Linking Sustainability Theory and Practice through an Andragogy Based Workshop for Science and Engineering Graduates

Linking Sustainability Theory and Practice through an Andragogy Based Workshop for Science and Engineering Graduates | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Linking Sustainability Theory and Practice through an Andragogy Based Workshop for Science and Engineering Graduates Dr Karuna K Simha, Ms Subhashree Pattanayak, Dr Subhadip Senapati, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658928/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Education for Sustainability (EfS) has emerged as a critical implementation pathway for advancing the global mandate of Education for Sustainable Development; however, its integration within higher education remains fragmented, content-driven, and weakly aligned with applied practice. This study examines the impact of an andragogy-oriented EfS workshop designed to bridge theoretical sustainability concepts with real-world societal application. Employing a quantitative research design, the study involved 151 undergraduate and postgraduate students from science and engineering disciplines across six institutions in Southern India. The workshop combined expert-led audio–visual sessions with kinesthetic, instrumentation-based learning, structured using Gagné’s Types of Learning framework. Pre–post analyses revealed statistically significant improvements in Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills following the audio–visual sessions, with large and medium effect sizes respectively. Further, one-way ANOVA results indicated significant group-wise differences in Intellectual Skills and Cognitive Strategies during kinesthetic sessions, demonstrating the influence of hands-on engagement on higher-order learning. Correlation and regression analyses revealed that Intellectual Skills acquired through kinesthetic learning were stronger predictors of Cognitive Strategy development than conceptual knowledge alone. The findings provide empirical support for experiential, andragogy-driven EfS models demonstrating how universities can act as catalysts by operationalizing policy mandates into technical competencies required for sustainable societal development. Categories of Learning Andragogy Workshop Sustainability Competencies 1 Introduction Since the late 1970s, international policy mandates have foregrounded Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) as a prerequisite for meaningful progress. The Tbilisi Declaration (1977), Brundtland Report (1987), and Agenda 21 (1992) set out the governing principles that would direct practice [1, 3]. While environmental awareness and literacy rose as pedagogical and systemic outcomes, praxis lagged. Education for Sustainability (EfS) subsequently emerged as an implementation grammar to operationalize the ESD mandate across different levels of education systems [4,5]. EfS functions as a practice-oriented approach that translates ESD and Environmental Education (EE) principles into institutional processes, including whole-school models and competency-based learning designs that encourage inquiry, reflection, and action [6]. EfS implementation exists globally through whole-institution sustainability frameworks, experiential “living lab” models, and selective curriculum integration [7,8]. However, the absence of standardization means that no consolidated global EfS count exists, with whole-school approaches predominating. Notable examples include Enviroschools in New Zealand and the global Eco-Schools programme [9,10]. In India, this mandate is largely driven through government and civil society mechanisms such as the National Green Corps (NGC) Eco-Clubs under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Centre for Science and Environment’s Green Schools Programme (GSP), and initiatives such as Wipro Earthian [11–13]. There are established exemplars of EfS both internationally and within India. The Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI) and Learning for Sustainability (LfS) in Scotland represent whole-system approaches that emphasize student agency, community engagement, and sustainability as a lived practice [14,15]. Similarly, in India, programmes such as NGC and GSP have contributed to strengthening analytical thinking, contextual application, and research-informed community action among school learners [11,12]. Despite these efforts, EfS initiatives often remain fragmented and subject to selective participation. Project- or activity-based implementations do not consistently translate into sustained attitudinal or behavioural change, nor does large-scale reach necessarily ensure conceptual depth [5,6]. Internationally, networks such as the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) through its STARS framework, along with campus-as-living-lab initiatives, demonstrate EfS-aligned practices by linking curriculum, campus operations, and student engagement [7,16]. However, empirical research consistently shows that curricular transformation lags operational sustainability and remains heavily dependent on individual faculty champions rather than institutional mandates [4,17,18]. As a result, many such initiatives remain project-based, with limited continuity or systemic embedding. Where assessment systems remain board-oriented and examination centric, EfS is frequently relegated to peripheral or co-curricular status, leading to content-heavy activities that encourage superficial engagement rather than rigorous inquiry [5,17]. Within the specific context of higher education—particularly undergraduate programmes—sustainability is commonly integrated in partial and ad-hoc forms. It is typically offered as an elective or as isolated modules within single disciplines, with limited encouragement for interdisciplinary or systems-level thinking [4,5]. This reflects a structural mismatch between sustainability’s normative, transdisciplinary aspirations and traditional university assessment cultures grounded in disciplinary compartmentalization. Even within engineering education, sustainability often remains peripheral, with quantitative reasoning, disciplinary modelling, and conceptual coherence insufficiently integrated into core technical learning [18]. In India, although undergraduate students are formally introduced to sustainability through the compulsory Environmental Studies (EVS) course mandated by the University Grants Commission, empirical and critical scholarship indicates that this exposure is largely content-driven and examination-oriented, with weak linkages to experiential learning, disciplinary depth, or real-world problem solving [6,17]. Furthermore, the nature of sustainability education itself is inherently complex, addressing real-world problems characterized by uncertainty, non-linearity, and interdependence. Under such conditions, rigid disciplinary silos constrain the development of the cognitive rigour required for sustainability learning, limiting learners’ capacity for systems thinking, ethical reasoning, and long-term decision-making [4,6]. 1.1 Rationale To integrate multiple dimensions of sustainability education—including interdisciplinarity and differentiated pedagogical and assessment requirements—the present study adopted a workshop-based mode of engagement. Given that implementation-orientation and ambiguity are defining characteristics of Education for Sustainability (EfS), andragogy is particularly well aligned with its pedagogical aims [19]. Andragogical approaches emphasize self-directed learning, intrinsic motivation, and the use of learners’ prior experiences as central learning resources, making them especially suited to sustainability education, which is inherently problem-centric and dependent on context-responsive, action-oriented decision-making [20,21]. In this context, Gagné’s Types of Learning framework is especially appropriate for addressing the multi-domain constructs of EfS, as it emphasizes techniques of thinking such as organizing, monitoring, and regulating one’s own learning processes [22]. The framework explicitly embeds performance elicitation, feedback, and transfer of learning—components that are critical for sustainability education, where conceptual knowledge must translate into adaptive practice across varied contexts [22,23]. As described by Gagné, Verbal Information (VI) corresponds to declarative knowledge, referring to the ability of an individual to state or describe information; Intellectual Skills (IS) represent procedural knowledge, involving the application of rules and execution of sequential processes; and Cognitive Strategies (CS) denote executive control mechanisms or strategic knowledge guiding independent thinking and problem-solving [24]. Cognitive strategies, in particular, enable learners to regulate their own cognition, engage in reflective judgment, and generate creative or adaptive responses to complex sustainability challenges [25]. This framework aligns more closely with the open-ended, participatory, and iterative nature of EfS than the linear cognitive hierarchy characteristic of Bloom’s taxonomy [24,25]. By emphasizing learning transfer, self-regulation, and performance in authentic contexts, Gagné’s model supports the development of problem-solving schemas that are essential for generating meaningful impact through sustainability education [18,21]. Given that sustainability education operates primarily at the level of practice rather than policy, conventional classroom-based instruction alone is insufficient [26,20]. Workshop-based pedagogies enable a more active, collaborative, and practice-oriented learning ecosystem, moving beyond lecture-driven conceptual transmission [27]. Workshops facilitate the full learning continuum—from lived experience to conceptualization and critical reflection—thereby supporting experiential learning cycles [28]. Through iterative engagement, workshops blur disciplinary boundaries, encourage experimentation, and promote tangible outputs rooted in real-world contexts [18,27]. Structurally, the workshop format fosters peer dialogue, critique, and self-directed inquiry while effectively leveraging participants’ prior experiential knowledge [26,21]. By bridging theory and practice, workshops thus provide an appropriate platform for implementing Education for Sustainability (EfS) modules in authentic learning environments The MBRDI workshop series was therefore designed to address the limited availability of interdisciplinary, solution-oriented engagement with sustainability in formal educational spaces. To bridge the gap between theoretical understanding and applied practice, it is essential to first establish foundational awareness of the sustainability application ecosystem, including tools, actors, and pathways for implementation. Such grounding enables a gradual transition from conceptual learning to interdisciplinary praxis, rather than promoting fragmented or ad-hoc deployment of sustainability tools within narrow, linear action frameworks. 1.2 Research Questions RQ 1 : To what extent do audio-visual sustainability workshops improve Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills among science and engineering graduates? RQ 2 : How do kinesthetic sessions with sustainability-relevant instruments affect Intellectual Skills and Cognitive Strategies in participants across different academic backgrounds? RQ 3 : What relationships exist between Verbal Information (from audio-visual sessions), Intellectual Skills, and Cognitive Strategies (from kinesthetic sessions), as measured by correlation and regression analyses? 1.3 Hypotheses Ho 1 : There is no significant difference in mean scores of Verbal Information in the pre-test and post-test among the participants Ho 2 : There is no significant difference in mean scores of Intellectual Skills in pre-test and post-test among the participants. Ho 3 : There is no significant difference in mean scores of Intellectual Skills among the different groups participating in the Kinesthetic session Ho 4 : There is no significant difference in means of Cognitive Strategy among the groups participating in the Kinesthetic session. Ho 5 : There is no significant correlation between Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory Sessions) Verbal Information (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Intellectual Skills (Kinesthetic Session) Verbal Information (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Cognitive Strategies (Kinesthetic Session) Intellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Cognitive Strategies (Kinesthetic Session) Ho 6 : There is no significant impact of Verbal Information on Cognitive Strategy from the Kinesthetic session. Ho 7 : There is no significant impact of Intellectual Skills on Cognitive Strategy from the Kinesthetic session. 2 Methodology This present study employed a quantitative research design to explore the possibility of implementing audio-visual and kinesthetic sessions for andragogy-based EfS. The study adopted a single group pre-test post-test design for audio-visual sessions. The sample of the study was selected using purposive sampling and it comprised 151 undergraduate and postgraduate students from science and engineering disciplines across six institutions in Karnataka based on their availability and willingness to participate. Students who had no prior experience in handling the selected equipment were chosen. The background of the participants and their distribution is specified in Table 1. Table 1 Sample details Batch Specialisation Number of Students Batch 1 Polymer Science Mechatronics Environmental Engineering 52 Batch 2 Biotechnology General Chemistry 48 Batch 3 Analytical Chemistry Organic Chemistry 51 The workshop design consisted of visual-auditory sessions (lecture series) followed by kinesthetic sessions (hands-on training for laboratory equipment) targeting specific competencies as detailed in Table 2. Assessment tools were developed based on Gagné's learning outcome categories, comprising pre/post-tests for audio-visual sessions (8 questions: 50% VI, 50% IS) and kinesthetic post-tests (15 questions: 60% IS, 40% CS) tailored to specific instruments and disciplinary batches. Content validity was established through expert review by lecture instructors and instrument mentors, ensuring alignment with learning objectives and sustainability applications. Construct validity was confirmed by direct mapping to Gagné's framework, while reliability was robust: audio-visual assessments showed Spearman-Brown split-half reliability of 0.60, and kinesthetic assessments demonstrated Cronbach's α ranging from 0.90-0.95 across eight group-specific versions, with Spearman-Brown coefficients of 0.987-0.996, indicating excellent internal consistency and test stability. Table 2 The Objectives, Learning Outcomes, and Assessment Variables for the Workshop Objectives Learning Outcomes Types of Learning To create awareness about the sustainable materials (Lecture 1) 1. Analyse materials with respect to their sustainability 2. Characterise materials based on their sustainability 3. Explore the use of technology in the preparation of sustainable materials 4. Evolve strategies to replace materials with more sustainable sources 1. Verbal Information 2. Intellectual Skills To introduce the learners to domain-specific topics on sustainability (Lecture 2) 1. Apply strategies to use agricultural wastes to convert them into value-added products 2. Apply principles of circular economy to reuse and recycle materials 3. Applying the process of carbon sequestration to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide 1. Verbal Information 2. Intellectual Skills To introduce learners to the different equipment To provide hands-on training on SOPs for the equipment 1. Use SOPs with precision 2. Handle instruments with appropriate care using instructions accurately 3. Collect precise data 4. Analyse data 5. Interpret data to make meaningful inferences 1. Intellectual Skills 2. Cognitive Strategies The audio-visual component comprised two expert-led lectures: a general awareness session covering the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry, sustainability index, and fuel evolution case study (common to all), followed by batch-specific lectures—Carbon Capture Utilization and Sequestration (CCUS) for Batch 1, Green Biorefineries for Batch 2, and Quantitative Methods in Sustainable Materials Decision-Making for Batch 3. Kinesthetic sessions organized 151 students into eight groups of 18-21, rotating through three instruments each (Table 3), providing hands-on experience with sustainability-relevant equipment including FT-IR, UTM, Tear Tester, UV-Visible spectroscopy, Lab Extruder, Water Vapour Tester, Water Penetration Tester, and Two Roll Mills. Table 3 Group-wise Instrument Exposure Groups Rotation 1 Rotation 2 Rotation 3 1 Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR) Universal Testing Machine (UTM) Tear Tester 2 UV-Visible spectroscopy Lab Extruder Water Vapour Tester 3 Tear Tester UV-Visible spectroscopy Two Roll Mills 4 Water Vapour Tester Water Penetration Tester Two Roll Mills 5 Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR) Water Vapour Tester Water Penetration Tester 6 Tear Tester Lab Extruder Two Roll Mills 7 UTM UV-Visible spectroscopy Lab Extruder 8 Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR) Universal Testing Machine (UTM) Water Penetration Tester Data collection spanned three full-day workshops conducted in February-March 2025, following ethical approval and informed consent procedures. Day 1 began with pre-testing (15 minutes) before the General Awareness lecture, followed by Kinesthetic Session 1 (Rotation 1 instruments). Day 2 featured batch-specific lectures with immediate post-testing (20 minutes), then Kinesthetic Session 2 (Rotation 2). Day 3 completed Kinesthetic Session 3 (Rotation 3), with group-specific kinesthetic assessments (30 minutes) administered upon rotation cycle completion. All paper-based responses were scanned, double-entry verified, and de-identified using participant IDs, ensuring data integrity and confidentiality throughout the structured timeline. 3 Analysis and Interpretation Based on the preliminary data from different batches, further statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS version 29.0.2.0 (20) to determine the significance of the workshop. The following hypotheses were considered to understand the impact of the workshop on the variables assumed to represent learning from the visual-auditory sessions. Ho 1 : There is no significant difference in mean scores of Verbal Information in the pre-test and post-test among the participants Ho 2 : There is no significant difference in mean scores of Intellectual Skills in pre-test and post-test among the participants. Table 4 Descriptive statistics of Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills Descriptive Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Verbal Information Pre-test 2.79 151 1.041 Post-test 3.64 151 0.558 Intellectual Skills Pre-test 2.18 151 1.249 Post-test 2.98 151 1.023 Table 4 revealed an upward trend in mean scores for Verbal Information (M = 2.79 to 3.64) and Intellectual Skills (M = 2.18 to 2.98), suggesting an improvement in participant performance following the intervention. Table 5 t-value, p-value, and effect size Paired Differences t df Sig. (2- tailed) Cohen’s d Mean Std. deviation Verbal Information 0.848 1.031 10.102 150 0.000 0.822 Intellectual Skills 0.801 1.143 8.613 150 0.000 0.701 Table 5 data revealed statistically significant improvements in both cognitive domains (p < .01). For VI, the mean difference was (0.848) and t(150) = 10.102, together with a large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.822). Similarly, IS presented a mean difference was (0.801) and t(150) = 8.613, with a medium effect size (Cohen's d = 0.701). These findings demonstrate that the visual-auditory workshop produced meaningful gains across both measured domains. Ho 3 : There is no significant difference in mean scores of Intellectual Skills among the different groups participating in the Kinesthetic session Table 6 Descriptive Statistics of Intellectual Skills among the different groups Groups N Mean Std. Deviation 1 19 6.05 1.545 2 16 5.94 1.769 3 20 6.55 0.759 4 19 6.05 1.545 5 21 7.52 1.470 6 19 7.74 0.806 7 19 6.37 1.422 8 18 6.39 1.577 Total 151 6.60 1.506 Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics for Intellectual Skills across the eight kinesthetic session groups. The mean scores indicate noticeable variation among groups. Group 6 (M = 7.74, SD = 0.806) achieved the highest mean Intellectual Skills scores, suggesting stronger outcomes for participants in these sessions. In contrast, Group 2 reported lower mean scores (M = 5.94, SD = 1.769). The overall mean Intellectual Skills score for the total sample (N = 151) was 6.60 (SD = 1.506), indicating a generally moderate level of performance across all participants. Table 7 F value; Comparison between the different groups Intellectual Skills Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. ETA squared Point Estimate Between Groups 612.756 7 8.965 4.621 <0.001 0.184 Within Groups 2977.403 143 1.940 Total 340.159 150 Table 7 presents the results of a one-way ANOVA comparing Intellectual Skills across the eight groups. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference among groups, F(7, 143) = 4.621, p < .01. This finding indicates that Intellectual Skills scores varied significantly depending on the kinesthetic session group. The effect size, measured by eta squared (η² = 0.184), suggests a large effect, meaning that approximately 18.4% of the variance in Intellectual Skills scores can be attributed to differences between the kinesthetic session groups. Overall, these results indicate that the type of instruments used in kinesthetic sessions had a meaningful impact on Intellectual Skills Ho 4 : There is no significant difference in means of Cognitive Strategy among the groups participating in the Kinesthetic session. Table 8 Descriptive Statistics of Cognitive Strategy Groups N Mean Std. Deviation 1 19 3.47 1.504 2 16 3.88 1.455 3 20 4.35 1.387 4 19 3.53 1.679 5 21 4.10 1.411 6 19 4.26 1.485 7 19 3.95 1.129 8 18 2.72 1.526 Total 151 3.79 1.503 Table 8 shows the descriptive statistics for Cognitive Strategy (CS) scores skills across the eight kinesthetic session groups. The mean scores indicate noticeable variation among groups. Group 3 (M = 4.35, SD = 1.387) achieved the highest mean CS scores, suggesting stronger outcomes for participants in these sessions. In contrast, Group 8 reported lower mean scores (M = 2.72, SD = 1.526). The overall mean CS score for the total sample (N = 151) was 3.79 (SD = 1.503), indicating a generally moderate level of performance across all participants. Table 9 F value; Comparison between the different groups Cognitive Strategy Sum of Squares df Mean Square Sig. ETA squared Point Estimate Between Groups 36.810 7 5.259 0.019 0.109 Within Groups 301.826 143 2.111 Total 338.636 150 Table 9 reports the results of a one-way ANOVA examining differences in Cognitive Strategy scores among the eight groups. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between groups, F (7, 143) = 2.491, p = .019 (p < .05). This indicates that Cognitive Strategy scores varied significantly across the groups. The effect size, as indicated by eta squared (η² = 0.109), reflects a medium effect, suggesting that approximately 10.9% of the variance in Cognitive Strategy scores can be attributed to group differences. Overall, these findings indicate that group membership had a meaningful influence on Cognitive Strategy performance. Ho 5 : There is no significant correlation between Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory Sessions) Verbal Information (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Intellectual Skills (Kinesthetic Session) Verbal Information (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Cognitive Strategies (Kinesthetic Session) Intellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Cognitive Strategies (Kinesthetic Session) Table 10 Pearson’s Correlation coefficients Correlations Verbal Information from Visual Auditory session Intellectual Skills from Visual Auditory Session Intellectual Skills from Kinesthetic Session Cognitive Strategy from Kinesthetic Session Verbal Information from Visual Auditory Session Pearson Correlation 1 .420** .206* .231** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.011 0.004 N 151 151 151 151 Intellectual Skills from Visual Auditory Session Pearson Correlation .420** 1 0.140 .254** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.086 0.002 N 151 151 151 151 Intellectual Skills from Kinesthetic Session Pearson Correlation .206* 0.140 1 .320** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.011 0.086 0.000 N 151 151 151 151 Cognitive Strategy from Kinesthetic Session Pearson Correlation .231** .254** .320** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 0.002 0.000 N 151 151 151 151 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 10 displays the results of a Pearson product-moment correlation to examine the relationships between Verbal Information (Visual-Auditory), Intellectual Skills, and Cognitive Strategies (N = 151). The results revealed several statistically significant positive correlations. Specifically, a moderate positive correlation was found between Verbal Information (Visual-Auditory) and Intellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory), r (149) = .420, p < .001, as well as a significant relationship with Cognitive Strategy (Kinesthetic), r (149) = .231, p = .004. Within the Kinesthetic session variables, Intellectual Skills and Cognitive Strategy shared a significant moderate positive correlation, r (149) = .320, p < .001. Interestingly, Intellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory) did not demonstrate a significant relationship with Intellectual Skills (Kinesthetic), r (149) = .140, p = .086. Given these results, the analysis suggests a discernible link between foundational knowledge and the development of higher-order skills. Ho 6 : There is no significant impact of Verbal Information on Cognitive Strategy from the Kinesthetic session. Ho 7 : There is no significant impact of Intellectual Skills on Cognitive Strategy from the Kinesthetic session. Table 11 displays the results of the regression analysis, which was conducted to test the extent to which Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills could predict Cognitive Strategy outcomes. Table 11 Regression Analysis Hypothesis Regression Beta Coefficients R 2 F-value p-value Ho 6 Verbal Information (VA Session) > Cognitive Strategy (Kinesthetic Session) 0.90 0.53 8.379 0.004 Ho 7 Intellectual Skills (Kinesthetic session) > Cognitive Strategies (Kinesthetic session) 0.298 0.102 16.997 <0.001 Linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the predictive impact of Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills on Cognitive Strategies within the Kinesthetic session. The first model indicated that Verbal Information (VA Session) significantly predicts Cognitive Strategy outcomes, F = 8.379, p = .004, accounting for approximately 5.3% (R 2 = .053) of the variance. Consequently, the first null hypothesis (Ho 1 ) was rejected. The second model revealed that Intellectual Skills (Kinesthetic Session) also exerted a significant impact on Cognitive Strategy, F = 16.997, p < .001, explaining 10.2% (R 2 = .102) of the variance. Thus, the second null hypothesis (Ho 2 ) was also rejected. These results suggest that while both variables are significant predictors, Intellectual Skills acquired during the kinesthetic session serve as a stronger predictor of a student's cognitive strategy usage than foundational verbal information. Thus, the knowledge about sustainability, the process of testing for sustainable materials and devising means to address sustainability concerns are interrelated and can be learnt effectively only when the information transforms to become strategies. 4 Results and Discussion The findings of the present study provide empirical support for the impact of an andragogy-oriented Education for Sustainability (EfS) workshop in facilitating multi-domain learning outcomes. The statistically significant gains observed in both Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills following the visual–auditory sessions indicate that structured expert-led instruction can successfully establish foundational conceptual understanding when aligned with sustainability-relevant contexts [29, 26]. The large effect size observed for Verbal Information (d = 0.822) and the medium effect size for Intellectual Skills (d = 0.701) suggest that sustainability concepts framed through applied examples—such as green chemistry principles, circular economy models, and domain-specific case studies—enable learners to move beyond passive reception toward analytical engagement. These findings resonate with prior scholarship that emphasizes the importance of contextualized knowledge-building as a prerequisite for deeper sustainability learning [30,31]. Sustainability education literature consistently highlights that abstract exposure to sustainability concepts is insufficient unless learners are provided with structured cognitive scaffolding that enables interpretation, comparison, and evaluation of real-world applications [32]. The observed improvements in both Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills reinforce Gagné’s assertion that declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge are interdependent rather than sequential, particularly in applied domains such as sustainability [22]. The kinesthetic component of the workshop yielded additional insights into how hands-on engagement contributes to higher-order learning. The statistically significant differences in Intellectual Skills across groups, with a large effect size (η² = 0.184), indicate that the nature of instrument-based interaction plays a meaningful role in shaping procedural competence. Instruments requiring multi-step decision-making, data interpretation, and operational judgment appear to have facilitated stronger intellectual skill development, supporting prior research that experiential learning enhances procedural fluency and applied reasoning [33,34]. This aligns with experiential learning theory, which posits that learning is strengthened when concrete experience is followed by active experimentation and reflective observation [27]. Similarly, the significant variation in Cognitive Strategy outcomes across groups, with a medium effect size (η² = 0.109), highlights the role of kinesthetic learning in fostering metacognitive engagement. Cognitive strategies—such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s own learning—are rarely cultivated through lecture-based pedagogy alone [35]. The present findings suggest that sustained engagement with instruments, coupled with problem-solving demands and peer interaction, promotes executive control processes essential for sustainability learning, which is inherently uncertain and non-linear [32,39]. The correlation and regression analyses further illuminate the developmental trajectory of learning within the intervention. The moderate positive correlation between Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills within the visual–auditory sessions confirm the foundational role of conceptual understanding in supporting procedural reasoning [35]. However, the absence of a significant relationship between Intellectual Skills gained during visual–auditory sessions and those demonstrated during kinesthetic sessions suggests that procedural competence in sustainability contexts cannot be transferred automatically from theoretical instruction alone. This finding reinforces long-standing critiques within EfS literature that conceptual awareness does not readily translate into practice without situated learning experiences [30,36]. More notably, the significant correlations between kinesthetic Intellectual Skills and Cognitive Strategies, alongside regression results indicating Intellectual Skills as the stronger predictor of cognitive strategy development, underscore the primacy of action-based learning in cultivating higher-order sustainability competencies. These results support arguments that sustainability education must prioritize learning-through-doing, where learners encounter ambiguity, negotiate constraints, and adapt strategies dynamically [31,37]. Such environments are particularly conducive to andragogical learning, which relies on autonomy, experiential capital, and immediate applicability [19]. Collectively, these findings affirm that sustainability learning operates across interconnected cognitive domains rather than within linear taxonomies. The results empirically support the theoretical positioning of Gagné’s learning framework as more suitable for EfS than hierarchical models such as Bloom’s taxonomy, which inadequately account for transfer, regulation, and contextual adaptation [22,38]. By integrating declarative knowledge, procedural competence, and strategic regulation, the workshop model facilitated a learning ecology aligned with the complexity of sustainability challenges. 5 Limitations and Suggestions for the Future Study While the findings of this study offer significant insights into the impact of andragogy-oriented EfS workshop, several limitations must be acknowledged. The use of purposive sampling may limit the generalizability of the findings to other higher education contexts, as the sample may not be representative of broader student populations [39]. Furthermore, the adoption of a single-group pre-test–post-test design constrains the ability to attribute observed outcomes solely to the intervention, since causal inference cannot be established in the absence of a control group [40]. Owing to the short duration of the workshop, the outcomes do not capture long-term behavioral or attitudinal shifts, nor changes in values or intention that may translate into sustained sustainability action. Nevertheless, the workshop provides a viable pedagogical template for embedding practical exposure to sustainability applications, thereby helping bridge the gap between theoretical curricular foundations and the demands of applied practice in industry. Future research may focus on employing randomized controlled designs that are more representative of the wider student population. Longitudinal studies are also warranted to more robustly examine affective development, attitudinal change, and the long-term academic or professional trajectories of learners engaging with sustainability education. 6 Conclusion This study offers valuable empirical evidence into the impact of an experiential, instrumentation-mediated workshop in fostering pedagogically meaningful learning gains in the sphere of sustainability. The combined use of visual–auditory instruction and kinesthetic engagement enabled learners to develop foundational sustainability knowledge, procedural competence, and higher-order cognitive strategies in an integrated manner. This shows that curriculum designers should adopt andragogical principles and practice-oriented pedagogical designs in higher education sustainability initiatives that emphasize learner autonomy, experiential capital, and contextual relevance particularly when addressing complex sustainability problems. The study therefore offers a policy framework to move beyond superficial coverage of sustainability content to competency development and sets the foundation for a longer-term, systems-oriented institutional commitment towards pedagogical guidance rather than an isolated curricular requirement. Declarations Acknowledgement We sincerely thank MBRDI for the support provided for organizing the workshops along with the contribution of sophisticated instrumentation. We thank Dr. Krithika Maduvegadde for the support in the preparation of the manuscript. Author contributions Dr Karuna K Simha: Study Design, Data Collection tool, Data Interpretation Ms Subhashree Pattanayak: Collection of Qualitative Data, Interpretation and Analysis of Qualitative Data Dr Subhadip Senapati: Organization of Workshops and Design of Experiments on Sustainability; Review of Journal Article Ms Lakshmi B M: Collection of Qualitative Data and Cleaning of Data Ms Manaswini Vijayakumar: Compilation of Article, Review of Related Literature, Review of Journal Article, Selection of Journal and Alignment to Journal Standards Ms Bhoomika N: Statistical Analysis Dr Nagabhushana Srinivasa Kyatanahalli: Conceptualization, Review of Journal Article, Resource Person for the Sustainability Workshops Funding This study was not funded by any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Ethical Approval and Accordance The study received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Prayoga Institute of Education Research (Approval number: ER-24-05-01). All research procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical guidelines and regulations of Prayoga’s Ethics Committee. Consent to participate Informed Consent was taken from all universities and student participants involved in the study. Consent for publication Not applicable. Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Clinical trial number Not applicable References UNESCO. Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education: Tbilisi Declaration. Paris: UNESCO; 1977. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987. United Nations. Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations; 1992. Sterling S. Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Bristol: Green Books; 2011. Tilbury D. Education for sustainable development: An expert review of processes and learning. Paris: UNESCO; 2011. Jickling B, Wals AEJ. Globalization and environmental education: Looking beyond sustainable development. J Curric Stud . 2008;40(1):1–21. doi:10.1080/00220270701684667. Trencher G, Yarime M, McCormick KB, Doll CNH, Kraines SB. Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Sci Public Policy . 2014;41(2):151–79. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct044. Evans J, Jones R, Karvonen A, Millard L, Wendler J. Living labs and co-production: University campuses as platforms for sustainability science. Curr Opin Environ Sustain . 2015;16:1–6. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.005. Enviroschools Foundation. Enviroschools Programme Overview. New Zealand: Enviroschools; 2020. Foundation for Environmental Education. Eco-Schools Programme. Copenhagen: FEE; 2021. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. National Green Corps (NGC) Eco-Clubs Programme. Government of India; 2020. Centre for Science and Environment. Green Schools Programme Handbook. New Delhi: CSE; 2019. Wipro Foundation. Wipro Earthian: Sustainability Education Initiative. Bengaluru: Wipro Foundation; 2021. Australian Government Department of the Environment. Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2010. Education Scotland. Learning for Sustainability Action Plan. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2016. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). STARS Technical Manual. Denver: AASHE; 2022. Lozano R, Ceulemans K, Alonso-Almeida M, et al. A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education. J Clean Prod . 2015;108:1–18. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.010. Sterling S, Maxey L, Luna H. The Sustainable University: Progress and Prospects. London: Routledge; 2013 Sterling S. Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Bristol: Green Books; 2011. Knowles MS, Holton EF, Swanson RA. The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 7th ed. London: Routledge; 2011 Tilbury D. Education for sustainable development: An expert review of processes and learning. Paris: UNESCO; 2011. Jickling B, Wals AEJ. Globalization and environmental education: Looking beyond sustainable development. J Curric Stud . 2008;40(1):1–21. doi:10.1080/00220270701684667. Gagné RM. The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1984. Weinstein CE, Mayer RE. The teaching of learning strategies. Innov Abstr . 1986;8(2):1–4. Gagné RM, Briggs LJ, Wager WW. Principles of instructional design. 4th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1992. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans; 1956. Wals AEJ. Sustainability-oriented higher education: Transforming learning and teaching. Int J Sustain High Educ . 2014;15(4):367–71. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-05-2014-0075. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1984. Schön DA. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books; 1983. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development: Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO; 2017. Sterling S. The sustainable university: Challenge and response. London: Routledge; 2013. Lozano R, Merrill MY, Sammalisto K, Ceulemans K, Lozano FJ. Connecting competences and pedagogical approaches for sustainable development in higher education. J Clean Prod . 2017;172:16–27. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.277. Jickling B, Sterling S. Post-sustainability and environmental education: Remaking education for the future. Environ Educ Res . 2017;23(2):1–17. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1176540. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ . 2004;93(3):223–31. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x. Kolmos A, de Graaff E. Problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education. Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. Schraw G, Dennison RS. Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemp Educ Psychol . 1994;19(4):460–75. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1033. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL. Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework. Sustain Sci . 2011;6(2):203–18. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6. Barth M, Godemann J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U. Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ . 2007;8(4):416–30. doi:10.1108/14676370710823582. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: Longman; 2001. Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1963. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education. 7th ed. London: Routledge; 2011. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 29 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 25 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 18 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 26 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 19 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 18 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 18 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8658928","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":597903250,"identity":"65287eba-698f-423b-afc0-e73ce5ec1ae3","order_by":0,"name":"Dr Karuna K Simha","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Prayoga Institute of Education Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr","firstName":"Karuna","middleName":"K","lastName":"Simha","suffix":""},{"id":597903251,"identity":"9b681d6f-7574-47bc-acc6-d10def39bc01","order_by":1,"name":"Ms Subhashree Pattanayak","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Prayoga Institute of Education Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ms","middleName":"Subhashree","lastName":"Pattanayak","suffix":""},{"id":597903252,"identity":"42650131-7e8a-47d0-83f8-36215e60da7b","order_by":2,"name":"Dr Subhadip Senapati","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Prayoga Institute of Education Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr","firstName":"Subhadip","middleName":"","lastName":"Senapati","suffix":""},{"id":597903253,"identity":"68390248-7747-4687-b816-24622c3a5064","order_by":3,"name":"Ms Lakshmi B M","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Prayoga Institute of Education Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ms","middleName":"Lakshmi B","lastName":"M","suffix":""},{"id":597903254,"identity":"13715d6b-200b-4a24-b0d4-b3052f7ab63a","order_by":4,"name":"Ms Manaswini Vijayakumar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Prayoga Institute of Education Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ms","middleName":"Manaswini","lastName":"Vijayakumar","suffix":""},{"id":597903255,"identity":"8066fb1b-fbba-4e10-b8be-51e29a7e5eaa","order_by":5,"name":"Ms Bhoomika N","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Prayoga Institute of Education Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ms","middleName":"Bhoomika","lastName":"N","suffix":""},{"id":597903256,"identity":"2e56e529-ba13-4965-8729-5d0ada7e8eb7","order_by":6,"name":"Dr Nagabhushana Srinivasa Kyatanahalli","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Prayoga Institute of Education Research","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"Dr","firstName":"Nagabhushana","middleName":"Srinivasa","lastName":"Kyatanahalli","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-21 11:32:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658928/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658928/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103923949,"identity":"bc12a64a-e741-408e-819f-5cefabea1aef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-04 14:57:25","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1065571,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8658928/v1/4d692ad4-1889-4a66-aae6-bf409daeeed4.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Linking Sustainability Theory and Practice through an Andragogy Based Workshop for Science and Engineering Graduates","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSince the late 1970s, international policy mandates have foregrounded Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) as a prerequisite for meaningful progress. The Tbilisi Declaration (1977), Brundtland Report (1987), and Agenda 21 (1992) set out the governing principles that would direct practice [1, 3]. While environmental awareness and literacy rose as pedagogical and systemic outcomes, praxis lagged. Education for Sustainability (EfS) subsequently emerged as an implementation grammar to operationalize the ESD mandate across different levels of education systems [4,5]. EfS functions as a practice-oriented approach that translates ESD and Environmental Education (EE) principles into institutional processes, including whole-school models and competency-based learning designs that encourage inquiry, reflection, and action [6].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEfS implementation exists globally through whole-institution sustainability frameworks, experiential \u0026ldquo;living lab\u0026rdquo; models, and selective curriculum integration [7,8]. However, the absence of standardization means that no consolidated global EfS count exists, with whole-school approaches predominating. Notable examples include Enviroschools in New Zealand and the global Eco-Schools programme [9,10]. In India, this mandate is largely driven through government and civil society mechanisms such as the National Green Corps (NGC) Eco-Clubs under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Centre for Science and Environment\u0026rsquo;s Green Schools Programme (GSP), and initiatives such as Wipro Earthian [11\u0026ndash;13]. There are established exemplars of EfS both internationally and within India. The Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI) and Learning for Sustainability (LfS) in Scotland represent whole-system approaches that emphasize student agency, community engagement, and sustainability as a lived practice [14,15]. Similarly, in India, programmes such as NGC and GSP have contributed to strengthening analytical thinking, contextual application, and research-informed community action among school learners [11,12].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these efforts, EfS initiatives often remain fragmented and subject to selective participation. Project- or activity-based implementations do not consistently translate into sustained attitudinal or behavioural change, nor does large-scale reach necessarily ensure conceptual depth [5,6]. Internationally, networks such as the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) through its STARS framework, along with campus-as-living-lab initiatives, demonstrate EfS-aligned practices by linking curriculum, campus operations, and student engagement [7,16]. However, empirical research consistently shows that curricular transformation lags operational sustainability and remains heavily dependent on individual faculty champions rather than institutional mandates [4,17,18]. As a result, many such initiatives remain project-based, with limited continuity or systemic embedding. Where assessment systems remain board-oriented and examination centric, EfS is frequently relegated to peripheral or co-curricular status, leading to content-heavy activities that encourage superficial engagement rather than rigorous inquiry [5,17].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the specific context of higher education\u0026mdash;particularly undergraduate programmes\u0026mdash;sustainability is commonly integrated in partial and ad-hoc forms. It is typically offered as an elective or as isolated modules within single disciplines, with limited encouragement for interdisciplinary or systems-level thinking [4,5]. This reflects a structural mismatch between sustainability\u0026rsquo;s normative, transdisciplinary aspirations and traditional university assessment cultures grounded in disciplinary compartmentalization. Even within engineering education, sustainability often remains peripheral, with quantitative reasoning, disciplinary modelling, and conceptual coherence insufficiently integrated into core technical learning [18]. In India, although undergraduate students are formally introduced to sustainability through the compulsory Environmental Studies (EVS) course mandated by the University Grants Commission, empirical and critical scholarship indicates that this exposure is largely content-driven and examination-oriented, with weak linkages to experiential learning, disciplinary depth, or real-world problem solving [6,17].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the nature of sustainability education itself is inherently complex, addressing real-world problems characterized by uncertainty, non-linearity, and interdependence. Under such conditions, rigid disciplinary silos constrain the development of the cognitive rigour required for sustainability learning, limiting learners\u0026rsquo; capacity for systems thinking, ethical reasoning, and long-term decision-making [4,6].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.1\u0026nbsp;Rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo integrate multiple dimensions of sustainability education\u0026mdash;including interdisciplinarity and differentiated pedagogical and assessment requirements\u0026mdash;the present study adopted a workshop-based mode of engagement. Given that implementation-orientation and ambiguity are defining characteristics of Education for Sustainability (EfS), andragogy is particularly well aligned with its pedagogical aims [19]. Andragogical approaches emphasize self-directed learning, intrinsic motivation, and the use of learners\u0026rsquo; prior experiences as central learning resources, making them especially suited to sustainability education, which is inherently problem-centric and dependent on context-responsive, action-oriented decision-making [20,21].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this context, Gagn\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s Types of Learning framework is especially appropriate for addressing the multi-domain constructs of EfS, as it emphasizes techniques of thinking such as organizing, monitoring, and regulating one\u0026rsquo;s own learning processes [22]. The framework explicitly embeds performance elicitation, feedback, and transfer of learning\u0026mdash;components that are critical for sustainability education, where conceptual knowledge must translate into adaptive practice across varied contexts [22,23]. As described by Gagn\u0026eacute;, Verbal Information (VI) corresponds to declarative knowledge, referring to the ability of an individual to state or describe information; Intellectual Skills (IS) represent procedural knowledge, involving the application of rules and execution of sequential processes; and Cognitive Strategies (CS) denote executive control mechanisms or strategic knowledge guiding independent thinking and problem-solving [24]. Cognitive strategies, in particular, enable learners to regulate their own cognition, engage in reflective judgment, and generate creative or adaptive responses to complex sustainability challenges [25].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis framework aligns more closely with the open-ended, participatory, and iterative nature of EfS than the linear cognitive hierarchy characteristic of Bloom\u0026rsquo;s taxonomy [24,25]. By emphasizing learning transfer, self-regulation, and performance in authentic contexts, Gagn\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s model supports the development of problem-solving schemas that are essential for generating meaningful impact through sustainability education [18,21].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven that sustainability education operates primarily at the level of practice rather than policy, conventional classroom-based instruction alone is insufficient [26,20]. Workshop-based pedagogies enable a more active, collaborative, and practice-oriented learning ecosystem, moving beyond lecture-driven conceptual transmission [27]. Workshops facilitate the full learning continuum\u0026mdash;from lived experience to conceptualization and critical reflection\u0026mdash;thereby supporting experiential learning cycles [28]. Through iterative engagement, workshops blur disciplinary boundaries, encourage experimentation, and promote tangible outputs rooted in real-world contexts [18,27]. Structurally, the workshop format fosters peer dialogue, critique, and self-directed inquiry while effectively leveraging participants\u0026rsquo; prior experiential knowledge [26,21]. By bridging theory and practice, workshops thus provide an appropriate platform for implementing Education for Sustainability (EfS) modules in authentic learning environments \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe MBRDI workshop series was therefore designed to address the limited availability of interdisciplinary, solution-oriented engagement with sustainability in formal educational spaces. To bridge the gap between theoretical understanding and applied practice, it is essential to first establish foundational awareness of the sustainability application ecosystem, including tools, actors, and pathways for implementation. Such grounding enables a gradual transition from conceptual learning to interdisciplinary praxis, rather than promoting fragmented or ad-hoc deployment of sustainability tools within narrow, linear action frameworks.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.2\u0026nbsp;Research Questions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRQ\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: To what extent do audio-visual sustainability workshops improve Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills among science and engineering graduates? \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRQ\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e: How do kinesthetic sessions with sustainability-relevant instruments affect Intellectual Skills and Cognitive Strategies in participants across different academic backgrounds?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRQ\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e: What relationships exist between Verbal Information (from audio-visual sessions), Intellectual Skills, and Cognitive Strategies (from kinesthetic sessions), as measured by correlation and regression analyses?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.3\u0026nbsp;Hypotheses\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant difference in mean scores of Verbal Information in the pre-test and post-test among the participants \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant difference in mean scores of Intellectual Skills in pre-test and post-test among the participants. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant difference in mean scores of Intellectual Skills among the different groups participating in the Kinesthetic session \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant difference in means of Cognitive Strategy among the groups participating in the Kinesthetic session. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant correlation between \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVerbal Information and Intellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory Sessions) \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVerbal Information (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Intellectual Skills (Kinesthetic Session) \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVerbal Information (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Cognitive Strategies (Kinesthetic Session) \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIntellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Cognitive Strategies (Kinesthetic Session) \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant impact of Verbal Information on Cognitive Strategy from the Kinesthetic session. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant impact of Intellectual Skills on Cognitive Strategy from the Kinesthetic session. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis present study employed a quantitative research design to explore the possibility of implementing audio-visual and kinesthetic sessions for andragogy-based EfS. The study adopted a single group pre-test post-test design for audio-visual sessions. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample of the study was selected using purposive sampling and it comprised 151 undergraduate and postgraduate students from science and engineering disciplines across six institutions in Karnataka based on their availability and willingness to participate. Students who had no prior experience in handling the selected equipment were chosen. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;The background of the participants and their distribution is specified in Table 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSample details\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"371\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBatch\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpecialisation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNumber of Students\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBatch 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolymer Science\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMechatronics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Engineering\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBatch 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBiotechnology\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeneral Chemistry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBatch 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalytical Chemistry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganic Chemistry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe workshop design consisted of visual-auditory sessions (lecture series) followed by kinesthetic sessions (hands-on training for laboratory equipment) targeting specific competencies as detailed in Table 2. Assessment tools were developed based on Gagn\u0026eacute;\u0026apos;s learning outcome categories, comprising pre/post-tests for audio-visual sessions (8 questions: 50% VI, 50% IS) and kinesthetic post-tests (15 questions: 60% IS, 40% CS) tailored to specific instruments and disciplinary batches. Content validity was established through expert review by lecture instructors and instrument mentors, ensuring alignment with learning objectives and sustainability applications. Construct validity was confirmed by direct mapping to Gagn\u0026eacute;\u0026apos;s framework, while reliability was robust: audio-visual assessments showed Spearman-Brown split-half reliability of 0.60, and kinesthetic assessments demonstrated Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; ranging from 0.90-0.95 across eight group-specific versions, with Spearman-Brown coefficients of 0.987-0.996, indicating excellent internal consistency and test stability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe Objectives, Learning Outcomes, and Assessment Variables for the Workshop\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjectives\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearning Outcomes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTypes of Learning\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo create awareness about the sustainable materials (Lecture 1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp;Analyse\u0026nbsp;materials with respect to their sustainability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp;Characterise\u0026nbsp;materials based on their sustainability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp;Explore the use of\u0026nbsp;technology in the preparation of sustainable materials\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.\u0026nbsp;Evolve strategies to replace materials with more sustainable sources\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp;Verbal Information\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp;Intellectual Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo introduce the learners to domain-specific topics on sustainability (Lecture 2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp;Apply strategies to use agricultural wastes to convert them into value-added products\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp;Apply principles of circular economy to reuse and recycle materials\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp;Applying the process of carbon sequestration to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp;Verbal Information\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp;Intellectual Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo introduce learners to the different equipment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo provide hands-on training on SOPs for the equipment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp;Use SOPs with precision\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp;Handle instruments with\u0026nbsp;appropriate care\u0026nbsp;using instructions accurately\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp;Collect precise data\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.\u0026nbsp;Analyse\u0026nbsp;data\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.\u0026nbsp;Interpret data to make meaningful inferences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp;Intellectual Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp;Cognitive Strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe audio-visual component comprised two expert-led lectures: a general awareness session covering the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry, sustainability index, and fuel evolution case study (common to all), followed by batch-specific lectures\u0026mdash;Carbon Capture Utilization and Sequestration (CCUS) for Batch 1, Green Biorefineries for Batch 2, and Quantitative Methods in Sustainable Materials Decision-Making for Batch 3. Kinesthetic sessions organized 151 students into eight groups of 18-21, rotating through three instruments each (Table 3), providing hands-on experience with sustainability-relevant equipment including FT-IR, UTM, Tear Tester, UV-Visible spectroscopy, Lab Extruder, Water Vapour Tester, Water Penetration Tester, and Two Roll Mills.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eGroup-wise Instrument Exposure\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGroups\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRotation 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRotation 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRotation 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversal Testing Machine (UTM)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTear Tester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUV-Visible spectroscopy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLab Extruder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater\u0026nbsp;Vapour\u0026nbsp;Tester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTear Tester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUV-Visible spectroscopy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo Roll Mills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater\u0026nbsp;Vapour\u0026nbsp;Tester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater Penetration Tester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo Roll Mills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater\u0026nbsp;Vapour\u0026nbsp;Tester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater Penetration Tester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTear Tester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLab Extruder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo Roll Mills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUTM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUV-Visible spectroscopy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLab Extruder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversal Testing Machine (UTM)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater Penetration Tester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData collection spanned three full-day workshops conducted in February-March 2025, following ethical approval and informed consent procedures. Day 1 began with pre-testing (15 minutes) before the General Awareness lecture, followed by Kinesthetic Session 1 (Rotation 1 instruments). Day 2 featured batch-specific lectures with immediate post-testing (20 minutes), then Kinesthetic Session 2 (Rotation 2). Day 3 completed Kinesthetic Session 3 (Rotation 3), with group-specific kinesthetic assessments (30 minutes) administered upon rotation cycle completion. All paper-based responses were scanned, double-entry verified, and de-identified using participant IDs, ensuring data integrity and confidentiality throughout the structured timeline.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3 Analysis and Interpretation ","content":"\u003cp\u003eBased on the preliminary data from different batches, further statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS version 29.0.2.0 (20) to determine the significance of the workshop. The following hypotheses were considered to understand the impact of the workshop on the variables assumed to represent learning from the visual-auditory sessions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant difference in mean scores of Verbal Information in the\u0026nbsp;pre-test\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;post-test\u0026nbsp;among the participants\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant difference in mean scores of Intellectual Skills in\u0026nbsp;pre-test\u0026nbsp;and post-test among the participants.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDescriptive statistics of Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"394\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDescriptive Statistics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVerbal Information\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre-test\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-test\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.558\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntellectual Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre-test\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.249\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-test\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4 revealed an upward trend in mean scores for Verbal Information (M = 2.79 to 3.64) and Intellectual Skills (M = 2.18 to 2.98), suggesting an improvement in participant performance following the intervention.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003et-value, p-value, and effect size\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"579\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePaired Differences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003et\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003edf\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSig. (2- tailed)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStd. deviation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVerbal Information\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.848\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.822\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntellectual Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.801\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.613\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.701\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 data revealed statistically significant improvements in both cognitive domains (p \u0026lt; .01). For VI, the mean difference was (0.848) and t(150) = 10.102, together with a large effect size (Cohen\u0026apos;s d = 0.822). Similarly, IS presented a mean difference was (0.801) and t(150) = 8.613, with a medium effect size (Cohen\u0026apos;s d = 0.701). These findings demonstrate that the visual-auditory workshop produced meaningful gains across both measured domains.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant difference in mean scores of Intellectual Skills among the\u0026nbsp;different groups\u0026nbsp;participating\u0026nbsp;in the Kinesthetic session\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 6\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDescriptive Statistics of Intellectual Skills among the different groups\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"316\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGroups\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.545\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.769\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.759\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.545\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.470\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.806\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.422\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.577\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.506\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6 shows the descriptive statistics for Intellectual Skills across the eight kinesthetic session groups. The mean scores indicate noticeable variation among groups. Group 6 (M = 7.74, SD = 0.806) achieved the highest mean Intellectual Skills scores, suggesting stronger outcomes for participants in these sessions. In contrast, Group 2 reported lower mean scores (M = 5.94, SD = 1.769). The overall mean Intellectual Skills score for the total sample (N = 151) was 6.60 (SD = 1.506), indicating a generally moderate level of performance across all participants.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 7\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eF value; Comparison between the different groups\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntellectual Skills\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSum of Squares\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003edf\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean \u0026nbsp; Square\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSig.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eETA squared Point Estimate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e612.756\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.965\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.621\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.184\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2977.403\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.940\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e340.159\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7 presents the results of a one-way ANOVA comparing Intellectual Skills across the eight groups. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference among groups, F(7, 143) = 4.621, p \u0026lt; .01. This finding indicates that Intellectual Skills scores varied significantly depending on the kinesthetic session group. The effect size, measured by eta squared (\u0026eta;\u0026sup2; = 0.184), suggests a large effect, meaning that approximately 18.4% of the variance in Intellectual Skills scores can be attributed to differences between the kinesthetic session groups. Overall, these results indicate that the type of instruments used in kinesthetic sessions had a meaningful impact on Intellectual Skills\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant difference in means of Cognitive Strategy among the groups\u0026nbsp;participating\u0026nbsp;in the Kinesthetic session.\u003c/em\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 8\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDescriptive Statistics of Cognitive Strategy\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"268\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGroups\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.455\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.387\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.679\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.411\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.485\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.129\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.526\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.503\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 8 shows the descriptive statistics for Cognitive Strategy (CS) scores skills across the eight kinesthetic session groups. The mean scores indicate noticeable variation among groups. Group 3 (M = 4.35, SD = 1.387) achieved the highest mean CS scores, suggesting stronger outcomes for participants in these sessions. In contrast, Group 8 reported lower mean scores (M = 2.72, SD = 1.526). The overall mean CS score for the total sample (N = 151) was 3.79 (SD = 1.503), indicating a generally moderate level of performance across all participants.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTable 9\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eF value; Comparison between the different groups\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"555\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCognitive Strategy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSum of Squares\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003edf\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean Square\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSig.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eETA squared Point Estimate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.810\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.259\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.109\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e301.826\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.111\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e338.636\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 9 reports the results of a one-way ANOVA examining differences in Cognitive Strategy scores among the eight groups. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between groups, F (7, 143) = 2.491, p = .019 (p \u0026lt; .05). This indicates that Cognitive Strategy scores varied significantly across the groups. The effect size, as indicated by eta squared (\u0026eta;\u0026sup2; = 0.109), reflects a medium effect, suggesting that approximately 10.9% of the variance in Cognitive Strategy scores can be attributed to group differences. Overall, these findings indicate that group membership had a meaningful influence on Cognitive Strategy performance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant correlation between\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eVerbal Information and Intellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory Sessions)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eVerbal Information (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Intellectual Skills (Kinesthetic Session)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eVerbal Information (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Cognitive Strategies (Kinesthetic Session)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory Sessions) and Cognitive Strategies (Kinesthetic Session)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 10\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ePearson\u0026rsquo;s Correlation coefficients\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 173px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorrelations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVerbal Information from Visual Auditory session\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntellectual Skills from Visual Auditory Session\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntellectual Skills from Kinesthetic Session\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCognitive Strategy from Kinesthetic Session\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVerbal Information from Visual Auditory Session\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.420**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.206*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.231**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u0026nbsp;(2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntellectual Skills from Visual Auditory Session\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.420**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.140\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.254**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.086\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntellectual Skills from Kinesthetic Session\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.206*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.140\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.320**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.086\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCognitive Strategy from Kinesthetic Session\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.231**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.254**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.320**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 10 displays the results of a Pearson product-moment correlation to examine the relationships between Verbal Information (Visual-Auditory), Intellectual Skills, and Cognitive Strategies (N = 151). The results revealed several statistically significant positive correlations. Specifically, a moderate positive correlation was found between Verbal Information (Visual-Auditory) and Intellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory), r (149) = .420, p \u0026lt; .001, as well as a significant relationship with Cognitive Strategy (Kinesthetic), r (149) = .231, p = .004. Within the Kinesthetic session variables, Intellectual Skills and Cognitive Strategy shared a significant moderate positive correlation, r (149) = .320, p \u0026lt; .001. Interestingly, Intellectual Skills (Visual-Auditory) did not demonstrate a significant relationship with Intellectual Skills (Kinesthetic), r (149) = .140, p = .086.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven these results, the analysis suggests a discernible link between foundational knowledge and the development of higher-order skills.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant impact\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;Verbal Information on Cognitive Strategy from the Kinesthetic session.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no significant impact\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;Intellectual Skills on Cognitive Strategy from the Kinesthetic session.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 11 displays the results of the regression analysis, which was conducted to test the extent to which Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills could predict Cognitive Strategy outcomes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 11\u003c/strong\u003e Regression Analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRegression\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBeta Coefficients\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVerbal Information (VA Session) \u0026gt; Cognitive Strategy (Kinesthetic Session)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.379\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHo\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntellectual Skills (Kinesthetic session) \u0026gt; Cognitive Strategies (Kinesthetic session)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.298\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.997\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLinear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the predictive impact of Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills on Cognitive Strategies within the Kinesthetic session. The first model\u0026nbsp;indicated\u0026nbsp;that\u0026nbsp;Verbal Information (VA Session)\u0026nbsp;significantly predicts Cognitive Strategy outcomes, F = 8.379, p = .004, accounting for approximately 5.3% (R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .053) of the variance. Consequently, the first null hypothesis (Ho\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) was rejected. The second model revealed that\u0026nbsp;Intellectual Skills (Kinesthetic Session)\u0026nbsp;also exerted a significant impact on Cognitive Strategy, F = 16.997, p \u0026lt; .001, explaining 10.2% (R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .102) of the variance. Thus, the second null hypothesis (Ho\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) was also rejected. These results suggest that while both variables are significant predictors, Intellectual Skills acquired during the kinesthetic session serve as a stronger predictor of a student\u0026apos;s cognitive strategy usage than foundational verbal information.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThus, the knowledge about sustainability, the process of testing for sustainable materials and devising means to address sustainability concerns are interrelated and can be learnt effectively only when the information transforms to become strategies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4 Results and Discussion ","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of the present study provide empirical support for the impact of an andragogy-oriented Education for Sustainability (EfS) workshop in facilitating multi-domain learning outcomes. The statistically significant gains observed in both Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills following the visual\u0026ndash;auditory sessions indicate that structured expert-led instruction can successfully establish foundational conceptual understanding when aligned with sustainability-relevant contexts [29, 26]. The large effect size observed for Verbal Information (d = 0.822) and the medium effect size for Intellectual Skills (d = 0.701) suggest that sustainability concepts framed through applied examples\u0026mdash;such as green chemistry principles, circular economy models, and domain-specific case studies\u0026mdash;enable learners to move beyond passive reception toward analytical engagement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings resonate with prior scholarship that emphasizes the importance of contextualized knowledge-building as a prerequisite for deeper sustainability learning [30,31]. Sustainability education literature consistently highlights that abstract exposure to sustainability concepts is insufficient unless learners are provided with structured cognitive scaffolding that enables interpretation, comparison, and evaluation of real-world applications [32]. The observed improvements in both Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills reinforce Gagn\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s assertion that declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge are interdependent rather than sequential, particularly in applied domains such as sustainability [22].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe kinesthetic component of the workshop yielded additional insights into how hands-on engagement contributes to higher-order learning. The statistically significant differences in Intellectual Skills across groups, with a large effect size (\u0026eta;\u0026sup2; = 0.184), indicate that the nature of instrument-based interaction plays a meaningful role in shaping procedural competence. Instruments requiring multi-step decision-making, data interpretation, and operational judgment appear to have facilitated stronger intellectual skill development, supporting prior research that experiential learning enhances procedural fluency and applied reasoning [33,34]. This aligns with experiential learning theory, which posits that learning is strengthened when concrete experience is followed by active experimentation and reflective observation [27].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, the significant variation in Cognitive Strategy outcomes across groups, with a medium effect size (\u0026eta;\u0026sup2; = 0.109), highlights the role of kinesthetic learning in fostering metacognitive engagement. Cognitive strategies\u0026mdash;such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating one\u0026rsquo;s own learning\u0026mdash;are rarely cultivated through lecture-based pedagogy alone [35]. The present findings suggest that sustained engagement with instruments, coupled with problem-solving demands and peer interaction, promotes executive control processes essential for sustainability learning, which is inherently uncertain and non-linear [32,39].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe correlation and regression analyses further illuminate the developmental trajectory of learning within the intervention. The moderate positive correlation between Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills within the visual\u0026ndash;auditory sessions confirm the foundational role of conceptual understanding in supporting procedural reasoning [35]. However, the absence of a significant relationship between Intellectual Skills gained during visual\u0026ndash;auditory sessions and those demonstrated during kinesthetic sessions suggests that procedural competence in sustainability contexts cannot be transferred automatically from theoretical instruction alone. This finding reinforces long-standing critiques within EfS literature that conceptual awareness does not readily translate into practice without situated learning experiences [30,36].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMore notably, the significant correlations between kinesthetic Intellectual Skills and Cognitive Strategies, alongside regression results indicating Intellectual Skills as the stronger predictor of cognitive strategy development, underscore the primacy of action-based learning in cultivating higher-order sustainability competencies. These results support arguments that sustainability education must prioritize learning-through-doing, where learners encounter ambiguity, negotiate constraints, and adapt strategies dynamically [31,37]. Such environments are particularly conducive to andragogical learning, which relies on autonomy, experiential capital, and immediate applicability [19].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollectively, these findings affirm that sustainability learning operates across interconnected cognitive domains rather than within linear taxonomies. The results empirically support the theoretical positioning of Gagn\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s learning framework as more suitable for EfS than hierarchical models such as Bloom\u0026rsquo;s taxonomy, which inadequately account for transfer, regulation, and contextual adaptation [22,38]. By integrating declarative knowledge, procedural competence, and strategic regulation, the workshop model facilitated a learning ecology aligned with the complexity of sustainability challenges.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5 Limitations and Suggestions for the Future Study ","content":"\u003cp\u003eWhile the findings of this study offer significant insights into the impact of andragogy-oriented EfS workshop, several limitations must be acknowledged. The use of purposive sampling may limit the generalizability of the findings to other higher education contexts, as the sample may not be representative of broader student populations [39]. Furthermore, the adoption of a single-group pre-test\u0026ndash;post-test design constrains the ability to attribute observed outcomes solely to the intervention, since causal inference cannot be established in the absence of a control group [40]. Owing to the short duration of the workshop, the outcomes do not capture long-term behavioral or attitudinal shifts, nor changes in values or intention that may translate into sustained sustainability action. Nevertheless, the workshop provides a viable pedagogical template for embedding practical exposure to sustainability applications, thereby helping bridge the gap between theoretical curricular foundations and the demands of applied practice in industry. Future research may focus on employing randomized controlled designs that are more representative of the wider student population. Longitudinal studies are also warranted to more robustly examine affective development, attitudinal change, and the long-term academic or professional trajectories of learners engaging with sustainability education. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6 Conclusion ","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study offers valuable empirical evidence into the impact of an experiential, instrumentation-mediated workshop in fostering pedagogically meaningful learning gains in the sphere of sustainability. The combined use of visual\u0026ndash;auditory instruction and kinesthetic engagement enabled learners to develop foundational sustainability knowledge, procedural competence, and higher-order cognitive strategies in an integrated manner. \u0026nbsp;This shows that curriculum designers should adopt andragogical principles and practice-oriented pedagogical designs in higher education sustainability initiatives that emphasize learner autonomy, experiential capital, and contextual relevance particularly when addressing complex sustainability problems. The study therefore offers a policy framework to move beyond superficial coverage of sustainability content to competency development and sets the foundation for a longer-term, systems-oriented institutional commitment towards pedagogical guidance rather than an isolated curricular requirement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe sincerely thank MBRDI for the support provided for organizing the workshops along with the contribution of sophisticated instrumentation. We thank Dr. Krithika Maduvegadde for the support in the preparation of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr Karuna K Simha: Study Design, Data Collection tool, Data Interpretation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs Subhashree Pattanayak: Collection of Qualitative Data, Interpretation and Analysis of Qualitative Data\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr Subhadip Senapati: Organization of Workshops and Design of Experiments on Sustainability; Review of Journal Article\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs Lakshmi B M: Collection of Qualitative Data and Cleaning of Data\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs Manaswini Vijayakumar: Compilation of Article, Review of Related Literature, Review of Journal Article, Selection of Journal and Alignment to Journal Standards\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs Bhoomika N: Statistical Analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr Nagabhushana Srinivasa Kyatanahalli: Conceptualization, Review of Journal Article, Resource Person for the Sustainability Workshops\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was not funded by any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval and Accordance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Prayoga Institute of Education Research (Approval number: ER-24-05-01). All research procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical guidelines and regulations of Prayoga\u0026rsquo;s Ethics Committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed Consent was taken from all universities and student participants involved in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUNESCO. Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education: Tbilisi Declaration. Paris: UNESCO; 1977. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUnited Nations. Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations; 1992. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSterling S. Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Bristol: Green Books; 2011. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTilbury D. Education for sustainable development: An expert review of processes and learning. Paris: UNESCO; 2011. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJickling B, Wals AEJ. Globalization and environmental education: Looking beyond sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eJ\u0026nbsp;Curric\u0026nbsp;Stud\u003c/em\u003e. 2008;40(1):1\u0026ndash;21. doi:10.1080/00220270701684667. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTrencher G, Yarime M, McCormick KB, Doll CNH, Kraines SB. Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. \u003cem\u003eSci Public Policy\u003c/em\u003e. 2014;41(2):151\u0026ndash;79. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct044. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEvans J, Jones R, Karvonen A, Millard L, Wendler J. Living labs and co-production: University campuses as platforms for sustainability science. \u003cem\u003eCurr\u0026nbsp;Opin\u0026nbsp;Environ Sustain\u003c/em\u003e. 2015;16:1\u0026ndash;6. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.005. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnviroschools Foundation. Enviroschools Programme Overview. New Zealand: Enviroschools; 2020. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFoundation for Environmental Education. Eco-Schools Programme. Copenhagen: FEE; 2021. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMinistry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. National Green Corps (NGC) Eco-Clubs Programme. Government of India; 2020. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCentre for Science and Environment. Green Schools Programme Handbook. New Delhi: CSE; 2019. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWipro Foundation. Wipro Earthian: Sustainability Education Initiative. Bengaluru: Wipro Foundation; 2021. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAustralian Government Department of the Environment. Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2010. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEducation Scotland. Learning for Sustainability Action Plan. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2016. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). STARS Technical Manual. Denver: AASHE; 2022. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLozano R, Ceulemans K, Alonso-Almeida M, et al. A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education. \u003cem\u003eJ Clean Prod\u003c/em\u003e. 2015;108:1\u0026ndash;18. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.010. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSterling S, Maxey L, Luna H. The Sustainable University: Progress and Prospects. London: Routledge; 2013 \u0026nbsp; Sterling S. Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Bristol: Green Books; 2011. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKnowles MS, Holton EF, Swanson RA. The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 7th ed. London: Routledge; 2011 \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTilbury D. Education for sustainable development: An expert review of processes and learning. Paris: UNESCO; 2011. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJickling B, Wals AEJ. Globalization and environmental education: Looking beyond sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eJ\u0026nbsp;Curric\u0026nbsp;Stud\u003c/em\u003e. 2008;40(1):1\u0026ndash;21. doi:10.1080/00220270701684667. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGagn\u0026eacute; RM. The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1984. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWeinstein CE, Mayer RE. The teaching of learning strategies. \u003cem\u003eInnov\u0026nbsp;Abstr\u003c/em\u003e. 1986;8(2):1\u0026ndash;4. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGagn\u0026eacute; RM, Briggs LJ, Wager WW. Principles of instructional design. 4th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1992. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans; 1956. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWals AEJ. Sustainability-oriented higher education: Transforming learning and teaching. \u003cem\u003eInt J Sustain High Educ\u003c/em\u003e. 2014;15(4):367\u0026ndash;71. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-05-2014-0075. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1984. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSch\u0026ouml;n\u0026nbsp;DA.\u0026nbsp;The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books; 1983.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development: Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO; 2017. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSterling S. The sustainable university: Challenge and response. London: Routledge; 2013. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLozano R, Merrill MY, Sammalisto K, Ceulemans K, Lozano FJ. Connecting competences and pedagogical approaches for sustainable development in higher education. \u003cem\u003eJ Clean Prod\u003c/em\u003e. 2017;172:16\u0026ndash;27. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.277. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJickling B, Sterling S. Post-sustainability and environmental education: Remaking education for the future. \u003cem\u003eEnviron Educ Res\u003c/em\u003e. 2017;23(2):1\u0026ndash;17. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1176540. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePrince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. \u003cem\u003eJ Eng Educ\u003c/em\u003e. 2004;93(3):223\u0026ndash;31. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKolmos A, de Graaff E. Problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education. \u003cem\u003eCambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchraw G, Dennison RS. Assessing metacognitive awareness. \u003cem\u003eContemp\u0026nbsp;Educ Psychol\u003c/em\u003e. 1994;19(4):460\u0026ndash;75. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1033. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL. Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework. \u003cem\u003eSustain Sci\u003c/em\u003e. 2011;6(2):203\u0026ndash;18. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarth M, Godemann J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U. Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. \u003cem\u003eInt J Sustain High Educ\u003c/em\u003e. 2007;8(4):416\u0026ndash;30. doi:10.1108/14676370710823582. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnderson LW, Krathwohl DR. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: Longman; 2001.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCampbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1963.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education. 7th ed. London: Routledge; 2011.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Categories of Learning, Andragogy, Workshop, Sustainability Competencies","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658928/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658928/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Education for Sustainability (EfS) has emerged as a critical implementation pathway for advancing the global mandate of Education for Sustainable Development; however, its integration within higher education remains fragmented, content-driven, and weakly aligned with applied practice. This study examines the impact of an andragogy-oriented EfS workshop designed to bridge theoretical sustainability concepts with real-world societal application. Employing a quantitative research design, the study involved 151 undergraduate and postgraduate students from science and engineering disciplines across six institutions in Southern India. The workshop combined expert-led audio–visual sessions with kinesthetic, instrumentation-based learning, structured using Gagné’s Types of Learning framework. Pre–post analyses revealed statistically significant improvements in Verbal Information and Intellectual Skills following the audio–visual sessions, with large and medium effect sizes respectively. Further, one-way ANOVA results indicated significant group-wise differences in Intellectual Skills and Cognitive Strategies during kinesthetic sessions, demonstrating the influence of hands-on engagement on higher-order learning. Correlation and regression analyses revealed that Intellectual Skills acquired through kinesthetic learning were stronger predictors of Cognitive Strategy development than conceptual knowledge alone. The findings provide empirical support for experiential, andragogy-driven EfS models demonstrating how universities can act as catalysts by operationalizing policy mandates into technical competencies required for sustainable societal development.","manuscriptTitle":"Linking Sustainability Theory and Practice through an Andragogy Based Workshop for Science and Engineering Graduates","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-04 14:55:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658928/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-29T12:18:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-26T02:14:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-18T09:49:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"293977014303439911573081079176997059591","date":"2026-03-18T09:47:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"197077247076352699979581541246942765978","date":"2026-03-17T14:16:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"20517625722963374642454881787128073686","date":"2026-03-06T12:18:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-26T18:21:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-19T05:18:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-18T07:22:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Sustainability","date":"2026-02-18T07:17:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b09d9e39-9a41-46c8-a3c4-1ab0a1e0dbf9","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 4th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-04T14:55:56+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-04 14:55:56","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8658928","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8658928","identity":"rs-8658928","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}