Environmental Literacy Profile of Pre-Service Biology Teachers Through SSI-STEAM Integrated Learning
This study reveals that SSI-STEAM integrated learning effectively cultivates a very high overall environmental literacy profile among pre-service biology teachers, particularly in awareness and behavior, though it highlights SSI-based critical thinking as the most challenging dimension requiring further curricular strengthening.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine the world as a giant, complex video game where the rules are constantly changing. To play well, you don't just need to know the controls (science); you need to understand why the game is glitching (environmental issues), care enough to want to fix it (concern), and have the creativity to build a new level that works for everyone (problem-solving). This is the heart of environmental literacy. It's not just about memorizing facts about trees or water; it's about being a smart, caring citizen who can look at a messy situation—like a polluted river or a trash-filled park—and figure out what's really going on, argue about the best solution, and actually do something about it.
Now, think about the people who will teach the next generation of players: future biology teachers. If they don't know how to navigate this complex game, their students won't either. This is where Socio-Scientific Issues (SSI) and STEAM come in. SSI is like taking a real-world problem (like "Why is the local river smelly?") and treating it like a mystery that needs science, ethics, and community input to solve. STEAM is the toolbox that adds Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics to that mix, turning a simple observation into a creative project, like building a filter or designing a poster campaign. The big question researchers have been asking is: If we mix these two powerful teaching methods together, do future teachers actually become better "players" in the environmental game?
This study took a group of 40 future biology teachers at Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar and put them through a special course where they tackled real local problems: water pollution and soil contamination. Instead of just listening to lectures, they got their hands dirty. They collected water samples from ponds and drains, tested soil from waste sites, and then used the STEAM toolkit to design solutions. They built simple water filters out of plastic bottles, sand, and charcoal; they created digital campaigns; and they argued about the best ways to fix the mess. The researchers wanted to see what the teachers' "environmental literacy profile" looked like after this experience. They measured five different skills: what they knew, how much they cared, how well they could think critically about the issues, how good they were at solving problems with STEAM, and whether they actually acted to help the environment.
The results were a mix of "awesome" and "needs more practice." Overall, the students scored very high on their environmental literacy, with an average score of 4.39 out of 5 (which is 87.7%). They were champions in two specific areas: Environmental Awareness and Concern (scoring 4.72, or 94.5%) and Pro-Environmental Behavior (scoring 4.79, or 95.75%). In plain English, these future teachers deeply cared about the planet and were already doing things like sorting their trash, saving water, and planning to join community clean-ups. They felt a strong personal responsibility to be role models.
However, the study found a slight "boss battle" that was harder to beat: SSI-based Critical Thinking. This dimension scored the lowest, at 3.93 (or 78.6%). While this is still a "High" score, it wasn't "Very High" like the others. The students were great at checking if an online article was fake (digital literacy) and at designing cool posters, but they found it tougher to construct complex arguments based on hard scientific evidence or to weigh different sides of a controversial issue with deep data. It's like they were excellent at building the car (the solution) and caring about the destination (the environment), but they still needed more practice with the engine diagnostics (the deep, evidence-based reasoning).
The researchers also discovered that the students' willingness to act was heavily dependent on their surroundings. Even though they were super motivated to sort waste, they noted that they could only do it effectively if the school provided the right bins and facilities. This suggests that while the teaching method worked wonders for their skills and attitudes, the real world needs to provide the tools for them to succeed.
In the end, the study suggests that mixing SSI and STEAM is a winning strategy for training future teachers. It successfully built a strong foundation of knowledge, care, and action. But it also highlighted that teaching students how to argue with data and dissect complex scientific controversies is the hardest part of the job. The authors conclude that while this approach is highly effective, future lessons need to put extra focus on those tricky argumentation skills to turn "High" critical thinkers into "Very High" ones. The paper doesn't claim this is a magic cure-all, but it does show that when you give future teachers a real-world problem and a creative toolbox, they rise to the occasion, even if they still have a few levels to grind in the critical thinking department.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.