Search results

This paper aims to present a methodology for analysing the extent to which students of a university degree perceive that they have received a good education for sustainable development (ESD). The methodology enables us to quantify this perception, which, in turn, allows us to determine: to what extent the objectives related to ESD are achieved in the degree, and to compare the learning in ESD perceived by students of different degrees. The methodology is applied to nine engineering degrees and nine education degrees in the Spanish university system.

ESD is analysed from the students’ learning perception. This perception is measured by comparing the responses of first- and fourth-year students to a questionnaire about their sustainability competencies. Two indicators have been designed to analyse the results. The first indicator, learning increase, measures the declared learning difference between fourth- and first-year students. The second indicator, learning percentage, measure the amount of learning as reported by fourth-year students compared to how much they could have learned.

The results show that the average learning percentage perceived by students is higher in engineering degrees (33%) than in education degrees (27%), despite the fact that the average learning increase declared by students at the end of their studies in both areas of knowledge is similar (66%). Engineering students report having achieved higher learning than education students in all sustainability competencies, with the exception of ethics.

This paper analyses ESD from the student’s perspective. Furthermore, to the knowledge of the authors, this is the first study that compares the perception of ESD between engineering and education students. This comparison allows us to determine the different approaches that university Professors take to ESD according to the discipline they teach.

This paper aims to analyze the presence of sustainability in 16 Spanish higher education curricula in the fields of education and engineering.

The methodology uses two instruments: sustainability map and sustainability presence map. These instruments enable analysis of the number of subjects that develop sustainability and the sustainability presence level in each curriculum; identification of what domain levels of the learning taxonomy sustainability is most developed; and analysis of whether a correlation exists between the sustainability presence and the number of subjects that develop sustainability in each curriculum.

A wide variety of subjects develop sustainability in a given degree, depending on the university. The presence of sustainability is more homogeneous in education degrees than in engineering degrees. Education degrees have a greater presence of sustainability in the lower domain levels of taxonomy, while in engineering degrees the lower levels of taxonomy have a lower presence of sustainability than the higher levels. Finally, a correlation appears to exist between the number of subjects that develop sustainability in the curriculum and the sustainability presence. However, engineering degrees seem to need fewer subjects than education degrees to achieve the same degree of sustainability presence.

This paper proposes a methodology to measure sustainability presence that can be applicable to the curricula of a higher education degree if the corresponding sustainability map is available. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the largest study yet conducted to analyze the presence of sustainability in different higher education curricula.