Is university teaching aligned with the sustainable development goals possible? An approach through the virtual training of university professors

1Title: IS UNIVERSITY TEACHING ALIGNED WITH THE SDGs POSSIBLE? AN APPROACH THROUGH THE 2VIRTUAL TRAINING OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS. 3Espejo-Antúnez, Luis 4Departamento de Terapéutica Médico-Quirúrgica, Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de 5Extremadura. Badajoz (España). ORCID: 0000-0002-2685-7593. 6Corrales-Serrano, Mario 7Departamento de Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales, Lengua y Literatura, Facultad de Formación del Profesorado, 8Universidad de Extremadura. Cáceres (España). ORCID: 0000-0001-8520-9222 9Zamora-Polo, Francisco 10Departamento de Ingeniería del Diseño, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad de Sevilla. Sevilla (España). ORCID: 110000-0002-9700-6809. Corresponding author: fzpo[email protected] 12Cardero-Durán, Mª Ángeles 13Departamento de Terapéutica Médico-Quirúrgica, Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de 14Extremadura. Badajoz (España). ORCID: 0000-0003-1648-6108 15Abstract: 16Purpose 17The aim of the study was to determine the degree of knowledge acquired by university professors after receiving virtual 18training on the SDGs and their relationship with the contents of the subjects taught. 19Design/methodology/approach 20A 40-hour virtual course on SGDs and Higher Education was designed. To evaluate professor' knowledge, a 21questionnaire was administered to professors from different fields of knowledge. The questionnaire consists of 25 22questions divided into two sections: section 1: Q1-Q8 (knowledge and access to information) and section 2: Q9-Q25 23(the relationship of the subjects taught with the 17 SDGs). The virtual classroom was used to do the questionnaire and 24it lasted 10 minutes. The internal consistency of the different constructs was analyzed by Cronbach's Alpha, KMO test 25and Marlett test. Descriptive, inferential and interferential analysis by groups were also performed. 26Findings 27Statistical analysis showed a high reliability for the constructs (Smallest Cronbach's Alpha = 0.908). Virtual teaching to 28teachers significantly improves the results of section 1 (Q1-Q8) (p<0.001) and section 2 (Q9-Q25) (p<0.001) of the 29questionnaire. Teachers aged 40-50 years significantly associate the contents of their subjects with SDG1 (Q9, p=0.02), 30SDG2 (Q10, p=0.00) and SDG8 (Q16, p=0.04) previous course. In addition, the area of origin may influence knowledge 31about the SDGs. At the end of the course, there were no significant differences between teachers by age, field of 32knowledge or academic category. 33Originality/value 34Virtual training on SDGs unifies the knowledge of university faculty, promoting academic curricula aligned to sustainable 35training, regardless of age, gender, academic category, or field of knowledge. 36Keywords: 37SDGs, Higher Education, virtual training, Sustainable, teacher training, digitalization. 38Submitted: 13-Jun-2024 39Revised version: 18-Dec-2024 40 411.Introduction 42 43The importance of transversal competences in university education has grown in recent years (Aránguiz 44Salazar,2012; Salcines Talledo et al.,2018). Transversal competencies can be defined as those 45competencies that are important for different areas of knowledge, work sectors and that can be applied in 46different contexts. These competencies are not related to a specific profession. The European Higher 47Education Area (EHEA) has revitalised the role of this type of teaching, considering it to be a basic element 48for the social transformation that universities must lead (Mir-Acebrón, 2008). Numerous studies have 49analysed the impact of specific competences (directly related to the profession) and those related to the 50exercise of a committed and critical citizenship on the teaching of students (Zamora-Polo et al, 2019). In this 51context, it is necessary to introduce into the field of higher education the major global challenges facing 52today's society, and to which the university cannot remain indifferent (Ferrer-Carbonell et al., 2004). These 53challenges have to do with aspects related to globalisation, ecological transition, digitalisation and the well54being of society, among others (Acevedo-Duque et al., 2023; Confraria, et al., 2024). For universities to 55respond to these questions, the following premises must be followed: i) to address the social challenges of 56our times from a global approach, integrating a joint vision between disciplines, and ii) to implement specific 57training for all university teaching staff (Miró and Jaume i Capó, 2011; Grácio et al., 2023). To develop this 58training, initiatives and projects are emerging that consider the introduction of specific elements for teacher 59training in relation to this sensitivity (Morales and Cuevas, 2012). 60 611.1 Sustainable development as cross-cutting content in teaching-learning processes 63Within this field of soft skills, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an important reference, 64constituting a challenge for university teaching (Blanco-Portela et al., 2020; Expósito and Sánchez, 2020; 65Anderson et al., 2024). Since their adoption by the UN in 2015, the SDGs have provided a framework for all 66levels of society, committing nations to the achievement of the goals outlined for building a sustainable society 67(de la Rosa, Giménez and de la Calle, 2019). 68The SDGs approved in 2015 represent a work agenda for the period from 2015 to 2030. In the context of 69higher education, numerous studies have addressed the catalytic impact of universities on the achievement 70of the SDGs (Boni et al., 2016). One of the main characteristics of the Sustainable Development Goals, 71compared to the Millennium Development Goals (their predecessors), is that they are aimed at both 72developing and developed countries. 73A detailed analysis of the institutional documents published by associations and governmental entities is 74beyond the scope of this paper. However, by way of example, institutions such as UNESCO have a roadmap 75for the promotion of education for sustainable development in the context of the SDGs (UNESCO, 2020). 76Similarly, a reflection on the role of universities in the achievement of the SDGs sponsored by UNESCO can 77be found in UNESCO (2022). In the same way, SDSN Australia/Pacific published guidance on the role of 78higher education institutions and academia in achieving the SDGs (SDSN, 2017). 79On the other hand, tools for evaluating the implementation of the SDGs in universities are proliferating. For 80example, the International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean has created the 81SET4HEI tool (UNESCO IESALC, 2024). 82Previous studies have highlighted the role of the university in achieving sustainable social development 83(Green, 2013; Sonetti, Sarrica and Norton, 2021; Tziganuk and Gliedt, 2017). In any case, it is necessary to 84introduce the SDGs at the university level. Thus, some studies see the SDGs as both a challenge and an 85opportunity for university education (Gonzaga Añazco et al., 2021; Leal Filho et al., 2019; Litzner and Rieß, 862019; Lytovchenko et al., 2021). 87Among the difficulties encountered in previous studies for the integration of the SDGs in the curriculum is the 88lack of teacher training (Leal Filho, 2019) and the low appreciation of this type of initiatives in the teachers' 89professional curriculum 90Other studies suggest that university education can be used to build a better world through soft skills related 91to the SDGs. In this sense, there are previous experiences in the field of experimental sciences (Tomazello 92and Guimarães, 2007), environmental education, linking the contents of this subject to SDG13 and SDG15, 93linking the environment to the SDGs (Vega-Marcote and Álvarez-Suárez, 2005; Sierra et al., 2016), with 94educational sciences (Reyes-Sánchez et al., 2016), with health sciences (Anderson et al., 2024) or around 95social sciences relating to some SDGs such as SDG13, SDG15 or SDG4 respectively (Place, 2010). 96On the other hand, Zamora-Polo et al have shown interest in finding out what level of information students 97have about the SDGs (Zamora-Polo et al., 2019) as well as in the analysis of the impact of experiences linked 98to SDG awareness-raising. However, even though training for sustainability has been identified as a 99challenge in teacher education, it is not yet possible to identify the need for sustainability as a key issue 100(Vilches and Pérez, 2012), the number of studies focusing on teacher training on how to introduce cross101cutting SDG-oriented content in university degrees is very limited (Lee et al., 2023; Arango-Uribe et al., 2023). 102For this, projects that aim to integrate the SDGs into teacher training are necessary (Bernis-Carro, 2019). 103The aim of this study was to assess the degree of perception of knowledge acquired by university professors 104after receiving virtual training course on the SDGs and their relationship with their teaching. 1052. Materials and Methods 106This was a descriptive study developed following the completion of a questionnaire adapted from a 107previous study by Zamora-Polo et al. (2019). This study was supervised by the Bioethics Committee of the 108University of Extremadura, Spain, with ethics approval number 101/2021. 1092.1 Sample Description 110A total of 60 university teachers belonging to the G9 group of Spanish universities voluntarily agreed to virtual 111training course. This group constitutes a university alliance that aims to develop university policies through 112common strategies. These include promoting joint teaching activities, stimulating the exchange of knowledge 113and collaboration with economic and social agents. The choice of these universities was based on a previous 114study by the authors in which differences were found in teachers' motivations. The authors of the present 115study considered this issue of interest because of the representativeness of the study population. 116In terms of ethical procedures, all participants gave informed consent and gave their consent to use their 117responses for our research for academic purposes. To maintain anonymity, all names were coded. This 118encouraged the teachers to freely express their opinions. Of the total number of teachers who accessed the 119virtual training (n=60), those who met the following inclusion criteria participated in this study: 1201. Teachers (fullor part-time) from the G9 group of Spanish universities. This group is made up of the 121following public universities in Spain: Cantabria, Castilla La Mancha, Extremadura, Illes Balears, La Rioja, 122Navarra, Oviedo, Basque Country, and Zaragoza. 1232. Teachers with a minimum of two full academic years of teaching experience in higher education. 1243. Teachers who had access to the Moodle platform of the G9 group of Spanish universities and carried out 125at least one activity from the Teacher Training Service during the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 academic 126years. 127Those lecturers who did not respond to the questionnaire in the period were excluded, as were those who 128did not have a contractual/employment relationship with any of the universities during the recruitment period. 129Ultimately, the sample consisted of a total of 44 university teachers. 130 1312.2 Data collection 132The questionnaire had previously been used by at least thirteen international higher education institutions. 133This questionnaire is presented in Appendix A (Supplementary material). The questionnaire collected 134sociological data from teachers and was structured in two sections. The first section contained questions 135(Q1-Q8) relating to their previous knowledge of the SDGs as well as the source of this knowledge. Questions 136Q1-Q4 provide information on knowledge of the SDGs and will be analyzed in sections 3.1 and 3.2 as 137construct 1 (C1), questions Q5-Q8 provide information on the source of information on the SDGs, in sections 1383.1. and 3.2 they will be identified as construct 2 (C2). In the second section, the professors were asked 139about the relationship between the SDGs and the content and competencies they teach in their 140undergraduate and/or master's degree courses at their universities (section 2, Q9-Q25) (these questions 141were grouped in construct 3, C3). Subsequently, the adapted draft questionnaire was reviewed by two 142independent experts with more than 10 years of teaching and research experience in the field of educational 143sciences. They made some modifications to the wording of the questions. Teachers completed the form 144anonymously online as in previous studies (Zamora-Polo et al., 2019), using the Google Form® tool (Google 145LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA), which was enabled for teachers who completed the tasks set by the course 146teachers in due time and form (both the initial tasks and the course completion tasks). 147Finally, the questionnaire consisted of 25 items with Likert-type responses ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) 148to 5 (strongly agree). The time taken to complete the questionnaire was no more than 10 minutes. 149The questionnaire was completed together with other teacher training activities. The information reported 150using this questionnaire aimed to determine the degree of knowledge prior to completing the course, as well 151as the impact of the course on the acquisition of knowledge about the SDGs and their potential 152implementation in university teaching. This tool has been used by other researchers who have carried out 153similar studies exploring knowledge of the SDGs (Anderson et al., 2024). 154The questionnaire was provided online through the Moodle© virtual platform using a Google Forms link. This 155format has advantages, as it allows for almost automatic transcription, although it may have a lower response 156rate. Beforehand, the teachers were informed about the nature of this study and its objectives. 157 1582.3 Virtual training course on SDGs for university teachers 159The tool used to train the teachers was a virtual training course entitled “Transversalisation of the University? 160Promoting professional ethics and sustainability through the inclusion of the Sustainable Development Goals”. 161This training course was disseminated through an offer made by the guidance and teacher training services 162of the 9 Spanish public universities that make up the G9 group. This mixed-modality 163(asynchronous/synchronous) course was virtual and had a duration of 40 hours. It was divided into four 164thematic axes with the following titles: 1) Basis of the course: Awareness and motivation; 2) Teachers and 165students with ethics of commitment; 3) Promoting moral reasoning: A practical approach to university 166teaching; and 4) Development of transversal competences through the SDGs: Applications in the classroom. 167 168All of these axes were aligned with the role of university education in the sustainable human development of 169students and teachers. In all thematic axes of the training course, the SDGs were discussed as examples for 170the use of methodologies and teaching activities in different degrees. Each thematic axis had 10 identically 171distributed hours of virtual training: 172(i) Presentation of theoretical contents by the course lecturer (3 hours): The course lecturer shared two video 173files (1.5 hours each) with content on the thematic axis in question. These recordings were asynchronous, 174so the teachers receiving the training could consult them at any time. 175ii) Reading and viewing digital documents in the virtual environment (2 hours): each thematic axis had three 176documents (e.g., scientific articles) and a video that complemented the rationale of the thematic axis in 177question. 178iii) Activities and tasks (3 hours): The contents were developed with resources (forums, questionnaires, 179workshops, etc.) from the virtual environment. These tasks required individual and group participation, 180encouraging teachers to learn about practical applications of ethics in their degrees through the development 181of individual and collective critical thinking. The task(s) of each thematic axis had to be handed in before the 182beginning of the next thematic axis. 183iv) Synchronous connection between trainer and trainee teachers (2 hours): this section was intended to 184resolve doubts and was used to share the contents dealt with in each thematic axis. 185There were 4 teacher trainers in total, and each of them was dedicated to one of the thematic axes 186established in the design of the course. At the end of the course, in order to pass the evaluation, all trained 187teachers had to meet the following criteria: 1) deliver all activities/tasks of each thematic axis, 2) attend at 188least 60% of section iv of each thematic axis, and 3) fill in the satisfaction survey at the end of the course. 189Figure 1 shows the main pillars of the training course. 197 Figure 1. Fundamental pillars of the training experience analysed in this study (own elaboration). 198 199 The main goals pursued with this training course were as follows: 200 To raise teachers' awareness of the development of competences to produce ethically responsible students. To this end, participating teachers received training on the development of what some authors call ‘asymmetrical bilingualism’. 203 To carry out teaching activities for the development of transversal competences in the bachelor's and master's degrees. To this end, teaching activities were proposed for application in the classroom for different fields of knowledge. The aim was to mainstream competences in university degrees through the challenges of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 2082.4 Data process 209To carry out this research, the results generated by a specific training course for teachers whose central 210theme was the implementation of transversal competences in university teaching were analyzed. The main 211parameters of the analysis were as follows: 212The teachers' concept of the relationship between their teaching and the SDGs. 213The ability to generate applications in the classroom in which the SDGs were included in a cross-cutting 214manner within their teaching fields. 215The research software IBM SPSS Statistics 29.01.0 was used to carry out this analysis. Theoretical foundation Professional Ethic Moral development SDG Transversal competences 216First, the internal consistency of the questionnaire was analysed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient (Oviedo 217and Campo-Arias, 2005). The law of science relating to this coefficient indicates that a set of items is part of 218the same reliable construct when the index is 0.8. To complete the analysis, a factor analysis of the 219questionnaire was performed using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkim (KMO) test and the Bartlett sphericity test to 220check and determine whether its structure was valid (Pizarro Romero & Martínez Mora, 2020). Once the 221reliability and validity of the questionnaire had been checked, to respond to the research objectives, a 222descriptive analysis was first carried out using a frequency table to determine the distribution of the sample 223based on demographic variables and academic characteristics. Subsequently, inferential analysis was 224carried out with a T-test to compare dependent samples and to determine whether the grouping variables 225showed significant changes before and after the training, following a Levene's test to assess the equality of 226variances. The level of significance was p<0.05. The results obtained through this quantitative analysis 227process are presented below in the Results section. 2283. Results 2293.1 Questionnaire validation 230The elaborated questionnaire was designed to measure two different sections. The first of them is related to 231the teachers’ perception of the knowledge and source information of Sustainable Development Goals 232(involving Q1-Q8). The second one is related to the relationship between the 17 SDGs and the subjects they 233teach (Q9-Q25). The first section was divided into two constructs (C1 and C2) to measure separately 234questions related to prior knowledge (Q1-Q4) and information sources (Q5-Q8). The second section is C3 235(Q9-Q25). Table 1 shows the results obtained in the reliability and validity tests of the questionnaire, as well 236as for each of the sections. As can be seen, the results show a high level of internal consistency among all 237the items that make up each of the sections, since the value of the Alpha Cronbach test is higher as indicated 238by the scientific literature for an adequate analysis of internal consistency of the construct. Table 1: Reliability and Validity Tests of the Questionnaire Cronbach´s Alpha KMO test Bartlett test Questionnaire Section 1+ Section 20.912 0.600 <0.001 Section 1 C1+C2: (Q1-Q8) 0.908 0.867 <0.001 Section 2 C3: (Q9-Q25) 0.914 0.754 <0.001 C1: Construct 1; C2: Construct 2; C3: Construct 3 239 2403.2 Description of the Results 241As can be seen, the analysis of the results can be done by linking two blocks, section 1 presents two 242constructs (C1 and C2) and section 2 presents C3. In this respect, Table 2 presents the quantitative results, 243demonstrating how the training received enhances the mean scores of the different constructs. 244 Table 2: Mean of constructs Mean DT IC 95% (min-max) Pre 23.41 7.91 21-25.81 C1+C2: (Q1-Q8) Post 30.57 6.35 28.54-32.60 Pre 13.07 4.63 11.66-14.47 C1: Knowledge (Q1-Q4) Post 16.85 3.16 15.84-17.86 Pre 10.34 3.70 9.21-11.47 Section 1 C2: Access to Information (Q5-Q8) Post 13.73 3.83 12.50-14.95 Pre 53.59 14.24 49.26-57.92 Section 2 C3:(Q9-Q25) Post 64.70 13.67 60.32-69.07 C1: Construct 1; C2: Construct 2; C3: Construct 3 245 246The distribution of the sample in the different categories such as academic figure, area of knowledge, 247experiences of knowledge about the SDGs and the sociodemographic variables gender and age are shown 248in Table 3. The percentage of women (62.3%) was higher than that of men and the age range of 40-50 years 249(30.2%) was the predominant one in the sample. The years of teaching experience of the participants was 25010.5 years. Table 3. Participants in the study in frequency percentage Title Category Frequency (%) Gender Male 11 (20.8%) Female 33 (62.3%) Age (years) <30 7 (13.2%) 30-40 14 (26.4%) 40-50 16 (30.2%) >50 7 (3.2%) Academic Position Lectures 18 (34%) Reader 7 (13.2%) Associate Lecturer 7 (13.2%) Professor 1 (1.9%) Others 11 (20.8%) Field of knowledge Technician 5 (9.4%) Biosanitary 2 (3.8%) Scientist 8 (15.1%) Social 26 (49.1%) Humanistic 3 (5.7%) Experiences with SDG Yes 27 (50.9%) No 17 (32.1%) 251 252 3.3 Inferential Analysis 253To answer the objectives, Table 4 shows the statistics (mean, SD, 95% CI) of section 1 of the 254questionnaire (Q1-Q8) where the knowledge and access to information of the sample before and after the 3876. References 388Abo-Khalil, A. G. (2024), “Integrating Sustainability into Higher Education Challenges and Opportunities for Universities Worldwide”, Heliyon, Vol. 10 No. 9, e29946, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29946. 390Acevedo-Duque, Á., Jiménez-Bucarey, C., Prado-Sabido, T., Fernández-Mantilla, M.M., Merino-Flores, I., Izquierdo-Marín, S.S. and Valle-Palomino, N. (2023), “Education for Sustainable Development: Challenges for Postgraduate Programmes”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 20 No. 3, doi: 10.3390/ijerph20031759 . 394Albareda-Tiana, S., Vidal-Raméntol, S., Pujol-Valls, M., & Fernández-Morilla, M. (2018), “Holistic approaches to develop sustainability and research competencies in pre-service teacher training”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 10, 3698, doi:10.3390/su10103698. 397Anderson, T., Stark, P., Craig, S., McMullan, J., Anderson, G., Hughes, C., Gormley, K., Killough, J., McLaughlin-Borlace, N., Steele, L., Lynch, S., Sánchez-Martín, J., Zamora-Polo, F., Rodman, A., Li, R., & Mitchell, G. (2024), “Co-design and evaluation of an audio podcast about sustainable development goals for undergraduate nursing and midwifery students”, BMC Medical Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, 1253, doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06268-3. 402Annan-Diab, F., & Molinari, C. (2017). “Interdisciplinarity: Practical approach to advancing education for sustainability and for the Sustainable Development Goals”, The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 73-83, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.006. 405Aránguiz Salazar, C. (2012), “Competencias transversales en los planes de estudio de las titulaciones de grado: los esfuerzos de Bolonia en calidad universitaria”, Entornos, Vol. 3 No. 25, pp. 105–117, doi :10.25054/01247905.430. 408Arango-Uribe, M.L., Barrera-Causil, C.J., Pallares, V., Rojas, J.M., Mercado Díaz, L.R., Marrone, R. and Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2023), “Statistical modelling of the impact of online courses in higher education on sustainable development”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 404-425, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-12-2021-0495. 412Bernis Carro, C. (2019), “Integrando formación e investigación sobre la transversalidad de los ODS: Género y salud, dimensiones esenciales de la sostenibilidad”, Ciencia, Técnica y Mainstreaming Social. Vol. 3, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.4995/citecma.2019.11002. 415Blanco-Portela, N., de Fátima Poza-Vilches, M., Junyent-Pubill, M., Collazo-Expósito, L., Solís-Espallargas, C., del Álamo, J.B. and Gutiérrez-Pérez, J. (2020), “Action-participatory research for the university teachers training on education for sustainability: ‘Academy Sustainability Latin America’”, Profesorado, Vol. 24 No. 3, doi: 10.30827/PROFESORADO.V24I3.15555. 419Boni, A., Lopez-Fogues, A., & Walker, M. (2016), “Higher education and the post-2015 agenda: A contribution from the human development approach”, Journal of Global Ethics, Vol. 12 No. 1,pp. 1728. doi: 10.1080/17449626.2016.1148757. 422Canaran, Ö., & Bayram, (2024), “English language teacher trainers’ capacity building in sustainable development goals through MOOCs”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp.445–469, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-07-2022-022. 425Carey, J.C., Beitelspacher, L.S., Tosti-Kharas, J. and Swanson, E. (2021), “A Resource-Efficient Modular Course Design for Co-Teaching Integrated Sustainability in Higher Education: Developing the Next Generation of Entrepreneurial Leaders”, Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp.169-193 doi: 10.1177/2515127420969967. 429Colás-Bravo, P., Conde-Jiménez, J. and Reyes-De-cózar, S. (2021), “Sustainability and digital teaching competence in higher education”, Sustainability, Vol.13, No. 22, 12354 doi: 10.3390/su132212354. 431Confraria, H., Ciarli, T. and Noyons, E. (2024), “Countries’ research priorities in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals”, Research Policy, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 1-16 doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104950. 433Crespo, B., Míguez-Álvarez, C., Arce, M. E., Cuevas, M., & Míguez, J. L. (2017), “The sustainable development goals: An experience on higher education”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 8, 1353. 10.3390/su9081353. 436Danaher, M., Wu, J., & Hewson, M. (2021), “Sustainability: A regional Australian experience of educating secondary geography teachers”, Education Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 3, 126. doi: 10.3390/educsci11030126. 439Davletova, S. (2016), “Sustainability teaching in higher education institutions of Kazakhstan”, International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, Vol. 26 No. 3, doi: 10.1504/IJCEELL.2016.078451. 442Delgado, S., Suero, S., & Cano, B. (2022), “Sustainability Teaching in Higher Education and Universities in Spain”, The Wiley Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education Learning and Teaching, pp. 277296, doi: 10.1002/9781119852858.ch14. 445De la Rosa Ruiz, D., Giménez Armentia, P., & de la Calle Maldonado, C. (2019), “Educación para el desarrollo sostenible: el papel de la universidad en la Agenda 2030”, Revista Prisma Social, Vol. 25, pp. 179–202. 448Dlouhá, J., & Pospíšilová, M. (2018) “Education for Sustainable Development Goals in public debate: The importance of participatory research in reflecting and supporting the consultation process in developing a vision for Czech education”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 4314-4327, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.145. 452Expósito, L.M.C. and Sánchez, J.G. (2020), “Implementation of SDGs in university teaching: A course for professional development of teachers in education for sustainability for a transformative action”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 19, doi: 10.3390/su12198267. 455Ferrer-Carbonell, E. A., Lazo-Machado, J. & Pierra-Conde, A. (2004), “Universidad y Desarrollo Sostenible.”, Pedagogía Universitaria, Vol. 9 No. 3., pp. 86-95 457Gonzaga Añazco, S.J., Molina Sánchez, J.N. and Espinoza Villacis, M.P. (2021), “Universidad y Medio Ambiente. Retos y desafíos hacia el desarrollo sostenible. Caso Universidad Metropolitana sede Machala”, INNOVA Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3.2, doi: 10.33890/innova.v6.n3.2.2021.1914. 460Grácio, L., Aguiar, H., Pires, H., and Carapeto, M. J. (2023), “Teaching and quality of teaching: conceptions of higher education professors in Sao Tome and Principe”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 8, 1144147, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1144147. 463Green, T.L. (2013), “Teaching (un)sustainability? University sustainability commitments and student experiences of introductory economics”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 94, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.003. 466IBM corporation (2013). “IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows”. 467Lazzarini, B., Pérez-Foguet, A., & Boni, A. (2018), “Key characteristics of academics promoting Sustainable Human Development within engineering studies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 188, pp. 237252 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.270 470Leal Filho, W., Shiel, C., Paço, A., Mifsud, M., Ávila, L.V., Brandli, L.L., Molthan-Hill, P., et al. (2019), “Sustainable Development Goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 232, pp. 285-294, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.309. 474Leal Filho, W. (2020), “Accelerating the implementation of the SDGs”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 507-511. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2020-0011. 476Leal Filho, W., Price, E., Wall, T., Shiel, C., Azeiteiro, U., Mifsud, M., Brandli, L., Farinha, Sandra Caeiro, C. S., Lange A., Ruy Vasconcelos, C., Olim de Sousa, L. Pace, P., Doni, F., Veiga Avila, L., Fritzen, B. and Jared LeVasseur. T. (2021), “COVID-19: the impact of a global crisis on sustainable development teaching”, Environment, development and sustainability, Vol. 23, pp. 11257-11278, doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-01107-z. 481Lee, B., Liu, K., Warnock, T. S., Kim, M. O., & Skett, S. (2023), “Students leading students: a qualitative study exploring a student-led model for engagement with the sustainable development goals”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 535-552, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2022-0037. 485Litzner Ordóñez, L.I. and Rieß, W. (2019), “La Educación para el Desarrollo Sostenible en la universidad boliviana. Percepciones del profesorado”, Teoría de La Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria, Vol. 31 No. 1, doi: 10.14201/teri.19037. 488López-Zaldívar, O., Lozano-Díez, R., del Cura, S. H., Mayor-Lobo, P., & Hernández-Olivares, F. (2017), “Effects of water absorption on the microstructure of plaster with end-of-life tire rubber mortars” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 150, pp. 558-567, doi:. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.014. 491Lozano, R. and Barreiro Gen, M. (2019), “Analysing the factors affecting the incorporation of sustainable development into European Higher Education Institutions’ curricula”, Sustainable Development, p. sd.1987-sd.1987, doi: 10.1002/sd.1987. 494Lytovchenko, I., Yamshynska, N., Kutsenok, N. and Filatova, V. (2021), “Teaching Sustainability Online to University Students with the Use of Interactive Presentation Tools: A Case Study”, Advanced Education, Vol. 8 No. 18, doi: 10.20535/2410-8286.227792. 497Membrillo-Hernández, J., Cuervo-Bejarano, W. J., & Vázquez-Villegas, P. (2022), “Digital Global Classroom, a Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) Approach: An Innovative Pedagogical Strategy for Sustainable Competency Development and Dissemination of SDGs in Engineering Higher Education”. In International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 25-35). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 502Mir-Acebrón, A.M. (2008), “Las competencias transversales en la Universidad Pompeu Fabra. La visión de los docentes y estudiantes de segundo ciclo”, Revista de Docencia Universitaria, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 116. doi: 10.4995/redu.2008.6279. 505Miró, J. and Jaume i Capó, A. (2011), “Repositorio de actividades para enseñar competencias transversales”, REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 101–110, doi: 10.4995/redu.2010.6219. 508Morales, R.M. and Cuevas, J.C. (2012), “Competencias docentes transversales, el método de selección MiZona-CDT”, REDU: Revista de Docencia Universitaria, Red Estatal de Docencia Universitaria, Vol. 10 No. 2, p. 75, doi: 10.4995/redu.2012.6098. 511Oviedo, H.C. and Arias, A.C. (2005), “Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach”, Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría, Asociación Colombiana de Psiquiatría, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 572–580. 513Place, S.E. (2010), “La geografía: aportes al desarrollo sostenible”, Revista Geográfica de América Central, Vol. 1 No. 44, pp. 39–52. 515Pizarro Romero, K., & Martínez Mora, O. (2020) “Análisis factorial exploratorio mediante el uso de las medidas de adecuación muestral KMO y esfericidad de Bartlett para determinar factores principales”, Journal of Science and Research, Vol. 5, pp. 903–924, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4453224. 518Reyes Sánchez, G. M., Díaz Flórez, G. A., Dueñas Suaterna, J. A., & Bernal Acosta, A. (2016), “¿Educación de calidad o calidad de la educación? Uno de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible y el camino para el desarrollo humano”, Revista de la Universidad de la Salle, Vol. 71, pp. 251-272. 521Ribadeneira Pazmiño, D.A., Arellano Espinoza, F.J., Zaruma Pilamunga, O. and Cevallos Goyes, A.A. (2022), “Desarrollo profesional de docentes: análisis de los componentes de desarrollo en la actualidad”, Revista Científica UISRAEL, Vol. 9 No. 2, doi: 10.35290/rcui.v9n2.2022.527. 524Salcines Talledo, I., González Fernández, N., Ramírez García, A. and Martínez Mínguez, L. (2018), “Validación de la escala de autopercepción de competencias transversales y profesionales de estudiantes de educación superior”, Profesorado, Revista De Currículum Y Formación Del Profesorado, Vol. 22 No.3, pp. 31–51, doi: 10.30827/profesorado.v22i3.7989. 528Sánchez Carracedo, F., Segalàs Coral, J., & Tejedor Papell, G. (2022), “The EDINSOST2-SDG project: Introducing SDGs in higher education”. In Towards a new future in engineering education, new scenarios that European alliances of tech universities open up (pp. 1582-1591). European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI). 532SDSN Australia/Pacific (2017), “Getting started with the SDGs in universities: A guide for universities, higher education institutions, and the academic sector. Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Edition”. Sustainable Development Solutions Network – Australia/Pacific, Melbourne 535Shah, Z., Kennedy-Clark, S., Xie, Y., Rahim, M. S., Mahdavi, M., & Levula, A. (2022), “Teacher views on teaching sustainability in higher education institutes in Australia”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 14, 8431doi: 10.3390/su14148431. 538Sierra, C., Bustamante, E. and Morales, J. (2016), “La educación ambiental como base cultural y estrategia para el desarrollo sostenible”, Telos: Revista de Estudios Interdisciplinarios En Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Rafael Belloso Chacín, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 266–281. 541Sonetti, G., Sarrica, M. and Norton, L.S. (2021), “Conceptualization of sustainability among students, administrative and teaching staff of a university community: An exploratory study in Italy”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 316, 128292 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128292. 544Tomazello, M. and Guimarães, S. (2007), “Las ideas de sostenibilidad de los alumnos de un curso de biología”, REEC: Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de Las Ciencias, Universidade de Vigo, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 13. 547Tziganuk, A. and Gliedt, T. (2017), “Comparing faculty perceptions of sustainability teaching at two US universities”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 7, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2016-0006. 550UNESCO (2020), “Education for sustainable development: a roadmap”, doi: 10.54675/YFRE1448 551UNESCO (2022), “Knowledge-driven actions: transforming higher education for global sustainability”, doi: 10.54675/YBTV1653 553UNESCO “SET4HEI” Webpage. https://set4hei.org/es/acerca_de/ 554Vega-Marcote, P., & Álvarez-Suárez, P. (2005), “Planteamiento de un marco teórico de la Educación Ambiental para un desarrollo sostenible”, Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de Las Ciencias, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 187-208. 557Viera-Trevisan, L., Machado do Nascimento, L. F., Leal Filho, W., & Ávila Pedrozo, E. (2024) “A transformative online approach to sustainable development in management education: the case of a Brazilian business school” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2023-0039. 561Vilches, A. & Pérez, D.G. (2012), “La educación para la sostenibilidad en la Universidad: el reto de la formación del profesorado”, Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, Universidad de Granada, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 25–43. 564Winter, J., Zhai, J. and Cotton, D.R.E. (2022), “Teaching environmental sustainability in China: opportunities and challenges for business and economics faculty in higher education”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2021.2012560. 567Zamora-Polo, F., Sánchez-Martín, J., Corrales-Serrano, M. and Espejo-Antúnez, L. (2019), “What Do University Students Know about Sustainable Development Goals? A Realistic Approach to the Reception of this UN Program Amongst the Youth Population”, Sustainability, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 11 No. 13, p. 3533. doi: 10.3390/su11133533. 571Zizka, L. and Varga, P. (2021), “Teaching Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: Assessing Hospitality Students’ Sustainability Literacy”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, Vol. 33 No. 4, doi: 10.1080/10963758.2020.1726771. 574Zúñiga Sánchez, O. (2021), “El reto de las universidades públicas de México para incorporar una educación pertinente acorde con la sustentabilidad”, RIDE Revista Iberoamericana Para La Investigación y El Desarrollo Educativo, Vol. 11 No. 22, doi: 10.23913/ride.v11i22.952. 577 578Author’s contributions 579Conceptualization (L.E.-A. and M.C.-S.); Data curation (L.E.-A., M.C.-S. and F.Z.-P.); Formal Analysis; 580(M.d.l.Á.C.-D. and L.E.-A.) Funding acquisition (L.E.-A. and F.Z.-P.); Investigation (L.E.-A., M.C.-S., F.Z.-P. 581and M.d.l.Á.C.-D.); Methodology (L.E.-A., M.C.-S. and F.Z.-P.); Project administration (L.E.-A., M.C.-S. and 582F.Z.-P.); Resources (L.E.-A., M.C.-S., F.Z.-P. and M.d.l.Á.C.-D.); Software (M.d.l.Á.C.-D.); Supervision (L.E.- 583A., M.C.-S., F.Z.-P. and M.d.l.Á.C.-D.); Validation (L.E.-A., M.C.-S., F.Z.-P. and M.d.l.Á.C.-D.); Visualization 584(L.E.-A., M.C.-S., F.Z.-P. and M.d.l.Á.C.-D.); Writing – original draft (L.E.-A., M.C.-S., F.Z.-P. and M.d.l.Á.C.- 585D.); Writing – review & editing (L.E.-A., M.C.-S., F.Z.-P. and M.d.l.Á.C.-D.) 586 587Acknowledgements 588VII Own Research and Transfer Plan 2023 of the University of Seville 2023/00000390. 589The authors would like to thank the teaching innovation group ‘Ética del profesorado Universitario’ of the 590University of Extremadura. 591 Figure 1. Fundamental pillars of the training experience analysed in this study (own elaboration). Theoretical foundation Professional Ethic Moral development SDG Transversal competences Table 1: Reliability and Validity Tests of the Questionnaire Cronbach´s Alpha KMO test Section 1+ Section 20.912 0.600 C1+C2: (Q1-Q8) 0.908 0.867 C3: (Q9-Q25) 0.914 0.754 C1: Construct 1; C2: Construct 2; C3: Construct 3 Table 2: Mean of constructs Mean DT IC 95% (min-max) Pre 23.41 7.91 21-25.81 C1+C2: (Q1-Q8) Post 30.57 6.35 28.54-32.60 Pre 13.07 4.63 11.66-14.47 C1: Knowledge (Q1-Q4) Post 16.85 3.16 15.84-17.86 Pre 10.34 3.70 9.21-11.47 Section 1 C2: Access to Information (Q5-Q8) Post 13.73 3.83 12.50-14.95 Pre 53.59 14.24 49.26-57.92 Section 2 C3:(Q9-Q25) Post 64.70 13.67 60.32-69.07 C1: Construct 1; C2: Construct 2; C3: Construct 3 Table 3. Participants in the study in frequency percentage Title Category Frequency (%) Gender Male 11 (20.8%) Female 33 (62.3%) Age (years) <30 7 (13.2%) 30-40 14 (26.4%) 40-50 16 (30.2%) >50 7 (3.2%) Academic Position Lectures 18 (34%) Reader 7 (13.2%) Associate Lecturer 7 (13.2%) Professor 1 (1.9%) Others 11 (20.8%) Field of knowledge Technician 5 (9.4%) Biosanitary 2 (3.8%) Scientist 8 (15.1%) Social 26 (49.1%) Humanistic 3 (5.7%) Experiences with SDG Yes 27 (50.9%) No 17 (32.1%)