Evaluating and Developing Transversal and Sustainability Competencies in University Classrooms to Empower New Generations

Abstract

This study examines the convergence of sustainability competencies in Spanish university curricula. The objective is to analyse and contrast opinions among university teaching staff and students from different fields of study in relation to the presence of competencies and curricular improvements concerning sustainability. The procedure comprised two surveys applied to professors (n₂ = 70) and students (n₃ = 698). The instrument employed was the Register for Evaluating Curricular Sustainability at the University (RECSU), which permits the collation of data pertaining to sustainability-related transversal competencies, including sustainability values, the use of sustainable methodology in the classroom, the Sustainable Development Goals, and principles of action. In its entirety, this study’s approach uses a mixed QUAN (qual) QUAL design. The results indicate which sustainability-aligned competencies and teaching practices are the most and least utilised by teaching staff, as well as which competencies present the greatest opportunity for improvement from the perspective of teaching staff. The findings highlight the relevance of empowering new generations through the development of transversal competencies in university studies. Sustainability competencies should be a priority to ensure that students are prepared to face future eco-social challenges.

1. Introduction

Curricula should empower university students with transversal competencies for sustainability [1,2]. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the concept of sustainability has been a prominent feature of many areas of higher education curricula [3,4,5]. This development can be attributed to the introduction of competence-based learning with a European international dimension, as set forth in the Bologna Declaration in 1999 [6]. The concept of sustainability necessitates the integration of key social and environmental issues across university curricula [7]. The incorporation of competencies for sustainable development into university curricula is regarded as a crucial step towards attaining sustainability. Nevertheless, it is challenging to ascertain which competencies should be prioritised in university studies to have a tangible impact on students’ future professional endeavours. In this context, some findings indicate that curricula should be designed with an emphasis on understanding as an empowerment dimension [2]. Competencies encompass interdisciplinary thinking, problem-solving, and effective communication skills [1]. This initiative serves to raise awareness and to promote responsible and self-motivated participation, which is a necessary condition for addressing the challenges of sustainable development [1,7]. The development of transversal competencies has the potential to enhance sustainability in the education of university students [8]. Furthermore, transformative, interdisciplinary, and intercultural learning provides students with the tools to become agents of change in the field of sustainability. Competency-based education facilitates the generation of novel solutions to complex problems [9]. A Delphi study [10] was conducted with 14 experts on key competencies for sustainability. This study explored convergence in competencies for sustainability, taking into account previous studies in which competencies included interdisciplinary thinking, problem solving, and effective communication skills [1]. Conversely, the key competencies proposed in Wiek’s framework [11] encompass critical thinking, systems thinking, interdisciplinary understanding, normative competence, and strategic competence. According to the previous Delphi study, ref. [10] the core competencies serve as a node of related competencies combining knowledge, skills, motives, and attitude, although the competencies for sustainability are differentiated by including the academic domain. So, in addition to the core competencies, the research experts proposed two additional competencies to enhance the framework: self-regulated learning and generic problem-solving skills. These additional competencies aim to further enrich students’ preparation for careers in sustainability research and practice. The refinement of Wiek’s framework by incorporating these two additional competencies reflects the changing nature of sustainability education and the need to equip students with a diverse skill set to effectively address complex sustainability challenges [10].

Moreover, integrating the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into education develops students’ key competencies for sustainability, with holistic empowerment linked to responsible and self-motivated participation [1,6,12]. Within this framework, other competencies are added, and personal, systemic, creative, and socio-cultural competencies are required to solve complex problems related to sustainable development; moreover, five types of competencies identified [12] were personal competencies, systemic competencies, creative competencies, socio-cultural competencies, and professional competencies. For all the attempts to improve classroom teaching, higher-education institutions should be seen as dynamic engines of research and innovation which enhance the cultural, socio-economic, and ecologically sustainable development of individuals, communities, and nations [1,7,13,14].

The following research questions could be considered: What are the most and least utilised sustainability-aligned competencies and teaching practices by university teaching staff, and which competencies offer the greatest potential for improvement from the perspective of teaching staff? To what extent do students and professors coincide in their opinions on principles of action, such as ethical principles, transversality, holistic approaches, complexity, and university social responsibility, and how can discrepancies be addressed to enhance the curriculum?

In light of the aforementioned research questions, the principal objective of this study is to analyse and contrast the aspects that university lecturers consider most important in their subjects with regard to sustainability, such as “values and attitudes required for society” and “promote communication and the exchange of opinions” under the dimension of “Sustainability values” and “Sustainable methodology in the classroom”, which are described in Table 1. Those they consider least important, such as “In my subject I deal with issues related to equal access to ICTs” are under the dimension of “SDG-related competencies” (Table 3). And finally, based on their experience, the items that professors consider potential areas for improvement in their subjects, such as “The evaluation criteria are transparent”, “In my subject I deal with issues related to responsible production and consumption”, and “My course deals with human rights issues” are under the dimensions of “Sustainability values” and “SDG-related competencies” (Table 4).

In addition, the same aspects related to sustainability are indicated by students who perceive which elements are the most present in their subjects such as “In lessons, values and attitudes required for society are promoted and worked on”, “This subject aims to stimulate creativity and critical thinking”, and “Critical contextualization of knowledge establishing interrelationships with social, economic and environmental, local and/or global problems” under the dimensions of “Sustainability values”, “Sustainable methodology in the classroom”, and “Sustainability competencies” (Table 5). The least considered in university subjects such as “The evaluation criteria are discussed and agreed upon with the subject professor” and “Participation in community processes that promote sustainability” under the dimensions of “Sustainability values” and “Sustainability competencies” (Table 6).

Consequently, the main goal is to facilitate higher education curricular improvement in sustainability learning competencies [13,14].

This manuscript is presented in four sections. After a general description and the theoretical framework of this study are provided in the introduction, the second section describes the materials and methods used in the research. The results are outlined in the next section, with descriptions provided in annotated tables. Finally, the conclusions and discussion provide an opportunity to assess future research.

Empowering New Generations at the University Level

Universities represent an optimal setting for the dissemination of knowledge and the empowerment of future generations. They provide students with training, guidance, and support, enabling them to apply their acquired knowledge, skills, and tools in the service of society [15,16,17]. Therefore, an increasing number of programs are investigating the integration of sustainability competencies into university curricula [18,19]. This integration facilitates students’ exploration, analysis of, and active learning about environmental issues in their local context [19], as well as their understanding of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs [4,5,20,21]. Consequently, with the promotion of social and blue entrepreneurship [22,23] as models that facilitate a deeper understanding of more conscious, equitable, and sustainable human actions [24], concepts such as sustainability and entrepreneurship are inextricably linked in eco-social and socio-environmental education.

The results of surveys on the perceptions and competencies of university students in relation to sustainability provide valuable insights for the improvement of teaching. Each type of competence plays a crucial role in effectively addressing complex sustainability challenges. Personal competencies focus on individual attributes, while systemic competencies emphasise an understanding of interconnected systems. Creative competencies foster innovative problem-solving approaches, while socio-cultural competencies emphasise social and cultural dimensions. Professional competencies include domain-specific knowledge and skills [25]. Conversely, integrating sustainability-related competencies into the university curriculum represents a novel challenge. Following the classification of 41 transversal competencies grouped into five dimensions, the results indicate that employers prioritise work-related basic, socio-relational, and self-management skills. This indicates that higher-education institutions should integrate employability pedagogies [26]. A recent study conducted a systematic review of over 270 relevant articles in order to incorporate new competencies [27]. The authors of the research report that the key sustainability competencies identified in the study were systems thinking, anticipatory competence, normative competence, strategic competence, and interpersonal competence. These key competencies have been extensively employed and are of paramount importance to effectively addressing sustainability challenges. Furthermore, the study highlights that key competencies provide a foundation for individuals to understand complex systems, anticipate future trends, make value-based decisions, develop strategic solutions, and collaborate effectively with others on sustainability initiatives. Furthermore, the study emphasises the significance of emerging competencies. The study identified three emerging sustainability competencies: intrapersonal competency, implementation competency, and integration competency. These emerging competencies serve to complement the core competencies and reflect the evolving nature of sustainability education and practice. Intrapersonal competence is concerned with self-awareness and personal development. Implementation competence is focused on the translation of sustainability principles into action. Integration competence involves the synthesis of diverse perspectives and knowledge in order to promote holistic sustainability solutions.

For the reasons provided above, this paper aims to shed light on studies that are being carried out on this subject, with the intention of sparking a transformation in university classrooms in favour of an empowered future student body capable of understanding complex situations and seeking solutions.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is part of a wider research project comprising three phases, which commenced in 2021. In the initial phase of the study, the curricula and subject programmes (n₁ = 81) of nine Spanish public universities were analysed, with consideration given to all branches of knowledge [7,14]. The second phase, which is the focus of this article, comprised questionnaires administered to professors (n₂ = 70) and students (n₃ = 698) enrolled in their first to fourth year of undergraduate studies. The third phase, which is still in progress, is being developed on the basis of case studies and in-depth interviews with professors who are involved in improvements geared towards sustainability. The research design is of a mixed nature, according to the typology proposed by Creswell [28], and can be represented as follows: QUAN (qual) QUAL.

Quota sampling was used to obtain the sample of teaching staff. The quota sampling was carried out by taking into account 2 categories: branch of knowledge and university. In the Spanish university system, there are 5 branches of knowledge: Arts and Humanities, Sciences, Health Sciences, Social and Legal Sciences, and Architecture and Engineering. The sample included 14 professors from each discipline (14 × 5 = 70). Nine universities took part in the research, all of them in Andalusia (a southern community of Spain) that provide university degrees, i.e., the University of Almeria, the University of Cadiz, the University of Cadiz, the University of Cordoba, the University of Granada, the University of Huelva, the University of Jaen, the University of Malaga, the University Pablo de Olavide, and the University of Seville. Between 7 and 9 professors participated in each university, depending on the size of the university (4 × 7 + 3 × 8 + 2 × 9 = 70). The professors chose a subject they taught and invited the students of that subject to participate in the research (n₃ = 698).

The instrument employed in the second phase was the Register for Evaluating Curriculum Sustainability at the University (RECSU) [29]. This instrument comprises two versions, one for students and one for faculty, and contains 62 items organised into five dimensions associated with transversal competencies. The dimensions are as follows: sustainability values (17 items), sustainable classroom methodology (15 items), SDG-related competencies (20 items), principles of action (6 items), and sustainability competencies [30] (4 items). The instrument was subjected to an expert validation process [29]. For the student version (n₃ = 698), Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was also calculated in order to assess internal consistency (α = 0.98), and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the principal components was performed. The factor analysis (KMO = 0.98; Bartlett’s test of sphericity with χ² = 39,336.53, with 1830 df. p < 0.0005) demonstrated the anticipated five-factor structure, which explained 68.28% of the variance. In response to the RECSU, students, lacking any specific prior knowledge of sustainability, were merely requested to indicate whether the contents and competencies reflected in the items had been covered in the subjects. This information would ultimately permit a comparison of students’ and professors’ responses on the same items. In addition to diagnosing sustainable classroom practices and promoting transversal competencies, the professors’ version of the RECSU allows professors to assess the extent of room for improvement in each item in their subjects on a scale from 0 to 4 (where 0 means ‘no improvement of this item is possible in my subject’, 4 means ‘substantial improvement of this item is possible in my subject’). The remaining values are used to qualify the answer: 1 for negligible improvement, 2 for minor improvement, and 3 for major but not substantial improvement). The instrument itself prompted professors (n₂ = 70) to indicate up to five items from different dimensions that they identified as requiring improvement. With respect to the aforementioned items, each instructor was requested to propose methods for effectively developing these competencies within the context of their subject matter.

The data obtained from the application of the surveys were subjected to a series of analytical procedures, including descriptive analyses, principal component factor analyses, and internal consistency analyses. Furthermore, analyses of variance were conducted to ascertain whether there were any significant differences in the means between the different dimensions of the surveys (analysis of variance; homoscedasticity of variance tests using Levene’s statistic and Dunnett’s T3 statistic for groups with inhomogeneous variances). All analyses were conducted using SPSS v.27 software. This research project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Malaga for studies involving humans (Registration No. 34 CEUMA. Code 47-2023-H).

3. Results

3.1. Professor Results

In response to the RECSU tool, professors engage in a process of reflection and propose actions for improvement on a number of issues. First, they set forth the aspects they consider most important in their respective subjects and describe their approach to addressing these issues (see

Table 1. Selection of RECSU items that professors consider most in university subjects.

Dimension	Items	Mean (SD)
Sustainability values	1.1. In my lessons, values and attitudes required for society are promoted and worked on	3.33 (0.78)
	1.7. My subject contributes to the student’s professional qualification	2.93 (1.21)
	1.10. I promote educational innovation actions in my subject area	2.86 (1.17)
	1.11. I use teaching and learning techniques that promote the participation of my students	2.86 (1.31)
	1.12. The evaluation criteria are transparent	2.84 (1.32)
Sustainable methodology in the classroom	2.10. In this subject, the aim is to promote communication and the exchange of opinions	2.74 (1.34)
	2.11. In this subject, the aim is to encourage reflection and self-learning	2.70 (1.35)
	2.12. In this subject, the aim is to train participative and proactive people who are capable of making responsible decisions	2.68 (1.31)
	2.9. In this subject, the aim is to stimulate creativity and critical thinking	2.65 (1.25)
	2.8. This subject is committed to having an integrated approach to knowledge, procedures, attitudes and values in teaching	2.62 (1.25)
SDG-related competencies	3.2. My course deals with social justice issues	2.41 (1.25)
	3.6. In my subject I deal with issues related to gender equality	2.33 (1.37)
	3.11. In my subject I deal with issues related to ideological plurality and democratic transparency	2.30 (1.23)
	3.8. My course deals with human rights issues	2.29 (1.21)
	3.16. In my subject I deal with values such as solidarity, tolerance, dignity and democratic participation	2.32 (1.22)
Principles of action	4.2. In my subject the holistic principle is considered	2.57 (1.24)
	4.3. In my subject, the principle of complexity is considered	2.55 (1.22)
	4.1. In my subject the ethical principle is considered	2.49 (1.40)
	4.4. In my subject, the principle of glocalisation is considered	2.43 (1.24)
	4.5. In my subject, the principle of transversality is considered	2.41 (1.20)
Sustainability competencies	5.1 Critical contextualisation of knowledge, establishing interrelationships with local and/or global social, economic and environmental problems	2.41 (1.19)
	5.4. Application of ethical principles related to sustainability values in personal and professional behaviours	2.20 (1.18)
	5.2. Sustainable use of resources and the prevention of negative impacts on the natural and social environment	2.10 (1.13) 1

¹ In the sustainability competencies dimension, only three items obtained a mean of more than 2.00. Source: authors’ elaboration.

). Secondly, they indicate the issues to which they attach the least importance in their subjects (Table 3). Subsequently, they identify areas requiring the most improvement through reflection (Table 4) and propose strategies for enhancing them in the subsequent academic year.

As can be seen in Table 1, the professors say that they work more on the values and attitudes required by society (item 1.1). This item has the highest average (mean = 3.33). In general, sustainability values comprise the most highly rated dimension compared to the rest, with higher averages.

Table 2. Analysis of variance of means of RECSU dimensions.

	Sum of Squares	df	Quadratic Mean	F	p
Inter-group	1.77	4	0.443	6.27	0.000
Intra-group	3.96	56	0.071
Total	5.73	60

shows the results of an analysis of variance comparing the means of different dimensions. Dunnet’s T3 statistics (inhomogeneous variances) show that the mean of the sustainability values dimension (MeanSV = 2.52) is significantly higher than that of other dimensions (p < 0.005). Within the same dimension, professors state that their subjects contribute to the professional qualification of students (mean = 2.93), promote innovation (mean = 2.86), promote participation (mean = 2.86), and use transparent evaluation criteria (mean = 2.84). Second, the dimension of sustainable classroom methodology stands out. According to the data, professors report promoting communication and the exchange of opinions (mean = 2.74), encouraging reflection and self-learning (mean = 2.70), training participative and proactive people (mean = 2.68), stimulating creativity and critical thinking (mean = 2.65), and having an integrated approach to knowledge, procedures, attitudes, and values in teaching (mean = 2.65). Third, professors report using the following principles in their subjects: holistic (mean = 2.57), complexity (mean = 2.55), ethical (mean = 2.49), glocalisation (mean = 2.43), and transversality (mean = 2.41). Fourth are competencies related to the SDGs: social justice (mean = 2.41); gender equality (mean = 2.33); solidarity, tolerance, dignity, or democratic participation (mean = 2.33); ideological plurality and democratic transparency (mean = 2.30); and human rights (mean = 2.29). Finally, only three competencies directly related to sustainability [30] are outstanding (mean = 2.00).

Table 3. Selection of RESCU items that professors take less into account in their university subjects.

Dimension	Items	Mean (SD)
Sustainability values	1.13. I discuss and agree on assessment criteria with my students	1.90 (1.58)
Sustainable methodology in the classroom	2.5. This course is committed to actively participate in the discussion, definition, design, implementation and evaluation of actions and policies in the public and private spheres, to help redirect society towards a more sustainable development	2.01 (1.31) 1
SDG-related competencies	3.15. In my subject I deal with issues related to natural and/or respectful parenting	1.55 (1.41)
	3.20. In my subject I deal with issues related to equal access to ICTs	1.83 (1.36)
	3.14. In my subject I deal with issues related to child and/or youth participation	1.84 (1.42)
	3.17. In my subject I deal with issues related to decent and accessible employment	1.94 (1.34)
Principles of action	4.6. In my course, the principle of university social responsibility is considered	2.06 (1.37)
Sustainability competencies	5.3. Participation in community processes that promote sustainability	1.93 (1.28)

¹ Only items with averages below 2.00 were included except in the dimension of sustainable methodology in the classroom and the dimension of the principles of action, for which the lowest rated item was included. Source: authors’ own elaboration.

shows the elements that are the least considered by professors. These include competencies related to the SDGs: natural and respectful parenting (mean = 1.55), equal access to ICTs (mean = 1.83), child and youth participation (mean = 1.55), and decent and accessible employment (mean = 1.55). In the remaining dimensions, the only ones below the mean (mean = 2.00) are discussing and agreeing on assessment criteria with students (mean = 1.90) and participation in community processes that promote sustainability (mean = 1.93).

Table 4. RECSU items that professors consider having more room for improvement in their subjects.

Dimension	Items	Mean (SD)
Sustainability values	1.2. In my lessons, values and attitudes of respect for the environment are promoted and worked on	2.23 (1.35)
	1.3. The competencies worked on in my course are a response to current social needs	2.36 (1.41)
	1.11. I use teaching and learning techniques that promote the participation of my students	2.22 (1.70) 1
	1.12. The evaluation criteria are transparent	2.26 (1.81) 1
	1.5. My students learn to make decisions and take actions based on sustainable criteria	2.22 (1.12) 2
Sustainable methodology in the classroom	2.6. This subject is committed to applying professional knowledge in accordance with universal ethical values that protect human rights	2.35 (1.51)
	2.12. In this subject, the aim is to train participative and proactive people who are capable of making responsible decisions	2.35 (1.65) 1
	2.14. This subject is committed to promoting respect for diversity and a culture of peace	2.32 (1.56)
	2.9. In this subject, the aim is to stimulate creativity and critical thinking	2.32 (1.71) 1
	2.10. In this subject, the aim is to promote communication and the exchange of opinions	2.32 (1.73) 1
SDG-related competencies	3.10. In my subject I deal with issues related to responsible production and consumption	2.10 (1.37)
	3.7. In my subject I deal with health promotion issues	2.01 (1.29)
	3.8. My course deals with human rights issues	2.29 (1.21) 1
	3.9. In my subject I deal with issues related to cultural understanding and peace	2.00 (1.43)

¹ These items were highlighted as being among the most worked on among the subjects. ² This item was noted as one of the least considered items in the subjects. In the dimensions “principles of action” and “sustainability competencies”, no items with a margin of improvement higher than 2.00 were highlighted. Source: authors’ own elaboration.

presents the elements that professors believe could be enhanced in their subjects. In this instance, no elements from the dimensions of principles of action or direct sustainability competencies were indicated, although other related competencies were indicated. Consequently, within the dimension of sustainable methodology in the classroom, professors indicate that they have room for improvement in two elements that had not been identified in the previous tables: the application of professional knowledge in accordance with universal ethical values that protect human rights (mean > 2.35) and the promotion of respect for diversity and a culture of peace (mean > 2.32). It is noteworthy that the respondents also identified up to three elements within this dimension that they consider important in their classrooms (see Table 1). These include training participative and proactive individuals capable of making responsible decisions, stimulating creativity and critical thinking, and promoting communication and the exchange of opinions. This curious fact also occurs in the dimension of competencies related to the SDGs (human rights) and, on two occasions, in the dimension of sustainability values (the use of teaching and learning techniques that promote student participation and the transparency of evaluation criteria). In these instances, the teaching staff identified these elements as being among the most extensively addressed, yet they also indicated a considerable scope for further improvement. In the dimension of sustainability values, a more straightforward result emerges. Elements that had been identified as having been given insufficient consideration (see Table 3) are now highlighted with room for improvement; this is in relation to the students’ abilities to make decisions and carry out actions based on sustainable criteria (mean > 2.22).

3.2. Student Results

When responding using the RECSU tool, students indicate which elements are the most present in their subjects (

Table 5. Selection of RECSU items that students say are most present in their university subjects.

Dimension	Items	Mean (SD)
Sustainability values	1.1. In lessons, values and attitudes required for society are promoted and worked on.	3.36 (0.78) 1
	1.11. The professor uses teaching and learning techniques that promote the participation of my students	3.34 (0.86) 1
	1.7. This subject contributes to my student professional qualification	3.32 (0.89) 1
	1.12. The evaluation criteria are transparent	3.28 (0.90) 1
	1.8. This subject contributes to my comprehensive training as a member of society	3.27 (0.88)
Sustainable methodology in the classroom	2.10. This subject is committed to promoting communication and the exchange of opinions	3.44 (0.82) 1
	2.11. This subject is committed to promoting reflection and self-learning	3.41 (0.82) 1
	2.12. This subject aims to train participatory and proactive people who are capable of making responsible decisions	3.40 (0.82) 1
	2.9. This subject aims to stimulate creativity and critical thinking	3.33 (0.87) 1
	2.14. This subject is committed to promoting respect for diversity and the culture of peace	3.29 (0.91)
SDG-related competencies	3.16. In this subject, topics related to values such as solidarity, tolerance, dignity or democratic participation are discussed	3.09 (1.03) 1
	3.13. This subject deals with topics related to citizen participation and involvement	3.07 (1.05)
	3.8. In this subject, topics related to human rights are discussed	3.02 (0.99) 1
	3.19. This subject deals with topics related to equal access to training or education	2.98 (1.10)
	3.14. In this subject, topics related to child and/or youth participation are discussed	2.96 (1.11) 2
Principles of action	4.1. In this subject, the ethical principle is considered	3.22 (0.87) 1
	4.6. In this subject, the principle of university social responsibility is considered	3.12 (0.91) 2
	4.5. In this subject, the principle of transversality is considered	3.08 (0.94) 1
	4.2. In this subject, the holistic principle is considered	3.03 (0.94) 1
	4.3. In this subject, the principle of complexity is considered	2.98 (0.94) 1
Sustainability competencies	5.1 Critical contextualization of knowledge establishing interrelationships with social, economic and environmental, local and/or global problems	2.98 (1.00) 1
	5.2. Sustainable use of resources and prevention of negative impacts on the natural and social environment	2.90 (1.08) 1
	5.3. Participation in community processes that promote sustainability	2.88 (1.08) 2
	5.4. Application of ethical principles related to sustainability values in personal and professional behaviours	2.20 (1.18)

¹ Elements that coincide with those most considered by professors (see Table 1) ² Elements that coincide with those least considered by professors (see Table 3). Source: authors’ own elaboration.

), and which are the least present in their subjects (

Table 6. Selection of RECSU items that students report to be considered less in their subjects.

Dimension	Items	Mean (SD)
Sustainability values	1.13. The evaluation criteria are discussed and agreed upon with the subject professor	2.53 (1.31) 1
Sustainable methodology in the classroom	2.4. This subject is committed to applying a holistic and systemic approach to the resolution of socio-environmental problems	2.91 (1.04)
SDG-related competencies	3.3. This subject deals with topics related to an equitable and viable economy in the long term	2.36 (1.30)
Principles of action	4.4. In this subject the glocalization principle is considered	2.94 (1.03)
Sustainability competencies	5.3. Participation in community processes that promote sustainability	2.88 (1.15) 1

¹ Elements that coincide with those least considered by professors (see Table 3) Source: authors’ own elaboration.

). In this way, it is easy to compare whether the opinions of professors and their students coincide globally.

In general, it is observed that the students’ assessments coincide largely with those of their professors, although the students’ assessments are on average higher and more homogeneous (with a lower standard deviation). In the dimension of sustainability values, the students indicate that values and attitudes required for society are promoted and worked on (mean = 3.36), that the professor uses teaching and learning techniques that promote their participation (mean = 3.34), that subjects contribute to their professional qualification (mean = 3.32), and that the evaluation criteria are transparent (mean = 3.27). In all cases, they agree with the professors in their assessments, though the average values are higher, and the opinions are more homogeneous (less dispersion of values).

A similar result is found for sustainable methodology in the classroom. The four items most valued by the students coincide with the opinions of the professors: communication and the exchange of opinions are promoted in subjects (mean = 3.44); reflection and self-learning are encouraged (mean = 3.41); people are trained to be participatory and proactive, capable of making responsible decisions (mean = 3.40); and creativity and critical thinking are stimulated (mean = 3.33). Only one item does not coincide with the opinion of the teaching staff. Students indicate that respect for diversity and a culture of peace are promoted in their subjects (mean = 3.29).

Regarding the dimension of competencies related to the SDGs, students indicate that they work more and better in class. For two of the competencies, the students’ reports coincide with the professors’ opinions (see Table 1); see values such as solidarity, tolerance, dignity or democratic participation (mean = 3.09), and human rights (mean = 3.02). In other competencies, opinions regarding strong presence in subjects differ from those indicated by professors; see citizen participation and involvement (mean = 3.07), equal access to training or education (mean = > 2.98), and child and/or juvenile participation (mean = 2.96). In addition, the latter was a competence that the professors indicated they did not work on (see Table 4).

In the dimension of principles of action, there are coinciding opinions between students and professors for four of the five most valued items: ethical principle (mean = 3.22), transversality (mean = 3.08), holistic (mean = 3.03), and complexity (mean = 2.98). However, the principle of university social responsibility highlighted by the students (mean = 3.12) was not one that, in the opinion of the teaching staff, was taken into account in class (see Table 3).

In relation to sustainability competencies, two coincide with what was stated by the professors: the critical contextualization of knowledge establishing interrelationships with social, economic, environmental, local, and/or global problems (mean = 2.98), and the sustainable use of resources and the prevention of negative impacts on the natural and social environment (mean = 2.90). However, for the competence related to participation in community processes that promote sustainability (mean = 2.88), as in previous dimensions, the opinion of the students is exactly the opposite of that of the professors, who did not observe it in their subjects.

Table 6 shows the items least valued by students in each dimension, although none of them are below a mean of 2.00.

Among the least valued items, students and professors concur on the dimensions of sustainability values (evaluation criteria are negotiated and agreed upon with the subject), as well as on sustainability competencies (participation in community processes that promote sustainability). Notably, there is a consensus on the dimensions of sustainability values and sustainability competencies. In the remaining three dimensions, the least valued item differs. With regard to the application of a holistic and systemic approach to the resolution of socio-environmental problems in the context of sustainable methodology in the classroom, students indicate that this is a less present value. In the dimension of competencies related to the SDGs, the item that students perceive to be the least present is the one related to an equitable and viable economy in the long term. In the domain of action principles, the topic that is the least addressed in the classroom, according to the students, is glocalisation.

3.3. Summary of Results

The study results provide a comprehensive analysis of the integration of sustainability competencies in university subjects from both professor and student perspectives.

Professors reflected on the aspects they consider most important and least important in their subjects regarding sustainability. They identified areas for improvement and proposed strategies for enhancing these aspects in future academic years. Key areas highlighted by professors included promoting values and attitudes required for society, contributing to students’ professional qualifications, and fostering educational innovation and student participation.

Students indicated which elements of sustainability were most and least present in their subjects. They noted the promotion of societal values and attitudes, the use of participatory teaching and learning techniques, and the contribution of subjects to their professional qualifications and comprehensive training. Students also highlighted the importance of promoting communication, self-learning, creativity, critical thinking, and respect for diversity.

Students’ assessments generally align with professors’ assessments, with students’ scores being higher and more consistent than professors’ evaluations. Students feel that sustainability values are promoted in the classroom, with an emphasis on societal values, participation-promoting teaching techniques, professional qualification, and transparent evaluation criteria.

Students and professors agree on competencies related to solidarity, tolerance, dignity, democratic participation, and human rights. However, there are discrepancies in opinions regarding competencies like citizen participation, equal access to education, and child/juvenile participation. There is a discrepancy between students and professors regarding the emphasis on university social responsibility in class, with students highlighting its importance more than the teaching staff.

The study emphasises the importance of sustainability competencies in university curricula to empower new generations. It highlights the need for enhancing teaching practices related to sustainability to prepare students for future eco-social challenges.

4. Discussion

The environmental crisis and the deterioration of and dangers to our ecosystems provide a context and rationale for the emergence of sustainability education. Thus, it is imperative to consider the integration of sustainability principles within the educational system. It is the responsibility of the latter to incorporate sustainability values, attitudes, and competencies into curricula [31].

The results of this study indicate that teachers perceive that their work in the classroom is focused on promoting socially required values. This is an issue with which students agree but give a lower rating. It is true that both teachers and students experience this phenomenon from different points of view. Teachers do so from the perspective of teaching, which is closer to the programmatic level, while students do so from the perspective of learning, seeking the applied dimension. In both cases, the significance of the values and attitudes that society demands through skills is emphasised, thereby achieving a necessary comprehensive education that enables students to face new challenges and to adapt, create, or modify the eco-social context [32].

The methodological dimension, which teachers promote and students practice, also presents similar aspects in both samples. Teachers demonstrate a continuous interest in the communicative aspect and exchanges of opinions, which they plan to contribute to the overall development of students’ professional qualifications [12]. However, students perceive a higher level of participation than that shown by teachers. In conclusion, both parties concur that the work is communicative and integrated into the process of socialisation. The opposite situation would be an isolating individualism, which is evidenced in numerous instances in contemporary society. It is therefore essential to develop competencies that transcend this singular pedagogical approach and facilitate mediation for the advancement of human development [33].

Achieving competencies for sustainability requires the incorporation of participatory and collaborative methodologies that are focused on experience, action, and problem-solving. The defining characteristics of these competencies are their interactive, participatory, action-oriented, and research-oriented nature [34]

It is striking that both students and teachers give little importance to the values defended in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to glocalization. Even in this area of SDG competence, both groups differ when considering values such as solidarity and tolerance, which are better seen by teachers. Instead, they emphasize egalitarianism and participation, especially among students, since, in addition, teachers recognize that they do not promote them adequately [35].

Professors’ and students’ opinions coincide in the dimension of sustainability competencies; both groups see that the contextualization of knowledge is useful for sustainability, relating it to social, economic and environmental problems, whether in the local context or the general context. This context is appropriate for the development of training courses that promote environmental competencies focused on the critical and democratic citizenship of students, so that they can face environmental problems. These findings align with those of other studies that posit that competencies facilitate the advancement of comprehensive education oriented towards environmental improvement [36].

There is a consensus between the two groups with regard to the utilisation of sustainable resources and the prevention of adverse environmental impacts. However, when the subject of raising community awareness is broached, students evince the greatest enthusiasm for sustainability, whereas professors adopt a more pessimistic stance. It can be seen that the educational experience of students is presided over by a strong interest in extending the principles of sustainability to society in general, as is the case of considering on many occasions what practical application these principles can have in the environment, whether local or global. There is no doubt that this beneficial competence can and should be incorporated into the general strategy of environmental education planning.

It is significant to highlight that professors do not place sufficient emphasis on the principles of action and sustainability competencies that could enhance the quality of their subjects. While professors acknowledge the potential for enhancement in their pedagogical performance, this is inextricably linked to the values held most closely by their students, such as the presentation of the aforementioned topics. In particular, professors emphasise the importance of a human rights framework and the active participation of students. This aspiration to enhance student engagement appears to be a pervasive sentiment among university faculty.

The strengths of the study can be summarised as follows. Firstly, the study’s mixed research design, combining quantitative and qualitative methods, allows for a comprehensive analysis of sustainability competencies in Spanish university curricula. Secondly, the study’s focus on contrasting the perspectives of both teaching staff and students provides a well-rounded view of the integration of sustainability in university subjects. The identification of specific areas for improvement, such as the application of professional knowledge in alignment with ethical values and the promotion of diversity and peace, offers actionable insights for curriculum enhancement. Finally, the findings offer clear implications for curricular improvements and policy changes, making the research highly relevant for educational stakeholders.

At the same time, it is also possible to highlight some limitations of the study. Firstly, the sample size and representativeness may be limited, which may not fully represent the diversity of perspectives across all Spanish universities. Therefore, in future studies, it will be necessary to increase the representativeness of the samples and make them more representative. Secondly, the study relies on self-reported data from professors and students, which can be subject to bias and inaccuracies, affecting the reliability of the results. For this reason, it will be necessary to replicate this same study with other populations and different samples. This will make the research more valid and reliable. Finally, while the study identifies areas for curricular improvement, it may not fully address the practical challenges of implementing these changes within existing university structures and resources.

5. Conclusions

The environmental crisis and the deterioration of ecosystems highlight an urgent need to integrate sustainability education into higher education. It is essential that the curriculum includes values, attitudes, and competencies related to sustainability, recognizing that both professors and students value these aspects, though from different perspectives. Methodologically, both groups agree on the promotion of communicative and participatory methods that encourage socialisation and avoid individualism, underlining the importance of developing competencies that facilitate comprehensive human development.

Sustainability competencies require active, collaborative, and problem-solving approaches to teaching and learning that are critical for preparing students for eco-social challenges. Although there is less importance given to the Sustainable Development Goals and glocalization, the contextualization of knowledge in social, economic, and environmental problems is crucial for sustainability. Training in environmental skills is essential for critical and democratic citizen education. Both professors and students agree on the importance of using sustainable resources and preventing negative impacts on the environment, although students show greater enthusiasm for raising awareness in community settings, suggesting an interest in disseminating the principles of sustainability in society.

The study has enabled us to analyse and contrast the perspectives of university professors and students in relation to the integration of sustainability in their subjects. This study identified aspects of sustainability that professors consider to be of greater or lesser importance, as well as areas that could benefit from further development. In turn, the students identified the elements of sustainability that they perceive to be more prevalent and those that they consider to be less frequently addressed in their subjects. It is imperative that these findings be taken into account when implementing curricular improvements to reinforce learning competencies in sustainability.

Furthermore, the need to empower new generations with the requisite transversal skills for success in higher education is underscored. It is imperative that sustainability competencies are prioritised in order to ensure that students are adequately prepared to confront future eco-social challenges. The enhancement of these competencies facilitates the delivery of a comprehensive education that not only addresses environmental issues but also equips students with the skills to become agents of positive change within society.

The study has allowed us to analyse and contrast the perspectives of university professors and students regarding the integration of sustainability into their subjects. It highlights how learning competencies in sustainability empower the new generations of university students. This study identified aspects of sustainability that professors consider to be of greater or lesser importance, as well as areas that could benefit from further development. As noted in the survey results, key areas highlighted by teachers included the promotion of values and attitudes required by society, the contribution to students’ professional qualifications, and the promotion of educational innovation and student participation. Conversely, students identified the elements of sustainability they perceive to be more prevalent and those they consider to be less frequently addressed in their subjects. These findings must be considered when implementing curricular improvements aimed at reinforcing sustainability learning competencies.

Enhancing university curricula to incorporate sustainability values and competencies is crucial for preparing students for future eco-social challenges. University policymakers should prioritise the integration of competencies related to solidarity, tolerance, dignity, democratic participation, and human rights, as identified by both students and professors. Addressing discrepancies in opinions between students and professors regarding certain competencies, such as citizen participation, equal access to education, and juvenile participation, can lead to a more comprehensive and inclusive curriculum.

Moreover, the need to empower new generations with the necessary transversal skills for success in higher education is emphasised. Prioritising sustainability competencies ensures that students are adequately prepared to confront future eco-social challenges. Enhancing these competencies provides a comprehensive education that not only addresses environmental issues but also equips students with the skills to become agents of positive change within society.