education

sciences
Article
Global Citizenship Education and Its Role in Sustainability at
the University Level
Anna Monzó-Martínez 1, * , Eva Ortiz-Cermeño 2, * and María Pilar Martínez-Agut 1

1 Department of Theory of Education, Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Sciences, University of Valencia,
46010 Valencia, Spain; [email protected]
2 Department of Theory and History of Education, Faculty of Education, University of Murcia,
30100 Murcia, Spain
* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.M.-M.); [email protected] (E.O.-C.)

Abstract: The contents linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should be introduced
in studies in the field of education. This research analyzes the knowledge of the Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (SDGs) and the 2030 Agenda among 477 participants from the University of Murcia
and the University of Valencia in the Degree of Primary Education, Social Education, and the Master
of Teacher Training in the Faculty of Education. A descriptive–comparative methodology with a
quantitative approach was used based on an ad hoc questionnaire. The educational intervention
included theoretical–practical modules on the SDGs and citizenship, with academic readings and
case studies on the implementation of the SDGs in various sectors, which positively impacted future
education professionals who were to be part of their initial training. The results showed significant
differences in the knowledge of the SDGs between the experimental group and the control group at
the end of the term, especially among the experimental group, which worked on the SDG concepts in
the subjects taken. Greater knowledge was also observed among the students with a Social Education
degree who took a subject related to this topic.
Citation: Monzó-Martínez, A.;
Ortiz-Cermeño, E.; Martínez-Agut, Keywords: education for sustainable development; higher education; sustainable development goals
M.P. Global Citizenship Education (SDGs); 2030 agenda; teacher education; equity; social justice; citizenship; gender equality; diversity
and Its Role in Sustainability at the
University Level. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14,
847. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci14080847 1. Introduction
Academic Editors: María J. Environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation, and social justice are some of the
Hernández-Amorós, challenges facing society today. In this context, the United Nations General Assembly
Gladys Merma-Molina, Mayra adopted the 2030 Agenda in September 2015, with a transformative orientation towards a
Urrea-Solano and Diego sustainable future [1]. Sustainable development implies a long-term vision that intertwines
Gavilán-Martín economic development with environmental protection and social inclusion, involving all
spheres of society. The 2030 Agenda includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
Received: 30 June 2024
Revised: 26 July 2024
with 169 related targets and more than 232 indicators, which must be addressed through
Accepted: 1 August 2024
the prism of the principles of universality (they will apply to all nations and actors) and
Published: 6 August 2024 indivisibility (their implementation must be based on integrated approaches rather than
isolated knowledge and policy formulation) [2].
In SDG 4 on inclusive and quality education, target 4.7 aims to ensure that students
acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to promote sustainable development and
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, a culture of peace and non-violence,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. global citizenship, appreciation of cultural diversity, and the contribution of culture to
This article is an open access article sustainable development [3].
distributed under the terms and Within this global framework, the orientation towards sustainable development and
conditions of the Creative Commons global citizenship is particularly relevant as part of the training of future education pro-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// fessionals. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) aims to provide students with
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
the knowledge, competencies, values, and attitudes necessary to face current and future
4.0/).

Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080847 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 2 of 23

challenges. It is also an opportunity to guide them towards an equitable lifestyle, lead-

ing to long-term positive social transformations [4,5]. It responds to the challenges of
sustainable development, contributing to the present and future well-being of the global
community [6–8]. As Roux and Dasoo [9] argue, it is necessary to design and regulate
learning spaces in contexts of diversity that address gender equality, equity, and respect for
human rights, which shape the values of citizenship education.
Today’s education systems have an important role to play in building more sustainable,
cohesive, and inclusive societies for the future [10]. Education drives societal change that
can empower and contribute to a more just society [2]. In educator training, literature on
issues of diversity, equity, and social justice practices is exceptionally scarce, especially
considering the role of educators as change agents to support social justice and equity for
all young adolescents in their homes, schools, and communities [11], as well as their power
to connect and work with families [12].
In this context, Education for Sustainable Development must begin with the initial
training of future education professionals. Spanish university legislation, specifically the
laws governing the organization of university education and the procedure for quality
assurance [13], establishes in its articles 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 that the curricula of official uni-
versity degrees must have social comprehensibility as a principle, democratic principles
and values, and the Sustainable Development Goals as references, incorporating content
and competences of a cross-cutting nature. Likewise, the Spanish General Law on Non-
University Education [14] establishes in its sixth Additional Provision that, as stated in
the fourth Sustainable Development Goal and the 2030 Agenda, Education for Sustainable
Development and global citizenship will be taken into account in teacher training processes
and in access to the teaching profession.
The university’s role should be to generate knowledge through inquiry, aiming not
only to prepare students for successful professional development but also to contribute to
the development of society [15]. Education systems are responsible for defining relevant
learning objectives and content through pedagogies that empower their students and en-
courage institutions to include sustainability principles in their management structures [16].
Critical thinking (CT) and effective personalities are particularly relevant in this regard. CT
is one of the key competencies for sustainability, essential for living well and thriving in an
uncertain and complex context [17].
To focus more directly on sustainable development and global citizenship, it is essential to
• Foster a Global Vision: To develop in students a deep understanding of global issues
and their connection to local realities.
• Promote Values and Attitudes: Teach values such as justice, equity, solidarity, and
respect for the environment.
• Promoting Action: Inspire students to take concrete action and be agents of change in
their communities and beyond.
Implementing the SDGs in university curricula will enrich future professionals’ educa-
tion and contribute to creating a more just, equitable, and sustainable society. Graduates
need to understand the complexity of sustainability, the urgency of global challenges, and
the need for quality education [18]. As a result, more and more countries are including
ESD in their education policies.
University research should also focus on solving scientific and social problems and
developing innovative technologies that can be used to improve people’s quality of
life [19]. In this line, the report Advances in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and
Global Citizenship Education [20] underlines the need to improve teacher training to build
sustainable societies.
For all of these reasons, it is necessary to carry out institutional projects in educational
environments in order to create a culture of Democracy, empowerment, and emancipation
of girls and women and to urgently address not only environmental challenges but also
their links to social and economic spheres and their impact on people’s lives through
education [3]. To strengthen inclusion, the practice of rights and duties, and interaction for
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 3 of 23

personal and collective growth, it is essential to consolidate identity, enhance possibilities

for communication and collective thinking within the framework of pedagogy, participation,
culture for peace, and diversity [10].
The 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are essential at the
university level for their ability to promote global citizenship and sustainable development.
Integrating the SDGs into higher education strengthens academic engagement with global
challenges and prepares students to be agents of change in their communities and beyond.
According to Leal Filho [21], Education for Sustainable Development in universities fosters
critical awareness and systems thinking among students, crucial skills for addressing
complex problems such as climate change and social inequality.
Based on these premises, universities have become not only centers of education but
also key players in social and economic development, capable of influencing multiple
aspects of community and global life. This framework has more critical paradigms, such
as the post-development university. This approach proposes a radical transformation of
higher education institutions, challenging traditional structures and epistemologies [22].
Making universities agents of change involves integrating sustainability into their core
missions and operations. To this end, it is essential that university leaders promote a culture
of sustainability, set clear goals, and align resources with these objectives [23]. In addition,
they should advance methodologies that empower students to adopt behaviors and actions
that lead to more sustainable lifestyles [24].
Incorporating the SDGs into the university curriculum also positively impacts citizen-
ship education. As Tilbury [25] points out, citizenship education helps students understand
their role in an interconnected world and provides them with the tools to contribute to
a more equitable and sustainable future. In practice, this translates into service-learning
projects, research to solve local problems with global implications, and the creation of
international collaborative networks between teachers and learners.
The importance of global citizenship is highlighted in students’ ability to actively
participate in society and promote the values of justice, equity, and sustainability. Ruiz-
Mallén [26] argues that higher education should foster civic engagement and social re-
sponsibility, preparing learners to address societal challenges. In addition, research by
Michelsen and Adomßent [27] has shown that universities that integrate the SDGs into
their institutional culture and academic practices achieve a greater impact on sustainability
and the formation of leaders committed to social change. Implementing the SDGs and
promoting global citizenship in universities enriches the educational experience and con-
tributes to forming a generation of leaders capable of facing and solving the most pressing
competencies of the 21st century. The strengths and weaknesses of this implementation
include the following:
Strengths:
1. Curricular Integration: Incorporating the SDGs into university curricula allows stu-
dents to understand and apply sustainability concepts in various fields of study.
This helps to train professionals who are aware of and prepared to address global
challenges. According to Leal Filho et al. [21], many universities have adopted poli-
cies and strategies to integrate the SDGs into their academic programs, promoting
sustainability-oriented education.
2. Competency Development: Implementing the SDGs in higher education fosters the
development of transversal competencies, such as critical thinking, problem-solving,
and the ability to work in interdisciplinary teams. These competencies are essential for
addressing complex problems and promoting sustainable development. Gough and
Scott [28] emphasize that educational programs incorporating the SDGs help students
develop the practical and theoretical skills needed to drive positive societal changes.
3. Fostering Research: The 2030 Agenda and the SDGs drive research in key areas for
sustainable development, promoting interdisciplinary projects and international col-
laborations. This enriches academic knowledge and contributes to practical solutions
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 4 of 23

to global problems. Sterling [29] points out that universities that embrace the SDGs as
part of their institutional mission are more likely to adopt the SDGs.
Weaknesses
1. Lack of Resources: Despite the SDGs’ importance, many universities face financial and
infrastructure limitations when fully implementing sustainability programs. This can
restrict their ability to develop and deliver courses related to the SDGs. According to
Leal Filho et al. [21], a lack of adequate funding is a significant barrier to the effective
integration of the SDGs in higher education.
2. Resistance to Change: Implementing the SDGs may face resistance from some aca-
demic and administrative body members who prefer to maintain traditional teaching
methods and content. Gough and Scott [28] mention that resistance to change and a
lack of understanding about the relevance of the SDGs can hinder their integration
into university curricula.
3. Inequality in Implementation: Not all universities have the same capacity or resources
to implement the SDGs effectively, which can result in significant disparities between
institutions. Some universities in developed countries may move faster than those in
developing countries, perpetuating existing inequalities. Tilbury [25] highlights that
inequality in SDG implementation can be a barrier to achieving globally equitable
sustainable education.

2. Social Citizenship and the Challenges of the 21st Century

The SDGs and human rights are distinct but complementary concepts. International
human rights law (IHRL) is based on a set of treaties, norms, and mechanisms; SDGs are
based on other rules. But the two processes complement and interact. It is impossible
to analyze the SDGs without considering IHRL on issues such as poverty reduction or
inequality, gender equality, education, health, decent work, and the rule of law [30].
Ethical training of citizens for active participation in sustainable democracies is es-
sential at the intersection of ethics, citizenship, and sustainability [31]. Similarly, Nuss-
baum [32] focuses on global citizenship education and its role in sustainability, arguing
that an education focused on human development is crucial for addressing global chal-
lenges. Torres and Bosio [33] have investigated the perception of university students on
global citizenship education, highlighting the importance of this education in the formation
of citizens.
The idea that education is an engine of change to achieve a more just society is also
linked to the concept of social justice. This concept should be understood in a complex
sense, including ecological and environmental dimensions and dimensions of respect for
cultural diversity [2]. Education for social justice should contribute to developing a more
just society, working against injustices and oppressions by changing society with a socially
just organization and functioning. Democratic Education and Education for Democracy are
also a basic and essential element in education for social justice [34].
Belavi and Murillo [35] propose, in this sense, five dimensions to advance social justice
and Democracy in schools: the redistribution of opportunities and benefits of education,
the recognition of cultural values and social diversity, school governance based on the
distribution of responsibilities, proactivity and cooperation in pluralistic networks, and a
critical and participatory curriculum and democratic school culture.
This is why social justice education must be part of initial teacher education. Education
professionals are agents of change and must be prepared and willing to oppose oppressive
systems and practices and support social justice and equity in future generations [12].
They must also know the social reality, with the intention of being able to act upon it.
Also, diversity, increasingly evident in educational settings, requires new approaches,
which must be integrated into teacher training programs and teacher pedagogy in order
to effectively address environmental racism and other social justice issues in schools and
urban communities [36]. And this requires, in addition to knowledge, tools for reflection
and indignation aimed at developing global citizenship [2].
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 5 of 23

Inclusive school environments are characterized by positive social experiences for

learners [37], such as decreased bullying, reduced loneliness, and improved intergroup
relations. In an increasingly globalized world, inclusive education can strengthen trust and
a sense of belonging among citizens [11]. More equitable and inclusive education benefits
learners by improving the quality of education because it is more child-centered and focused
on achieving good learning outcomes for all. This involves providing a comprehensive
view of lifelong learning and its importance for sustainable human development [38].
Likewise, university faculty must be committed to social and educational transformation
in their teaching and research work so that research and teaching must be connected to
address the needs of today’s schools from a social justice perspective [39].
Based on this background, this study has the following objectives:
- To investigate and analyze the knowledge of undergraduate and graduate students
about the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda.
- To compare the effects of a specific intervention on two groups of university students,
evaluating changes before and after the intervention through detailed statistical analysis.
- To analyze the differences according to gender and type of studies around the basic
constructs related to sustainability (gender equality, human rights, social justice,
diversity, global citizenship, climate change, Agenda 2030, sustainable development,
and SDGs) and after the educational intervention.

3. Methods
The present study corresponds to a descriptive–comparative methodology with a
quantitative approach based on a questionnaire elaborated “ad hoc” addressed to students
of different degrees and Master’s Degrees in the field of education.

3.1. Participants
The research was carried out across different university degrees (Primary Education,
Social Education, and Pedagogy) and the Master’s Degree in Secondary Education at two
Spanish universities (the University of Valencia and the University of Murcia), which were
organized into two groups: experimental and control, at two different times (pretest and
post-test) (Table 1).

Table 1. Participants.

Pretest Post-Test Pretest Post-Test

University Studies
Experimental Experimental Control Control
Master’s Degree in
UV 32 24 35 31 122 209
Secondary Education
Degree in Social Education 18 18
Degree in Pedagogy 35 20 11 3 69
67 62 46 34
129 80
Master’s Degree in
12 12
Secondary Education
UM Degree in Social Education 35 22 57 268
Degree in elementary
143 56 199
education
178 78 12
256 12
245 140 46 46
477
385 92
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 6 of 23

The sample comprises 477 students, divided into a control group (CG) and an experi-
mental group (EG). Of the total number of cases analyzed, 40.2% of the CG and 14.3% of
the EG were men, representing 19.3% of the total sample.
With regard to age, the vast majority of cases are represented by the youngest group
(18 to 25 years), with 67.4% in the CG and 87.3% in the EG. The youngest group also
represents 83.4% of the total sample.
In relation to the degree they are studying, the highest number in the CG is represented
by students with a Master’s Degree in Teaching in Secondary Education (84.8%). Of the
CG, 51.7% are studying for a degree in Primary Education. Of the total sample, 41.7% are
studying for a degree in Primary Education, followed by a Master’s Degree in Secondary
Education with 28.1%.
Finally, in relation to the academic year, in all the segmentations, the first-year group
leads among those who completed the questionnaire: 83.7% are in the first year of CG and
55.1% in EG. When the total sample is analyzed, 60.6% of the study participants are in the
first year.

3.2. Research Design

This study employs a quantitative quasi-experimental method (non-randomized case
selection). The design employed is longitudinal, observational, descriptive, and retrospec-
tive. The results are analyzed through the collection of surveys at two different times: pre-
and post-intervention. There is no manipulation of the researcher in the criterion variables,
so it is considered an observational design. It is longitudinal because the information is ex-
tracted from the sample at two different time points (time sequence), and it is retrospective
since the analysis is carried out after data collection, evaluating the results after the time of
data collection.

3.3. Instruments
The instrument used is an ad hoc questionnaire. The questionnaire reflects constructs
related to competencies in Education for Sustainable Development through their response
frequencies. The questionnaire asked participants for their degree of knowledge of basic
constructs related to the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals: gender
equality, human rights, social justice, diversity, global citizenship, climate change, Agenda
2030, sustainable development, and the SDGs. It is a questionnaire with different mea-
surement scales (polytomous nominal scale and ordinal scale from −1, the lowest value,
to 5, the highest) applied to different questions addressed according to predefined objec-
tives. All pretest and post-test test responses were collected through Google Forms for
subsequent analysis.
This questionnaire was previously assessed by expert judges in the field of education
for sustainable development. With regard to the reliability of the instrument, taking into
account that Cronbach’s alpha above 0.8 indicates a good correlation among all the items
analyzed, it is evident that there is a very good internal consistency of the instrument. This
consistency contributes to making decisions regarding the use of the questionnaire in the
sample, given that the significance of the coefficient must take into account the context in
which it is applied.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 7 of 23

Case Processing Summary

N %
Valid 477 100.0
Cases Excluded a 0 0.0
Total 477 100.0
a. Listwise elimination is based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability statistics
Cronbach’s alpha based
Cronbach’s alpha N of elements
on standardized items
0.875 0.878 23

In the reliability analysis segmented by control and experimental groups, we again

show Cronbach’s alpha above 0.8, indicating a good correlation among all the elements
analyzed by the group.

Reliability Statistics
Control and Cronbach’s alpha based
Cronbach’s alpha N of elements
Experimental Group on standardised items
Control Group 0.835 0.840 23
Experimental Group 0.883 0.885 23

3.4. Procedure
The research followed three consecutive stages: a pretest, an intervention, and a post-
test. The questionnaire used was the same in the pretest and the post-test, although one
question was added to the post-test.
The first phase or pretest consisted of the participants’ responses to the questionnaire
in both the experimental and control groups. After the pretest phase, the intervention
was carried out with the experimental groups, in which the concepts corresponding to the
questionnaire were presented through texts, reflections, and applied activities.
The final phase consisted of replicating the questionnaire, including a new question.
Participants were asked about the number of subjects in which competencies for sus-
tainable development had been integrated, with answers ranging from “no subjects” to
“all subjects”.
This study followed all ethical guidelines, including obtaining informed consent
from all participants. In addition, the confidentiality and anonymity of the data collected
were guaranteed.

3.5. Data Analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27.0 was used to analyze
the information, carrying out a descriptive–comparative analysis of the data collected
from the questionnaire. The aim of this study is to find out what knowledge the students
of Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Education have about the 2030 Agenda and the
Sustainable Development Goals and whether this knowledge varies according to gender,
degree, and the educational intervention received in this area.
Descriptive techniques were used for the statistical analysis. For qualitative variables
of a nominal nature, frequency analysis was included in achieving objectives. For discrete
variables, measures of central tendency (mean and median) and dispersion (standard
deviation, minimum, and maximum) were calculated to describe the characteristics of
the sample.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 8 of 23

Cross-tabulations and the Chi-square statistical test were used to compare frequencies
according to respondent characteristics and determine whether there is an association
between the variables studied.
In the comparison of ordinal variables under study according to classification variables
(nominal), independent groups were compared using relevant non-parametric tests. In the
case of comparison of two groups, the Mann–Whitney U test was used, and in the case of
comparison of more than two groups, the Kruskal–Walli test was employed.

3.6. Experimental Group Intervention

In the subject, Contemporary Theory and Institutions of Education within the Primary
Education degree (basic subject, 6 credits), as well as in the second-year subject of the
Social Education degree (compulsory subject, 6 credits) at the University of Murcia, the
importance of the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda, applied to each
topic and included in the teaching guides for these subjects, was explained at the beginning
of the semester. Among the selected ones, SDG 4 (Education for Quality), SDG 5 (Gender
Equality), and SDG 10 (Reducing Inequalities and Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions)
were discussed in depth. The semester started with a pretest, with a questionnaire on
brainstorming with different activities based on their theoretical and practical knowledge.
Then, with each subject of the assignment, the SDGs were related according to the European
Framework for Sustainability Competencies. In each subject, these and other SDGs were
related. At the end of the semester, they were given a post-test and a theoretical–practical
questionnaire to check how they had deepened their knowledge of these objectives by
applying them with critical and decisive thinking.
Education in values is one of the main educational challenges of the present day. In
recent years, all educational reforms in our cultural environment have contemplated the
concept of themes, or transversal axes, as curricular elements introduced throughout the
educational process to develop certain values [40]. Coordinating and dealing jointly with
the values developed through the curriculum is important so that they are not decontextual-
ized. Values are a personal frame of reference that guides people in their actions, opinions,
and decisions [41].
To speak of civility is to speak of citizenship, a value that means much more than
civility. Civility distinguishes a person who is interested in his or her role as a committed
and supportive citizen within a common space of coexistence shared with other citizens.
Society is built by citizens who are aware of their rights and duties and who know how to
harmonize their personal freedom with responsibility and solidarity. Good manners and
the rules of civility are important, but civility is more than that. It is not a formality to be
complied with but an ethical feeling that allows the development of a culture of respect
among people who share the same social environment. Educational institutions must be
democratically organized to allow for decision-making and commitment and to put demo-
cratic values into action. Educating citizens (including the families themselves) involves
prioritizing participation and responsibility within all school environments as a community
that equally shares in a set of democratic rights of cooperation and communication [40].
At the University of Valencia, in the Social Pedagogy course, after presenting the 2030
Agenda and the SDGs, students chose a group. They designed a file with activities related
to the SDGs and a service-learning project, which was put into practice. These activities
were based on the three domains (cognitive, attitudinal, and action) and the UNESCO
competencies. In the degree of Social Education, in addition to being a specific subject,
sustainability, history, characteristics, and areas of intervention were studied in depth. In
the Master’s Degree in Secondary Education, in addition to the presentation of the SDGs
and the 2030 Agenda, debates were held, and didactic units were designed that included
the SDGs, domains, and UNESCO competencies.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 9 of 23

4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Analysis
First, participants were asked to what extent they were aware of certain basic constructs
linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (gender equality, human rights, social justice,
diversity, global citizenship, climate change, Agenda 2030, sustainable development, and
SDGs). The values for the responses ranged from 1 (the lowest value) to 5 (the highest
value). Descriptive data for the control and experimental groups from the pretest and
post-test (Table 2) show a trend towards improved knowledge and understanding of the
basic constructs linked to the Sustainable Development Goals.

Table 2. Descriptive data of the control and experimental group.

CG EG
Media SD Median Media SD Median
3.1 Gender equality
Pretest 4.50 0.69 5 4.56 0.68 5
Post-test 4.43 0.65 5 4.55 0.78 5
3.2 Human rights
3. To what extent do you know and understand the following concepts linked

Pretest 4.35 0.85 5 4.39 0.73 5

Post-test 4.43 0.65 5 4.40 0.76 5
3.3 Social justice
Pretest 3.98 0.86 4 4.04 0.92 4
Post-test 4.04 0.84 4 4.10 0.86 4
to the Sustainable Development Goals?

3.4 Diversity
Pretest 4.20 0.75 4 4.34 0.77 4
Post-test 4.33 0.79 4 4.45 0.82 5
3.5 Global citizenship
Pretest 3.48 0.86 3 3.62 1.05 4
Post-test 3.78 0.94 4 3.89 0.95 4
3.6 Climate change
Pretest 4.26 0.83 5 4.17 0.88 4
Post-test 4.59 0.58 5 4.24 0.85 4
3.7 Agenda 2030
Pretest 3.26 1.34 3 3.42 1.24 3
Post-test 3.65 1.04 4 3.77 1.10 4
3.8 Sustainable development
Pretest 3.76 1.08 4 3.88 0.94 4
Post-test 4.11 0.77 4 4.17 0.86 4
3.9 Sustainable Development
Goals
Pretest 3.63 1.14 4 3.78 0.99 4
Post-test 4.07 0.88 4 4.23 0.81 4
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 10 of 23

Although the differences are small, this post-intervention improvement is evident in

the CG. The most notable improvements are observed in the concepts of climate change,
sustainable development, and sustainable development goals, where the post-intervention
means are clearly higher than pre-intervention means. Similarly, the descriptive data for
the experimental group show a positive trend in knowledge and understanding of the
constructs analyzed. Although some improvements are small, there is a clear upward trend
across all the concepts assessed in this case. The most notable improvements are observed,
in this case, in diversity, global citizenship, Agenda 2030, sustainable development, and
Sustainable Development Goals. These results suggest that the intervention effectively
improved knowledge about the SDGs in several key areas.
In the statistical analysis for testing similar baseline knowledge, the hypothesis that
both groups (CG and EG) do not differ in subject knowledge is tested. This hypothesis
is confirmed as no statistical significance exists in any of the items. Therefore, there are
initial equivalences.
With regard to the contrast between the pretest and post-test in the control group,
which was not provided with experimental training, the results do not differ in terms of their
assessments or knowledge after the end of this study. Therefore, the level of knowledge
does not differ significantly between the pretest and post-test in the control group.
The comparison of equivalent medians in this non-parametric test indicates that items
with sig. values below 0.05 indicate that there are significant differences in the ratings of
those items depending on the pretest or post-test time. If we look at the results, we can see
that there are significant differences between the pretest and post-test (higher scores in the
post-test) in the experimental group.
It is also evident that there are significant differences in the assessment of the item be-
tween the experimental group and the control group. There are, therefore, significant differ-
ences between the two groups (higher scores in the control group) at the post-test moment.
This is why the treatment or experimental design may suggest that it has been relevant
since the improvements occurred in the experimental group. In contrast, in the control
group, there is no significant relevance in the students’ pretest–post-test evolution (Table 3).

Table 3. Descriptive data by group and time.

Pre: Control– Pre–Post: Post: Control–

Pre–Post: Control
Experimental Experimental Experimental
p d p d p d p d
3.1 Gender equality 0.515 −0.051 0.522 0.069 0.760 −0.016 0.099 −0.138
−0.010 −0.016 −0.004
Sustainable Development Goals?

3.2 Human rights 0.995 0.000 0.927 0.772 0.965

3. To what extent do you know
and understand the following

3.3 Social justice 0.542 −0.054 0.702 −0.044 0.675 −0.024 0.694 −0.037
concepts linked to the

3.4 Diversity 0.164 −0.118 0.306 −0.114 0.061 −0.103 0.193 −0.113
3.5 Global citizenship 0.202 −0.113 0.075 −0.205 0.024 −0.132 0.525 −0.060
3.6 Climate change 0.557 0.051 0.068 −0.197 0.419 −0.046 0.018 0.213
3.7 Agenda 2030 0.446 −0.069 0.158 −0.166 0.008 −0.158 0.450 −0.072
3.8 Sustainable
0.547 −0.053 0.147 −0.167 0.002 −0.176 0.477 −0.065
development
3.9 Sustainable
0.432 −0.070 0.068 −0.212 <0.001 −0.257 0.277 −0.100
Development Goals

The effect size helps us interpret the quality of the fit between items. It is the most
powerful or highly significant statistical significance—in absolute value—(>0.4 is already
considered a high effect size).
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 11 of 23

The statistical analysis suggests that the educational intervention in the experimental
group effectively improved knowledge and understanding of the concepts linked to the
SDGs. The results show no significant changes in the control group, underlining the
effectiveness of the treatment implemented in the EG.
The comparison of equivalent medians for the total sample (Table 4) indicates that
there are no significant differences in the ratings of these items according to the control or
experimental group, with the exception of the item climate change. There are differences in
the comparison between the CG and EG groups, but in this case, it is not attributable to the
intervention received by the experimental group.

Table 4. Descriptive data of the total sample by groups.

Control–
CG EG
Experimental
Media SD Median Minimum Maximum Media SD Median Minimum Maximum p d
3.1 Gender equality 4.47 0.67 5 3 5 4.56 0.72 5 1 5 0.101 −0.093
3. To what extent do you know and
understand the following concepts

3.2 Human rights 4.39 0.76 5 2 5 4.39 0.74 5 2 5 0.982 0.001

−0.042
linked to the Sustainable

3.3 Social justice 4.01 0.85 4 2 5 4.06 0.90 4 1 5 0.508

Development Goals?

3.4 Diversity 4.26 0.77 4 2 5 4.38 0.79 5 1 5 0.101 −0.099

3.5 Global
3.63 0.91 4 2 5 3.72 1.03 4 1 5 0.285 −0.069
citizenship
3.6 Climate change 4.42 0.73 5 3 5 4.19 0.87 4 1 5 0.024 0.140
3.7 Agenda 2030 3.46 1.21 4 1 5 3.55 1.20 4 1 5 0.502 −0.044
3.8 Sustainable
3.93 0.95 4 1 5 3.99 0.92 4 1 5 0.658 −0.028
development
3.9 Sustainable
3.85 1.04 4 1 5 3.94 0.95 4 1 5 0.513 −0.042
Development Goals

The statistical analysis suggests that the educational intervention in the experimental
group effectively improved knowledge and understanding of certain concepts linked to
the SDGs. The results show significant improvements in several items in the experimental
group after the intervention, while the control group showed no significant changes. This in-
dicates that the intervention positively impacted the knowledge of the experimental group.
The comparison of equivalent medians for the total sample (Tables 5 and 6) indicates,
again, that items with sig. values below 0.05 indicate that there are significant differences
in the ratings of those items as a function of pretest–post-test time. Therefore, there are
significant differences between the passage of time and learning (higher scores on the
post-test). Specifically, in relation to comparing the results according to the pretest and post-
test time (Table 5), the post-test time had a positive and significant impact on knowledge
about global citizenship. The improvement in the mean from 3.60 to 3.86 and a significant
p-value (0.008) indicates that participants improved their knowledge on this topic over time.
Similarly, it positively and significantly impacted participants’ knowledge of Agenda 2030,
sustainable development, and the Sustainable Development Goals. The increases in means
and significant p-values suggest that the intervention effectively improved knowledge in
these areas.
Statistical analysis suggests that the educational intervention in the experimental
group effectively improved knowledge and understanding of several concepts linked
to the SDGs. The results show significant improvements in several items for the ex-
perimental group after the intervention, while the control group showed no significant
changes. This indicates that the intervention positively impacted the knowledge of the
experimental group.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 12 of 23

Table 5. Descriptive data of the total sample by time.

Total Sample Pretest–Post-Test

Media SD Median Mínimum Maximum p d
3.1 Gender equality 0.808 0.011
Pretest 4.55 0.68 5 1 5
Post-test 4.52 0.75 5 1 5
3.2 Human rights 0.757 −0.015
Pretest 4.38 0.74 5 2 5
Post-test 4.41 0.73 5 2 5
3. To what extent do you know and understand the following

3.3 Social justice 0.644 −0.024

concepts linked to the Sustainable Development Goals?

Pretest 4.03 0.91 4 1 5

Post-test 4.09 0.85 4 2 5
3.4 Diversity 0.056 −0.094
Pretest 4.32 0.77 4 2 5
Post-test 4.42 0.81 5 1 5
3.5 Global citizenship 0.008 −0.138
Pretest 3.60 1.03 4 1 5
Post-test 3.86 0.95 4 1 5
3.6 Climate change 0.071 −0.091
Pretest 4.18 0.87 4 1 5
Post-test 4.33 0.80 5 1 5
3.7 Agenda 2030 0.004 −0.153
Pretest 3.39 1.26 3 1 5
Post-test 3.74 1.08 4 1 5
3.8 Sustainable development 0.001 −0.169
Pretest 3.86 0.96 4 1 5
Post-test 4.16 0.83 4 1 5
3.9 Sustainable Development
<0.001 −0.240
Goals
Pretest 3.75 1.02 4 1 5
Post-test 4.19 0.83 4 2 5

Table 6. Descriptive data for the total sample, by groups, and by time point.

Total Sample
Pre: Control– Pre–Post: Pre–Post: Post: Control–
Media SD Median
Experimental Control Experimental Experimental
p p p p
3.1 Gender equality 4.54 0.71 5 0.496 0.476 0.142 0.115
3.2 Human rights 4.39 0.74 5 0.603 0.775 0.309 0.476
3.3 Social justice 4.05 0.89 4 0.057 0.644 0.028 0.002
3.4 Diversity 4.36 0.79 5 0.928 0.658 0.645 0.431
3.5 Global citizenship 3.70 1.00 4 0.133 0.858 0.926 0.267
3.6 Climate change 4.24 0.85 4 0.815 0.315 0.901 0.545
3.7 Agenda 2030 3.53 1.20 4 0.498 0.633 0.721 0.629
3.8 Sustainable development 3.98 0.92 4 0.242 0.446 0.508 0.771
3.9 Sustainable Development Goals 3.92 0.97 4 0.258 0.388 0.899 0.733
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 13 of 23

Overall, participants understand the concepts analyzed, especially in areas such as

gender equality, human rights, social justice, and diversity (Table 6). However, there
is variability in the knowledge of some concepts, such as global citizenship, Agenda
2030, and sustainable development, with some respondents reporting very low levels of
understanding. The high variability in certain concepts suggests a need for more education
or intervention in these specific areas.
Most variables showed no significant differences between the control and experimental
groups or in the pre–post comparisons within groups (Table 6). However, social justice
was a notable exception, where significant differences were found both pre–post in the
experimental group and post-test between the groups. This suggests that the intervention
had a specific impact on social justice but not on the other areas measured.
Statistical analysis suggests that the educational intervention in the experimental group
effectively improved knowledge and understanding of several concepts linked to the SDGs.
The results show significant improvements in several items for the experimental group after
the intervention, while the control group showed no significant changes. This indicates
that the intervention positively impacted the knowledge of the experimental group.

4.2. Comparative Analysis

The data collected from the descriptive analysis were compared with some variables,
such as gender and the degree studied by the participants. In relation to the gender variable,
the comparison of equivalent medians using this non-parametric test indicates that there
are no significant differences in any of the items according to gender. Therefore, these
ratings do not vary according to gender.
Both men and women have good knowledge of the concepts analyzed, with slight
differences between them. In most cases, women tend to have a slightly higher knowledge
of the issues assessed. However, men also show a high level of understanding in specific
areas such as human rights, social justice, and climate change. The variability in responses
suggests that there are specific areas where education and intervention might be well
distributed between the two genders.
Overall, students in the different education programs understand the concepts related
to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Table 7). However, there are variations in the
understanding of specific concepts across different programs. This suggests that it would be
beneficial to design tailored educational strategies to strengthen understanding of certain
themes, such as social justice and global citizenship, especially for students with lower
scores on these aspects. Furthermore, these results highlight the importance of integrating
SDG education into all levels of formal education to ensure a sound understanding and
effective action towards sustainable development.

Table 7. Comparison based on education. Test statistics.

Primary Master’s Degree in Degree in

Degree in Pedagogy Total
Education Teacher Secondary Education Social Education
Media SD Median Media SD Median Media SD Median Media SD Median Media SD Median
3.1 Gender equality 4.55 0.71 5 4.56 0.68 5 4.41 0.79 5 4.60 0.70 5 4.54 0.71 5
3. To what extent do you know and
understand the following concepts

3.2 Human rights 4.40 0.76 5 4.42 0.70 5 4.22 0.86 4 4.51 0.62 5 4.39 0.74 5
linked to the Sustainable

3.3 Social justice 3.99 0.95 4 4.11 0.80 4 3.94 0.91 4 4.21 0.81 4 4.05 0.89 4
Development Goals?

3.4 Diversity 4.32 0.81 5 4.40 0.74 5 4.20 0.90 4 4.53 0.64 5 4.36 0.79 5
3.5 Global citizenship 3.53 1.06 4 3.73 0.94 4 3.65 0.97 4 4.16 0.85 4 3.70 1.00 4
3.6 Climate change 4.14 0.91 4 4.48 0.70 5 4.03 0.86 4 4.27 0.83 4 4.24 0.85 4
3.7 Agenda 2030 3.20 1.27 3 3.54 1.15 4 3.62 1.10 4 4.28 0.81 4 3.53 1.20 4
3.8 Sustainable
3.84 0.95 4 4.04 0.90 4 3.87 0.89 4 4.32 0.84 4 3.98 0.92 4
development
3.9 Sustainable
3.77 1.01 4 3.93 0.95 4 3.81 0.94 4 4.43 0.72 5 3.92 0.97 4
Development Goals
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 14 of 23

The average ranks represent the relative position of each program in terms of un-
derstanding the constructs analyzed, whereas higher ranks indicate apparently better
understanding. In this respect, differences are evident between the degree programs
(Table 8).

Table 8. Comparison based on qualifications. Ranks.

Ranks
Degree You Are Pursuing N Average Range
Primary Education Teacher 199 241.32
Master’s Degree in Secondary Education 134 240.35
3.1 Gender equality Degree in Pedagogy 69 217.96
Degree in Social Education 75 249.79
Total 477
Primary Education Teacher 199 240.99
Master’s Degree in Secondary Education 134 240.57
3.2 Human rights Degree in Pedagogy 69 213.77
Degree in Social Education 75 254.13
Total 477
Primary Education Teacher 199 232.77
Master’s Degree in Secondary Education 134 244.63
3.3 Social justice Degree in Pedagogy 69 221.87
Degree in Social Education 75 261.24
Total 477
Primary Education Teacher 199 233.64
Master’s Degree in Secondary Education 134 243.22
3.4 Diversity Degree in Pedagogy 69 217.83
Degree in Social Education 75 265.17
Total 477
Primary Education Teacher 199 218.85
Master’s Degree in Secondary Education 134 240.50
3.5 Global citizenship Degree in Pedagogy 69 229.76
Degree in Social Education 75 298.29
Total 477
Primary Education Teacher 199 225.67
Master’s Degree in Secondary Education 134 274.86
3.6 Climate change Degree in Pedagogy 69 204.13
Degree in Social Education 75 242.37
Total 477
Primary Education Teacher 199 204.34
Master’s Degree in Secondary Education 134 238.87
3.7 Agenda 2030 Degree in Pedagogy 69 246.24
Degree in Social Education 75 324.54
Total 477
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 15 of 23

Table 8. Cont.

Ranks
Degree You Are Pursuing N Average Range
Primary Education Teacher 199 220.39
Master’s Degree in Secondary Education 134 247.50
3.8 Sustainable Degree in Pedagogy 69 218.41
development
Degree in Social Education 75 292.14
Total 477
Primary Education Teacher 199 219.25
Master’s Degree in Secondary Education 134 238.77
3.9 Sustainable Degree in Pedagogy 69 220.46
Development Goals
Degree in Social Education 75 308.88
Total 477

The non-parametric H-Kruskal-Wallis analysis allows us to compare medians of multi-

ple groups: it determines whether there are significant differences between the medians
of 3 or more independent groups. The adjusted sig. value is used using the Bonferroni
correction for non-parametric ANOVA with multiple testing or comparisons.
For the concepts of “Gender equality”, “Human rights”, “Social justice”, and “Di-
versity”, the p-values are greater than 0.05 (Table 9). This indicates insufficient evidence
to reject the null hypothesis that no significant differences exist between programs for
these concepts. For the concepts of ‘Global Citizenship’, ‘Climate Change’, ‘Agenda 2030’,
‘Sustainable Development’, and ‘Sustainable Development Goals’, the p-values are less
than 0.05. This suggests that there are significant differences between the programs for
these statements.

Table 9. Comparison based on degree. Test statistics.

Test Statistics a,b

3.9 Sustainable
3.1 Gender 3.2 Human 3.3 Social 3.5 Global 3.6 Climate 3.7 Agenda 3.8 Sustainable
3.4 Diversity Development
Equality Rights Justice Citizenship Change 2030 Development
Goals
Kruskal–
2.988 4.057 4.095 5.819 20.127 18.032 44.330 18.823 27.170
Wallis H
gl 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Sig. asin. 0.393 0.255 0.251 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
ε2 0.006 0.009 0.009 0.012 0.042 0.038 0.093 0.040 0.057
a b
Kruskal Wallis test; Grouping variable: Degree you are pursuing.

Following the significant differences found in Table 9, posterior tests were carried
out to determine which pairs of categories exhibit these differences. The results suggest
that students with a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Education show significant differences in
their understanding of global citizenship compared to students with a Bachelor’s Degree
in Primary Education, Bachelor’s Degree in Pedagogy, and Master’s Degree in Secondary
Education (Table 10).
Master’s Degree students in Secondary Education show significant differences in their
understanding of Climate Change compared to Bachelor’s Degree students in Pedagogy
and Primary Education (Table 11).
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 16 of 23

Table 10. Comparison based on qualifications. Global citizenship.

3.5 Global Citizenship

Pairwise Comparisons of Degree
Courses Taken
Sample 1—Sample 2 Test Statistic Desv. Error Desv. Test Statistic Sig. Adjusted Sig. a

Primary Education Teacher—Degree in

−10.912 18.439 −0.592 0.554 1.000
Pedagogy
Teacher of Primary
Education—Master’s Degree in −21.651 14.749 −1.468 0.142 0.853
Secondary Education
Teacher of Primary Education—Degree
−79.437 17.883 −4.442 0.000 0.000
in Social Education
Degree in Pedagogy—Master’s Degree
10.739 19.557 0.549 0.583 1.000
in Teaching in Secondary Education
Degree in Pedagogy—Degree in Social
−68.526 22.017 −3.112 0.002 0.011
Education
Master’s Degree in Secondary
Education—Bachelor’s Degree in Social −57.787 19.033 −3.036 0.002 0.014
Education
Each row tests the null hypothesis that the distributions of Sample 1 and Sample 2 are equal. Asymptotic
significance is displayed (bilateral tests). The significance level is 0.050. a Significance values have been adjusted
using the Bonferroni correction for several tests.

Table 11. Comparison based on degree. Climate Change.

3.6 Climate Change

Pairwise Comparisons of Degree
Courses Taken
Sample 1—Sample 2 Test Statistic Desv. Error Desv. Test Statistic Sig. Adjusted Sig. a

Degree in Pedagogy—Primary
21.543 17.790 1.211 0.226 1.000
Education Teacher
Degree in Pedagogy—Degree in Social
−38.243 21.242 −1.800 0.072 0.431
Education
Bachelor’s Degree in
Pedagogy—Master’s Degree in 70.728 18.868 3.748 0.000 0.001
Teaching in Secondary Education
Teacher of Primary Education—Degree
−16.700 17.254 −0.968 0.333 1.000
in Social Education
Teacher of Primary
Education—Master’s Degree in −49.185 14.230 −3.456 0.001 0.003
Secondary Education
Degree in Social Education—Master’s
Degree in Teaching in Secondary 32.485 18.363 1.769 0.077 0.461
Education
Each row tests the null hypothesis that the distributions of Sample 1 and Sample 2 are equal. Asymptotic
significance is displayed (bilateral tests). The significance level is 0.050. a Significance values have been adjusted
using the Bonferroni correction for several tests.

Students with a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Education show significant differences in

their understanding of the 2030 Agenda compared to students with a Master’s Degree in
Primary Education, a Master’s Degree in Teaching in Secondary Education, and a Bachelor’s
Degree in Pedagogy (Table 12).
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 17 of 23

Table 12. Comparison on the basis of qualification. Agenda 2030.

3.7 Agenda 2030

Pairwise Comparisons of Degree
Courses Taken
Sample 1—Sample 2 Test Statistic Desv. Error Desv. Test Statistic Sig. Adjusted Sig. a

Teacher of Primary
Education—Master’s Degree in −34.524 14.932 −2.312 0.021 0.125
Secondary Education
Teacher of Primary Education—Degree
−41.897 18.667 −2.244 0.025 0.149
in Pedagogy
Teacher of Primary Education—Degree
−120.198 18.104 −6.639 0.000 0.000
in Social Education
Master’s Degree in Secondary
Education—Bachelor’s Degree in −7.373 19.798 −0.372 0.710 1.000
Pedagogy
Master’s Degree in Secondary
−85.674 19.269 −4.446 0.000 0.000
Education—Degree in Social Education
Degree in Pedagogy—Degree in Social
−78.301 22.289 −3.513 0.000 0.003
Education
Each row tests the null hypothesis that the distributions of Sample 1 and Sample 2 are equal. Asymptotic
significance is displayed (bilateral tests). The significance level is 0.050. a Significance values have been adjusted
using the Bonferroni correction for several tests.

Students with a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Education show significant differences in

their understanding of the concept of Sustainable Development compared with the students
of Primary Education Teacher, Bachelor’s Degree in Pedagogy, and Master’s Degree in
Secondary Education Teaching (Table 13).

Table 13. Comparison based on degree. Sustainable development.

3.8 Sustainable Development

Pairwise Comparisons of Degree
Courses Taken
Sample 1—Sample 2 Test Statistic Desv. Error Desv. Test Statistic Sig. Adjusted Sig. a

Degree in Pedagogy—Primary
1.986 18.205 0.109 0.913 1.000
Education Teacher
Bachelor’s Degree in
Pedagogy—Master’s Degree in 29.090 19.308 1.507 0.132 0.791
Teaching in Secondary Education
Degree in Pedagogy—Degree in Social
−73.734 21.737 −3.392 0.001 0.004
Education
Teacher of Primary
Education—Master’s Degree in −27.104 14.562 −1.861 0.063 0.376
Secondary Education
Teacher of Primary Education—Degree
−71.748 17.656 −4.064 0.000 0.000
in Social Education
Master’s Degree in Secondary
−44.644 18.792 −2.376 0.018 0.105
Education—Degree in Social Education
Each row tests the null hypothesis that the distributions of Sample 1 and Sample 2 are equal. Asymptotic
significance is displayed (bilateral tests). The significance level is 0.050. a Significance values have been adjusted
using the Bonferroni correction for several tests.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 18 of 23

Likewise, students with a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Education show significant

differences in their understanding of Sustainable Development Goals compared to students
with a Master’s Degree in Primary Education and a Master’s Degree in Secondary Education
(Table 14).

Table 14. Comparison based on degree. SDG.

3.9 Sustainable Development Goals

Pairwise Comparisons of Degree
Courses Taken
Sample 1—Sample 2 Test Statistic Desv. Error Desv. Test Statistic Sig. Adjusted Sig. a

Teacher of Primary Education—Degree

−1.210 18.328 −0.066 0.947 1.000
in Pedagogy
Teacher of Primary
Education—Master’s Degree in −19.526 14.661 −1.332 0.183 1.000
Secondary Education
Teacher of Primary Education—Degree
−89.634 17.776 −5.043 0.000 0.000
in Social Education
Bachelor’s Degree in
Pedagogy—Master’s Degree in 18.316 19.439 0.942 0.346 1.000
Teaching in Secondary Education
Degree in Pedagogy—Degree in Social
−88.423 21.884 −4.041 0.000 0.000
Education
Master’s Degree in Secondary
−70.108 18.919 −3.706 0.000 0.001
Education—Degree in Social Education
Each row tests the null hypothesis that the distributions of Sample 1 and Sample 2 are equal. Asymptotic
significance is displayed (bilateral tests). The significance level is 0.050. a Significance values have been adjusted
using the Bonferroni correction for several tests.

Finally, there is no association between the degree variable and the integration of
competencies for sustainable development by the teaching staff. The evaluations given
do not influence the degree taken. Regarding integrating competencies related to the
SDGs and the 2030 Agenda, most respondents (50.8%) indicated that they have worked
on competencies related to sustainable development in some subjects. A significant per-
centage (28.6%) claimed to have worked on them in most subjects. A smaller number of
respondents (9.5%) indicated they had worked on these competencies in all subjects. Only
a minority (8.7%) mentioned having worked on them in only one subject, while a small
percentage (2.4%) stated that they had not worked on them in any subject. In summary,
most respondents have worked on these competencies in at least some subjects, suggesting
a varied distribution in acquiring these skills among respondents.
In the comparison by degree, among students with a Master’s Degree in Secondary
Education, the majority indicated having worked on competencies for sustainable develop-
ment in some subjects (55.2%). Students with a Bachelor’s Degree in Pedagogy showed
a more uniform distribution of teaching these competencies by the teaching staff, with
a similar proportion in all categories. Most students with a Bachelor’s Degree in Social
Education indicated working on these competencies in some subjects (52.4%).
In summary, it appears that there are differences in the distribution of work on com-
petencies for sustainable development among the teaching staff of the different degrees.
A higher proportion of students with a Master’s Degree in Secondary Education indi-
cate having worked on these competencies in some subjects compared to students with
other degrees.
Finally, in the comparative analysis, the results indicate that there is no significant
association between the degree program taken by the students and the acquisition of teacher
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 19 of 23

competencies since all the significance values are greater than the level of significance
typically used (0.05) (Table 15).

Table 15. Association between degree and integration of competencies. Chi-square tests.

Chi-Square Tests
Value gl Asymptotic Significance (Bilateral)
Pearson’s Chi-square 6.271 a 8 0.617
Likelihood ratio 7.162 8 0.519
Linear by linear association 0.004 1 0.949
N of valid cases 126
a 7 boxes (46.7%) have expected a count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.62.

On balance, students in the different educational programs understand concepts

related to the SDGs. However, there are significant variations in understanding specific
concepts, such as global citizenship and social justice. Students with a Bachelor’s Degree
in Social Education show a significantly better understanding of concepts such as global
citizenship, Climate Change, Agenda 2030, sustainable development, and SDGs compared
to students in other programs. In contrast, students with a Master’s Degree in Secondary
Education better understand Climate Change than those with a Bachelor’s Degree in
Pedagogy and Primary Education.
Statistical analyses show significant differences in the understanding of some key concepts:
• Global Citizenship: Social Education students stand out compared to Primary Educa-
tion, Pedagogy, and Secondary Education students.
• Climate Change: Students in the Master’s in Secondary Education better understand
it than those in Pedagogy and Primary Education.
• Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development: Social Education students understand
better than Primary Education, Pedagogy, and Secondary Education students.
• SDGs: Similar to the above, Social Education students have a higher understanding
than primary and Secondary Education students.
Therefore, it is advisable to design specific education strategies to improve understand-
ing of issues such as social justice and global citizenship in the lowest-scoring programs.
Integrating SDG education more effectively at all levels of education can help improve
understanding and action towards sustainable development.
In summary, while students generally understand the SDGs well, notable differences
between programs suggest that more personalized educational approaches are needed to
address variations in understanding specific concepts.

5. Discussion
The results of the research point to the need to know and work on the basic constructs
of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals in studies linked to the field
of education. The data collected in this study indicate that, in general, students with
the analyzed Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in education increase their knowledge of
concepts related to sustainability throughout the course (as evidenced by the fact that both
CG and EG increase their scores in the post-test). Even so, the differences are significant only
in the EG. Therefore, a direct classroom intervention on sustainability positively impacts
students. Other studies have also demonstrated the importance of direct intervention in
this area [42], with a greater impact through infusion into the curriculum itself rather than
through specific courses [43] and through the incorporation of transversal competencies [44].
The study results by Calvo et al. showed that a multidisciplinary project they carried
out raised awareness of the SDGs and enabled students to visualize how to apply the
competencies acquired. In this sense, there is a need to promote collaborative work across
disciplines to engage teachers in the transition to sustainability [45].
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 20 of 23

An analysis carried out on the curricula for future educators in Spanish universi-
ties [46] showed a substantial presence of social justice in the competencies, both at the
first and second levels of curricular specification. However, its distribution was uneven
depending on the university, degree, course, the nature of the subject, and curricular el-
ements. This calls for a reorientation of university leadership. Effective governance is
crucial for implementing and sustaining sustainability initiatives. This includes establishing
sustainability committees, including sustainability criteria in decision-making processes,
and communicating achievements and challenges transparently. Participatory governance,
involving all university stakeholders, is key to the success of these initiatives [23].
In this study, the comparative analysis clarified that the degree of knowledge is
unequal depending on the degree studied. In our study, it is noteworthy that Social
Education students show that they have more knowledge than the rest of the degrees,
specifically in the concepts of global citizenship, Agenda 2030, sustainable development,
and SDGs. It should be borne in mind that the students who are enrolled in this degree are
in their fourth year and take a specific subject on education for sustainability. Therefore,
we can understand the importance of explicit intervention, as demonstrated by the results
linked to the Social Education group and the contrast between the intervention in the
experimental group and the non-intervention in the control group.
Future education professionals should be aware of the importance of this knowledge.
Pegalajar-Palomino et al. concluded in a systematic review study that university students
have favorable attitudes toward Education for Sustainability and their commitment to the
environment and a more just society. However, in the academic curriculum of the degrees
in Education, there is a deficit in training for developing the professional competencies
necessary to apply ESD in their professional teaching practice [47]. Along the same lines,
Dahl’s study, with a sample of 578 student teachers from different European countries,
concluded that they feel well prepared to handle many aspects of teaching professionalism
but less prepared to educate their students in sustainability [48].
Therefore, the involvement of university teachers in social and educational transfor-
mation is necessary [47], as seen from the present study, and their intervention directly
impacts students. Undoubtedly, the methodological strategies for implementing Education
for Sustainability are complex, and it is necessary to continue to insist on teacher training
processes [49–51]. In short, universities can and should reorient their work to consider the
challenges of the 21st century since these institutions can contribute significantly to a more
just and equitable future. Each institution must find its own path to sustainability, aligning
its resources and capabilities with local and global needs and challenges [23].
Contributions such as the post-development university are mainly oriented in two
aspects: deinstitutionalization (freeing learning from rigid institutional structures, allowing
a more autonomous and decentralized education) and the ecology of knowledge (plurality
of epistemologies, rejecting the hegemony of Western academic knowledge) [22]. Still, they
must face limitations in influencing development, such as resource constraints, institutional
barriers, and political challenges [22].

6. Conclusions
We can conclude that the two objectives proposed in this study have been achieved. On
the one hand, we have obtained significant data on the knowledge of undergraduate and
master’s degree students related to education about the Sustainable Development Goals of
the 2030 Agenda. And on the other, it has been possible to compare which concepts related
to the SDGs (gender equality, human rights, social justice, diversity, global citizenship,
climate change, Agenda 2030, sustainable development, and SDGs) are affected according
to the type of studies and the intervention received. Human rights, social justice, diversity,
global citizenship, climate change, Agenda 2030, sustainable development, and SDGs
are emphasized according to the type of studies and the intervention received. Students
with a Degree in Social Education achieved higher scores in the aspects related to global
citizenship, Agenda 2030, sustainable development, and the SDGs.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 21 of 23

The results indicate the importance of training in these concepts for future profession-
als in the field of education, the need for their incorporation into the university curriculum,
and the necessary involvement of university faculty in their theoretical and methodological
training so that their students acquire them. In short, current challenges require collective
action and commitment from all sectors of society to achieve sustainable development [22].
Among them, universities, specifically in studies linked to education, can make great
contributions. Still, all this implies a rethinking of the very foundations of the institution.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.M.-M., E.O.-C. and M.P.M.-A.; Methodology, A.M.-M.,

E.O.-C. and M.P.M.-A.; Software, A.M.-M., E.O.-C. and M.P.M.-A.; Validation, A.M.-M., E.O.-C.
and M.P.M.-A.; Formal analysis, A.M.-M., E.O.-C. and M.P.M.-A.; Investigation, A.M.-M., E.O.-C.
and M.P.M.-A.; Resources, A.M.-M., E.O.-C. and M.P.M.-A.; Data curation, A.M.-M., E.O.-C. and
M.P.M.-A.; Writing—original draft, A.M.-M., E.O.-C. and M.P.M.-A.; Writing—review and editing,
A.M.-M., E.O.-C. and M.P.M.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the Norwegian
Centre for Research Data (protocol code: 599640 and date of approval: 26 March 2021).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful for participating in this research of the teachers and students an-
alyzed for the degrees and Master of Education from the Universities of Valencia and Murcia (Spain).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. UNESCO. Rethinking Education: Towards a Global Common Good? 2015. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:
/48223/pf0000232555 (accessed on 1 June 2024).
2. Hernández-Castilla, R.; Opazo, H. Editorial. Los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible: Aportes desde la investigación educativa
comprometida. Profesorado. Rev. Currículum Y Form. 2020, 24, 1–8.
3. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap. 2020. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:
/48223/pf0000374802 (accessed on 16 June 2024).
4. Joseph, T.; Said, R. Educación para el desarrollo sostenible: Hacia una visión sociopedagógica. Controv. Y Concurr. Latinoam. 2019,
11, 291–314.
5. Öztürk, H. Education for Sustainable Development: A Systematic Review. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 123–145.
6. Heasly, B.; Lindner, J.; Iliško, D.; Salı̄te, I. From Initiatives, to Insights, to Implementation of the Sustainability and Securitability
Agenda for 2030. Discourse Commun. Sustain. Educ. 2020, 11, 1–4. [CrossRef]
7. Sunthonkanokpong, W.; Murphy, E. Sustainability awareness, attitudes and actions: A survey of pre-service teachers. Issues Educ.
Res. 2019, 29, 562–582.
8. Odell, V.; Molthan-Hill, P.; Martin, S.; Sterling, S. Transformative education to address all sustainable development goals.
In Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019: Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals; Leal-Filho, W., Ed.; Springer: London,
UK, 2020; pp. 905–916.
9. Roux, C.J.; Dasoo, N. Pre-service teachers’ perception of values education in the South African physical education curriculum. S.
Afr. J. Child. Educ. 2020, 10, 1–8. [CrossRef]
10. Osoro, J.M.; Castro, A. Educación y democracia: La escuela como “espacio” de participación. Rev. Iberoam. De Educ. 2017, 75,
89–108. [CrossRef]
11. Mezzanotte, C. The Social and Economic Rationale of Inclusive Education: An Overview of the Outcomes in Education for Diverse Groups
of Students; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2022.
12. Andrews, P.G.; Moulton, M.J.; Hughes, H.E. Integrating social justice into middle grades teacher education. Middle Sch. J. 2018,
49, 4–15. [CrossRef]
13. Government of Spain. Royal Decree 822/2021, of September 28, Establishing the Organization of University Education and the Procedure
for Quality Assurance; BOE-A-2021-15781; Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 29 September 2021.
14. Government of Spain. Organic Law 3/2020, of 29 December, Which Amends the Organic Law 2/2006, of 3 May, on Education; BOE-A-
2020-17264; Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 30 December 2020.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 22 of 23

15. Tarrant, S.P.; Thiele, L.P. Enhancing and promoting interdisciplinarity in higher education. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2016, 7, 355–360.
[CrossRef]
16. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. 2017. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.
org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444 (accessed on 16 June 2024).
17. Merma-Molina, G.; Gavilán-Martín, D.; Baena-Morales, S.; Urrea-Solano, M. Critical Thinking and Effective Personality in the
Framework of Education for Sustainable Development. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 28. [CrossRef]
18. Leal Filho, W.; Salvia, A.; Brandli, L.; Miranda Azeiteiro, U.; Wessel Pretorius, R. (Eds.) Universities, Sustainability and Society:
Supporting the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals; Springer: London, UK, 2021.
19. Cisneros, P.F.; Mendoza, K.L. Vinculación Universidad—Sociedad: Espacio para generar creatividad e innovación. Rev. Kill. Soc.
2018, 2, 53–58. [CrossRef]
20. UNESCO. Global Citizenship Education: Preparing Learners for the Challenges of the 21st Century. 2016. Available online:
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227729 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
21. Leal Filho, W.; Shiel, C.; Paço, A.; Mifsud, M.; Veiga Ávila, L.; Brandli, L.L.; Molthan-Hill, P.; Pace, P.; Azeiteiro, U.M.; Vargas,
V.R.; et al. Implementing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals in Universities: Challenges and Opportunities.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 59.
22. McCowan, T. Higher Education for and beyond the Sustainable Development Goals; Springer: London, UK, 2019.
23. Purcell, W.M.; Haddock-Frase, J. (Eds.) The Bloomsbury Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education; Bloomsbury: London, UK, 2023.
24. Leal Filho, W.; Lange Salvia, A.; Frankenberger, F. Handbook on Teaching and Learning for Sustainable Development; Edward Elgar:
Cheltenham, UK, 2021.
25. Tilbury, D. Education for Sustainable Development: An Expert Review of Processes and Learning. UNESCO. 2019. Available
online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000191442 (accessed on 25 July 2024).
26. Ruiz-Mallén, I.; Heras, M. What sustainability? Higher education institutions’ pathways to reach the Agenda 2030 goals.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1290. [CrossRef]
27. Michelsen, G.; Adomßent, M. Higher Education for Sustainable Development: Practices, Challenges and Future Directions; Routledge:
London, UK, 2020.
28. Gough, S.; Scott, W. Education and Learning for Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Framework. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.
2020, 21, 35–48.
29. Sterling, S. Higher Education, Sustainability, and the Role of Systemic Change. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 13, 23–37.
30. OECD. Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2023.
31. Cortina, A. Aporofobia, el Rechazo al Pobre: Un Desafío para la Democracia; Paidós: Barcelona, Spain, 2019.
32. Nussbaum, M.C. La Tradición Cosmopolita; Un Noble e Imperfecto Ideal; Paidós: Barcelona, Spain, 2020.
33. Torres, C.A.; Bosio, E. Global Citizenship Education at the Crossroads: Globalization, Global Commons, Common Good, and Critical
Consciousness; Springer: London, UK, 2020.
34. Belavi, G.; y Murillo, F.J. Educación, democracia y justicia social. Rev. Int. De Educ. Para La Justicia Soc. 2017, 5, 13–34. [CrossRef]
35. Belavi, G.; y Murillo, F.J. Democracia y Justicia Social en las Escuelas: Dimensiones para Pensar y Mejorar la Práctica Educativa.
Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad Eficacia y Cambio en Educación. 2020, 18, 5–28. [CrossRef]
36. Wiggan, G.; Pass, M.B.; Gadd, S.R. Critical Race Structuralism: The Role of Science Education in Teaching Social Justice Issues in
Urban Education and Pre-Service Teacher Education Programs. Urban Educ. 2023, 58, 2209–2238. [CrossRef]
37. Nishina, A.; Lewis, J.A.; Bellmore, A.; Witkow, M.R. Ethnic Diversity and Inclusive School Environments. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 54,
306–321. [CrossRef]
38. UNESCO. Global Report on Adult Learning and Education. 2010. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0
000186431 (accessed on 9 June 2024).
39. Vigo-Arrazola, M.B.; Dieste-Gracia, B.; García-Goncet, D. Formación de profesorado en y para la justicia social: Una investigación
etnográfica. Profesorado. Rev. Currículum Y Form. Profr. 2019, 23, 88–107. [CrossRef]
40. Ortiz-Cermeño, E. ¿Cómo Evolucionan los Valores Cívicos en las Diversas Teorías e Instituciones Contemporáneas de la Educación? Diego
Marín: Murcia, Spain, 2020.
41. Paredes, E.; Ribera, D. Educar en Valores; Tibidabo: Barcelona, Spain, 2006.
42. Calvo, I.; Carrascal, E.; González, J.M.; Armentia, A.; Gil-García, J.M.; Barambones, O.; Basogain, X.; Tazo-Herran, I.; Apiñaniz, E.
A Methodology to Introduce Sustainable Development Goals in Engineering Degrees by Means of Multidisciplinary Projects.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 583. [CrossRef]
43. Vera, F. La perspectiva de docentes sobre la infusión de la sostenibilidad en el currículo de la educación superior. Transformar
2022, 3, 17–37.
44. Bilbao-Goyoaga Arenas, A.; Barrenetxea Ayesta, M.; Barandiaran Galdós, M.; González Lasquibar, X. Integración de la sostenibili-
dad y el desarrollo de competencias transversales a través de metodologías activas en educación superior. Rev. Andin. Educ. 2023,
6, e201. [CrossRef]
45. Aznar, P.; Calero, M.; Martínez-Agut, M.P.; Mayoral, O.; Ull, A.; Vázquez-Verdera, V.; Vilches, A. Training Secondary Education
Teachers through the Prism of Sustainability: The Case of the Universitat de València. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4170. [CrossRef]
46. Monge, C.; Gómez, P.; García-Barrera, A. La Justicia Social en la Concreción Curricular de los Grados de Maestro. Rev. Int. Educ.
Justicia Soc. 2022, 11, 197–213. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 847 23 of 23

47. Pegalajar, M.d.C.; Burgos, A.; Martínez, E. Educación para el Desarrollo Sostenible y Responsabilidad Social: Claves en la
formación inicial del docente desde una revisión sistemática. Rev. Investig. Educ. 2022, 40, 421–437. [CrossRef]
48. Dahl, T. Prepared to Teach for Sustainable Development? Student Teachers’ Beliefs in Their Ability to Teach for Sustainable
Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1993. [CrossRef]
49. García-González, E.; Jiménez-Fontana, R.; Azcárate, P. Education for Sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals:
Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions and Knowledge. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7741. [CrossRef]
50. Lorente-Echeverría, S.; Canales-Lacruz, I.; Murillo-Pardo, B. Visión del docente universitario sobre la inclusión de la sostenibilidad
curricular en la formación de maestros de Educación Física de la Universidad de Zaragoza. Retos 2023, 50, 583–592. [CrossRef]
51. UNESCO. Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education. 2021. Available online: https://unesdoc.
unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707 (accessed on 20 July 2024).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.