Sustainability and competency-based learning at the University of Seville: Challenges and Opportunities in Educational Sciences

217 Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Chapter 12 DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6537-7.ch012 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to analyse the presence of sustainability in the curricula of the Science of Education at the University of Seville and to determine the perception of both teachers and students regarding sustainability competencies. The work forms part of the R+D+i “Training Project in Spanish Universities for Professionals as Agents of Change in Order to Meet the Challenges Facing Society” (EDINSOST). The methodology a case study, in which an analysis of the curriculum of the Bachelor Degree in Early Childhood Education, Primary Education, and Pedagogy has been conducted. Two questionnaires have been drawn up and four focus groups established in which a total of 61 teachers and 152 students have participated. The results show that there is a low presence of sustainability in the Science of Education courses, particularly in the Bachelor Degree in Primary Education. The teachers express the opinion that they have sustainable initiatives as well as an interest in ethical models. The students express a high degree of interest in receiving sustainability training. Sustainability and Competency- Based Learning at the University of Seville: Challenges and Opportunities in Educational Sciences Jorge Ruiz-Morales Universidad de Sevilla, Spain Rocío Valderrama-Hernández Universidad de Sevilla, Spain Dolores Limón-Domínguez Universidad de Sevilla, Spain Carmen Solís-Espallargas Universidad de Sevilla, Spain 218 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville INTRODUCTION This research is part of an R+D+I research project, “Education and social innovation for sustainability. Training in Spanish universities of professionals as agents of change to face the challenges of society (EDINSOST 2015)” and has its continuity in the current EDINSOST2. The general objective is the training of graduates capable of leading the resolution of the challenges of our society through the integration of training in competencies in Sustainability in the Spanish University System (SUE) Sánchez Carracedo, Segalàs, Cabré, Climent, López, Martín & Vidal (2017). A total of 15 degrees in the fields of engineering and education have participated in this project, which are taught in 10 universities throughout Spain (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Universidad de Cádiz, Universidad Camilo José Cela, Universidad de Córdoba, Universidad de Girona, Universidad Internacional de Cataluña, Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Universidad de Salamanca and Universidad de Sevilla) and 52 researchers constitute the research team and the work team. This research work is a case study (Calduch, 2014; Goodrick, 2014) focused on the Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Seville, where a complete analysis is made from the perspective of sustainability of the curricular content, the training in competences of education professionals in initial training (students) and teachers. The work developed from the EDINSOST project will serve as a diagnosis to be able to act in an integral way in the education degrees of the University of Seville, and in subsequent research projects focused on the development of the SDG. BACKGROUND Universities and States are committed to Sustainability and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). This requires the identification of relevant socio-environmental problems, action planning and curriculum development. The Conference on Sustainable Development concluded with Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development which puts at the centre of this Agenda 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that address the main development challenges facing humanity. These SDG focus on key systemic barriers to sustainable development, such as inequality, sustainable consumption patterns, weak institutions, capacity and environmental degradation Rieckmann (2017). The SDG represent the need to rethink the relationship of human beings with the planet, the productive processes, the interactions between countries, cultures, the protection of habitats, etc. These challenges are the challenges that will be addressed by political agendas. The University faces several challenges with regards to sustainability: to train citizens capable of acting as such in different scenarios, to train people in sustainability in connection with their daily lives, this requires training professionals who are agents of change in a context of socio-environmental crisis (Limón-Domínguez, Ruiz-Morales, & Torres Fernández, 2019). Universities, in the case of education faculties, in the Spanish context, have a crucial role to develop SDG, their function is to generate and transfer relevant knowledge, educate and train leaders capable of contributing to a better Sustainable future (Scott & Gough, 2007; Tilbury, 2012). Since 1992, UNESCO has promoted Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Between 2005 and 2014, it coordinated the Decade of The United Nations Convention on ESD, and is now carrying out the follow-up programme, the Global Programme of Action on ESD. Sustainability involves the 219 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville transformation of production processes, economic relations, conflict management and problem solving from an ecological perspective. The human being is part of Nature, which is not at the service of human beings, nor is it a resource for their development. In this international context of agreements and policy development in favor of sustainability, universities are contributing to this effort through their commitment to introduce SDG in their political planning and organization, curricula, research and social projection, and strategic teacher training actions (Wright, 2010). However, different studies have made it clear that the lack of commitment to undergraduate students still exists, and even decreases when they go on to study at higher levels (Cech & Sherick, 2015; Segalàs, Ferrer-Balas, Mulder, 2010). Given this situation, how can universities improve their commitment to sustainability? According to Moore (2001) it is first necessary to imagine what a “sustainable” university would be, including the vision of educational programs for sustainability. Second, how to engage the university community in sustainability as an eco-citizen (Limón-Domínguez, Ruiz-Morales, & Torres Fernández, 2019). Taking the path towards sustainability in the university means starting by empowering the university community as well as creating spaces for collective, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary reflection and collaboration (Sánchez Carracedo, Segalàs, Cabré, Climent, López, Martín, Vidal, 2017). The inclusion of sustainability in higher education poses a new challenge for the academic system (Lozano, 2006) in order to make it an emerging field of research and curriculum development. In recent years, different universities have been carrying out activities with varying degrees of success and difficulty in achieving this objective (Segalàs, Ferrer-Balas & Mulder, 2010; Lozano, 2006; Segalàs, Ferrer-Balas, Svanström, Lundqvist, Mulder, 2009; Lidgren, Rodhe, & Huisingh, 2006). Some of the main tasks have focused on management, descriptive case studies, best practice examples, integration of sustainability in specific courses, theoretical development in teaching and learning focused on sustainability, and analysis of university policies, among others (Sánchez Carracedo, Segalàs, Cabré, Climent, López, Martín & Vidal 2017; Fien, J. 2002; Cotton, Bailey, Warren, & Bissell, 2009). However, despite efforts, including that of the Conference of Rectors of the Spanish University (CRUE) and since the emergence of the SDG, there is still a lack of common criteria on the incorporation of sustainability in the curricula. In 2005 CRUE produced a document entitled “Guidelines for the Introduction of Sustainability into the Curriculum” (CADEP, 2011) which was subsequently extended in 2011 in line with the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). This refers to the training of “participatory and proactive individuals capable of taking responsibility for decision-making, becoming aware of the challenges posed by globalization, promoting respect for diversity and a culture of peace”, as well as consolidating training strategies to empower a citizenry capable of effecting change in reality. Implementing sustainability in the curriculum, including sustainability in the curriculum in the most caring version, has meant introducing environmental content into teaching (Barrón, Navarrete, & Ferrer-Balas, 2010), making the curriculum more environmental. Now the aim is to enable people to critically analyse reality, to take the world’s problems as a reference, identifying the interrelations between environmental, cultural, social and economic factors so that their decisions are based on more sustainable and socially responsible criteria (Vilches & Gil Pérez, 2015). Different initiatives have been undertaken at universities with the aim of integrating sustainability through teaching. The most important has been the inclusion of sustainability in the curriculum, the development of active pedagogies that incorporate contents, methodologies (Tejedor, et al., 2019) and evaluation systems from the perspective of sustainability (objective 2) (Barrón, Navarrete & Ferrer- Balas, 2010; Disterheft, Ferreira da Silva Caeiro, Ramos & de Miranda Azeiteiro, 2012; Albareda-Tiana, García-González, Jiménez-Fontana, & Solís-Espallargas, 2019; Sánchez-Carracedo, Ruiz-Morales, 220 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville Valderrama-Hernández, Muñoz-Rodríguez, & Gomera, 2019). These initiatives require a change in the vision of sustainability on the part of the university professor, as well as on the part of teachers and pedagogues in initial training, as well as specific training. The incorporation of sustainability in the curricula and its implementation in academic training is difficult because of the vision with which it has been worked in the university context, of atomization, disciplinarity, courses or subjects, typical of a school culture (Scott & Gough, 2007; Morilla, Camacho & Tiana, 2015). Although teachers can understand this integration in a theoretical sense, they encounter obstacles when putting it into practice. The inclusion of sustainability in the university is conditioned by some important factors, such as the absence in the curricula, adequate training for teachers and the diverse conceptions of sustainability itself. This last factor has been analyzed by Shephard & Furnari (2013), among others, who have found that it is vital to identify what ideas act on teachers when they conduct their teaching duties. Such ideas play a crucial role in the educational and training processes with students with more sustainable habits. Based on the existing literature on perceptions and attitudes of university teaching, some conclusions can be drawn about common concerns: diversity of views, teacher discourse and understanding of sustainability, and uncertainty about how students learn and how teachers teach the topics in the curriculum. Also important is the perception that early childhood education professionals have of the relevance of sustainability to their training, how what is learned in university is transferred to reality when acting as a professional (Cotton, Bailey, Warren, & Bissell, 2009; Cebrian & Junyent, 2015; Melles, 2019). In a university system where the teaching of content or discipline predominates over the learning processes, where the voice of the students (professionals in initial training) has little relevance to the academic curriculum, thus losing an opportunity for permeability, transparency and commitment, it is very logical that the eyes are directed towards the conceptions of the university professor. In the studies by Jones, Selby & Sterling (2010) and by Leal-Filho (2011) some of the factors that limit academics in the integration of sustainability were identified, such as personal beliefs and values, lack of awareness, time and capacity. In addition, studies by Cheung, Chow, So, (2018) indicate slow and insufficient progress in integrating sustainability into the curriculum. As noted by Aznar et al. (2017), “literature and research in the field so far provide very few examples of any major curricular change and available experiences are few and far between” (p. 227). It is worth suggesting that even in postgraduate studies where a broad view of sustainability is proposed from the teaching perspective, later when the final work is done, there is a regression that leaves aside many lines of research that are included in the SDG. Other studies suggest that despite the fact that teachers are the pillar of any innovative process, there are difficulties with respect to both their commitment to sustainability and the training of students in sustainability (Aznar et al., 2013). In addition, students who are trained in university classrooms face difficulties in understanding sustainability and its inclusion in professional practice. For example, studies conducted with teachers on training Solis-Espallargas & Valderrama-Hernández (2015) concluded that they understand sustainability as an area of knowledge belonging to the natural sciences that has more to do with nature conservation than with the purpose of stimulating critical thinking on prevention and resolution of socio-environmental problems. Although this is a field that is growing in interest, more research is needed to investigate more deeply the understanding that both teachers and students have about the challenges that education for sustainability should be based on. It is important to recognize the societal utility of including sustainability in the curriculum, as it is capable of bringing about personal, cultural, and economic change. To that end, the purpose of this chapter is to consider proposals made by teachers and students that can help in academic training and research. 221 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES The research methodology focuses on a case study using different quantitative and qualitative instruments (Fernández-Núñez, 2006). The research objectives and problems are first defined. This is essential because each methodology is consistent with the way in which the research questions contained in the problems are asked. It produces a focus on what we wanted to investigate, pointing out what was important, relevant to the researcher, which in turn allows us to make methodological and instrument design decisions (Flick, 2009). The field work is then carried out on three fronts, (a) the analysis of the study plans with the heading of the matrix of units of competence that emerged from the Edinsost Project; (b) simultaneously the questionnaires are passed on to the teachers, and (c) students; finally the focus groups are held with these two sectors of the university community. After the analisys of the data (Coffey, 2014; Guimarães, Moraes & Guarido, 2007) that emerged from the field work carried out with the help of the instruments, the information was organised in the form of understandable data. The analysis of the results is carried out by looking for the existing relationships between what the analysis of the curricula, the teachers and the students tells us. After that, we return to the research problems to answer the questions posed and to structure the knowledge that emerges from the process. Finally, we end this with the conclusions, which structure the discourse based on the objectives of this research. The EDINSOST project has four specific objectives: • To define the sustainability map of the participating degrees and to establish the framework that facilitates their integration into the studies in a holistic way; • To validate didactic strategies for the acquisition of sustainability from a constructivist and community-based pedagogical approach; • Diagnose the state of training needs in sustainability in the teacher and develop and test training proposals; and • Diagnose the state of sustainability learning in university students and develop and test training proposals. The research problems are defined as follows: • Problem 1: What is the presence of sustainability in the curricula of the Faculty of Education Sciences of the University of Seville? • Problem 2: What do teachers think about their knowledge of sustainability to develop it in their classes? What are their conceptions of sustainability? • Problem 3: What do students think about their level of training in sustainability? • Problem 4: Possible improvements to be introduced that emerge from the analysis of the discourse of teachers and students. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS The definition of the research problems allowed us to create the research instruments, which are related in their conception to the research methodology. The instruments are built taking into account the 222 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville Sustainability Map of Higher Education Degrees. A relationship can be observed between the different instruments that allow for a coherent analysis of mixed qualitative and quantitative data. The choice of instruments is based on the object of the study, the problems involved and the approach. This has allowed us to gather the necessary information to analyze and explore the field of study (Flick, 2009). Some of the instruments used provide a description and narrative of the educational process, speak of the facts, situations and transmit the events of the educational process in the classroom (Elliot, 1993). The following instruments used in this research have been validated in the EDINSOST project and are used to analyze the state of education for sustainability in Educational Sciences and particularly at the University of Seville. • A sustainability map of the degree courses in Education Sciences used to analyze the presence of sustainability in the curricula, considered as written sources of information to provide data related to problem 1. • A questionnaire sent to teachers and another to students to find out their conception and perception of training in sustainability, with the intention of providing answers to problems 2 and 3. • Four focus groups, two with students and two with teachers from the Faculty of Education Sciences, which provide information on problems 2, 3 and 4. Sustainability Map. It is organized into units of competence and levels of mastery. Each competency is divided into three simplified levels using the Miller Pyramid (Miller, 1990), which establishes three levels of competency acquisition in the medical profession (and is applicable to other professions), which have much to do with the four pillars of education outlined in the UNESCO Report, prepared by Delors (1996). The first level of mastery corresponds to knowledge and refers to knowledge of the more conceptual type “know”; the second level of mastery corresponds to the integration of knowledge and skills, “know how”; the third level of mastery is linked to the demonstration of competence in action and the possibility of transferring it to other situations, “show how and do”. Sustainability questionnaires. The questionnaires belonging to the EDINSOST project, elaborated from the sustainability competence map Albareda-Tiana, Ruiz-Morales, Azcárate, Valderrama-Hernández, Múñoz, (2019), were sent to the teachers and students and the data were subsequently analysed. To this end, the two online questionnaires were answered by a total of 219 subjects, of which 170 were students and 49 teachers. The validation of the questionnaires was done through an internal consistency reliability test. All groups of variables have a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient greater than 0.7; that is, they are all close to 1, which is the optimal consistency value. Focus Groups. The research professor participating in Objective 3 of the EDINSOST Project, representatives from 10 universities in Spain, drew up a protocol of action to carry out the focal group that served as a guide for all the field work and analysis process, which takes as a reference the methodological process followed by Ruiz Morales (2013). Firstly, a system of categories was drawn up a priori by the professor participating in the EDINSOST project. The category system was arrived at by the consensus of the 13 researchers from different Spanish universities and degrees, who formed the research team in objective 3 and 4, referred to above. Once this first system had been designed, a script was drawn up to carry out a first focus group, with teachers and students at the University of Murcia, which did not participate in the EDINSOST Project, so that the pilot study did not contaminate the case study. Finally, the four focus groups were organized with the participation of 12 students and 12 teachers, seeking to have all grades of education represented, in four focus groups of six people, two for each grade 223 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville in the case of the teacher and for each sector in the case of the students, giving priority to those in the third and fourth grades. The process that was followed to carry out the focal groups can be summarized as follows, in accordance with the protocol that was elaborated: • Selection of the participants. • Elaboration of the script according to the system of categories. • Carrying out of the focal groups: introduction (15 minutes), development (65 minutes) divided in three blocks: competences, didactic strategies and good practices, conclusions. • Transcription. • Emptying in the analysis tables. Table 1. Sustainability Map of Higher Education Degree. Source: Sánchez-Carracedo, Ruiz-Morales, Valderrama-Hernández, Muñoz-Rodríguez, Gomera (2019). 224 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville A definitive system of categories for students (S) and teachers (T) is obtained (see table 2) which also includes a code corresponding to the initials of each category; the script for the focal groups is elaborated from this system of categories. At this point, when the category system is in place and the focus groups have been carried out, the time comes to empty the data, the information units selected in the participants’ (teachers and students) speeches. For this purpose, the information units are organized and emptied in the format of table 3. The first column (sequence) refers to the cuts that have been selected, and they are represented with an ordinal number; the second column refers to the time in which the cut occurs in the general balance of the recording and the time that it lasts; the third column (subject) refers to the participating subject that is represented with S1, S2...; the fifth column (information unit) refers to the relevant data that is extracted from the subject’s speech; finally there is the column that refers to the category where the information unit is located. The selection of the information unit is fundamental since only one meaning must be given to the sentence. It is not correct that a unit can belong to more than two categories, since this would generate a lack of clarity and direct sense between data and category, which would make the next step difficult. Subsequently, each void is reviewed by peers with the participating researchers from the University of Seville, the process of systematization of the data is verified and those that generate controversy are addressed. This is a validation process that serves to verify the process of analysis and systematization of the data. Next, a triangulation process is carried out, which consists of choosing those information units that are related to a category and is proposed by at least three people participating in the focal group of each sector, teachers or students, separately, so that each construct is elaborated for each sector (table 4). This is very important for the elaboration of the conclusions. In the heading of Table 3, each category is identified by a number that refers to the place it occupies in Table 2, regardless of whether it can be shared by teachers and students or not. The legend refers to how the construct is identified, example Co1:T1, meaning that it is the first construct of the CS category identified with the number 1, of the teacher, if it says Co1:S3, it is the third (3) construct of the category 1(Co1) for the students (S). The next column presents the content of the construct with a title and brief description and finally the source from which it came. Where the information unit reference GF1:1 appears, it refers to the fact that it is taken from the first focus group and is found in sequence 1.This step allows a level of abstraction, from the data coming from the discourse, towards the elaboration of the results that will allow an analytical and inductive relation with the data coming from the questionnaires (Ruiz Morales, 2013). In this work we opted to carry out an analysis of the story that puts the word of the teachers and students into focus, instead of referring to the quantitative analysis centered on the study of the frequency of the categories, attending to those that have more units of information, because we are more interested in the qualitative analysis that can be put in dialogue with the quantitative analysis centered on the questionnaires. In addition, it allows the emergence of the nuances of the subjects’ discourse, the tensions that appear in their speeches, the doubts, the certainties, the proposals, etc. The more quantitative analysis of the focus group has been published in Solís-Espallargas, Ruiz-Morales, Limón-Domínguez, & Valderrama-Hernández (2019). Nevertheless, in this chapter we have chosen to show this other mode of analysis of the focus group discourse, understanding that both can be complementary. It is striking that categories, which had a high frequency of information units, could not necessarily form a construct, because they came from statements of a single teacher or student, or because they were not sufficiently related to each other. It has also been noted that quantitative analysis does not give us exact information 225 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville Table 2. Category system for the analysis of the focus groups. Source: Solís-Espallargas, Ruiz-Morales, Limón-Domínguez, & Valderrama-Hernández, 2019 232 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville the challenges that demand a new education in accordance with international agreements, declarations and reports. Researching teaching practices, university curricula and the presence of sustainability makes sense and has a future as a line of research (Sánchez-Carracedo, Ruiz-Morales, Valderrama-Hernández, Muñoz-Rodríguez, Gomera, 2019; Aznar-Minguet, Martínez-Agut, Piñero, 2017; Tilbury, 2012). The challenge is to take into account and make available all the means to favour the construction of knowledge focused on sustainability, as well as measures to reform, strengthen and support the necessary changes. An advanced society with a high degree of sophisticated knowledge should be able to ensure its own existence and is sustained by Sustainable Universities. The views of faculty and students in all universities are essential to address reforms and innovation in the curriculum at a time when sustainability is an emerging and urgent need. FINANCING This research was funded by the EDINSOST Project “Education and Social Innovation for Sustainability. Training in Spanish universities of professionals as agents of change to face the challenges of society”, financed by the “State Program of R+D oriented to the challenges that society faces” of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Finance [Ref. EDU 2015-65574-R]. Amount: 60,000 euros. Main responsible: Jordi Segalàs Coral: jor[email protected] It is being financed by the EDINSOST2 project “Integration of the objectives for sustainable development in the training in sustainability of the Spanish university degrees” (EDINSOST2 - ODS), financed by the “State programme of R & D oriented to the challenges faced by society” of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Finance RTI2018-094982-B-I00 (MINECO/FEDER). J02501: Period of validity: 01 January 2019 until 31 December 2022 (4 years). Main responsible person: Jordi Segalàs Coral: jor[email protected] Amount: 100,056 euros. REFERENCES Albareda-Tiana, S., García-González, E., Jiménez-Fontana, R., & Solís-Espallargas, C. (2019). Implementing Pedagogical Approaches for ESD in Initial Teacher Training at Spanish Universities. Sustainability, 11(18), 4927. doi:10.3390u11184927 Albareda-Tiana, S., Ruíz-Morales, J., Azcárate, P., Valderrama-Hernández, R., & Múñoz, J. (2019). El Proyecto EDINSOST: Implementación de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible a Nivel Universitario. In Universities as Living Labs for Sustainable Development (pp. 193–210). Springer. Aznar-Minguet, P., Ull, M. A., Martínez-Agut, M. P., & Piñero, A. (2017). Assess in order to transform: University teaching assessment through the lens of Sustainability. Enseñanza De Las Ciencias Revista De Investigación y Experiencias Didácticas, 35(1), 5. doi:10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2112 Aznar Minguet, P., Ull, M. A., Piñero, A., & Martínez-Agut, M. P. (2013). La sostenibilidad en la formación universitaria: Desafíos y oportunidades. Educación XXI, 17(1), 133–157. doi:10.5944/educxx1.17.1.10708 233 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville Barrón, A., Navarrete, A., & Ferrer-Balas, D. (2010). Sostenibilización curricular en las universidades españolas. ¿ha llegado la hora de actuar? La Revista Eureka Sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 7(extra), 388–399. doi:10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2010.v7.iextra.18 Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Informe Brundtland, nuestro futuro común. Alianza Editorial. CADEP. (2011). Directrices para la introducción de la sostenibilidad en el currículum. CRUE. Calduch, R. (2014). Métodos y técnicas de investigación internacional. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Cebrián, G., & Junyent, M. (2015). Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development: Exploring the Student Teachers’ Views. Sustainability, 7(3), 2768–2786. doi:10.3390u7032768 Cech, E. A., & Sherick, H. M. (2015). Depoliticization and the structure of engineering education. In International Perspectives on Engineering Education (pp. 203–216). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319- 16169-3_10 Cheung, Y. T. Y., Chow, C. F., & So, W. W. M. (2018). A train-the-trainer design for green ambassadors in an environmental education programme on plastic waste recycling. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 27(1), 24–42. doi:10.1080/10382046.2017.1285138 Coffey, A. (2014). Analysing documents. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (Vol. 25, pp. 367–380). SAGE Freie Universtität Berlin. doi:10.4135/9781446282243.n25 Cotton, D., Bailey, I., Warren, M., & Bissell, S. (2009). Revolutions and second‐best solutions: Education for sustainable development in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 719–733. doi:10.1080/03075070802641552 Delors, J. (1996). La educación encierra un tesoro. Informe a la UNESCO de la Comisión internacional sobre la educación para el siglo XXI. Santillana. Disterheft, A., Ferreira da Silva Caeiro, S. S., Ramos, M. R., & de Miranda Azeiteiro, U. M. (2012). Environmental Management Systems (EMS) implementation processes and practices in European higher education institutions. Top-down versus participatory approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 31, 80–90. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.034 Elliot, J. (1993). El cambio educativo desde la investigación-acción. Morata. Fernández-Núñez, L. (2006). ¿Cómo analizar datos cualitativos. LaRecerca, 6, 1-13. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/29CPQE4 Fien, J. (2002). Advancing sustainability in higher education: Issues and opportunities for research. Studies in Higher Education, 15, 143–152. Filho, W. L. (2011). About the Role of Universities and Their Contribution to Sustainable Development. Higher Education Policy, 24(4), 427–438. doi:10.1057/hep.2011.16 Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage. 234 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville Goodrick, D. (2014). Estudios de caso comparativos, Síntesis metodológicas: evaluación de impacto n.º 9. Centro de Investigaciones de UNICEF. Guimarães, J. A. Ch.; Moraes, J. B. E. de; Guarido, M. D. M. (2007). Análisis documental de contenido de textos narrativos: bases epistemológicas y perspectivas metodológicas. Ibersid: Revista de sistemas de información y documentación, 1, 93-99. Jones, P., Selby, D., & Sterling, S. (2010). Sustainability Education: Principles and Practices across Higher Education. Earthscan. Lidgren, A., Rodhe, H., & Huisingh, D. (2006). A systemic approach to incorporate sustainability into university courses and curricula. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9-11), 797–809. doi:10.1016/j. jclepro.2005.12.011 Limón-Domínguez, D., Ruiz-Morales, J., & Torres Fernández, C. (2019). Una ciudadanía activa para conseguir el desarrollo de los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible. In Retos de la educación ambiental ante los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible (pp. 17–30). Ediciones Octaedro. Lozano, R. (2006). Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: Breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9-11), 787–796. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010 Lozano R., Merrill M., Sammalisto K., Ceulemans K., Lozano F. J. (2017). Connecting Competences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in Higher Education: A Literature Review and Framework Proposal res. Sustaintability, 9(10). Melles, G. (2019). Views on education for sustainable development (ESD) among lecturers in UK MSc taught courses. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(1), 115–138. doi:10.1108/ IJSHE-02-2018-0032 Miller, G. E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic Medicine, 65(9), 63–67. doi:10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045 PMID:2400509 Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the U.K. Supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3/4), 299–315. doi:10.1023/A:1012537016969 Morilla, M. F., Camacho, M. T. F., & Tiana, S. A. (2015). Sostenibilización curricular en la Educación Superior: Propuesta metodológica. Opción, 31(6), 284–304. Rieckmann, M. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. UNESCO. Ruiz Morales, J. (2013). Experiencias sociales y educativas en los procesos de participación con niñas, niños y jóvenes en la ciudad de Sevilla entre los años 2005-2008. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. Recuperado de http://fondosdigitales. us. es/tesis/tesis/2687/experiencias-sociales-y-educativasen-los- procesos-de-participacion-con-ninas-y-ninos-jovenes-en-la-ciudad-desevilla-entre-los-anos-20052008 Sánchez-Carracedo, F., Ruiz-Morales, J., Valderrama-Hernández, R., Muñoz-Rodríguez, J. M., & Gomera, A. (2019). Analysis of the presence of sustainability in Higher Education Degrees of the Spanish university system. Studies in Higher Education, 11, 1–18. doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1630811 235 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville Sánchez Carracedo, F., Segalàs, J., Cabré, J., Climent, J., López, D., Martín, C., & Vidal, E. (2017). El proyecto EDINSOST: Inclusión de los ODS en la educación superior. VII Congr. Univ. y Coop. al Desarro. Scott, W., & Gough, S. (2007). Universities and sustainable development: The necessity for barriers to change. Perspect. Policy Pract. High. Educ., 11(4), 107–115. doi:10.1080/13603100701613947 Segalàs, J., Ferrer-Balas, D., & Mulder, K. F. (2010). What do engineering students learn in sustainability courses? The effect of the pedagogical approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(3), 275–284. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.012 Segalàs, J., Ferrer-Balas, D., Svanström, M., Lundqvist, U., & Mulder, K. F. (2009). What has to be learnt for sustainability? A comparison of bachelor engineering education competences at three European universities. Sustainbility, 4(1), 17–27. doi:10.100711625-009-0068-2 Shephard, K., & Furnari, M. (2013). Exploring what university teachers think about education for sustainability. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1577–1590. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.644784 Solís-Espallargas, C., Ruiz-Morales, J., Limón-Domínguez, D., & Valderrama-Hernández, R. (2019). Sustainability in the University: A Study of Its Presence in Curricula, Teachers and Students of Education. Sustainability, 11(23), 6620. doi:10.3390u11236620 Solis-Espallargas, C., & Valderrama-Hernández, R. (2015). La educación para la sostenibilidad en la formación de profesorado. ¿Qué estamos haciendo? Foro Educación, 13(19), 165–192. doi:10.14516/ fde.2015.013.019.008 Tejedor, G., Segalàs, J., Barrón, Á., Fernández-Morilla, M., Fuertes, M. T., Ruiz-Morales, J., Gutiérrez, I., García-González, E., Aramburuzabala, P., & Hernández, À. (2019). Didactic strategies to promote competencies in sustainability. Sustainability, 11(7), 2086. doi:10.3390u11072086 Tilbury, D. (2012). Higher education for sustainability: a global overview of commitment and progress. In GUNI Higher Education in the World 4: Higher Education’s Commitment to Sustainability from Understanding to Action. Palgrave Macmillan. Tonon, G. (2011). La utilización del método comparativo en estudios cualitativos en ciencia política y ciencias sociales. KAIROS. Revista de Temas Sociales, 27, 1–12. Vilches, A., & Gil Pérez, D. (2015). Ciencia de la Sostenibilidad: ¿Una nueva disciplina o un nuevo enfoque para todas las disciplinas? Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 69(1), 39–60. doi:10.35362/ rie691152 Wright, T. (2010). University presidents’ conceptualizations of sustainability in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(1), 61–73. doi:10.1108/14676371011010057 236 Sustainability and Competency-Based Learning at the University of Seville KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Case Study: qualitative methodology to investigate in depth the social, educational, and cultural processes that take place in a specific context, which can be limited. Construct: An elaboration, from the perspective of qualitative research, that emerges from the analysis of the units of information or data coming from the techniques of qualitative research. It serves to elaborate the discussion of results and conclusions. EcoFaculty: Institutions need an institutional project of sustainability that can energise training, organisational and executive processes that increase university co-responsibility with society and the environment. Focus Group: Qualitative research technique similar to the discussion group, which facilitates the collection of data directly from the subjects, which is related to a group interview, although it reflects the tensions and discourses between participants. Proficiency Level: Each learning can be characterized as being in a more initial or mature developmental range, so establishing scaling processes helps to classify them. Sustainable Development Goals: UNESCO defined a total of 17 Sustainable Development Goals to be developed for Agenda 2030 at the request of the UN in 2015, in which all countries and institutions are involved. Sustainability Skills Map: Design of a heading or set of elements that are useful for identifying key aspects to be developed in training from the perspective of sustainability. They serve to design, plan, and evaluate.