This study aims to present key indicators for curricular analysis that contribute to research and sustainability-focused education, from conceptual to attitudinal and methodological aspects.
This paper conducted an integrative review of mixed studies, using both primary and secondary sources, integrating qualitative and quantitative research. This paper used Bardin’s content analysis to create the analysis categories. The validation of the tool was carried out based on specialist review and application tests.
This study presents the context and gaps of education for sustainability and the importance of assessment tools in higher education. As a result, the study developed a complex and integrative analysis tool. The main components developed refer to the presence of the sustainable development goals and the dimensions of sustainability addressed; the pedagogical-methodological strategies used; the level of literacy encouraged; the inclusion of values, beliefs and emotions; the skills encouraged and the philosophies that guide the sustainable narrative.
This study presents an original curriculum analysis tool that fills gaps left by pre-existing tools. It is the only tool that deepens its analysis of curricular units in a holistic and integrated way, considering philosophies, methodologies, skills and content in favor of sustainability.
Acronyms
Introduction
The main challenges of the Anthropocene arise from climate change and socio-environmental emergencies (McHugh et al., 2021). The impending emergency is worsened by dominant unsustainable perspectives that limit cognitive and emotional engagement (Besong, 2017). This detachment encourages escapism, diverting attention from critical discussions and often leading to denial of the emergency reality (Latour, 2020). Therefore, there is an urgent need for public measures and effective decision-making to foster socioenvironmental transformations that address the crisis (IPCC, 2022; McHugh et al., 2021). This work argues that promoting quality education is essential for driving socioecological, socioenvironmental, sociocultural, economic and political changes toward sustainability.
Education has been a focal point in international meetings since Eco-92 and its follow-ups, where its transformative potential was acknowledged (Diniz, 2011; Guimarães and Fontoura, 2012; Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010; Sachs, 2012; United Nations, 2000). The United Nations emphasizes that education is central to ensuring sustainability, and UNESCO highlights that quality education is not only an SDG but also a means to achieve all other SDGs (Aleixo et al., 2020; Rieckmann, 2017).
Education can drive profound changes in societal actions and perceptions. However, it must be critical, emancipatory and inclusive to foster a sense of community and enable informed, contextualized decision-making guided by understanding, peace and biophilia (Besong, 2017; de Oliveira, 2023; Silva and Bacci, 2023; Viegas et al., 2016). This process promotes awareness, empathy and a shift in the dominant worldview, helping individuals grasp the complexity of current issues and acquire the knowledge, skills, values and determination needed for transformation (da Costa Lima, 2013; Silva and Bacci, 2023). Studies by Besong (2017), Biancardi (2023) and de Oliveira (2023) illustrate how sustainability education courses significantly changed student behaviors and attitudes, inspiring them to adopt more sustainable actions and drive societal transformation.
Analyzing curricula is essential for assessing whether education systems incorporate sustainability content, promote socio-environmentally responsible practices, and encourage pro-sustainability skills (Stough et al., 2018; Wals, 2014). However, few studies have systematically examined the integration of sustainability into curricula, particularly in higher education institutions (HEIs) (Figueiró and Raufflet, 2015).
Regarding the analysis of pedagogical methodologies, there is a reported lack of research verifying the pedagogical choices and methodologies used, which may hinder the monitoring and evaluation of sustainability integration in education (Besong, 2017; Biedenweg et al., 2013; Jeronen et al., 2016; Rieckmann, 2017). Studies examining the incorporation of these themes into curricula are crucial, as literature shows that certain methodologies can enhance students’ application of socio-environmental ethics in their daily decisions (Besong, 2017; Biedenweg et al., 2013; Jeronen et al., 2016; Rieckmann, 2017). They also foster a desire to engage in community sustainability projects, increase environmental awareness and strengthen the connection to nature (Biedenweg et al., 2013). These qualities are essential for advancing sustainability efforts (Jeronen et al., 2016). Likewise, verifying skills is a complicated, less explored step, as is analyzing the philosophies behind education. These topics are crucial for examining the development of moral and ethical values regarding sustainability, which are essential for fostering an emancipatory education (Freire, 2014).
One possible reason for the lack of resources and detailed analyses is the absence of holistic indicators to verify the incorporation of sustainability into curricula, as noted by several studies (Aleixo et al., 2020; Duarte et al., 2023; Popescu and Beleaua, 2014; Stough et al., 2018). Furthermore, most existing tools and studies primarily focus on descriptive analyses of the courses, including their characteristics, missions and objectives (Fischer et al., 2015; Saadatian et al., 2011; Shriberg, 2002; Stough et al., 2018; Yarime and Tanaka, 2012).
Most tools primarily focus on the environmental aspects of sustainability and theoretical content in education, whereas only a limited portion addresses a more holistic view, as noted by Stough et al. (2018). This approach evaluates only a fraction of the courses, highlighting the need for isolated and comprehensive analyses of curricular units (CUs) to broaden the scope of assessment. Therefore, it is essential to examine scientific content, teaching methodologies, skills and other factors related to the teaching–learning process (Aleixo et al., 2020; Duarte et al., 2023). According to Figueiró and Raufflet (2015), Viegas et al. (2016), Besong (2017) and Rieckmann (2017), a holistic analysis of education is crucial for achieving sustainability through transformative educational processes. An example study was presented by Allen et al. (2008), which checks degrees of interdisciplinarity and practices that promote sustainability. This effort presents a significant advance, however, few studies that follow this methodology or deeper analyses have been identified.
This article proposes a theoretical–methodological tool for holistic curricular analysis, encompassing five key frameworks:
integration of sustainable content in each curricular unit;
pedagogical and methodological approaches employed;
skills and personal attributes of sustainable engagement fostered;
philosophical foundations of each unit; and
a comprehensive evaluation of each course.
Through “Educate-the-Educators” programs, faculty members could use the tool to analyze their curricula and leverage it as a support mechanism for curriculum restructuring. We also recommend that course directors collaborate with the pedagogical council and sustainability bodies to use the tool to establish curriculum construction guidelines as well as assist faculty members. This approach can be valuable even for courses where sustainability is not central. The educational frameworks of sustainability contribute to developing professionals who are critical thinkers, ethically responsible, and possess a systemic perspective, essential qualities for any contemporary field.
State-of-the-art: survey of existing tools and identification of gaps
The first step in developing the CASS tool involves reviewing existing sustainability assessment tools and previous analyses conducted with them. According to Ceulemans and De Prins (2010), a major obstacle to integrating sustainability into curricula is the teachers’ limited pedagogical knowledge of the subject, which can lead to biased and inconsistent views on promoting sustainable attitudes. Therefore, tools and guides can assist teachers in better analyzing their curricula and organizing classes more effectively in line with sustainability objectives. Shriberg (2002) emphasizes the importance of these tools for shaping governmental and educational policies in higher education, noting their significance in documents such as the Talloires Declaration (1990), Halifax Declaration (1991), Kyoto Declaration (1993) and Copernicus Charter (1993). The need for analytical tools is further supported by the growing international demand for reorienting educational systems and transforming the values, skills and knowledge of new graduates, as highlighted by the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (Yarime and Tanaka, 2012).
There has been a significant increase in instruments, surveys, and analytical methodologies for sustainability (Fischer et al., 2015). These instruments are diverse in form and purpose and can be categorized into four general types:
tools dependent on audits and certification mechanisms to validate sustainable components in teaching;
internal self-evaluation tools for organizing institutional development;
tools that generate classifications and comparative parameters between institutions; and
tools that provide comparative analyses without rankings (Ceulemans and De Prins, 2010; Fischer et al., 2015; Stough et al., 2018).
Regardless of the type of tool, all should ideally share common characteristics:
the ability to identify relevant issues that reflect the institution’s understanding of and approach to sustainability;
comparability;
coverage of various aspects of sustainability beyond eco-efficiency;
the capacity to question what, how and why choices are made, facilitating identification of areas for improvement; and
ease of understanding for the general public to foster a community committed to sustainability (Shriberg, 2002; Yarime and Tanaka, 2012).
Furthermore, education and curriculum analysis should be central to the development of these analytical tools and institutional guidelines (Shriberg, 2002).
However, some issues and gaps have been identified in current analysis tools and methods. Firstly, education assessment is not always fully comprehensive, with aspects such as pedagogical approaches, stimulated skills and literacy being less frequently addressed (Fischer et al., 2015; Saadatian et al., 2011; Shriberg, 2002; Stough et al., 2018; Yarime and Tanaka, 2012). Most tools pay greater attention to the general structure of the curriculum, without delving into the CUs. According to Stough et al. (2018), the analysis of CUs would possibly allow an in-depth and integrated analysis of the courses. Furthermore, it appears that most existing tools may end up not analyzing the socio-environmental situation of the place where the tool is being used (Fischer et al., 2015) nor evaluating the philosophies, epistemologies and feelings involved in the educational process (Fischer et al., 2015; Saadatian et al., 2011; Shriberg, 2002; Stough et al., 2018; Yarime and Tanaka, 2012), this being the biggest difference of the tool proposed in this article.
Methods
This work conducts an integrative review of mixed studies, utilizing 74 primary and 53 secondary sources without distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research. The objectives are to review theories related to education for sustainability, propose a tool for detailed curriculum analysis and address gaps in sustainability analysis identified in the literature.
The data search methodology followed Bardin’s document analysis protocol (2011):
Establish search keywords for reviewing tools, including “curriculum assessment,” “instruments for analyzing sustainability in teaching,” and synonyms.
Define keywords to identify key analysis points for structuring the new tool, such as “curriculum greening,” “integration of sustainability in teaching,” “sustainable content,” “skills promoting sustainability,” “teaching methodologies for sustainability” and “sustainability guiding philosophies”, all determined a priori.
Define the profile of the materials to be analyzed. This led to the inclusion of studies that propose or analyze tools and methodological-pedagogical analyses in higher education. The focus on higher education is due to its critical role in influencing future generations toward sustainability (Biancardi et al., 2023; Duarte et al., 2023; Shriberg, 2002; Žalėnienė and Pereira, 2021). Articles written in English, Portuguese and Spanish and published between 1992 and 2024 were reviewed. To ensure diverse perspectives on sustainability, no geographic restrictions were applied. Articles from various regions were included to capture different viewpoints. The databases used were Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar and sciELO.
The content analysis methodology was qualitative.
The synthesis of results culminated in the tool followed by a normative narrative manual.
Tool structuring
The tool was structured through two main methodological processes. First, we created a diagram of questions based on bibliographic review findings to outline the intended construction. Second, analysis categories were established following Bardin’s (2011) protocol. The diagram’s steps are illustrated in Figure 1.
Content analysis is an empirical, descriptive and analytical method aimed at systematically and objectively evaluating the meanings of messages. Quantitative analysis assesses data frequency, whereas qualitative analysis examines the presence or absence of specific messages or characteristics. Both approaches were used in this tool. The methodology consists of three main steps:
pre-analysis and exploratory reading;
material exploration and categorization; and
treatment of results, including inferences, interpretations and synthesis (Bardin, 2011).
To identify the priority categories for the tool, an exploratory analysis was conducted to assess the topics least addressed in the literature concerning teaching for sustainability and curriculum analysis. The authors’ survey uncovered 147 studies focused on curricular analysis, primarily emphasizing the incorporation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, a search for essential terms such as “sustainability,” “higher education,” “pedagogical methodologies” and their synonyms, with “curriculum” as an optional term, revealed only two works. Furthermore, when searching for “sustainability,” “higher education,” “sustainable skills” and their synonyms as mandatory terms, alongside “curriculum” as an optional item, only one study was found. These results indicate a significant gap in evaluating the relationship between teaching content and its practical application. In addition, employing “sustainability,” “higher education,” “epistemology,” “philosophical principles” and their synonyms as mandatory terms, while treating “curriculum” as optional yielded 32 studies focused on epistemologies but no findings regarding philosophical reflections.
With this panorama, during the pre-analysis, materials for the research corpus were identified, including books and articles on education for sustainability, thematic content, methodologies promoting sustainability, expected skills, factors influencing the teaching-learning process and guiding philosophical frameworks. A floating reading and identification of key points facilitated the creation of a pre-index with potential categories for the tool. Throughout this process, the principles of exhaustiveness, representativeness, homogeneity, relevance and exclusivity were followed.
The material exploration used logical-semantic analysis, which, according to Mucchielli (2006), classifies and identifies the semantic values within the researched passages. To classify messages, registration units from the “theme” category were used to create analysis categories during document reading (a posteriori), alongside pre-established analysis categories (a priori). These categories analyze “what” is taught (the conveyed message), “with what effect” (the decoding process and its consequences on student behavior), “how” it is taught (pedagogies and methodologies) and “why” (the coding process linked to underlying teaching philosophies).
The synthesis of the analysis culminated in the tool that will be presented.
Tool validation
We validated the tool following Bardin’s protocol through specialist peer review and pre-testing (summarized in Figure 2). This included:
review of analysis categories by five specialists in sustainability and socioenvironmental education. This stage involved reading and analyzing the categories and verifying their conceptual and practical adequacy (i.e. whether they adhered to the principles of exhaustiveness, representativeness, homogeneity, relevance and exclusivity, as defined by Bardin’s content analysis);
assessment of the tool by three other specialists in survey preparation and analysis within education. This step consisted of checking the tool, checking its logical structure (coherence and cohesion), ease of use and suitability for the target audience;
testing by five other field specialists; and
testing by 14 non-education specialists engaged in sustainability-related topics.
These stages involved using the tool with a sample curriculum to be analyzed by all participants. The responses are then compared, and reliability is calculated based on the direct similarity between the completed forms, with the percentage of identical responses being reported.
We obtained good approval from specialists and non-specialists in education. The validation and review of analysis categories achieved a 100% approval rate. The sole suggestion was to include “Research methods and philosophical approaches” as a corrective measure if the categories under “Philosophical and psychological theories of education” are not identifiable in curricula. In these cases, the topic of educational theories should not be completed.
The review of the tool’s structure also received 100% approval. The sole suggestion was to place questions related to pedagogies at the end of the methodological component, as the other categories assist users in completing this topic effectively.
Testing the tool among educational specialists yielded 95% compatibility across responses. The time dedicated to filling out the tool varied between 30 min and 1 h, depending on the specialist’s familiarity with the terms and level of curricular detail. This time was considered acceptable given the completeness of the tool. The primary areas of the discussion centered on more subjective topics, such as values, beliefs and emotional involvement. However, considering the nature and importance of these topics, such a level of disagreement was deemed understandable and acceptable. In contrast, the phase involving non-educational specialists showed only 85% compatibility, attributed to challenges in understanding or a lack of familiarity with foundational educational theories. Regarding the time available to fill out the tool among non-specialists in education, there was a variation between 1 h and 1:30 h. This time was considered reasonable by everyone who used the tool. Nonetheless, engaging non-education specialists is crucial for assessing the tool’s feasibility for university professors without pedagogical training to adapt their courses toward sustainability.
Results and discussion
As a result, we obtained a tool that aligns with key principles for curriculum analysis in support of sustainability, which have become international standards. These principles are:
Holistic and Integrative Approach: The tool emphasizes integrative and collaborative analysis rather than ranking information (Bell and Morse, 2012; Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2011; Disterheft et al., 2016; Naess, 1987; UNESCO, 2014).
Context Adaptability: It accommodates diverse contexts, integrating the needs, feelings and interests of both local and global populations (Bell and Morse, 2012; Dahl, 2012; Sipos et al., 2008).
Breaking Barriers: The tool examines the plurality of sociocultural realities, emphasizing the importance of human–nature and indoor–outdoor interactions for shifting attitudes toward sustainability (Disterheft et al., 2016; Woiwode et al., 2021).
Central Role of Education: It positions the educational system as vital for societal transformation, focusing on common elements within institutions rather than isolated attitudes. This unification facilitates evaluation and change processes in higher education (UNESCO, 2014).
Complementary Use: The tool can be used alongside others, such as the INDICARE tool (Disterheft et al., 2016), to provide a more comprehensive understanding of sustainability (Disterheft et al., 2016).
To meet these principles, all categories were developed based on established frameworks in Education for Sustainability, including canonical literature and validated Delphi studies (Rieckmann, 2012). To facilitate the use, the tool is subdivided into five essential components: four referring to the analysis of curricular units and one providing a general overview of the course.
The first evaluation component of the curricular units is entitled “Sustainable content” (Figure 3). This section of the CASS tool verifies the presence of theoretical content linked to sustainability and how it is addressed. For this work, theoretical content linked to sustainability was assumed to be any theme directly related to the SDGs defined by the UN. Each SDG can be approached in different ways, namely, from an environmental, social, cultural, political or economic perspective. These are sustainability pillars that must be preserved and met to guarantee the well-being of present and future generations (Besong, 2017; Bizerril et al., 2018; Viegas et al., 2016). The analysis incorporates the SDGs as benchmarks, as they represent common objectives for achieving global sustainability (Leal Filho et al., 2019a; Rieckmann, 2017). The SDGs promote a transdisciplinary approach, integrating knowledge across various domains, making them suitable indicators of sustainable content. However, they overlook aspects critical to human socio-cultural protection, such as the appreciation of local arts and customs. To address this gap, an observational topic was included in the tool, enabling the assessment of how closely taught content aligns with students’ realities. This connection can enhance motivation to relate daily life to global issues. Such an emotional–cognitive approach is crucial for fostering interest in sustainability (Wade et al., 2014; Wals and Jickling, 2002). Consequently, education becomes more aligned with sustainability as more SDGs and contextual themes are integrated, engaging multiple knowledge domains. The SDGs, therefore, present themselves as the contents present in education. It is a fact that theoretical knowledge is essential to be able to give concrete and coherent answers to the problems faced (Leal Filho et al., 2019a; Rieckmann, 2012), however, simple knowledge is not enough to generate concern and change of position in students (Figueiró and Raufflet, 2015; Freire, 2014; Rieckmann, 2017), it is important to verify the pedagogical approaches used and their potential for emotional approachment (Ojala, 2012).
The second evaluation component is entitled “Pedagogical-methodological aspects” (Figures 4, 5 and 6). For this category, the following color code is used to assist in the interpretation of filled forms:
green for categories that promote stronger sustainability education;
yellow for intermediate categories, those that can provide support for students to take sustainable stances, even if the topic of sustainability is not directly addressed;
orange for transition categories between traditional education and education for sustainability; and
red for the categories that move furthest from education toward sustainability (traditional education) and that only reinforce the unsustainable structures established over time.
The methodological section emphasized universal inclusion of students, promoting equitable education by addressing diverse intelligences (Gardner, 1993), utilizing varied methodologies to enhance skill development (Jeronen et al., 2016), accommodating different ways of learning (Besong, 2017) and positioning students as active knowledge agents (Aleixo et al., 2020; Biancardi et al., 2023). The greater the diversity of approaches, the more integrative and welcoming the teaching becomes, fostering a curriculum aligned with sustainability. Literacy data is essential for assessing how curricula address the nature of science, which is crucial for developing critical thinkers who can connect scientific concepts to everyday discussions. Marandino et al. (2018), in a study that analyzed literacy in museums, developed a tool with four dimensions: scientific indicator, social interface indicator, institutional indicator and interaction indicator. Considering the completeness and relevance of the work, we adapted the categories of scientific indicator, social interface indicator and institutional indicator to our research context. Thus, the objective of the scientific literacy assessed by the CASS tool is to verify whether the curricula present discussion bases to critically analyze the roles of scientific development, society’s participation and the influence of institutions in the sustainability process. Contextualizing themes related to students’ experiences can further stimulate interest in science and promote sustainable perspectives (Pereira and Scarpa, 2015).
Understanding and analyzing pedagogical approaches is fundamental for education for sustainability, because different forms of teaching directly impact the development of skills that promote sustainability as well as the contribution of students to sustainable development (Lozano et al., 2017). Also, according to the previously mentioned author, verifying methodologies and their potential in promoting sustainability allows educational institutions and their educators to improve their practices in favor of training future generations that are more socio-environmentally committed. In a 2019 study, Lozano et al. found that by evaluating pedagogical approaches not in isolation, but in parallel with the promotion of skills, it is possible to verify which approach is comprehensive in promoting sustainability. These analyses were used to classify approaches as green, yellow, orange, or red in the CASS tool. However, like what happens with content, Lozano et al. (2019) found that the correlation between pedagogical approaches and direct contribution to sustainability is low if the expected skills are not developed. Therefore, the analysis of skills is essential, as they are strong indicators of sustainable attitudes.
The third evaluation component of the curricular units is entitled “Personal components of sustainable involvement” (Figure 7). It aims to verify the stimulation of skills linked directly or indirectly to sustainability and include students’ values and beliefs. Attitudinal skills relate to practical attributes that directly impact daily situations and can be reflective or ecocentric (Rieckmann, 2017). Behavioral skills relate to how people think and what attitudes they will take based on these ways of thinking (Rieckmann, 2012). Values are considered by some authors as “a set of goals that guides actions” (Viegas et al., 2016). The personal components of sustainable involvement assess key attitudinal and behavioral competencies essential for sustainable positioning (Aleixo et al., 2020; Besong, 2017; Rieckmann, 2012; Rieckmann, 2017), while also encompassing students’ values, beliefs and emotional engagement. Although often overlooked due to their subjective nature, numerous studies highlight the importance of these factors for student decision-making and transformative actions (Freire, 2014; Marandino et al., 2018; Ojala, 2012). Emotions, beliefs and values shape individual worldviews, which directly influence actions (Viegas et al., 2016). Thus, analyzing and integrating these factors is crucial for fostering pro-socio-environmental behaviors and achieving long-term change (Leal Filho et al., 2019b; Wang and Chen, 2022). The more skills, values and beliefs are highlighted, the more sustainable teaching is.
The fourth assessment component of the curricular units is entitled “Integrative foundations/principles” (Figure 8). This component seeks to understand the focus and depth with which the CU focuses on sustainability and its pillars, revealing from which perspective this CU presents sustainability issues and how people should view related issues. The philosophical principles of education and the epistemology underlying sustainability reflect the perspectives of educational institutions and teachers. A tool that facilitates the examination of these theoretical foundations in curricula can enhance understanding of how specific content is conveyed to students. This interpretation allows for assessing whether education positions students as agents of transformation or maintains the status quo. Moreover, it can reveal the type of action encouraged in students, ranging from management focused solely on natural resources to socioculturally contextualized agents promoting significant historical change (Besong, 2017; Bizerril et al., 2018; Palma and Pedrozo, 2015; Layrargues, 2018; Silva and Bacci, 2023; Stough et al., 2018; Tozzoni-Reis, 2001; Viegas et al., 2016).
Disciplinary complexity depends on several factors, such as the number of participants, the diversity of methods and the amount of information. Given the complex nature of sustainability, the greater the disciplinary complexity, the more aligned the curriculum would be with sustainability values (Besong, 2017; Rieckmann, 2012).
Holistic thinking is a way of integrating knowledge, beliefs, feelings, values and other characteristics complexly and simultaneously. It seeks to see the whole rather than isolated parts and focuses on patterns, processes and interactions within a complex system (Aleixo et al., 2020). For this work, we consider physical and analytical involvement as the valorization of physical integration and action in constructing knowledge and problem-solving, spiritual recognition as the validation of the feelings and beliefs of students, and involving the community in resolving issues and building knowledge. Finally, the integration of knowledge from different perspectives is the practical and true way of including the knowledge of different peoples, ethnicities and groups for teaching and problem-solving.
The general analysis of the course aims to evaluate holistically how all curricular units (CUs) contribute to sustainability-focused teaching. The color code used for the CU analysis is also present in this stage. This analysis assesses the approach to teaching for sustainability throughout the CU: whether it follows an integrated reform approach (Education for sustainability), a complementary addition approach (Education about sustainability) or a constructivist approach emphasizing reconstruction and transformation (Education as a form of sustainability). In addition, it examines how sustainability is incorporated in higher education institution (HEI) curricula, whether it is integrated, when some CUs relate to sustainability, including optional CUs that may never impact some students; included, when all CU are related to some extent with sustainability, covering all students; or intervened, when a topic related to sustainability appears occasionally in an activity but is not actually present in any CU (Besong, 2017; Figueiró and Raufflet, 2015). These categories allow for assessing how sustainability is incorporated in HEIs curricula. This can be vertical, where only some courses align their curricula with sustainability; horizontal, where all courses do; or absent (Aleixo et al., 2020; Figueiró and Raufflet, 2015). Understanding the application type is crucial, as vertical implementation often relies on a top-down approach, limiting deep engagement among students and perpetuating the status quo. In contrast, horizontal integration fosters a combined top-down and bottom-up approach, facilitating the comprehensive implementation of sustainability and reflecting educational reform (Stough et al., 2018).
Finally, a course promoting sustainability should integrate sustainable themes and practices while adopting a constructivist approach. Moreover, the requirements of SDGs 4 and 17 call for cooperation between courses and non-formal and informal education to ensure partnerships for lifelong learning. Thus, increased collaboration enhances the course’s contextualization and sustainability.
The components should be used in the presented order, as illustrated in Figures 3 to 9.
Conclusions
This study aimed to develop a holistic curriculum verification tool focused on content, practices, skills and philosophies to promote sustainable education. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first work to integrate all these aspects into a curriculum analysis. Existing sustainability verification tools often overlook education, focusing primarily on SDG inclusion (Leal Filho et al., 2019a; Stough et al., 2018). Furthermore, existing reviews (Fischer et al., 2015; Saadatian et al., 2011; Shriberg, 2002; Stough et al., 2018; Yarime and Tanaka, 2012) highlight that verifying methodologies and skills in education is often challenging due to the absence of clear analytical guidelines.
To address these gaps, the proposed tool places a special focus on education and its multifaceted aspects. It enables an integrated analysis of how sustainability is envisioned. In addition, it examines the presence of content, educational practices and the skills developed by students. Curriculum analysis is a crucial step in monitoring the incorporation of sustainability into educational systems. Through this tool, it will be possible to understand the stage of sustainability inclusion within institutions and, if necessary, direct efforts toward pedagogical improvement, whether at the departmental or institutional level.
Such improvement is indispensable for training socially and environmentally responsible citizens who are capable of addressing current challenges. The ability to perform a comprehensive curriculum analysis can assist in restructuring courses with a multicultural perspective and a commitment to sustainability in all its dimensions, making education increasingly transformative.
The tool has two main limitations:
access to the curriculum may be restricted, and an incomplete or outdated curriculum could affect the analysis; and
it relies solely on document analysis, meaning that what is stated in the curriculum may not reflect actual classroom practices.
Due to these factors, we suggest carrying out interviews and/or observations in the classroom while using the tool to obtain information that may be hidden in the curriculum. However, this is not a mandatory step, but rather a complementary suggestion that would enrich the analysis, because the development of the tool was designed to be as comprehensive as possible, aiming to allow for in-depth curricular analysis, interpretation and monitoring of the inclusion of sustainability in higher education in a self-sufficient way.
This approach is expected to assist in monitoring the inclusion of sustainability in education by facilitating the identification of strengths and areas for improvement, where educators, departments and institutions can further integrate sustainability holistically. Ultimately, this contributes to the formation of new generations that are socio-environmentally sensitive and committed.
This work was supported by national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., through the project «2022.03754.PTDC» https://doi.org/10.54499/2022.03754.PTDC. The corresponding author, Danilo Santos de Oliveira, acknowledge the research grant (n°14/2023/BI/DBio) from «2022.03754.PTDC». Thanks are due to FCT for the financial support of CESAM (UID Centro de Estudos do Ambiente e Mar (CESAM) + LA/P/0094/2020).
