approach emphasized structured progression, reflective engagement, narrative construction practice, and autonomous application.

The overall structure of the instructional module is illustrated in Figure 4.

4.4. Data Collection

The data collection process in this study was systematically designed to capture participants’ narrative development across the five instructional phases of the LDT preparatory module. The collected data included pre-intervention baseline narratives, during-intervention narrative outputs from each instructional phase, and post-intervention autonomous narratives. Additional reflective assignments and peer feedback records were also incorporated as Supplementary Materials. This multi-stage data collection strategy enabled a comprehensive examination of changes in narrative competence, thematic coherence, and sustainable self-directed learning capacities.

4.4.1. Pre-Intervention Data Collection

Prior to the formal implementation of the instructional module, baseline data were collected during Phase 1 (Temporal Sequenced Narrative). The participants were guided to retrospectively review their growth experiences through chronological prompts. They produced segmented narratives corresponding to distinct life periods, laying the groundwork for subsequent thematic development. These initial narratives served as reference points for assessing participants’ initial narrative competence and thematic articulation.

4.4.2. During-Intervention Data Collection

Throughout Phases 2 to 4 Focused Narrative, Process Narrative, Structured Narrative), the participants produced narrative outputs aligned with the instructional objectives of each phase:

• In Phase 2 (Focused Narrative), the participants composed two distinct narratives focused on success and failure experiences, employing thematic extraction techniques;
• In Phase 3 (Process Narrative), the participants restructured their prior narratives by describing the developmental processes and growth trajectories embedded within their experiences, guided by design thinking principles;
• In Phase 4 (Structured Narrative), the participants refined their narrative structures using the Four-Act Narrative Framework and self-distancing techniques to enhance plot coherence and emotional resonance.

In addition to the primary narrative texts, the participants submitted written reflections and engaged in peer feedback activities. These Supplementary Materials provided valuable contextual information about participants’ narrative construction processes and cognitive engagement during the intervention.

4.4.3. Post-Intervention Data Collection

Following the structured instructional phases, the participants independently completed the final phase (Autonomous Narrative), constructing a comprehensive life story centered on a self-defined theme. This task was completed without expert guidance, serving as a measure of participants’ ability to internalize narrative construction skills and autonomously articulate coherent and meaningful life narratives.

The autonomous narratives produced in Phase 5 were critically important for evaluating the sustainability of the learning outcomes, particularly the participants’ capacity for independent narrative construction and strategic future orientation

4.4.4. Data Overview and Completeness

The final dataset consisted of a total of 101 narrative texts submitted by 14 participants. Each participant completed an average of six to seven narratives, including two narratives produced during Phase 2 (success and failure narratives). Several participants voluntarily submitted multiple versions of their narratives during Phases 3, 4, and 5, reflecting proactive engagement and iterative refinement of narrative skills.

All participants successfully completed the five instructional phases without missing data, ensuring comprehensive and robust empirical material for subsequent qualitative and quantitative analyses. This complete data collection provided a solid foundation for evaluating the effectiveness of the five-phase instructional model in enhancing narrative competence and fostering sustainable self-directed learning

4.5. Data Analysis Methods

The analysis of the collected narrative data was conducted through a structured multi-dimensional approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative strategies to comprehensively assess the participants’ narrative competence development, thematic continuity, and indicators of sustainable self-directed learning. The analysis procedures were designed to align with the research objectives and hypotheses outlined in the earlier sections of this study.

4.5.1. Narrative Competence Assessment

Participants’ narrative outputs across the five instructional phases were systematically evaluated using a self-developed Narrative Competence Rating Scale (

Table 3. Narrative competence rating scale.

Dimension	Definition
Temporal Sequencing	The ability to arrange events chronologically and construct a coherent timeline of experiences.
Thematic Focusing	The ability to identify central themes and maintain thematic consistency throughout the narrative.
Process Structuring	The ability to describe developmental processes, transitions, and growth trajectories embedded in experiences.
Plot Construction	The ability to build narratives with coherent plots, emotional tension, and structural completeness.
Autonomous Story Integration	The ability to independently synthesize diverse experiences into a coherent life story centered on a self-defined theme.

The table summarizes the five dimensions of narrative competence evaluated in this study.

). This scale was specifically designed to capture five critical dimensions of narrative competence that align with the instructional objectives of the module: temporal sequencing, thematic focusing, process structuring, plot construction, and autonomous story integration [5,21].

Each dimension was rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = very weak; 5 = very strong). Independent coders, trained in narrative analysis methodologies, conducted the evaluations. Inter-rater reliability was ensured through calibration exercises and consistency checks prior to full-scale coding, as illustrated in Figure 5.

To achieve this, the two raters underwent a calibration phase using 10% of the narrative data to align the interpretation of the scoring criteria. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. This iterative consensus-building process ensured shared understanding of the coding rubric, thereby increasing rating consistency before formal scoring commenced.

4.5.2. Thematic Continuity Analysis

The thematic continuity across the participants’ narratives was analyzed to assess the coherence and evolution of personal meaning making throughout the instructional process. A Thematic Continuity Table (

Table 4. Thematic Continuity-Tracking Table.

Participant ID	Phase 1 (TS) Themes	Phase 2 (FS) Themes	Phase 3 (PS) Themes	Phase 4 (SS) Themes	Phase 5 (AS) Themes	Continuity Assessment
P01	T01, T02	T01	T01	T01	T01	High continuity
P02	T01	T02	T02	T02	T02	Moderate continuity
P03	T01,T02	T02	T02	T02,T03	T03	Partial continuity

For clarity and consistency, narrative themes identified for each participant were coded using the format “T” followed by a two-digit number (e.g., T01, T02, T03). These thematic codes are assigned independently within each participant’s narrative set and do not represent shared or identical content across participants.

) was developed to systematically track the presence, recurrence, and transformation of major life themes across different phases.

Two complementary criteria were applied:

• Vertical continuity: the consistency of core themes traced through sequential narratives produced across phases;
• Horizontal integration: emergent thematic integration observed in the autonomous narratives, indicating participants’ capacity to synthesize diverse experiences into cohesive future-oriented life stories.

Thematic coding was performed using NVivo 14 (QSR International, 2023) qualitative data analysis software to facilitate systematic comparison, thematic mapping, and visualization of narrative evolution trajectories [32]. The overall thematic coding process is illustrated in Figure 6.

4.5.3. Individual and Group-Level Comparative Analysis

Data analysis incorporated both individual and group-level perspectives:

• Individual case analysis: Selected cases (e.g., Participant P07) were analyzed in depth to explore detailed narrative competence trajectories, thematic transformation patterns, and personalized learning processes;
• Group-level statistical analysis: Aggregate patterns of narrative competence improvement and thematic continuity enhancement were quantitatively summarized to identify the overall instructional effects.

Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, were reported for narrative competence scores across different phases. Where appropriate, comparative visualizations were constructed to illustrate the competence development trends.

4.5.4. Data Triangulation and Validation

To enhance the credibility and internal consistency of the findings, a data triangulation strategy was employed by cross-referencing multiple sources of evidence. These sources included:

• Narrative competence scores (quantitative evaluation of narrative skills);
• Thematic continuity analysis results (qualitative tracking of narrative thematic evolution);
• Supplementary reflective assignments and peer feedback records (qualitative contextual insights).

Through systematically cross-verifying these diverse data streams, the study strengthened the internal validity and ensured greater reliability of the interpretations [30]. This multi-source validation approach provided a robust empirical foundation for the subsequent discussion and conclusions. By evaluating learners’ narrative growth through structured rubrics and semantic indicators, this analysis framework supports the empirical grounding of ESD-aligned competencies, such as metacognitive awareness, reflective capacity, and future-oriented learning.

4.5.5. Open Coding Procedure and Codebook Development

To enable semantic-level insights into participants’ reflective growth and sustainable self-authorship, a total of 101 narrative texts provided by 14 participants were subjected to open coding using NVivo. Through an iterative inductive analysis, 78 distinct open codes were identified.

The open coding process involved four structured steps: (1) segmentation of each narrative into meaningful coding units; (2) generation of preliminary open codes using gerund-based labels to reflect actions, emotions, and reflective states; (3) consolidation and refinement into a hierarchical codebook structure; and (4) full-scale NVivo tagging across all stories.

All codes were developed through iterative dialogue between two independent coders to ensure semantic alignment and consistency. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved through reflective consensus-building, and a final codebook was established to guide axial coding and thematic synthesis. Each code was cross-validated across the participants and narrative phases to ensure contextual coherence and thematic relevance. The finalized codebook (Appendix A) consisted of both primary codes and subcodes, encompassing themes such as identity exploration, emotional regulation, future planning, and resilience development. These codes were later synthesized into thematic clusters through axial coding, forming the analytical foundation for the interpretive findings discussed in the next section.

4.6. Ethical Considerations

This study was primarily positioned as educational research focused on the development and empirical evaluation of a narrative-based instructional module grounded in LDT principles. Given that all activities were conducted within a standard educational framework and posed no greater risk than routine classroom participation, formal ethical review procedures were deemed unnecessary.

Nevertheless, fundamental ethical principles were rigorously upheld throughout the study. Participation was entirely voluntary, and all participants were informed about the use of their narrative outputs for research and educational development purposes. Personal identifiers were removed during data processing to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. The instructional process did not involve any form of psychological intervention, medical treatment, or sensitive data collection.

By adhering to these measures, the study maintained ethical integrity consistent with established norms in educational research, ensuring the protection of participants’ rights and the responsible handling of research data.

4.7. Research Limitations

While the study adopted a systematic design and analytical framework, certain methodological limitations should be acknowledged.

First, the sample size was relatively small, involving 14 participants, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Second, although rigorous procedures were employed for narrative competence assessment and thematic continuity tracking, the interpretation of qualitative data inherently involves contextual and individual factors that may influence the results. Third, despite efforts to ensure inter-coder reliability, some degree of variation in coding interpretations is possible. Additionally, the study was conducted within a specific educational and cultural context, which may affect the transferability of the instructional model to other settings.

Acknowledging these methodological constraints allows for a balanced understanding of the study’s contributions and provides a foundation for future research extensions.

5. Results

This section presents the empirical findings derived from the implementation of the five-phase narrative instruction module. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data, the analysis traces participants’ developmental trajectories in narrative competence and explores thematic continuity and semantic depth across instructional phases. The instructional module was supported by a design thinking framework, which structured the sequence of narrative activities through iterative, learner-centered, and process-oriented methods [16,28]. These included timeline reflection, free-form storytelling, guided reconstruction, and autonomous story production, with each phase scaffolding participants’ engagement with narrative competence and sustainable learning behaviors.

The results are organized into four sections: group-level performance trends, narrative integration and meaning making, a representative individual case study, and emerging instructional insights. Together, these findings provide a comprehensive account of how the participants engaged with the module and gradually internalized strategies for sustainable, self-directed learning through narrative construction.

By illuminating how structured narrative instruction fosters learner agency, reflective competence, and long-term developmental awareness, these results offer an empirical contribution to the operationalization of SDG 4.7 in practice.

5.1. Developmental Trends in Group Narrative Competence

This section outlines the aggregate developmental trends observed across the five instructional phases. Emphasis is placed on measurable improvements in the five core dimensions of narrative competence, supported by comparative scoring, semantic indicators, and representative excerpts from participants’ written outputs.

5.1.1. Overall Narrative Performance Across Five Phases

To evaluate the progression of participants’ narrative competence throughout the five-phase instructional module, this study analyzed a total of 101 narrative texts collected from 14 learners. Using a five-point rubric covering five key dimensions, including structural coherence, chronological logic, thematic clarity, technical application, and reflective depth, each narrative was scored by trained raters to identify growth patterns across the phases.

The average overall narrative score increased from 2.64 in PH1 (temporal sequencing) to 4.25 in PH5 (autonomous storytelling), indicating a significant improvement in narrative performance as the learners advanced through the module. This trend suggests that the progressive structure of the module effectively supported the internalization of narrative strategies and promoted competence-building in a scaffolded manner.

To illustrate the trajectory of overall narrative development,

Table 5. Mean narrative competence scores across five phases (PH1–PH5).

Dimension	PH1	PH2	PH3	PH4	PH5
Structural Coherence	2.71	3.10	3.68	3.87	4.10
Chronological Logic	2.90	3.22	3.76	4.05	4.28
Thematic Clarity	2.65	3.12	3.59	3.83	4.19
Technical Application	2.41	2.95	3.68	4.03	4.36
Reflective Depth	2.53	3.00	3.45	3.88	4.30

This table presents the average scores for each narrative competence dimension across the five narrative phases, showing progressive growth trends.

summarizes the mean scores of five narrative dimensions across all five instructional phases. The upward progression in each dimension indicates that learners’ narrative competence improved cumulatively throughout the module.

The observed increases in structural coherence, chronological logic, and thematic clarity suggest that learners gradually developed foundational storytelling abilities. In parallel, the notable gains in technical application and reflective depth highlight their growing proficiency in integrating narrative techniques with meaningful self-reflection.

Table 6. Overall narrative competence score from PH1 to PH5.

PH1	PH2	PH3	PH4	PH5
2.64	3.28	3.70	4.01	4.25

This table presents the mean overall narrative competence score across the five instructional phases, demonstrating consistent gains in learners’ ability to construct structured, coherent, and reflective life stories.

presents the composite narrative competence score across the five phases, offering a concise summary of overall performance improvement.

Figure 7 visualizes the progression of overall narrative competence from PH1 to PH5, reinforcing the upward developmental trend observed in Table 5.

A consistent upward trend was observed across all dimensions from PH1 to PH5, indicating that the five-phase module facilitated both foundational narrative construction and deeper reflective integration.

5.1.2. Dimension-Specific Growth and Comparative Analysis

To evaluate the impact of the instructional design, mean scores between PH1 and PH5 were compared across five narrative dimensions, as summarized in

Table 7. Quantitative summary of narrative competence growth.

Narrative Dimension	PH1 Mean	PH5 Mean	Growth (Δ)	Relative Growth Rate (%)
Structural Coherence	2.71	4.10	+1.39	51.29%
Chronological Logic	2.90	4.28	+1.38	47.59%
Thematic Clarity	2.65	4.19	+1.54	58.11%
Technical Application	2.41	4.36	+1.95	80.91%
Reflective Depth	2.53	4.30	+1.77	70.00%

This table presents the mean scores for five narrative competence dimensions measured at Phase 1 (PH1) and Phase 5 (PH5), including the absolute and relative growth.

.

To further specify the areas of narrative competence growth, the performances across five core dimensions were separately analyzed: structural coherence, chronological logic, thematic clarity, technical application, and reflective depth. Figure A1 (see Appendix B) visualizes the upward trend observed across all dimensions, indicating that the five-phase module facilitated both foundational narrative construction and deeper reflective integration.

The greatest improvements occurred in technical application (+80.91%) and reflective depth (+70.00%), demonstrating that structured narrative strategies and reflective scaffolding significantly enhanced the learners’ expressive ability and interpretive insight, as shown in Figure A2 (see Appendix B). These gains reflect the effectiveness of pedagogical interventions, such as the four-act structure, self-distancing techniques [11,21], and timeline reconstruction, which were strategically embedded in the middle phases of the module (PH3 and PH4) [11,33,34].

Together, these findings from descriptive and inferential analyses provide robust evidence of the module’s effectiveness in enhancing both foundational and higher-order narrative competencies. All improvements were statistically significant at p < 0.001. As shown in Figure 8, the paired sample t-test results confirm that all five narrative competence dimensions experienced statistically significant improvements from Phase 1 to Phase 5. Technical Application (t = 123.4) and Reflective Depth (t = 93.2) showed the highest t-values, aligning with the descriptive trends presented in Table 6 and Figure A1 and Figure A2. These findings validate the instructional effect of the five-phase narrative module on both the structural and reflective learning dimensions.

While structural coherence and chronological logic improved steadily across the phases, these gains were most evident after PH2, suggesting that narrative process mapping and scene-building activities had a cumulative scaffolding effect. Thematic clarity, while showing a more moderate progression overall, demonstrated a marked improvement in the final phase (PH5), where learners independently synthesized personal meaning and narrative coherence through autonomous storytelling.

5.1.3. Semantic Transformation and Representative Excerpts

To complement the quantitative analysis, representative narrative excerpts were selected from high-performing participants to illustrate how semantic depth and narrative integration evolved throughout the module. These excerpts reflect learners’ growing abilities to construct coherent plots, apply storytelling techniques, and reflect on the personal significance of their experiences.

To further illustrate the internalization of the narrative strategies and the transformative nature of learning,

Table 8. Qualitative illustrations of narrative competence growth.

Dimension	Participant	Phase	Representative Quote
Structural Coherence	P01	PH3	“Each paragraph marked the beginning and development clearly, so the story is easy to follow”.
Chronological Logic	P03	PH4	“The sequence flowed from a challenge to a solution, like a plot unfolding naturally”.
Thematic Clarity	P07	PH5	“I chose this story because the theme has appeared repeatedly in my life”.
Technical Application	P03	PH3	“I divided my story into sections with subheadings, like stages in a design process”.
Reflective Depth	P07	PH5	“What I thought was a failure became the moment I redefined my understanding of myself”.

This table summarizes representative narrative excerpts that illustrate observable development in each of the five narrative competence dimensions.

presents selected excerpts that provide concrete evidence of how learners gradually embedded structure, meaning, and reflexivity into their narrative construction.

These qualitative excerpts provide evidence of learners’ ability to internalize and apply the taught techniques while also deepening the personal and transformative nature of their narratives. The shift from fragmented storytelling toward reflective, meaningful self-expression suggests that the learners not only grasped narrative structures but also used them as tools for insight and planning [10,22].

In sum, the five-phase module demonstrated a clear scaffolded structure and sequential learning effects. The learners progressed from fragmented autobiographical recall to logically structured and thematically rich narratives. Their competence growth—particularly in applying narrative tools and deepening reflection—indicates that this module effectively laid the foundation for sustainable, autonomous learning practices. The integration of reflective writing and design-oriented sequencing enabled learners to not only process past experiences but also envision future strategies grounded in meaning. These findings demonstrate how reflective narrative scaffolding enhances learners’ ability to synthesize past experiences into coherent and adaptive future-oriented meaning.

5.2. Thematic Continuity and Semantic Evolution

This section presents the group-level analysis of thematic continuity and semantic evolution observed across the participants’ narrative outputs during the five instructional phases.

5.2.1. Thematic Continuity Across Phases

An important indicator of narrative development is the extent to which participants maintained thematic continuity throughout the sequential narrative phases. An analysis revealed that, while early-phase narratives (particularly in PH1 and PH2) often focused on fragmented or isolated life events, a notable progression toward cohesive thematic articulation was observed from PH3 onwards.

Many participants demonstrated an ability to weave earlier narrative elements into progressively more integrated and reflective stories. This trend suggests the emergence of an internalized narrative framework, wherein initial life experiences were reinterpreted and meaningfully connected through structured narrative strategies [11,21]. Representative examples include the transition from temporally fragmented autobiographical events in PH1 (Temporal Sequenced Narrative) to the more process-structured narratives in PH3 (Process-Structured Narrative), culminating in autonomous narratives (PH5) characterized by thematic consolidation and future-oriented reflection.

To quantify this progression, thematic consistency and semantic depth were rated on a five-point scale across the five narrative phases.

As shown in

Table 9. Mean scores of thematic consistency and semantic depth across narrative phases.

Phase	Thematic Consistency (Mean)	Semantic Depth (Mean)
PH1	2.3	2.1
PH2	2.8	2.6
PH3	3.4	3.1
PH4	3.9	3.7
PH5	4.2	4.1

, the average thematic continuity score increased steadily from 2.31 in PH1 to 4.23 in PH5, indicating a substantial enhancement in the participants’ ability to construct coherent thematic narratives over time.

To ensure statistical rigor and provide a more comprehensive interpretation of thematic development,

Table 10. Thematic continuity scores across narrative phases.

Phase	Mean	Standard Deviation	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper
PH1	2.3	0.68	1.91	2.69
PH2	2.8	0.72	2.41	3.19
PH3	3.4	0.65	3.01	3.79
PH4	3.9	0.75	3.51	4.29
PH5	4.2	0.70	3.81	4.59

N = 14. Standard deviations varied slightly across phases. 95% confidence intervals were computed using the standard formula: CI = Mean ± 1.96 × (SD/√N). Thematic continuity was rated on a 5-point scale.

presents the standard deviations and 95% confidence intervals for the thematic continuity scores across the five narrative phases. These statistical indicators complement the mean scores reported in Table 9 and substantiate the observed patterns of progression.

Visualizing the progression, Figure 9 illustrates the continuous upward trend in thematic consistency alongside semantic depth throughout the five phases.

This convergence of qualitative observation and quantitative data suggests that participants, through structured narrative practice, progressively internalized thematic coherence strategies. Their narratives shifted from event-centered recounts to meaning-centered autobiographical constructions, laying the groundwork for enhanced reflective capacity and sustainable self-directed learning.

5.2.2. Semantic Deepening and Expressive Evolution

Semantic depth, referring to the degree to which the participants extracted and articulated deeper personal meanings from their life experiences, was systematically assessed throughout the instructional phases. Early-stage narratives, particularly those produced during PH1 and PH2, tended to focus on surface-level event recounting, offering minimal engagement with emotional, relational, or existential dimensions.

By contrast, narratives generated during PH4 (Structured Narrative) and PH5 (Autonomous Narrative) demonstrated significant semantic deepening. The participants increasingly identified critical turning points, articulated growth trajectories, and expressed aspirations for future development. A semantic analysis revealed a rising frequency of meta-narrative expressions such as “this experience taught me…” and “I realized that…”, suggesting a notable increase in reflective abstraction and self-awareness.

This semantic evolution was further evidenced by the use of complex linguistic structures, including causal reasoning (‘this experience led me to realize…’) and value attribution (‘this taught me the importance of…’), which align with prior findings on narrative identity development and meaning-making processes [10,35].

The observed progression underscores the effectiveness of the instructional module in enhancing not only narrative coherence but also the participants’ capacity for introspection, complex self-interpretation, and sustainable meaning-oriented learning.

5.2.3. Summary of Thematic and Semantic Development

The group-level analysis confirms that the five-phase narrative instruction module effectively promoted both thematic continuity and semantic deepening among participants. Early-stage narratives were often characterized by isolated event recounting, whereas later outputs increasingly demonstrated cohesive, reflective, and future-oriented life stories.

The structured sequencing of the module provided a developmental scaffold that guided participants from fragmented experiences toward integrated meaning making, facilitating a gradual internalization of narrative strategies [11,36].

These thematic and semantic advancements underscore the module’s potential to foster sustainable self-directed learning capabilities through the enhancement of narrative competence. This developmental progression reflects core ESD principles, enabling learners to re-author their life stories with coherence, agency, and future orientation.

5.3. Case Study: Narrative Development of Participant 07 (P07)

This section presents a detailed case study of Participant 07 (P07) to illustrate the developmental trajectory of narrative competence across the five instructional phases. The analysis examines changes in narrative structure, thematic development, and semantic enrichment, supported by quantitative assessment and qualitative excerpts.

5.3.1. Narrative Competence Progression

P07’s narrative outputs demonstrated a progressive enhancement across the five dimensions of narrative competence: temporal sequencing, thematic focusing, process structuring, plot construction, and autonomous story integration. The average scores on each dimension were systematically assessed at each phase (

Table 11. P07’s narrative competence scores across phases.

Phase	Structure	Logic	Theme	Technique	Reflection
PH1	2	2	2	1	2
PH2	3	3	3	2	3
PH3	4	4	4	4	4
PH4	4	5	4	5	5
PH5	5	5	5	5	5

This table presents the average scores for each narrative competence dimension across the five narrative phases, showing progressive growth trends.

).

As shown in Table 11, P07 exhibited a steady upward trend in all five narrative dimensions from PH1 to PH5. Temporal sequencing and thematic focusing showed the most prominent early-phase improvements, while plot construction and autonomous integration accelerated notably after PH3.

The progression trend is visually illustrated in Figure 10a, which presents a comparative bar chart of P07’s dimension scores across the five instructional phases.

The bar chart clearly demonstrates that all narrative competence dimensions improved substantially over time, with structural coherence and thematic clarity achieving the highest levels by PH5. Reflective depth also showed marked enhancement, indicating a growing capacity for meta-cognitive storytelling.

The quantitative analysis confirms that P07 systematically internalized the instructional guidance, achieving marked gains in narrative structuring, thematic depth, and self-directed story integration by the final phase.

5.3.2. Thematic Trajectory and Semantic Enrichment

In addition to structural improvements, P07’s narratives revealed a clear trajectory of thematic evolution characterized by increasing coherence, depth, and future orientation. Initially, P07’s narratives in PH1 (Temporal Sequenced Narrative) and PH2 (Focused Narrative) were focused on fragmented life experiences, lacking an overarching thematic connection. However, beginning with PH3 (Process Narrative), P07 established a central life theme: “redefining failure as a transformative experience”. This emerging theme progressively gained depth and coherence through PH4 (Structured Narrative) and PH5 (Autonomous Narrative).

The thematic evolution of P07’s narratives is visually mapped in Figure 10b.

As shown in Figure 10b, P07’s initial narratives centered around isolated incidents of challenge and minor setbacks. During PH3, a shift occurred, with P07 starting to reinterpret early life experiences as transformative learning opportunities. This reinterpretation deepened across PH4 and culminated in PH5 with an autonomous narrative that synthesized earlier experiences into a cohesive, future-oriented life story [5,10].

The observed thematic consolidation reflects P07’s growing narrative competence, indicating an ability to integrate disparate life events into a coherent identity narrative that emphasized resilience, learning, and forward-looking self-construction

5.3.3. Semantic Deepening and Reflective Shift

Building upon the thematic evolution described earlier, semantic analysis revealed that Participant P07 not only improved in structural and thematic coherence but also demonstrated significant deepening in the semantic complexity of narrative expression and reflection.

Narratives from the early phases (PH1 and PH2) primarily presented descriptive, event-centered accounts with limited emotional or existential elaboration. However, by PH4 (Structured Narrative) and PH5 (Autonomous Narrative), P07 exhibited increasingly introspective and metacognitive storytelling, marked by causal reasoning, pattern identification, and future-oriented interpretation.

This progression is clearly visualized in the radar chart below (Figure 10c), which compares the progression across five narrative competence dimensions from PH1 to PH5.

There is a visual representation of P07’s progression across structural coherence, chronological logic, thematic clarity, technical application, and reflective depth.

To complement this visual analysis,

Table 12. Representative semantic evolution in Participant P07’s narratives.

Dimension	Excerpt (English Translation)	Source
Structural Coherence	“I divided this story into three sections, each marked by a distinct time period”.	PH3–PS01
Chronological Logic	“From middle school to high school and then to university, these events happened one after another in sequence”.	PH1–TS01
Thematic Clarity	“I later realized that all these experiences shared a common theme—how I managed to rise again after setbacks”.	PH4–SS01
Technical Application	“I tried using the five-step method from design thinking to rewrite the story so it would have a clearer process”.	PH3–PS01
Reflective Depth	“I used to think I was just unlucky, but looking back now, I see these experiences helped me better understand myself”.	PH5–AS01

All narrative excerpts were originally written in Chinese and translated into English by the authors.

presents selected verbatim excerpts from P07’s narratives, corresponding to each semantic-reflective dimension.

Together, the radar chart and semantic excerpts highlight a robust shift from surface-level narration to meaning-centered autobiographical construction. P07’s developmental trajectory affirms the instructional module’s effectiveness in fostering reflective language use, identity reconstruction, and sustainable narrative competence. The learner’s transition demonstrates how narrative competence can be cultivated through structured scaffolding, progressing from surface description to autobiographical meaning-making.

5.4. Group-Level Observations and Emerging Issues

This section synthesizes key group-level observations and emerging pedagogical insights derived from the broader participant cohort. Two focal cases—P03 and P08—are highlighted to illustrate critical developmental patterns and instructional refinements.

5.4.1. Evidence of Internalized Narrative Competence (P03)

Participant P03 demonstrated a clear trajectory of internalizing narrative competence throughout the instructional process. Beginning with fragmented episodic recounts in PH1 (Temporal Sequenced Narrative), P03 progressively developed the capacity to construct more cohesive and meaning-centered life stories.

A salient indicator of internalization was observed in P03’s Phase 4 (Structured Narrative) outputs. Specifically, in LDT-P03-PH4-SS01-1, P03 autonomously structured the narrative into distinct thematic segments without explicit instructional prompts, demonstrating a mastery of narrative structuring techniques. Additionally, P03’s reflective process—evident through meta-narrative expressions such as “I realized that my setbacks consistently shaped my resilience”—highlighted a shift toward higher-order meaning-making [35].

By Phase 5 (Autonomous Narrative), P03 synthesized earlier narrative elements into a future-oriented story that integrated personal growth themes across different life stages. The continuity and coherence across P03’s narratives suggest that narrative competence was not merely task-dependent but had been internalized as a self-directed cognitive resource. This observation underscores the potential of the five-phase instructional model to cultivate sustainable self-directed learning capacities through narrative construction.

5.4.2. Misinterpretations of Failure Stories and Pedagogical Adjustments (P08)

Participant P08’s narrative trajectory revealed an instructive pedagogical challenge related to the conceptual framing of “failure stories” during Phase 2 (Focused Narrative).

While the curriculum intended the “failure story” to serve as a thematic foundation for subsequent narrative elaboration, P08’s outputs—particularly LDT-P08-PH2-FS02—interpreted the task as recounting isolated mishaps or setbacks without deeper reflection on underlying developmental significance. This resulted in thematic discontinuity in later phases, with P08 selecting entirely new themes for Phase 4 (Structured Narrative) and Phase 5 (Autonomous Narrative) narratives.

Supplementary reflections gathered from post-course interviews indicated that several participants, including P08, initially associated “failure” with negative incidents devoid of constructive potential, rather than viewing failures as pivotal learning experiences. In response to this insight, a pedagogical adjustment was proposed: reframing Phase 2 instructions to invite participants to narrate an “experience of incomplete success” rather than explicitly labeling it as a “failure story”. This semantic shift is intended to neutralize emotional connotations and broaden the participants’ interpretive space, thereby enhancing thematic continuity and narrative development across phases [33].

In sum, the module’s effectiveness in facilitating narrative integration, reflective depth, and learner autonomy substantiates its relevance as a pedagogical strategy aligned with Education for Sustainable Development. It demonstrates how structured narrative learning can serve as a viable pathway for realizing SDG 4.7 within formal educational settings.

6. Discussion

This section interprets the empirical findings from the five-phase narrative instruction module through the lens of sustainable education and life design thinking. By triangulating quantitative performance data, qualitative narrative evolution, and individual learning trajectories, the study offers several key insights into how structured narrative pedagogy supports learners in developing narrative competence and sustainable self-directed learning capacities.

6.1. Progressive Development of Narrative Competence

The consistent upward trends observed across all five narrative dimensions, namely structural coherence, chronological logic, thematic clarity, technical application, and reflective depth, affirm the pedagogical efficacy of the instructional design. The quantitative results indicate that participants improved not only in fundamental narrative construction but also in the higher-order capabilities related to reflection and story synthesis. Notably, technical application and reflective depth exhibited the most significant growth, suggesting that design-based methods, such as timeline segmentation, four-act structuring, and self-distancing techniques, played a critical role in facilitating expressive maturity [11,33,34].

These findings align with previous research emphasizing the link between narrative scaffolding and metacognitive awareness [10,37]. By gradually progressing from episodic recall to meaning-oriented storytelling, learners were supported in internalizing narrative strategies as cognitive tools for both self-expression and life design. These developmental gains indicate not only the acquisition of narrative techniques but also the cultivation of core ESD-aligned competencies, such as reflective agency, identity coherence, and strategic self-direction. These qualities equip learners to navigate complexity, fulfilling core objectives of SDG 4.7 in fostering future-ready, reflective capacities.

6.2. Thematic Continuity and Psychological Integration

A thematic analysis revealed that the majority of participants successfully maintained or expanded their core life themes across multiple narrative phases. This thematic continuity reflects not only cognitive mastery but also psychological integration, as participants re-engaged with recurring life themes through increasingly reflective lenses.

Such longitudinal coherence has been linked to sustainable identity development and self-directed learning [3]. The ability to revisit earlier life experiences and weave them into coherent, future-oriented narratives suggests that the learners were not merely completing instructional tasks but actively cultivating a sense of narrative agency and adaptive meaning making.

The shift from fragmented recollections to integrative autobiographical constructions indicates that the learners internalized the practice of positioning themselves within evolving life stories—a foundational capacity for navigating uncertain educational and career transitions [35,36]. From the perspective of sustainability education, such semantic deepening reflects the learners’ evolving ability to engage in self-reflexive meaning-making, a foundational element of transformative learning and a core competence promoted by SDG 4.7.

6.3. Case-Based Reflection and Pedagogical Implications

The case study of Participant P07 exemplifies the intended outcomes of the instructional module. P07’s developmental trajectory—from chronological recall to reflective synthesis—illustrated how narrative competence was progressively cultivated through scaffolded practice. Visual and textual analyses confirmed that by PH5, the participant was able to construct a coherent, self-authored life story grounded in meta-cognitive insight and sustained thematic continuity.

Such individualized transformations affirm the potential of narrative pedagogy to support diverse learner needs without imposing rigid outcomes. Instead of prescribing what learners should express, the instructional design emphasized how they could develop expressive capacity and narrative autonomy. This learner-centered approach reinforces the sustainability of the pedagogy by fostering internal motivation and transferable narrative skills.

6.4. Implications for Sustainable Narrative Pedagogy

The findings support the positioning of narrative pedagogy as a sustainable educational strategy. By equipping learners with iterative narrative tools and reflective framing techniques, the module enabled participants to continually re-evaluate and reconstruct personal meaning in response to new challenges and life contexts.

This process-oriented, learner-driven structure aligns with sustainability-oriented pedagogy, which emphasizes the importance of building adaptive capacities rather than delivering static content. In this light, narrative competence becomes more than a learning outcome; it functions as a long-term developmental resource that empowers individuals to navigate ambiguity, reframe setbacks, and design resilient future pathways [2,38].

The integration of design thinking principles—particularly its emphasis on iterative structure, empathy-based framing, and strategic action planning—was instrumental in transforming narrative reflection into a guided, future-oriented learning process. As a process-oriented tool, design thinking not only enhanced instructional clarity but also scaffolded learners’ capacities for meaning reconstruction and sustainable self-authorship.

Furthermore, the emphasis on personalized meaning making over standard performance metrics suggests that narrative pedagogy holds particular promise for educational systems seeking to balance academic rigor with learner well-being and identity formation. Collectively, these findings highlight the pedagogical relevance of the LDT-based narrative module in fostering key attributes of education for sustainability, namely adaptive resilience, learner agency, and future readiness. This study offers a concrete model for operationalizing SDG 4.7 through learner-centered narrative pedagogy and design-informed instructional strategies.

6.5. Pedagogical Insights

Three key pedagogical insights emerged from this study, offering guidance for future narrative-based interventions grounded in sustainability education.

First, the phased instructional design functioned as an effective narrative scaffolding mechanism. By gradually increasing complexity and guiding learners through sequenced stages, the design supported the internalization of narrative strategies, shifting learners from episodic recall to reflective synthesis.

Second, the integration of group-based storytelling and peer interactions amplified learning outcomes. The participants not only drew inspiration from others’ stories but also refined their own through dialogic engagement, highlighting the power of community as a learning catalyst.

Third, the autonomous narrative phase revealed that learners could independently apply reflective strategies without continuous expert facilitation. This demonstrates the potential for narrative pedagogy to cultivate transferable, self-directed competencies, aligning with SDG 4.7 objectives in fostering agency, resilience, and future-readiness.

These implications underscore the value of narrative pedagogy, not just as a method of knowledge delivery but as a transformative learning tool capable of empowering lifelong, adaptive learners.

6.6. Limitations and Future Directions

While the study presents robust insights, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample size was limited (n = 14), and the findings emerged within a specific instructional and cultural setting, which may constrain broader generalization. Although the participants were not informed in advance that the module involved narrative-based learning, it remains possible that individuals with higher self-reflective tendencies were more likely to opt in. This may introduce a potential motivational bias, limiting the representativeness of the sample. Future studies should broaden recruitment strategies to include participants with more diverse dispositions toward reflection and learning engagement. Future research should explore the adaptability of the module across diverse demographics and contexts.

Second, although inter-rater reliability was established, the assessment of narrative competence and thematic continuity inherently involves interpretive judgment. Incorporating mixed-methods approaches, including longitudinal follow-up and external expert evaluations, could enhance analytical objectivity and deepen validity, and educational settings could validate the broader applicability of the instructional design.

Third, this study focused on immediate learning outcomes. The long-term retention and transferability of narrative competence remain to be tested. Future studies could implement delayed assessments to track the persistence of self-directed learning capacities and identity development.

Lastly, while this study already integrates design thinking and narrative pedagogy—bridging educational psychology and creative problem-solving frameworks—further interdisciplinary expansion remains possible. Future studies might explore how digital storytelling tools, sustainability-focused curricula, or AI-supported narrative feedback mechanisms can enhance the accessibility, engagement, and scalability of narrative-based learning in diverse educational environments.

Building on these considerations, we offer a prioritized roadmap for future refinement and scalability. To enhance feasibility and strategic impact, future research should first prioritize testing the instructional module in varied cultural and educational contexts to examine cross-contextual adaptability before exploring more advanced technologies such as AI-assisted narrative feedback. In addition, identified limitations, such as potential motivational bias or the interpretive nature of narrative assessment, should directly inform design modifications. For example, adjusting the duration or structure of each instructional phase and optimizing peer-feedback mechanisms could improve both accessibility and learner engagement. These refinements would support the development of a more scalable and inclusive narrative pedagogy framework.

7. Conclusions and Implications

This study evaluated the pedagogical effectiveness of a five-phase narrative instruction module grounded in life design thinking, aiming to enhance learners’ narrative competence and foster sustainable self-directed development.

Through a mixed-methods approach integrating quantitative scoring and qualitative narrative analysis, the findings demonstrate how structured and iterative narrative scaffolding can promote expressive competence, reflective depth, thematic coherence, and psychological adaptability—key elements for sustainable learning and future readiness.

7.1. Summary of Key Findings

The results revealed progressive improvements across all five assessed dimensions of narrative competence—structural coherence, chronological logic, thematic clarity, technical application, and reflective depth. Among these, technical application (+80.91%) and reflective depth (+70.00%) showed the most substantial growth, with thematic clarity (+58.11%) also demonstrating considerable improvement in narrative focus and coherence.

Thematic continuity reached an average of 84% in the final phase (PH5), based on a five-point scale rating (Mean = 4.2), affirming that sustained narrative construction supports identity consolidation and long-term meaning making. The case study of Participant P07 illustrated a clear transition from fragmented episodic recall to autonomous, cohesive storytelling. Collectively, these results underscore the potential of the five-phase module to cultivate narrative competence as a sustainable learning resource. The overall course design logic is illustrated in Figure 11.

This diagram illustrates the sequential progression and dynamic feedback loops across the five instructional phases: PH1 (Initial Reflection), PH2 (Incremental Development), PH3 (Process Training), PH4 (Structural Construction), and PH5 (Autonomous Storytelling). Iterative loops between PH1–PH4 and reflective returns from PH5 to earlier phases support cyclical learning, while the Focused Feedback and Reflective Scaffolding mechanisms enhance autonomous narrative competence development. These processual insights not only validate the efficacy of the module but also provide concrete pedagogical directions for future curricular design and practice, as elaborated in the next section.

7.2. Educational and Practical Implications

The findings support narrative pedagogy as a viable strategy for promoting sustainable education. By embedding iterative structure and personalized meaning making, the five-phase module enabled learners to reconstruct life experiences in response to evolving challenges, a process supported by prior research on identity formation and reflective career narratives [10,35]. This developmental capacity is essential for navigating uncertainty in both academic and career contexts.

To support practical application, we propose integrating this five-phase module into career development, life design, and sustainability-focused curricula as a modular instructional unit. The module can be implemented either as a full course or segmented into shorter workshops that align with program goals (e.g., identity reflection, transition narratives, or future planning). Within a broader curriculum, it may serve as a preparatory narrative foundation for subsequent experiential or design-based learning modules. In teacher education and higher education contexts, it may also be adopted as a reflective tool to foster professional self-authorship.

Furthermore, the study highlights two innovative instructional insights. First, the contrast between individual and group-based narrative activities revealed that learners benefit differently from personal versus collective storytelling formats. Group narration fostered empathy, peer resonance, and feedback literacy, while individual storytelling deepened introspection and identity articulation. Second, the emphasis on semantic reframing, such as transforming “failure story” into “incomplete success experience”, demonstrated how subtle language shifts can lower emotional resistance and enhance narrative integration across phases.

As illustrated in Figure 12, the narrative development process progresses through six interrelated stages: setup, conflict, process, transformation, and two levels of resonance. This expanded model clarifies how learners evolve from contextualizing personal experiences, through challenge engagement and internal change, toward dual layers of reflective significance. Resonance I highlights the immediate personal meaning of transformation, while Resonance II extends the reflective impact into future identity formation and adaptive action planning.

In terms of future research and instructional refinement, three priorities are recommended. First, cross-cultural adaptation and pilot implementation of the module in diverse educational settings can assess cultural sensitivity and scalability. Second, examining the impact of peer feedback structures (e.g., open circle sharing vs. anonymous written feedback) may inform revisions to strengthen interpersonal learning components. Third, exploratory integration of digital narrative tools (e.g., AI-assisted journaling or voice-based storytelling) may enhance accessibility and learner engagement. These directions are not presented as a fixed sequence but offer a flexible roadmap based on feasibility and pedagogical impact.

This learner-centered, narrative-based approach exemplifies how pedagogical models can operationalize ESD goals by promoting sustainable self-authorship, metacognitive learning, and identity integration in educational practice.

7.3. Contributions to Sustainability-Oriented Education

This study offers a timely response to contemporary educational demands by bridging design thinking and narrative learning within a structured instructional model. The proposed five-phase narrative instruction module contributes directly to Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education) by fostering inclusive and meaningful lifelong learning through learner-centered narrative development. By enhancing reflective depth, emotional coherence, and strategic adaptability, the module also supports learners’ mental resilience and identity continuity, aligning with the aims of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), as outlined in global sustainability education frameworks [2,3].

Its emphasis on future-oriented planning and adaptive learning strategies reinforces SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), echoing the core tenets of adaptive education and transformative learning for sustainability [2,38]. These multi-level contributions position the narrative instruction module not only as a pedagogical innovation but also as an actionable step toward embedding the broader vision of sustainability into career and life education.

7.3.1. Conceptual Contributions to Sustainability-Oriented Education

Importantly, the research foregrounds the five-phase module as a preparatory intervention within a broader conceptual framework—Life Design Thinking (LDT). While the comprehensive structure of LDT is still under elaboration, this study affirms the feasibility and impact of its initial pedagogical embodiment, laying the groundwork for future methodological and theoretical advancement. As the LDT framework continues to evolve, future efforts will focus on developing a practical toolkit and instructional manual to support wider adoption and implementation in diverse educational settings. By cultivating learners’ capacities for reflective agency, global citizenship, and adaptive self-development, this study contributes concretely to the operationalization of SDG 4.7 in sustainability-oriented education.

7.3.2. Practice Implications Box: Modular Application Roadmap

To complement the above contributions to sustainability-oriented education, this study provides a modular implementation roadmap designed to facilitate the real-world application of the five-phase narrative instruction model. The following section offers practical guidance regarding time allocation, facilitator preparation, group configuration, and delivery settings. It is intended to support educators, curriculum designers, and institutional practitioners seeking to embed narrative-based pedagogy into career development, teacher training, and sustainability-related education programs.

Suggested Duration: Each instructional session is defined as 45 min. The recommended time allocation per phase is as follows:

• Phase 1 (TS—Temporal Sequenced Narrative): two sessions;
• Phase 2 (FS—Focused Narrative): two sessions;
• Phase 3 (PS—Process Narrative): four sessions;
• Phase 4 (SS—Structured Narrative): four sessions;
• Phase 5 (AS—Autonomous Narrative): four sessions.

Facilitator preparation: Instructors should possess basic competencies in narrative coaching, empathetic listening, and group facilitation. A short preparatory workshop is advised before implementation.

Participant grouping: The module may be delivered through individual reflection, dyadic exchanges, or small-group formats. Group storytelling is recommended to promote peer resonance and collective meaning making.

Feedback mechanisms: Use a blended model that combines open circle discussions with anonymous written feedback to enhance emotional safety and narrative depth.

Applicable settings: The module is adaptable for career development courses, life design programs, teacher training, and sustainability-related education.

Pilot implementation: A small-scale trial is recommended prior to full integration into formal curricula or institutional programs.

Future directions may include multi-site pilot testing in culturally diverse settings, as well as the integration of digital narrative tools (e.g., AI-supported journaling, interactive storytelling platforms) to increase accessibility, personalization, and learner engagement.

7.4. Future Directions

To enhance both the theoretical robustness and practical scalability of the five-phase narrative instruction model, future research may explore the following directions:

• Implementing the module across more diverse learner populations and educational settings;
• Conducting longitudinal studies to assess retention and long-term impacts on narrative competence and self-directed learning;
• Integrating digital storytelling platforms and AI-enhanced feedback systems to support personalization and engagement;
• Embedding narrative instruction into interdisciplinary life design and sustainability education frameworks.

These forward-looking directions can expand the reach of narrative pedagogy, reinforce its alignment with global sustainability education efforts, and foster narrative literacy and reflective agency as lifelong competencies.

7.5. Concluding Statement

The five-phase narrative instruction module provides a flexible, scalable, and pedagogically sound framework for guiding learners through structured self-reflection and narrative construction. By progressively scaffolding the process from memory recall to autonomous storytelling, and by integrating iterative feedback, the model empowers learners to make meaning of their experiences and envision desirable future pathways.

Grounded in design thinking, the module enhances not only narrative competence but also fosters metacognitive adaptability and sustainable learning habits. These features make it especially valuable for advancing learner-centered education in complex and dynamic environments. In sum, this study contributes a transferable, theory-informed, and practice-ready tool for promoting self-directed lifelong learning—one that aligns with Education for Sustainable Development and prepares learners to thrive amid social, vocational, and ecological uncertainties. The module also holds strong potential for further adaptation across diverse cultural sites and integration with digital narrative platforms, meriting broader validation and iterative refinement in future research.