1. Introduction
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 global objectives adopted by UN member countries in 2015 within Agenda 2030 [1]. The aim of these objectives is to address the most pressing social, economic, and environmental challenges worldwide. Each of the SDGs is related to key areas, such as the eradication of poverty, the fight against climate change, gender equality, quality education, and social justice, among others. These objectives are a wake-up call so that governments, civil society, businesses, and education institutions work together to guarantee development that is more inclusive, equal, and respectful with the environment [2] through collective action [3].
SDG 4 (Quality education) in particular seeks to ensure inclusive, equal, and quality education and to promote learning opportunities over a lifetime for all. This objective is directly related with the training of future citizens and professionals, including educators and health professionals, who are fundamental for driving sustainable development locally and globally. In this context, the SDGs are not only a goal for all governments but also a guide for educational transformation worldwide.
To better understand their impact on education and the role of key stakeholders, it is essential to examine the existing literature on the integration of SDG principles into educational frameworks and professional training.
1.1. Literature Review
Higher education plays a fundamental role in the implementation of the SDGs [4], as universities and other educational institutions have the ability to educate future leaders, professionals, and researchers who will be responsible for the application of innovative solutions to global challenges [5]. In addition, universities are key centers for the dissemination of knowledge and the education of global citizens to enable them to directly influence the construction of a sustainable future.
A proof of this fundamental role is the review performed by Allmazroa et al. (2024) [5]. It is considered, in the words of the authors, as the “first review study that examines the research on SDG in Higher Education Institutions”. The study identified ideas for the development of teacher training curricula and considered that social, economic, and environmental education are three key themes for the interdisciplinary approach of the SDGs in higher education.
The recent scientific literature has tried to analyze the incorporation of the SDGs in the initial training in higher education. Many studies and reviews [6,7,8,9,10,11] performed in different contexts, such as China, Ecuador, Colombia, Indonesia, Sweden, South Korea, and Japan, coincide on the lack of implementation of specific policies and a deficit in the translation of the existing policies to the education provided in higher education. In addition, it is evident that every context translates sustainable development into different initiatives, either as policies, projects, implementation of the curriculum, or teacher’s training, among others. Each country has addressed education on the SDGs differently depending on their social and political circumstances [11].
Given its importance, higher education must not only face the challenge of transmitting knowledge but also of integrating the SDGs in education programs at both the curricular level and through applied research. When incorporating the SDGs in university degrees, educational institutions can enable students to understand the interrelation between the current challenges. The correct education on SDGs allows teachers to address, in their future profession, content specialized on sustainability [11]. In this regard, there are successful initiatives for the implementation of the SDGs in higher education; for example, the 17 SDG Sessions project of the University of Murcia [12], where monthly activities are organized focusing on each of the 17 SDGs, or the e2: Student x Entrepreneur at the University of Cantabria [13]. This program brings together students and entrepreneurs to develop entrepreneurial projects aligned with the SDGs, fostering innovation and sustainable entrepreneurship.
In spite of this, we must differentiate the implementation of the SDGs in higher education institutions and teaching about them in degrees. The integration of the SDGs in higher education programs is especially relevant in the areas of education and health. The education programs of teachers and nurses play a crucial role in the awareness and training of future professionals who, at the same time, will transmit sustainability and social responsibility values to new generations [14,15].
In the case of education programs, the training of future teachers must be aligned with the SDGs [16] as teachers have a direct impact on the awareness and active participation of students with respect to social and environmental challenges. Education for sustainable development must be integrated within the content of the different disciplines, promoting the adoption of pedagogic strategies that teach students to think critically about their environment and global challenges. In addition, promoting a global and responsible citizenship is a key component that must be reinforced in future teachers so that they are able to promote these same values in their students [17].
It must be underlined that SDG 4 (Quality education) is as important in the training of teachers, and there are even some studies [18] that warn about the need to create indicators and to assess the qualities of teachers and the quality of their education with respect to the SDGs.
On the other hand, nursing education is also essential in the implementation of the SDGs [19] as health professionals are fundamental for promoting public health and the well-being of the community, which are closely related with various SDGs, such as SDG 3, good health and well-being, SDG 6, clean water and sanitation, and SDG 13, climate action. In this sense, health education programs must enable students to understand the importance of sustainability in medical practice and how health policies and practices can contribute towards the achievement of the SDGs [20].
A study by Chisingui and Costa (2020) [21] pointed to the need to invest in the training of teacher educators and initial training in all disciplines, including health, to align institutional policies and practices that train professionals to contribute to a more sustainable world. Other authors, such as Mori et al. (2019) [22] or Serrate González et al. (2019) [23], also claim the need for the university setting to adopt a position of responsibility in education about and meeting of the SDGs. The initial and continuous training of teachers must include explicit strategies that prepare future teachers to face these challenges by promoting the necessary competences to educate responsible citizens with respect to sustainable development [21]. Taking into account this context, the objective of the present study is the following: to analyze the perception of students from the faculties of Education and Nursing with respect to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). From this objective, the following specific objectives are proposed:
To discover the relationship between the learning objectives and/or competences of courses in Education and Nursing degrees and the SDGs.
To identify the integration of the SDGs in the content of courses of Education and Nursing degree studies.
To analyze the approach used for each of the SDGs in courses that are part of Education and Nursing degrees.
1.2. Research Questions
Considering this context, the questions posed in the present study are as follows:
What perception do students in faculties of Education and Nursing have with respect to the SDGs?
What relationship exists between the SDGs and the learning objectives and competences in courses taught in Education and Nursing degrees?
How are the SDGs integrated into the content of courses of Education and Nursing degrees?
What type of approach is used for each of the SDGs in Education and Nursing courses?
2. Materials and Methods
This section delineates the methodological framework underpinning our investigation into students’ perceptions of how the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are integrated within the curricula of Education and Nursing programs. It provides a comprehensive overview of the study’s design by detailing the formulation of the research objectives, the composition of the diverse sample drawn from Spanish and Latin American universities, and the development and validation of the data collection instrument. In addition, the section explains the statistical techniques employed to analyze the data and rigorously documents the ethical considerations adhered to throughout the research process, thereby ensuring the integrity and reproducibility of the study’s findings.
2.1. Study Design and Settings
The objective of the present study is the following: to analyze the perception of students from faculties of Education and Nursing with respect to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This is a multiple case study where the Latin American contexts of the following universities are analyzed: the University of Lleida (Spain), the University of Tolima (Colombia), and the University of Tarapacá (Chile).
2.2. Study Participants
The type of sampling was intentional, for convenience. Various universities from different Latin American contexts were selected to describe the different realities. From each of the universities, university degrees (with a duration of 4 years or 8 semesters) and master’s degrees (with a duration of 2 years, i.e., 2 semesters) related to Education and Nursing were analyzed. The sample was composed of a total of 457 students enrolled in Education and Nursing degrees at the following Spanish and Latin American universities: the University of Lleida (47.26%, N = 216), the University of Tolima (7.8%, N = 127), and the University of Tarapacá (24.9%, N = 114). The participating universities will be described below. The University of Lleida (UdL) is a public institution of higher education located in Lleida, Spain. It was founded in 1991, although its origins date back centuries, as the city has been an important educational center since the Middle Ages. As for its academic community, the UdL has a team of approximately 1000 teachers and around 12,000 students. This creates a dynamic and diverse environment where students can interact with professionals from different areas. The university offers a wide variety of academic programs, including more than 30 degrees and a good number of graduate programs spanning various disciplines. This allows students to choose from multiple options depending on their interests and career goals.
On the other hand, the University of Tolima is a public institution of higher education located in Ibagué, Colombia. It was founded in 1970 and has grown significantly since then, becoming an educational benchmark in the region. As for its academic community, the University of Tolima has approximately 1500 professors and around 20,000 students. This creates a vibrant and diverse environment where students can learn and develop in a collaborative environment. The university offers a wide range of academic programs, including more than 40 undergraduate programs and several graduate programs in various areas of knowledge. This allows students to choose from multiple options depending on their interests and career goals.
Finally, the University of Tarapacá (UTA) is a public institution of higher education located in Arica, Chile. It was founded in 1981, and its creation was part of an effort to expand higher education in the north of the country, providing access to quality academic training for inhabitants of the region. As for its academic community, the University of Tarapacá has approximately 1200 professors and around 10,000 students. This fosters a diverse and enriching academic environment where students can interact with professionals from different areas. UTA offers a wide range of academic programs, including more than 40 undergraduate programs and several graduate programs in various disciplines, such as health sciences, engineering, education, and social sciences, among others. This allows students to choose from multiple options depending on their interests and career goals.
Considering the areas of knowledge, a greater presence of participants in the area of Education was observed (62.8%, N = 87) as compared to those in Nursing (37.2%, N = 170).
According to academic year/semester (Figure 1), it was observed that almost half of the sample was in their third year (fifth-sixth semester; n = 213; 46.6%), that is, in the middle stage of the degree. On the other hand, after analyzing the distribution of the academic years in each of the areas of knowledge, it was observed that while in Nursing there was a higher participation of participants in the earlier academic years, participation decreased as the academic years increased. In turn, in Education, the third-year students (fifth-sixth semester) comprised a clear majority as compared to the other academic years.
2.3. Data Collection
To conduct the present study, the “Questionnaire for the evaluation of the adequacy of Spanish Master’s degree programs to the Sustainable Development Goals” was used, created by the Fundación Carolina and the CRUE Universidades Españolas [24].
The objective of the instrument was to perform a diagnosis through the voice of the students on the ways in which the Master’s programs from the Spanish University System (SUE) integrate or relate to the SDGs in their multiple dimensions (if they are integrated into the content, if there are related practices or research, etc.). The questionnaire is composed of six sections, or dimensions, with a total of 32 items, as follows:
General Information: 4 items.
Self-assessment: 7 items.
Evaluation of the curricula: 4 items.
Evaluation of the teaching material: 4 items.
Evaluation of the institutional commitment: 5 items.
Evaluation of the university extension: 8 items
Although the instrument was composed of 7 sections, or dimensions, the present study will focus on the section “Evaluation of the curricula”. This section of the questionnaire asks whether the learning objectives and/or competences of the Bachelor’s or Master’s degree are related to the SDGs. From here, it is asked whether this relationship is described in the content of the subjects’ bachelor’s or master’s degree final projects.
For data collection, once the questionnaire was adapted, the Microsoft Forms™ application (Office 365 Forms, Microsoft Corporation 2016) was used to enter it. It was sent to potential participants through their institutional emails in order to invite them to participate. Data collection was carried out between November 2024 and January 2025. All responses were stored in the same application for further statistical analysis.
The reliability of the instrument was estimated with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient 0.90 (95% CI: 0.88–0.92) for the entire sample, considering that the questionnaire was answered by students in different contexts (Spain, Chile, and Colombia). The result was similar when segmented according to each group studied: 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87–0.91) for Nursing and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86–0.90) for Education. Therefore, it can be concluded that the degree of reliability obtained by the sample was high.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis of the results from the questionnaire was performed through the use of the computer application IBM-SPSS Statistics version 28 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The statistical techniques and tests used were as follows:
The quantitative variables were described through the centrality and variability tools.
The Chi-square test of independence was used to compare two categorical variables. Although it is a test to determine the existence/absence of a relationship between these types of variables, its existence can be used to infer the presence of significant differences in the response variable between the categories of the explanatory factor using the values of the corrected standardized residuals.
The effect size was calculated to express the magnitude of the differences between the samples. This effect size was expressed as R2 (scale: 0–1) so that it could be compared between different types of data and different types of statistical tests and studies. When the means were compared, R2 was calculated with Cohen’s “d” value. When the variables were categorical, R2 was calculated with Cramer’s V, which is similar to Pearson’s but specific for this type of data.
2.5. Ethical Procedures
This research was approved by the data protection services of the University of Lleida (Spain) before being distributed among students from various universities. As for the participants, they were provided with information about the study, its objective, and the confidential and anonymous nature of their responses on the first screen of the questionnaire, in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union (25 May 2018). In addition, prior consent was requested from participants before starting the questionnaire in order to store their responses. All data collected from participants were treated anonymously throughout the research.
3. Results
3.1. Relationship Between the Learning Objectives and/or Competences of the Courses and the SDGs
This section answers the following research question: What relationship exists between the SDGs and the learning objectives and competences in the courses taught in the Education and Nursing degrees? As shown in Figure 2, almost half of the participants (43.8%, N = 200) confirmed the existence of a close relationship between the learning objectives and/or competences of the courses in the Education and Nursing degrees and the SDGs. On the other hand, 25.4% affirmed the lack of a relationship, and the remaining 30.9% did not know. Therefore, although the results were fairly distributed, most of the courses covered the SDGs in their learning objectives and/or competences.
When comparing the results according to the factors considered (university, area of knowledge–Education or Nursing, and courses), the following can be observed (Table 1):
There is a statistically significant difference between universities, although the effect size was low (2.5%). The data indicate that an affirmative response was more frequent at the University of Lleida (61.9%) than the remaining universities, where we found more negative responses (24.6% at the University of Tarapacá, and 32.3% at the University of Tolima).
A significance was observed as a function of the area of knowledge (p < 0.01; slight effect: 2.5%), which is due, especially, to more negative responses in Education (30.7%) than in Nursing (16.5%).
A statistical significance was also observed when comparing between academic years (p < 0.001), with a moderate effect (14.7%). The data point out that the affirmative response with respect to the learning objectives and/or competences in the courses and the SDGs was less frequent in the first academic year as compared to the rest, together with a higher lack of knowledge with respect to this matter.
However, when segmenting the sample as a function of area of knowledge, a high significance was observed in Nursing (p < 0.001), as well as a large effect size (14.7%), where the data pointed out that the students perceived a relationship between the learning objectives and/or competences of the degree courses and the SDGs. However, in Education, the differences were much smaller (slight effect: 2%), without reaching statistical significance (p > 0.05), although it was close to it.
3.2. Integration of the SDGs in the Content of the Education and Nursing Courses
This section answers the following research question: How are the SDGs integrated into the content of the courses of the Education and Nursing degrees? As shown in Figure 3, the responses indicate a varied level of awareness regarding the integration of SDGs into course descriptions; 29.3% of participants confirmed that SDGs are integrated into their curriculum, while about 33.9% indicated that no such connection exists. Notably, the largest group, 36.8%, fell into the NR/DK (No response/Don’t know) category, highlighting a significant level of uncertainty or lack of information on the matter.
When the previous answers were compared with the factors considered (university, area of knowledge—Education or Nursing, and course), the following can be observed (Table 2):
There is a high significance (p < 0.001) with a moderate effect (5.7%) that implies the existence of differences between universities. The data reveal that the affirmative answer to the integration of the SDGs in the content of the courses was more frequent in the University of Lleida (57.1%) than in the remaining universities (University of Tarapacá, 26.3%, and University of Tolima, 25.2%) where a negative answer was more frequent.
A statistical significance was also observed as a function of the area of knowledge (Education or Nursing) (p < 0.0001), with an equally moderate effect (5.3%). This was due to the fact that as affirmative answer with respect to the integration of the SDGs within the content of the degree they are enrolled in was more present in the Nursing participants (39.4%), while a negative answer was more common in the Education students (41.8%).
The comparison between academic years in the total sample showed significance (p < 0.001), with a moderate effect (5.0%). The data point out that an affirmative answer was less frequent in the academic years at both ends (first year, with 14.5%, and fifth year, with 17.6%) as compared to the intermediate academic years. In the first year, there were more participants who were unaware of the subject matter (59.0%), and in the last year, there were more negative answers (47.1%). When segmenting this analysis as a function of the area of knowledge (Education or Nursing), it can be observed that Nursing obtained a high significance (p < 0.001), with a large effect (13.5%). The data recorded indicate that this could be due to the lack of knowledge of the first-year students (61.1%) as compared to the affirmative answers in the other academic years. On the other hand, Education did not obtain statistical significance (p > 0.05). Therefore, it is concluded that there are no statistical evidences of differences between the academic years in this area, and the possible differences are due to chance.
3.3. Addressing the SDGs in the Courses
This section answers the following research question: What type of approach is used for each of the SDGs in the Education and Nursing courses? As shown in Figure 4, there are differences in the degree to which each of the 17 SDGs is addressed in the courses of the two university degrees analyzed. Large differences were observed, with two SDGs that stood out over the others: SDG 3 (Good health and well-being), with 84.7%, and SDG 4 (Quality education), with 50.3%. These results are logical, considering the areas of knowledge from which the participants came (Education and Nursing). On the contrary, six SDGs obtained a result of under 20%, among which we must underline the two that were least addressed: SDG 2 (Zero hunger), with 16.8%, and SDG 14 (Life below water), with 15.5%.
3.4. Coverage of the SDGs as a Function of Differential Factors
Next, the results of the comparison of these coverage variables of each of the 17 SDGs, with the potentially explanatory factors (university, areas of knowledge—Education or Nursing, and courses) that were chosen for the study, are presented.
The analysis as a function of university (Table 3) reveals significant differences (p < 0.05) in almost all of them, with some even being highly significant (p < 0.001), with effects that were at least moderate. There are two exceptions that did not obtain significant results: SDG 3 (Good health and well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities). Among the most significant results, the following are highlighted:
SDG 2 “Zero hunger” (p < 0.001; moderate effect: 7.0%) was addressed very little, and the university that performed the least work was the University of Tolima (13.4%).
SDG 5 “Gender equality” (p < 0.001; moderate effect: 9.1%) was especially addressed at the University of Lleida (71.4%) as compared to the others.
SDG 7 “Affordable and clean energy” (p < 0.001; moderate-high effect size: 10.6%) was the most covered at the University of Tarapacá (42.1%) and the University of Lleida (33.3%) as compared to the other universities (14.2% and 9.1%).
SDG 9 “Industry, innovation, and infrastructure” (p < 0.001, moderate effect: 7.0%) was covered the most at the University of Tarapacá (33.3%) and the university of Lleida (33.3%) as compared to the other universities.
The results of the analysis as a function of the areas of knowledge (Table 4) show statistically significant results in all the SDGs. Thus, the following are underlined:
In Nursing (p < 0.001), the SDGs were well covered, and the following stood out: SDG 7 “Affordable and clean energy”, with a percentage of 42.4%; SDG 6 “Clean water and sanitation”, with a percentage of 44.7% (a moderate-high effect of 10.7%); SDG 2 “Zero hunger”, with a result of 32.4% (a moderate-high effect of 10.2%); and SDG 14 “Life below water”, with a percentage of 30.6% (a moderate-high effect of 10.2%).
In Education, SDG 4 “Quality education” was greatly covered (p < 0.001; moderate effect of 3.4%), with a percentage of 81.2%.
With respect to the results of the comparison between academic years in the total sample (Table 5), significance was found in all the SDGs, except for SDG 15 “Life on land”. In this sense, the following must be highlighted:
SDG 6 “Clean water and sanitation” (p < 0.001; moderate effect: 7.8%) was strongly addressed in the fourth (44.1%), first (41.0%), and second (33.6%) years.
SDG 7 “Affordable and clean energy” (p < 0.001; moderate effect: 8.2%) was covered in the first (41.0%) and second year (30.9%) to a greater extent.
SDG 16 “Peace, justice, and strong institutions” (p < 0.001; moderate effect: 8.1%) was strongly addressed in the 50%), fifth (41.2%), and second (45.4%) years.
4. Discussion
The objective of the present study was to analyze the perception of students from the faculties of Education and Nursing with respect to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For this, three key aspects were explored: the relationship between the learning objectives and/or competences of the degree courses and the SDGs, the explicit integration of the SDGs into the curricular content, and the way in which each one of the 17 SDGs were covered within the courses in the each of the academic programs. This approach allowed for the identification of the level of alignment between university education and Agenda 2030, as well as possible areas of improvement for the more effective integration of the SDGs within higher education.
The results obtained reveal a certain complexity with respect to the relationship between the learning objectives and/or competences of the courses and the SDGs. Despite almost half of the participants confirming this connection, almost a third were unaware of the existence of this relationship, and a quarter denied its existence, highlighting the area of Education. This result is in agreement with the study by Sianes et al. (2022) [25] who pointed to the heterogeneous and unequal implementation of the SDGs in academic programs, which could reflect curricular or student perception differences. In this sense, the existence of statistically significant differences between universities underlines the disparity in the integration of the SDGs according to the institutional context. This phenomenon could be influenced by various factors, such as differentiated pedagogic strategies, levels of education or awareness of the teachers about sustainability, or a greater visibility of the SDGs in the curricula of certain universities [26]. The literature has also identified the influence of internal policies on the addition of sustainability to curricula (Leal Filho et al., 2020) [27]. As recent studies propose [28], institutional commitment is key in the inclusion of the SDGs in higher education, as well as the exchange networks of good practices between universities to reduce these gaps.
The results indicate that the institutional content significantly influences how the SDGs are addressed at the universities analyzed. For example, the emphasis of SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy) at the University of Tarapacá and the University of Lleida indicates an alignment with local and regional priorities, such as energy or sustainability strategies. The main strategies of both contexts related to sustainability are their alignment with the optimization of water management, the use of renewable energies, the promotion of agriculture, and sustainable mobility, as well as Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). This finding coincides with previous studies that underlined the importance of local agendas in the implementation of SDGs in higher education, as Leal Filho et al. (2021) [27] pointed out, who underlined that the local environment can act as a catalyzer or as a barrier for the integration of certain SDGs.
In the area of Nursing, the perception of a relationship between the learning objectives and the SDGs is notable, as it is statistically significant and greater than in Education. This suggests the existence of education that is more oriented towards public health, well-being, and equality. This argument can be compared with the study by Huss et al. (2021) [29], who underlined that health sciences programs tend to incorporate aspects of sustainability in a more structured manner, given the inherent link with human well-being and professional ethics. For this reason, in Education, a greater effort may be necessary to visualize the connections between the curricular objectives and the SDGs, as stated by Adams et al. (2022) [30].
In agreement with the study by Cogul et al. [31], the results show that the first-year students have a higher proportion of lack of knowledge and a lower perception of the relationship between the learning objectives and the SDGs. This may be due to lower exposure to the academic content or a lack of initial awareness about sustainability topics. Studies such as the one by Lajara-Camilleri et al. (2022) [32] have identified that pedagogic approaches to introducing the SDGs in the early academic levels are determinant factors to promote the comprehensive understanding of these concepts through academic training. For its part, the increase in the number of negative responses in the last academic year could reflect a lack of continuity or progression in the integration of the SDGs throughout the curricula. This pattern underlines the importance of a longitudinal approach that allows students to perceive a clear and sustained connection between the SDGs and their professional training, an aspect also highlighted by Barth et al. (2016) [33] in studies about sustainability in higher education.
Likewise, the increased attention to SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy) in the early academic years could reflect initial efforts towards awareness, while the increase in SDG 16 (Peace, justice, and strong institutions) in the higher academic years indicates a transition towards more complex content related to decision-making. This idea is aligned with the observations by Lozano et al. (2019) [34], who proposed that universities must integrate the SDGs progressively, adapted to the academic maturity of the students and connected to environmental problems.
With respect to the integration of the SDGs in the content of Education and Nursing courses, this has become a priority to align higher education with modern global challenges. Nevertheless, more than a third of the participants were unaware of this fact, which reveals significant challenges in their implementation. This may be due to an insufficient institutional communication or a superficial integration. It is possible that although the SDGs are present in the curriculum of the degree, their visibility in the learning experience of the students is limited. This disconnection is shared with previous studies by Lozano et al. (2021) [34] or Lambrechts and Verhulst (2017) [35], who underlined the need for more explicit and contextual methods for the teaching of the SDGs in diverse areas of knowledge.
In line with the above, the results also show heterogeneity in the integration of the SDGs in the courses of the Education and Nursing programs. The predominance of SDG 3 (Good health and well-being) in Nursing and SDG 4 (Quality education) in Education is coherent with the nature of the programs analyzed, but this concentration could limit the holistic perspective proposed by the SDGs. In fact, the low coverage of SGD 2 (Zero hunger) and SDG 14 (Life below water) suggests the limited cross-cutting nature of the content, contradicting the comprehensive objectives of Agenda 2030 (ONU, s/f). This phenomenon has been reported in previous studies, such as the one by Lozano et al. (2019) [34], which evidenced how academic programs tend to be centered on objectives that are directly aligned with their discipline, leaving aside a systematic vision. According to Leal Filho et al. [27], the effective integration of the SDGs in higher education requires the overcoming of this fragmentation through transdisciplinary approaches that allow for interconnecting objectives that are apparently distant from each other. In addition, Barth et al. [33] and Lambrechts and Verhulst (2017) [35,36,37,38] have pointed out that the areas with a more applied and participative approach can facilitate the effective integration of a broader range of SDG, including those that are less represented in specific disciplinary contexts.
It should be noted that this study has been developed in different contexts where the SDGs are addressed in different ways. In this sense, the University of Lleida emphasises the integration of the SDGs in relation to local and regional priorities, such as sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, and water management. In addition, the challenges include varying levels of awareness and integration among students and faculty, which affects the coherence and depth of SDG coverage. In the case of the University of Tolima, some challenges related to sustainability-related initiatives stand out. Finally, the University of Tarapacá stands out for its emphasis on SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy), aligning with local energy and sustainability strategies. Moreover, this local focus may hinder the broader integration of the SDGs unless it is complemented by a transdisciplinary approach. Given the above, there is variability in the degree of alignment between course learning objectives and the SDGs. This may influence students’ awareness and engagement with sustainability goals. In addition, differences in institutional policies and pedagogical strategies affect the visibility and integration of the SDGs on campuses. The present study has some limitations that must be considered when interpreting its results. First, the sample showed differences between the areas of knowledge, with a greater representation of Education as compared to Nursing, and a notable concentration of third-year students. This could bias the results towards the specific dynamics in this group. Another limitation could be that a single instrument was administered (a questionnaire), which could limit the information collected.
5. Conclusions
Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, the research reveals that although almost half of students in the faculties of Education and Nursing perceive a connection between learning objectives and the SDGs, a significant part (almost a third) is unaware of this relationship, indicating a lack of integration and visibility of the SDGs in curricula. In addition, there is an inequality in implementation, since a heterogeneous implementation of the SDGs in academic programs was identified, with significant differences between universities. This suggests that the institutional context and domestic policies play a crucial role in the integration of the SDGs. In addition, the perception of the relationship between learning objectives and the SDGs is stronger in the faculty of Nursing than in Education, suggesting that health sciences programs are more aligned with sustainability principles.
It should be added that the study has various policy implications. First, it is critical that educational institutions develop policies that promote the integration of the SDGs at all levels of education, ensuring that all students have access to an education that includes these goals. In addition, universities should commit to implementing strategies that foster sustainability and education about the SDGs, which could include creating collaborative networks between institutions to share good practices. Finally, it is crucial to invest in teacher training so that they are trained and aware of the importance of the SDGs, which in turn will influence students’ perception and understanding.
Future research lines can be established that could delve into the dynamics that underlie the integration of the SDGs in higher education. Future studies could focus on analyzing the experiences and perceptions of professors, who play a key role in the implementation of the SDGs, especially with respect to the teaching and didactic strategies utilized. Likewise, it would be important to examine how institutional policies, at both the internal level and their interaction with regional and national contexts, have an influence on the integration and visibility of the SDGs in curricula. Additionally, longitudinal studies could evaluate the impact of specific curricular initiatives on the development of the sustainability competences of students, also addressing how these competences are reflected in their posterior professional practice. In parallel, it would be valuable to explore the effectiveness of transdisciplinary and collaborative approaches between the areas of knowledge to overcome the fragmentation observed and to promote a comprehensive perspective that allows addressing the challenges posed by Agenda 2030. Finally, given that the study was based on a single instrument, a recommendation is made to use qualitative methods, such as interviews or group discussions, to obtain a richer and more nuanced understanding of the students’ experiences. Lastly, the scope of the study could be broadened to obtain more generalizable results and conclusions.
Conceptualization, A.R.-P.; methodology, A.R.-P. and I.d.A.; software, A.R.-P. and L.F.C.; validation, A.R.-P., A.O.-V., I.d.A. and L.F.C.; formal analysis, A.R.-P.; investigation, A.R.-P. and A.O.-V.; data curation, A.R.-P. and I.d.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.-P., A.O.-V., I.d.A. and L.F.C.; writing—review and editing, A.R.-P., A.O.-V., I.d.A. and L.F.C.; visualization, A.R.-P., A.O.-V., I.d.A. and L.F.C.; supervision, A.R.-P.; project administration, A.R.-P.; funding acquisition, I.d.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was approved by the Research and Transfer Ethics Committee of the University of Lleida (code CERT81).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Thanks to the DOTSS chair for support in this research.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The following abbreviation is used in this manuscript:
| SDG | Sustainable Development Goals |
Footnotes
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.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Education/Nursing sample according to academic year/semester (N = 457).
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Relationship between the learning objectives and/or competencies of the subjects and the SDGs (N = 457).
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Integration of the SDGs in the content of the Education and Nursing courses (N = 475).
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Percentage of SDG coverage in courses in the Education and Nursing degrees (N = 457).
Relationship between the learning objectives and/or competencies of the subjects and the SDGs. Comparison according to factors.
| N | Yes | No | NR/DK | Chi-Square Test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | p-Value | R2 | |||||
| UNIVERSITY | 23.02 (**) | <0.001 | 0.025 | ||||
| U. Lleida | 216 | 61.9% | 9.5% | 28.6% | |||
| U. Tarapacá | 114 | 36.8% | 24.6% | 38.6% | |||
| U. Tolima | 127 | 38.6% | 32.3% | 29.1% | |||
| AREA OF KNOWLEDGE | 11.38 (**) | 0.003 | 0.025 | ||||
| Nursing | 170 | 49.4% | 16.5% | 34.1% | |||
| Education | 287 | 40.4% | 30.7% | 28.9% | |||
| YEAR/SEMESTER | 42.64 (**) | <0.001 | 0.047 | ||||
| 1st year (1st–2nd s) | 83 | 21.7% | 26.5% | 51.8% | |||
| 2nd year (3rd–4th s) | 110 | 53.6% | 19.1% | 27.3% | |||
| 3rd year (5th–6th s) | 213 | 45.1% | 30.5% | 24.4% | |||
| 4th year (7th–8th s) | 34 | 58.8% | 2.9% | 38.2% | |||
| 5th year (9th–10th s) | 17 | 41.2% | 41.2% | 17.6% | |||
| YEAR/SEMESTER—NURSING | 49.85 (**) | <0.001 | 0.147 | ||||
| 1st year (1st–2nd s) | 72 | 22.2% | 25.0% | 52.8% | |||
| 2nd year (3rd–4th s) | 53 | 73.6% | 3.8% | 22.6% | |||
| 3rd year (5th–6th s) | 25 | 52.0% | 32.0% | 16.0% | |||
| 4th year (7th–8th s) | 17 | 76.5% | ---- | 23.5% | |||
| 5th year (9th–10th s) | 3 | 100% | ---- | ---- | |||
| YEAR/SEMESTER—EDUCATION | 13.84 (ns) | 0.086 | 0.020 | ||||
| 1st year (1st–2nd s) | 11 | 18.2% | 36.4% | 45.5% | |||
| 2nd year (3rd–4th s) | 57 | 35.1% | 33.3% | 31.6% | |||
| 3rd year (5th–6th s) | 188 | 44.1% | 30.3% | 25.5% | |||
| 4th year (7th–8th s) | 17 | 41.2% | 5.9% | 52.9% | |||
| 5th year (9th–10th s) | 14 | 28.6% | 50.0% | 21.4% | |||
Note: created by the authors. NR/DK = No response/Don’t know; (ns) = Non-significant (**) = Highly significant.
Integration of the SDGs in the course content. Comparison according to factors (N = 457).
| N | Yes | No | NR/DK | Chi-Square Test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | p-Value | R2 | |||||
| UNIVERSITY | 51.85 (**) | <0.001 | 0.057 | ||||
| U. Lleida | 216 | 57.1% | 9.5% | 33.3% | |||
| U. Tarapacá | 114 | 26.3% | 31.6% | 42.5% | |||
| U. Tolima | 127 | 25.2% | 42.5% | 32.3% | |||
| AREA OF KNOWLEDGE | 24.35 (**) | <0.001 | 0.053 | ||||
| Nursing | 170 | 39.4% | 20.6% | 40.0% | |||
| Education | 287 | 23.3% | 41.8% | 34.8% | |||
| YEAR/SEMESTER | 45.90 (**) | <0.001 | 0.050 | ||||
| 1st year (1st–2nd s) | 83 | 14.5% | 26.5% | 59.0% | |||
| 2nd year (3rd–4th s) | 110 | 44.5% | 31.8% | 23.6% | |||
| 3rd year (5th–6th s) | 213 | 26.8% | 40.4% | 32.9% | |||
| 4th year (7th–8th s) | 34 | 38.2% | 11.8% | 50.0% | |||
| 5th year (9th–10th s) | 17 | 17.6% | 47.1% | 35.3% | |||
| YEAR/SEMESTER—NURSING | 45.93 (**) | <0.001 | 0.135 | ||||
| 1st year (1st–2nd s) | 72 | 13.9% | 25.0% | 61.1% | |||
| 2nd year (3rd–4th s) | 53 | 62.3% | 17.0% | 20.8% | |||
| 3rd year (5th–6th s) | 25 | 44.0% | 32.0% | 24.0% | |||
| 4th year (7th–8th s) | 17 | 58.8% | ---- | 41.2% | |||
| 5th year (9th–10th s) | 3 | 100% | ---- | ---- | |||
| YEAR/SEMESTER—EDUCATION | 11.35 (ns) | 0.183 | 0.019 | ||||
| 1st year (1st–2nd s) | 11 | 18.2% | 36.4% | 45.5% | |||
| 2nd year (3rd–4th s) | 57 | 28.1% | 45.6% | 26.3% | |||
| 3rd year (5th–6th s) | 188 | 24.5% | 41.5% | 34.0% | |||
| 4th year (7th–8th s) | 17 | 17.6% | 23.5% | 58.8% | |||
| 5th year (9th–10th s) | 14 | ---- | 57.1% | 42.9% | |||
Note: created by the authors. NR/DK= No response/Don’t know; (ns) = Non-significant (**) = Highly significant.
Percentage of direct coverage of each of the 17 SDGs by university. (N = 457).
| SDG | Lleida (n = 216) | Tarapacá (n = 114) | Tolima (n = 127) | Chi-Square Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | p-Value | R2 | ||||
| 1 No poverty | 23.8% | 29.8% | 13.4% | 23.8% | 29.8% | 13.4% |
| 2 Zero hunger | 23.8% | 29.8% | 13.4% | 23.8% | 29.8% | 13.4% |
| 3 Good health and well-being | 90.5% | 82.5% | 51.1% | 90.5% | 82.5% | 51.1% |
| 4 Quality education | 76.2% | 57.9% | 80.3% | 76.2% | 57.9% | 80.3% |
| 5 Gender equality | 71.4% | 49.1% | 59.1% | 71.4% | 49.1% | 59.1% |
| 6 Clean water and sanitation | 28.6% | 38.6% | 26.0% | 28.6% | 38.6% | 26.0% |
| 7 Affordable and clean energy | 33.3% | 42.1% | 14.2% | 48.27 (**) | <0.001 | 0.106 |
| 8 Decent work and economic growth | 23.8% | 31.6% | 29.1% | 9.68 (*) | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| 9 Industry, innovation, and infrastructure | 19.0% | 33.3% | 13.4% | 31.85 (**) | <0.001 | 0.070 |
| 10 Reduced inequalities | 52.4% | 31.6% | 30.7% | 24.25 (**) | <0.001 | 0.053 |
| 11 Sustainable cities and communities | 28.6% | 24.6% | 17.3% | 6.91 (ns) | 0.075 | 0.015 |
| 12 Responsible consumption and production | 28.6% | 26.3% | 15.0% | 18.99 (**) | <0.001 | 0.042 |
| 13 Climate action | 38.1% | 35.1% | 25.2% | 13.89 (**) | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| 14 Life below water | 19.0% | 26.3% | 12.6% | 19.36 (**) | <0.001 | 0.042 |
| 15 Life on land | 19.0% | 31.6% | 19.7% | 8.01 (*) | 0.046 | 0.019 |
| 16 Peace, justice, and strong institutions | 42.9% | 22.8% | 37.8% | 22.06 (**) | <0.001 | 0.048 |
| 17 Partnerships for the goals | 28.6% | 22.8% | 18.1% | 11.01 (**) | 0.012 | 0.024 |
Note: created by the authors. (ns) = Non-significant (*) = Significant (**) = Highly significant.
Percentage of direct coverage of each of the 17 SDGs as a function of the area of knowledge.
| SDG | % Percentage of Direct Coverage According to Area of Knowledge | Chi-Square Test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nursing (n = 170) | Education (n = 287) | Value | p-Value | R2 | |
| 1 No poverty | 32.4% | 8.7% | 41.32 (**) | <0.001 | 0.091 |
| 2 Zero hunger | 32.4% | 7.7% | 46.44 (**) | <0.001 | 0.102 |
| 3 Good health and well-being | 91.8% | 80.5% | 10.47 (**) | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| 4 Quality education | 64.7% | 81.2% | 15.48 (**) | <0.001 | 0.034 |
| 5 Gender equality | 60.6% | 44.3% | 1.40 (**) | <0.001 | 0.025 |
| 6 Clean water and sanitation | 44.7% | 15.0% | 48.98 (**) | <0.001 | 0.107 |
| 7 Affordable and clean energy | 42.4% | 11.8% | 55.77 (**) | <0.001 | 0.122 |
| 8 Decent work and economic growth | 32.4% | 20.6% | 7.94 (**) | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| 9 Industry, innovation, and infrastructure | 28.8% | 10.8% | 24.01 (**) | <0.001 | 0.052 |
| 10 Reduced inequalities | 44.1% | 24.7% | 18.44 (**) | <0.001 | 0.040 |
| 11 Sustainable cities and communities | 28.8% | 16.0% | 10.62 (**) | <0.001 | 0.023 |
| 12 Responsible consumption and production | 29.4% | 12.2% | 20.90 (**) | <0.001 | 0.046 |
| 13 Climate action | 43.5% | 18.8% | 32.34 (**) | <0.001 | 0.071 |
| 14 Life below water | 30.6% | 6.6% | 46.74 (**) | <0.001 | 0.102 |
| 15 Life on land | 31.8% | 16.4% | 14.68 (**) | <0.001 | 0.032 |
| 16 Peace, justice, and strong institutions | 37.1% | 24.7% | 7.82 (**) | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| 17 Partnerships for the goals | 30.6% | 12.5% | 22.36 (**) | <0.001 | 0.049 |
Note: created by the authors. (**) = Highly significant.
Percentage of direct coverage of each of the 17 SDGs as a function of the academic year.
| SDG | % Percentage of Direct Coverage According to | Chi-Square Test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Year (n = 83) | 2nd Year (n = 110) | 3rd Year (n = 213) | 4th Year (n = 34) | 5th Year (n = 17) | Value | p-Value | R2 | |
| 1 No poverty | 21.7% | 26.4% | 9.9% | 35.3% | ---- | 26.66 (**) | <0.001 | 0.059 |
| 2 Zero hunger | 24.1% | 28.2% | 7.5% | 26.5% | 5.9% | 30.16 (**) | <0.001 | 0.066 |
| 3 Good health and well-being | 77.1% | 94.5% | 83.6% | 79.4% | 82.4% | 12.92 (*) | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| 4 Quality education | 63.9% | 75.5% | 77.5% | 76.5% | 94.1% | 9.57 (*) | 0.048 | 0.021 |
| 5 Gender equality | 45.8% | 61.8% | 43.2% | 64.7% | 58.8% | 14.14 (**) | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| 6 Clean water and sanitation | 41.0% | 33.6% | 15.0% | 44.1% | 5.9% | 35.67 (**) | <0.001 | 0.078 |
| 7 Affordable and clean energy | 41.0% | 30.9% | 12.2% | 32.4% | 5.9% | 37.28 (**) | <0.001 | 0.082 |
| 8 Decent work and economic growth | 28.9% | 23.6% | 23.5% | 41.2% | ---- | 11.48 (*) | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| 9 Industry, innovation, and infrastructure | 28.9% | 15.5% | 11.7% | 32.4% | 17.6% | 17.90 (**) | 0.001 | 0.039 |
| 10 Reduced inequalities | 31.3% | 37.3% | 24.4% | 50.0% | 58.8% | 17.76 (**) | 0.001 | 0.039 |
| 11 Sustainable cities and communities | 21.7% | 21.8% | 17.8% | 41.2% | 5.9% | 12.11 (*) | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| 12 Responsible consumption and production | 26.5% | 19.1% | 13.1% | 32.4% | 17.6% | 11.89 (*) | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| 13 Climate action | 31.3% | 34.5% | 23.0% | 41.2% | 5.9% | 12.48 (*) | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| 14 Life below water | 19.3% | 23.6% | 8.0% | 32.4% | 5.9% | 24.19 (**) | <0.001 | 0.053 |
| 15 Life on land | 24.1% | 25.5% | 17.8% | 32.4% | 23.5% | 5.25 (ns) | 0.262 | 0.010 |
| 16 Peace, justice, and strong institutions | 24.1% | 46.4% | 18.3% | 50.0% | 41.2% | 37.14 (**) | <0.001 | 0.081 |
| 17 Partnerships for the goals | 21.7% | 25.5% | 12.7% | 41.2% | 5.9% | 21.43 (**) | <0.001 | 0.047 |
Note: created by the authors. (ns) = Non-significant (*) = Significant (**) = Highly significant.
References
1. ONU. Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Available online: https://www.un.org/es/impacto-acad%C3%A9mico/page/objetivos-de-desarrollo-sostenible (accessed on 29 December 2024).
2. Martín, J.; Caballero, D. La Cooperación Oficial europea y española ante el nuevo escenario del sistema internacional de cooperación al desarrollo. Acciones Investig. Soc.; 2017; 37, pp. 7-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26754/ojs_ais/ais.2017372186]
3. Murga-Menoyo, M.Á. La Formación de la Ciudadanía en el Marco de la Agenda 2030 y la Justicia Ambiental. Rev. Int. Educ. Justicia Soc.; 2018; 7, pp. 37-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15366/riejs2018.7.1.002]
4. Caride, J.A. Educación social, derechos humanos y sostenibilidad en el desarrollo comunitario. Teoría Educ.; 2017; 29, pp. 245-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14201/teoredu291245272]
5. Almazroa, H.; Alotaibi, W.; Alrwaythi, E. Sustainable development goals and future-oriented teacher education programs. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.; 2024; 71, pp. 13517-13530. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3165686]
6. Borg, F.; Gericke, N. Local and global aspects: Teaching social sustainability in Swedish preschools. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 3838. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13073838]
7. Darmawan, M.D.; Dagamac, N.H. Situation of environmental education in senior high school programs in Indonesia: Perspectives from the teachers of Palembang. Interdiscip. J. Environ. Sci. Educ.; 2021; 17, e2241.
8. Kaj, R. Swedish environmental policy, education and ecotourism issues. MGU; 2012; 12, pp. 93-96. Available online: https://www.mgu.ac.jp/main/educations/library/publication/pre_hattatsu/no12/hatsurin12_14.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2025).
9. Lin, J.C. Promoting education about and for sustainable development: Assessing the incorporation of SDGs in Chinese higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.; 2024; 25, pp. 1469-1483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2023-0444]
10. Noh, J.E. The legitimacy of development nongovernmental organizations as global citizenship education providers in Korea. Educ. Citizensh. Soc. Justice; 2019; 14, pp. 241-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1746197918799972]
11. Osanai, S.; Yu, J.S. Teaching the effectiveness of integrated studies and social engagement: A case study on SDG education in depopulated areas in Japan. Educ. Sci.; 2023; 13, 250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030250]
12. Blog Studia XXI. Las Universidades Como Líderes en la Implementación de los ODS. 2020; Available online: https://www.universidadsi.es/las-universidades-como-lideres-en-la-implementacion-de-los-ods/ (accessed on 11 March 2025).
13. CISE Emprendedores. 50 Estudiantes de la UC Desarrollarán Proyectos Centrados en los ODS de Naciones Unidas. 2019; Available online: https://www.cise.es/50-estudiantes-de-la-uc-desarrollaran-proyectos-centrados-en-los-ods-de-naciones-unidas/ (accessed on 11 March 2025).
14. Osingada, C.P.; Porta, C.M. Nursing and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a COVID-19 world: The state of the science and a call for nursing to lead. Public Health Nurs.; 2020; 37, pp. 799-805. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/phn.12776] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32716089]
15. Rosa, W.E.; Dossey, B.M.; Watson, J.; Beck, D.-M.; Upvall, M.J. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: The Ethic and Ethos of Holistic Nursing. J. Holist. Nurs.; 2019; 37, pp. 381-393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0898010119841723]
16. Naciones Unidas. La agenda 2030 y los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible: Una Oportunidad Para América Latina y el Caribe; 2nd ed. Naciones Unidas: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2018.
17. SDSN Australia/Pacific. Getting Started with the SDGs in Universities: A Guide for Universities, Higher Education Institutions, and the Academic Sector; 2nd ed. Sustainable Development Solutions Network—Australia/Pacific: Melbourne, Australia, 2017.
18. Tatto, M.T. Comparative research on teachers and teacher education: Global perspectives to inform UNESCO’s SDG 4 agenda. Oxf. Rev. Educ.; 2021; 47, pp. 25-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1842183]
19. Juergensen, L.; Premji, S.; Wright, B.; Holmes, D.; Bouma, G. “A time to lead” efforts to promote social justice: The promise and challenges of the United Nations 2030 agenda and sustainable development goals for nurses. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.; 2020; 104, 103533. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103533] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32065980]
20. González López, C.; Trillo Alonso, J.F. Relevancia y presencia de los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible en los planes curriculares del grado de enfermería en España. Rev. Caribeña Cienc. Soc.; 2021; pp. 15-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51896/caribe/BIEL4657]
21. Chisingui, A.V.; Costa, N. Teacher education and Sustainable Development Goals: A case study with future biology teachers in an Angolan higher education institution. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 3344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12083344]
22. Mori, R.; Fien, J.; Horne, R. Implementing the UN SDGs in universities: Challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned. Sustain. J. Rec.; 2019; 12, pp. 129-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/sus.2019.0004]
23. Serrate González, S.; Martín Lucas, J.; Caballero Franco, D.; Muñoz Rodríguez, J.M. Responsabilidad universitaria en la implementación de los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible. Eur. J. Child Dev. Educ. Psychopathol.; 2019; 7, pp. 183-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30552/ejpad.v7i2.119]
24. Fundación Carolina and CRUE Universidades Españolas. Questionnaire for the Evaluation of the Adequacy of Spanish Master’s Degree Programs to the Sustainable Development Goals. 2020; Available online: https://www.crue.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Vinculacion-de-los-masteres-a-los-ODS_Informe-completo_VF.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2024).
25. Sianes, A.; Vega-Muñoz, A.; Tirado-Valencia, P.; Ariza-Montes, A. Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on the academic research agenda. A scientometric analysis. PLoS ONE; 2022; 17, e0265409. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409]
26. De Iorio, S.; Zampone, G.; Piccolo, A. Determinant Factors of SDG Disclosure in the University Context. Adm. Sci.; 2022; 12, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010021]
27. Leal Filho, W.; Salvia, A.L.; Do Paço, A.; Anholon, R. Assessing the Role of Sustainability Centers in Higher Education Institutions. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 294, 126295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126295]
28. Cebrián, G.; Junyent, M.; Mulà, I. Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development: Emerging Teaching and Research Developments. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 579. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12020579]
29. Huss, N.; Huynen, M.; Álvarez Nieto, C.; Richardson, J.; López-Medina, I. Embedding sustainability in the nursing curriculum. Sustainability in Higher Education; Leal Filho, U.W.; Bardi, A.; Mifsud, F.; Alvarez-Castañón,. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 193-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78181-1_11]
30. Adams, T.; Goggins, J. Education for Sustainable Development: Mapping the SDGs to University Curricula. Sustainability; 2022; 15, 8340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15108340]
31. Cogut, G.; Anadon, L.D.; Tichner, M. Awareness and implementation of sustainability in higher education: Evidence from Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 8968. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238968]
32. Lajara-Camilleri, N.; Vidal-Meló, A.; Atarés, A.; Lull, C. Spanish university students’ awareness and perception of Sustainable Development Goals and sustainability literacy. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 4552. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14084552]
33. Barth, M.; Godemann, J.; Rieckmann, M.; Stoltenberg, U. Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.; 2016; 8, pp. 416-430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370710823582]
34. Lozano, R.; Barreiro-Gen, M.; Lozano, F.J.; Sammalisto, K. Teaching sustainability in European higher education institutions: Assessing the connections between competences and pedagogical approaches. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 1602. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11061602]
35. Lambrechts, W.; Verhulst, E.; Rymenams, S. Professional development of sustainability competences in higher education: The role of empowerment. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.; 2017; 18, pp. 697-714. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2016-0028]
36. Ramos-Pla, A.; Olondriz-Valverde, A. Construyendo un Mundo Sostenible: ODS Clave Para el Cambio; Dykinson: Madrid, Spain, 2023.
37. Ramos-Pla, A.; Sampedro, B.; del Arco, I.; Marín, V.; Flores-Alarcia, Ò. Training, personal and environmental barriers of online education. Educar; 2023; 59, pp. 457-471. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/educar.1743]
38. Ramos-Pla, A.; Reese, L.; Arce, C.; Balladares, J.; Fiallos, B. Teaching Online: Lessons Learned about Methodological Strategies in Postgraduate Studies. Educ. Sci.; 2022; 12, 688. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100688]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Isabel del Arco 1
; Olondriz-Valverde, Aleix 1
; Casol, Laura Fornons 2 1 Department of Education Sciences, Faculty of Education, Psychology and Social Work, University of Lleida, 25001 Lleida, Spain;
2 Department of Psychology, Sociology and Social Work, Faculty of Education, Psychology and Social Work, University of Lleida, 25001 Lleida, Spain;