Trends in Educational Research for Sustainable Development in Postgraduate Education Programs at a University in Peru

Abstract

The Sustainable Development Goals are part of the formative management in multiple universities that are committed to a better and more sustainable future for all; contributing to this from the postgraduate management in education involves rethinking educational research from lines that ensure that the research work has a real impact on the 2030 agenda. In this regard, the objective of this study was to identify and characterize specific lines of educational research for sustainable development in a private university in Lima, specifically in Postgraduate Education (Doctorate, Master’s and Second Specialty). The methodology deployed a qualitative approach, synchronizing the methods of systematization of experiences and grounded theory. A total of 186 students and 16 teachers participated, and the collection of information used three techniques: (1)—documentary review (5398 titles and other normative documents), (2)—asynchronous focus group (16 experienced teachers), and (3)—interview (202 participants). The results show four specific lines of research: (1)—Quality educational management, (2)—Teaching–learning–assessment, (3)—Educational innovation and ICT, and (4)—Training, research, and psychosocial factors in education. It concludes with a characterization of these lines based on an epistemic foundation that integrates current trends in educational research for sustainable development.

1. Introduction

The Sustainable Development Goals are the model to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all [1]. Hence, several organizations worldwide, including universities, have joined this challenge. The 2030 agenda became a university agenda, for which several of the key and strategic processes of higher education were aligned to the call of the United Nations. Thus, sustainability (as a complex and holistic combination of social, psychological, ecological, cultural, economic, and political factors) is increasingly becoming a central component of higher education, which is evidenced by its importance as a curricular component that has begun to be implemented in several universities around the world [2].

Sustainable development, in its global meaning, implies an agenda for change that is promoted by international organizations and included in national policies; specifically, our study emphasizes SDGs 3 and 4. In this regard, the United Nations [1] sets out concrete targets for 2030 for each of these goals; thus, the targets for goal 4 are expressed in relevant actions that include quality education for all; it is essential to review each of these targets consecutively from 4.1 to 4.7, in addition to targets 4.A, 4.B, and 4.C. The same is the case with the targets of goal 3 (consecutively from target 3.1 to target 3.9, concluding with targets 3.A to 3.D).

One of the strategic areas in the university is the graduate program, especially because of the social impact of the training of its graduates, with research being a cross-cutting element in this training process; in this regard, studies emphasize the crucial importance of research to successfully implement sustainability in higher education curricula [2]. In this sense, for graduate programs to train professional agents of change for sustainable development, research should be developed from lines of research aligned with the SDGs, so that the results of the research have a real impact on this 2030 agenda. In this regard, it is highlighted that future research programs should have as a main element the global competence skill of graduate students towards sustainability in HEIs [3], for which communities of practice are required to research to develop curricula for sustainability in higher education [4,5].

Considering all the above complexity, the objective of this study is to identify and characterize the specific lines of research of the Postgraduate Education Program (Doctorate, Master’s and Second Specialty) that allow educational research for sustainable development. In this sense, empirical information gathering techniques will be applied to identify these lines, the findings will be presented in the results section of this article and then we will proceed to a theoretical analysis that allows placing in scientific context each of the identified lines and thus be able to have a characterization of them.

To effectively engage higher education students in sustainability, educators must provide interdisciplinary and experiential learning experiences and place students in positions where they imagine themselves using innovation, experimentation, trial and error social learning, and adaptive management to become future problem solvers and change agents [6]. Thus, sustainable higher education is expected to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by developing various academic competencies, including critical thinking skills [7].

Sustainable development in higher education is related to the process of recognition and management of universities regarding their responsibilities in transformative learning to promote sustainability, implementing curricular innovations to reshape teaching and research, and achieve a significant contribution to sustainability; this recognition of responsibilities for sustainable education [4], requires the university community to build its mission and vision according to the generation of knowledge and the transfer of knowledge, skills, values and valuations to students to prepare them to make the world a better place, from a strong commitment to sustainability education to achieve that “better place” [6], finally, this is concretized in a strategic and intercultural communication of graduate students in the development of a global competence towards sustainability from Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) [3].

Educational research has been highlighting the importance of defining key competencies and learning outcomes related to sustainability education as a reference for transparent assessment of student learning in this domain [8]. Based on a reference framework that identifies five key competencies in sustainability—(1—systems thinking competence, 2—anticipatory competence, 3—normative competence, 4—strategic competence, and 5—interpersonal competence)—the study reported in this paper aims to understand if, how, and for what these competencies are present in doctoral theses in Higher Education published in Portugal in the last ten years [8]. This shows an interesting path on how to assess educational research against the SDGs.

Based on the above, in this study we focus on the Postgraduate Education Program of a private university in Lima (specifically on the Doctorate, Master’s and Second Specialty programs) from an understanding of research and sustainability in higher education, recognizing the importance of analyzing practices adopted by universities to integrate sustainability in education, and referring, among other aspects, to research and pedagogy [9]. These authors [9] argue that sustainability has made inroads in HEIs, but only a few universities have been successful in implementing it holistically. Hence, there is the need to delineate the global research landscape of the processes of implementing sustainability curricula in higher education, investigating where research is occurring that aims to integrate sustainability into the curriculum. and how the research area of curriculum change for sustainability is developing [10], revealing the teaching–research–practice nexus as a framework for implementing sustainability in curricula [11].

Within higher education, the Teaching–Research–Practice Nexus (TRPN) considers an equal linkage of subjects to achieve sustainability in applied teaching through a holistic framework, generally referred to as the “research–teaching–practice triangle” [11]. This Teaching–Research–Practice Nexus (TRPN) has significant scientific evidence [11,12,13,14,15,16] and occupies a central role in shaping a sustainable higher education that requires a shift from traditional teaching activities to a combination of research and teaching [17], which can have a positive impact on the development of sustainable research excellence with a global perspective [18]. This increasing emphasis on research as an integral part of this transformation of higher education has required HEIs to develop and implement capacity-building strategies to enable those new to research to participate in research outcomes; and mentoring is one strategy [17].

In higher and technical education institutions around the world, teaching and research complement each other, leading to better quality outcomes in the classroom and constituting a chain in the supply chain pattern in industry [19]. It is becoming increasingly important to analyze how research culture can be created in an academic institution not only to improve, but also to maintain, the quality of outcomes through an effective classroom teaching–learning environment supported by the proactive participation of teachers and students [19]. This is coupled with an axiological component embodied in helping students to understand the role of values in human decision making on how to address sustainability challenges [6].

Previous research highlighted strategies and methods for better implementation of sustainability as a curricular component, such as prioritizing place-based learning, active learning, critical reflection, interdisciplinary approaches, as well as the need to involve students in the process of developing learning strategies. Thus, reconnecting design, education, and sustainability is a vital aspect of research in higher education curriculum development. This cannot be achieved today outside of a single discipline, as it requires multidisciplinary collaboration and interdisciplinary approaches as a model of sustainable research [2], nor can it be achieved outside of technology, especially when it has been demonstrated how digital transformation can contribute to sustainability in HEIs [20]. In this regard, a recent study showed important findings for the future of higher education based on digital transformation and technological innovation [21].

Sustainable higher education is possible, but it requires sustained efforts in research. An interesting study on what, where, and who is doing research on higher education for sustainability found a significant increase in the last 30 years, highlighting the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, and Germany as the countries that publish the most [22], which calls for a greater boom in our Latin American countries.

In the scientific literature, there are many studies on sustainable higher education; however, less progress has been made in the field of sustainable educational research. Nevertheless, it has been possible to delimit the competencies required by a researcher for sustainable educational research [23], which is a great step forward.

Higher education institutions play an important role in promoting sustainability, and an increasing number of stakeholders expect them to be sustainable organizations [24]. It is, therefore, essential to identify the drivers for transforming traditional universities into entrepreneurial universities to ensure sustainable higher education, from the openness of the university to co-collaboration in and co-creation of knowledge with its external stakeholders [25]. Finally, it is important to continue gaining an epistemological and methodological culture about sustainability in HEIs as it is a dynamic element that is developing and assuming the characteristics of its own time; therefore, it is necessary to be attentive to systematic reflections on the current global research landscape in the implementation of sustainability curricula to guide future research efforts [10].

2. Materials and Methods

The methodological route used in the present study is epistemic mapping [26], which consists of 10 methodological elements that help to support and justify the research: 1—Paradigm of scientific research, 2—Research approach, 3—Type of research, 4—Type of study, 5—Scope, 6—Method (design), 7—Techniques and instruments for data collection, 7.1—Procedures for information analysis, 8—Theoretical methods, 9—Population and sample (type of sampling), 9.1—Ethical aspects, and 10—Categories and subcategories.

2.1. Research Paradigm and Approach

The scientific research paradigm adopted was the systemic paradigm [27] since it allows us to find better solutions to our research problem. In this regard, this paper is devoted to promoting the characterization principle, treated as a systemic paradigm that links—in an integral whole—the functional and structural aspects of any organization, understood as a deliberate relationship of related resources. The characterization principle and the specific characterization theories built on its basis belong to the methodology of systemic research [28]. Many of the qualitative research methods developed in the social sciences are suitable for exploring research questions relevant to the systems field and fit well with systems thinking, among which grounded theory for the investigation of subjective experience and meaning stands out for its usefulness [29]. A qualitative research approach was used, being a basic type of research, which did not have an established category or variable as a premise but was constructed during the process. The study, in turn, is classified as cross-sectional, deployed in a single period (October 2022–February 2023), with an explanatory scope.

2.2. Research Methods

Three sections of methods were used: 1—the main qualitative methods of the study—systematization of experiences and grounded theory; 2—the theoretical methods for the analysis of information—analysis–synthesis, inductive–deductive, and generalization–abstraction [26], and 3—the methods of data collection (Documentary review, Asynchronous focus group, Interview). In this regard, the methods of systematization of experiences [30] and grounded theory applied to educational research were combined with the use of ATLAS.ti [31]. While the systematization of experiences has an exceptional value in rescuing the experiences of educational actors and allows a point of arrival in the form of a characterization of the study phenomenon [28], it is complemented by the analytical procedures of grounded theory and the possibilities offered by ATLAS.ti software to improve qualitative analytical practice in education [31].

In this regard grounded theory was designed to help researchers to obtain and analyze qualitative data and, thereby, identify important categories from the accounts of research participants. The approach is suitable for analyzing diversities and similarities, being a recursive and iterative process that fits well with systemic practice, in which feedback informs and shapes further research [29]. Hence its complement with the Systematization of Experiences is considered a methodological strategy that contributes to qualitative research from the recovery of history and knowledge of practices while strengthening and transforming local reality [30].

Three data collection methods or techniques were applied: documentary review, focus group, and interview. It is worth noting that all were applied online. The techniques with their objectives, dynamics, and participants are detailed below.

Documentary review: With the objective of analyzing the thesis topics and works of graduate students, as well as previous institutional resolutions on lines of research. This review took place in the study institution, which was a private university in Lima, Peru. A total of 5398 papers published in the institutional repository of this university and two previous resolutions on lines of research were reviewed.

Asynchronous focus group: With the objective of systematizing the experiences of outstanding professors in graduate thesis advising and their future projections in the face of the new scientific challenges in education in relation to the objectives of sustainable development. The group had a central focus of discussion: “Sharing experiences and proposals on the lines of research of the Postgraduate Program in Education and its link with the SDGs”. This asynchronous focus group was constituted as a WhatsApp group, for a period of two months, with the participation of 16 active teachers in the institution with extensive experience in advising graduate theses in education. These professors were key informants and played a major role in the identification and characterization of the lines of research. The exchanges provided very rich information that was compiled by the authors from the export of these discussions, which were subsequently transcribed; they were systematized in ATLAS.ti and presented organized in a synthesis, which was approved or re-signified by the participants, until a final consensus was reached on the central topic. In total there were five rounds until the final approval was reached.

Interview: This technique had a double objective: on the one hand, to examine the current topics of theses or works in progress, and, on the other hand, to verify their association or not with the SDGs. It was applied to 202 active participants in the Postgraduate Program in Education, including 186 students and 16 teachers (the same teachers who participated in the focus group). Considering that interviewing more than 202 participants in person requires significant effort and time, the interview was conducted online through Google Forms.

For the three techniques used, the main information analysis procedure was ATLAS.ti (version 8). All text transcriptions were entered into the software, thus enabling the generation of common thematic codes; these grouped codes formed emerging categories that were established as specific lines of research. SPSS (version 25) was also used to organize statistical information, especially with respect to the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.

2.3. Study Participants (Sample)

The study sample consisted of 202 participants (students and currently active students in the Postgraduate Program in Education at a private university in Lima), with an average age of 47 years, with a minimum age of 27 years, and a maximum age of 75 years. A characterization of the sample is detailed below (see

Table 1. Characterization of the sample.

Indicator	Frequency	Percentage
Sex
Male	75	37.1%
Female	127	62.9%
Total	202	100%
Role
Students	186	92.1%
Teachers	16	7.9%
Total	202	100%
Program
Doctorate in Education	94	46.5%
Master’s Degree in Education	94	46.5%
Second Specialization	14	6.9%
Total	202	100%
Degree obtained
Bachelor’s degree	77	38.1%
Master’s degree	110	54.5%
Doctorate	10	5.0%
Postdoctorate	5	2.4%
Total	202	100%

).

Within the ethical aspects, the confidentiality, anonymity, and voluntariness of the participants were considered, and informed consent was obtained from 100% of them. Finally, it is valid to point out that the object of study (thematic category) in this work is constituted by the lines of research of the graduate degree in education (these were shaped during the research process), from the basic research, an object of study under construction, which was not established, per se, beforehand as a premise as it occurs in applied research, but was the result of the systematization of experiences and grounded theory.

3. Results

The results specified to be shared below are associated with a specific university/country/region (a private university in Lima, Peru; specifically, the study took place in postgraduate studies in education at this Peruvian university). In this way, the results of the documentary review are reported first, followed by the results of the focus group and the interview, ending with an explanation of how all these results are finally linked.

3.1. Documentary Review

The documentary review played an important role, as it allowed one of the most powerful analyses for the thematic grouping of the lines of research based on the export and review of 5398 thesis titles and works corresponding to graduate studies in education, published in the institutional repository (open access). The programs were Master’s degree in Education, Second Specialty and Doctorate in Education (see

Table 2. Number of research works reviewed by program.

Program	Number of Titles
Master’s Degree in Education with Mention in Learning and Human Development	27
Master’s Degree in Education with a specialization in Teaching Didactics	90
Master’s Degree in Education with a specialization in Teaching in Higher Education	179
Master’s Degree in Education with a specialization in Competency-based Learning Assessment	77
Master’s Degree in Education with a specialization in Education Quality Evaluation and Accreditation	92
Master’s Degree in Education with a specialization in Educational Management	224
Master’s Degree in Education with Mention in Learning Disabilities	45
Master’s Degree in Education with Mention in Psychopedagogy	163
Master’s Degree in Education with Mention in Curricular Research and Innovation	127
Second Specialization in School Management with Pedagogical Leadership	4367
Doctorate in Education	7
Total	5398

).

To complement the above information, institutional normative documents were reviewed to analyze the previous guidelines that were in force at the time in the institution, from which two periods were summarized to reflect the latest additions that have been made (see

Table 3. Lines of research (2018–2022).

General Line	Specific Lines
Human sciences, art, and education	Curriculum Planning and Management
	Management of Educational Institutions
	School Management and Leadership
	Rural School
	Didactics and Teaching Methodologies
	Reading/Writing, Mathematics and Science Learning
	Citizenship and Values Education
	Use of ICT in Learning
	Pedagogical Innovation
	Teaching in Contexts of Diversity
	Bilingual and Intercultural Education
	Retention, Learning and Quality of Education
	Arts Education

and

Table 4. Lines of research (August 2022–February 2023).

General Line	Specific Lines
Human sciences, art, and education	Curriculum Policy, Design and Management
	Leadership and Management of Educational Institutions
	Rural School
	Didactics and Pedagogical Methodologies
	Education and Early Childhood Development
	Pedagogical Innovation
	Teacher Policy, Training and Development
	Educational Technology
	Ethics and Bioethics in Education

).

As can be seen in the tables above, the 2018–2022 version had 13 specific lines, and the August 2022–February 2023 version had nine lines, expressing an intention of concreteness. Several lines had been explicitly integrated, thereby forming new lines (such as the first two), and were implicitly inserted within the new lines. Some were previously specific lines such as Learning in Reading/Writing, Mathematics and Science, Education in Citizenship and Values, Use of ICT in Learning, Teaching in Contexts of Diversity, Bilingual and Intercultural Education, Retention, Learning and Quality of Education, and Arts Education. However, the challenge remained to achieve an integration that could express the theoretical-co-practical advances of the graduate in Education and that could be consolidated from empirical and epistemological systematization. Therefore, the need for this study that provides specific lines for a sustainable educational research aligned to the 2030 agenda was born, so that these lines can become a guide for educational research of the present and the future.

The contents of the document review were imported into the ATLAS.ti software. These comprise 5398 titles of works completed and published in the institutional repository, which correspond to graduate students in education (they were also included as well as the previous lines of research); the contents of the asynchronous focus group (narrative synthesis of the experience of experienced teachers); and the thematic contents of the interview with teachers and active students, with 202 titles of research works in progress.

3.2. Focus Group and Interview

Next, the results of the focus group and the interview are reported, and it is explained how these results are linked to the results of the documentary review.

As announced in the methodological section, the focus group was designed based on a WhatsApp group that lasted 2 months and in which 16 experienced teachers with outstanding results in graduate thesis advising participated, a central question was launched: what issues are identified from their training experience and how these are linked to the SDGs? The participants presented their proposals, and these were systematized and organized in a content matrix, which was subsequently presented for elaboration or approval by all members; after 5 rounds of debate and re-signification of the collective proposals, the final approval was obtained in a list of 50 topics that would be added together with the topics identified in the documentary review to the ATLAS.ti software.

Finally, we proceeded with the application of the interview, which was applied online and was open for 15 days for the collection of information. The interview was answered by 202 participants, the 16 teachers who also participated in the focus group and 186 students of the Graduate Program in Education, with an equal participation of the master’s and doctoral programs (both programs with 46.5%), while the second specialty program had a lower participation, registering only 6.9%. There were two main questions, one where they had to expose their research topic and the other where they had to relate this topic to the SDGs; from the first question 202 topic proposals were obtained, which were all included in the ATLAS.ti software, while the second question showed how the balance leaned towards SDG 4 and many topics related to SDG 3 emerged.

The ATLAS.ti software thus became a big box of binding content expressed in all exported themes from the documentary review (5398 topics), all exported themes from the focus group (50 topics), and all exported themes from the interview (202 topics). Thus, when carrying out the respective analysis, the triangulation of the contents of the three techniques produced an overall result of 38 semantic codes, grouped into four major emerging categories. For the interpretation of this study, the 38 semantic codes are assumed as themes or sub-themes, and the four emerging categories as lines of research. To situate our proposal in the field of praxis, it is valid to understand the three levels of the lines of research (see

Table 5. Levels and scope of the lines of investigation.

Line	Level	Scope
General line	Strategic level	General
Specific line	Tactical level	Particular
Sub line	Operational level	Singular

).

The institution offers us a general institutional line established as “Human Sciences, Art and Education”, and this general line is functionally deployed in specific lines which were identified in this study (they are scientific constructs or study objectives, with adequate theoretical–practical support) and aligned to the objectives of sustainable development. At the same time, each specific line is an expression of a set of themes or sub-lines that constitute specific fields of action in which the researcher intervenes directly in an epistemic and operative way. All this explains a logic that transitions from the general to the particular to the singular. Thus, we began this study with the general line of research and the challenge was to identify and characterize the specific lines based on the associated themes or sub-lines (see

Table 6. Themes or sub-lines (codes) and specific lines (emerging categories).

Topics or Sub-Lines (Codes)	Specific Lines (Emerging Categories)
Educational policies. Curriculum management. Management of educational institutions. Management and leadership in educational institutions. Retention, learning, and quality of education. Education in areas of interest (education for sustainable development, rural school, multi-grade school, bilingual education, intercultural education, food education, education in non-formal contexts, artistic education, education and sports, hospital education, military education, environmental education, education in renewable energies, community education, political education, and business education, among others).	Quality education management (SDG 4)
7. Active methodologies in specific contexts, personalized learning, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, intergenerational learning, and social and emotional learning, among others. 8. Current didactic models. 9. Specific didactics (teaching–learning in communication and reading, mathematics, science, art, and research, among other specific areas). 10. Teaching–learning in diversity. 11. Formative assessment and feedback. 12. Relevant learning management. 13. Andragogy. 14. Heutagogy.	Teaching–learning–assessment (SDG 4)
15. Pedagogical innovation. 16. Educational technology, sustainable technology. 17. Education and ICT. 18. Virtual education, remote education, hybrid education, Hyflex, online learning, e-learning, b-learning, m-learning, machine learning, deep learning, cybersecurity, Metaverse, and virtual reality. 19. Digital competencies. 20. STEAM education, STEM education. 21. Education 2.0, 4.0, 5.0. 22. TPACK. 23. Big Data. 24. Artificial Intelligence. 25. Data Mining, Data Science. 26. Digital Transformation.	Educational innovation and ICT (SDG 4)
27. Ethics and Bioethics in Education. 28. Citizenship and Values Education. 29. Education and Early Childhood Development. 30. Initial and Continuing Education. 31. Educational Research. 32. Science Education. 33. Competencies and life skills training. 34. Health and well-being in and from the educational environment (mental health, educational resilience, engagement, psychological capital, etc.). 35. Education applied to business and entrepreneurship. 36. Interdisciplinarity and trans disciplinarity in Education. 37. Education, training and development of teachers and non-teaching staff. 38. Psycho-educational work at individual, group, institutional, organizational, community, macro-social and environmental levels.	Training, Research, and Psychosocial Factors in Education (SDG 3 and SDG 4)

).

Once these lines were identified, the relationship of their current topics was verified with the students and active students with research in progress, grouping the works as 30.7% in line 1; 31.7% in line 2, 21.8% in line 3, and 15.8% in line 4 (see Figure 1).

Lines 1 and 2 are very evenly matched and account for 62.4% of the papers reported. Line 3 on educational innovation and ICT continues in prevalence level; however, it should be noted that it is a line that has grown very fast because the topics associated with it began to be noticed with greater force at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, positioning itself today at only 10 percentage points of the traditional thematic lines where most of the topics of the graduates are and which contains the behavior of long years of work. Therefore, line 3 can be considered as a line in full ascent, being the line that has grown the most in the last two years. Finally, an emerging line associated with training, research and psychosocial factors in education—line 4—that directly shares research with quality education and health and welfare was a line that also took on significant strength during the pandemic and explores these aspects rarely addressed in and from education.

4. Discussion

The discussion section is based on understanding the meaning of the empirical results based on previous scientific literature; in our study its specific function is to characterize the emerging lines of research. It was one of the most complex stages as it required the scientific investigation of relevant sources, mainly Scopus, which allowed technical–theoretical support to be given to each line in an interconnected and functional way, so that the documentation achieved in each of the four sections of the discussion becomes a scientific contextualization of the empirical findings (emerging lines of research).

4.1. Quality Educational Management

The Sustainable Development Goals are the model for achieving a better and more sustainable future for all. Among these transcendental objectives for humanity is to achieve quality education, so educational management processes should focus on achieving quality education as a basis for improving the lives of people and sustainable development to address this global challenge of improving the planet and the lives of its citizens by 2030 [1].

Botero and collaborators [32] emphasize that education is one of the most important structures of a nation; hence, educational management should be a quality tool for sustainable development, being essential for it as an institutional structure that guarantees the development of policies, support of human resources, and application of essential educational practices, to achieve the projected achievements. This can be achieved by advancing increasingly towards an educational management of quality, freedom, and equity [33].

Current times call for the development of innovation processes in educational management [34]; however, studies show that leadership management, principles, theories, and educational management are changing [35]. Therefore, these require constant updating and participation in educational management as human rights enforcement [36], an aspect that does not occur, per se, but that requires a collaborative metacognitive feedback as a scaffolding of a contextualized educational management [37]. At the same time, other studies support this trend and argue that the transformation of school management needs a reflection of educational management [38], including processes of digital transformation of education and collaborative learning through ICT [39,40,41]. In this way, an educational management for academic sustainability [42]—which implies pedagogical practices in the current socio-educational context for an inclusive quality education for all [43,44,45]—can be dynamized from the management of educational policies and reforms that have, as their central axis, this quality education for all [46] and that knows how to distinguish between the connections and differences between educational management and educational leadership, as well as the importance of educational responsibility in the fulfillment of SDG 4 [47].

4.2. Teaching–Learning–Evaluation

General didactics is understood as a science whose object of study is the teaching-learning process, with evaluation being an important link in this formative process, as indicated by Homero Fuentes [48], recently supported by an architectural concept for didactics that integrates technology in teaching, learning and evaluation [49]. Related to the above, specific didactics, focused on teaching, learning and evaluation processes in particular fields such as English, history, linguistics, social sciences, natural sciences, statistics, chemistry, mathematics, among many others, are strongly positioned today [50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57], an aspect that requires rethinking the way in which educational processes are currently conceived, which require didactic environments in and for diversity [58].

Scientific advances in this field speak of a contemporary didactics of innovation [59] due to the great scope and relevance of educational innovation for the development of relevant learning [60], this learning development has as an essential component the evaluation process, which with the advances in educational theory and practice, has gone from being a unidirectional, top-down evaluation (from the student to the teacher), with the teacher as the main protagonist, to a more horizontal and participatory evaluation based on active methodologies [61] and an integrated formative feedback for reflective, meaningful and meta-regulated learning [62,63], which is possible to the extent that the teacher achieves a reflective role as the axis of this formative evaluation that includes elements of self-, hetero- and co-evaluation [64].

In this regard, scientific studies have found that teachers and students believe that they are moving towards a learning-centered model, and that the implementation of active methodologies implies new functions of teaching practice [65], which ratifies the importance of reflective learning based on the potential of active methodologies for transformative practices [66] and, along the same lines, the deployment of these active methodologies in sustainable learning [67]. In addition to this, the current trends in adult education are added, so that the trinomial Pedagogy-andragogy-heutagogy is assumed, which defends a new path towards transformative educational epistemologies [68], including new scopes for entrepreneurial education [69].

4.3. Educational Innovation and ICT

The global socio-educational context is experiencing the post-pandemic period which has accelerated the processes of digital transformation and technological innovation in education [21]. Thus, with the advancement of the computerization of education, educational management methods have gradually become more information-based and large amounts of data stored in teaching have accumulated [70], calling for educational innovation with ICT to promote relevant learning [60], which necessarily requires digital competencies.

Likewise, digital transformation is providing important opportunities for sustainability in education [20], being a growing field in the eyes of a large part of the contemporary scientific and educational community [20,71,72,73,74,75]. The above poses an important challenge to education for sustainable development, especially to the educational actors in the classroom to manage their pedagogical autonomy, since traditional classes focused on disciplinary content and pedagogical content fundamentally require the integration of technological content, positioning the TPACK as this integrative perspective of innovative teaching practice [76]. The TPACK is precisely when a pedagogical practice is deployed that includes the use of technology and requires a technical mastery of the discipline. In this sense, there must be a balance among educators, possessing not only a wide experience in their professional field, but also technological and pedagogical skills to be able to transfer the contents of the discipline to the classroom.

Undoubtedly, educational innovation with ICT requires complementing individual, institutional, and social elements, and its repercussions transcend school spaces, having social, environmental, and human impacts. Hence, studies highlight the articulation between the green economy, educational development, and technological innovation [77] in the same way that other studies emphasize the relationship between technological innovation and sustainable regional development [78], establishing challenges in the path of technological innovation of artificial intelligence in productive and educational integration [79], the modernization of the industrial structure [80], and industry 4.0 [81].

As aspects of concreteness, virtual, remote, or hybrid education, educational innovation processes with ICT, digital transformation, and technological innovation find dynamizing aspects in the pedagogical models of STEAM from the recognition of interdisciplinary skills and the commitment of educational actors [82,83,84,85], education 4.0 [86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93], Big Data [94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101], Data Mining [102,103], Data Science [104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111], and Artificial Intelligence [112,113,114,115,116,117]. However, one should constantly reflect on the ethics, potentialities, and challenges of artificial intelligence in the framework of quality education [118].

These trends had an initial accent on education 2.0 and open data to energize university openness and the performance of shared creation of training content [119], requiring a new digital identity of students and new ways to manage their learning [120]. More recently, education 5.0 is opening a new space of theory and practice in education [121], and studies reveal the importance of this education 5.0 to accelerate the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals [122].

4.4. Training, Research, and Psychosocial Factors in Education

Ethics and bioethics are closely linked to the educational sciences since they are a science committed to learning, education, and sustainable human and social development, whose main focus is to prepare human beings for life, from their initial training to their continuing education. However, an ethical human being has moral–ethical values that allow them to know how to live together in a context of global citizenship [123] upholding the maxim that ethics must necessarily be formed from an ethical education, in accordance with the approach of Andersson and collaborators [124] who speak of “ethical education to support the learning of ethical competencies” (p. 29). One of the most influential scientific studies on this subject addresses the need for social, emotional, ethical, and academic education as well as the importance of creating a climate for learning, participation in democracy, and well-being [125]. This requires examining the axiological component of education—the formation of values— including virtual education and hybrid education [63], which, in turn, calls for considering as a top priority the ethical dimension of emerging technologies in education [126].

Likewise, another important work connotes the essences of ethical leadership and decision making in education, addressing the growing interest in ethics, and helping educational leaders with the complex dilemmas of today’s diverse and challenging society [127]. In line with this, a recent study highlights the role of teachers’ scientific research leadership and its potential in the transformation of the university context. This is how this is transferred to the research field, requiring the examination of a framework for ethical research in education [128], betting on the active methodology to address ethics and bioethics in education [129]; and this is precisely because the effectiveness, relevance, functionality, and impact of bioethics education for the development of critical thinking has been demonstrated [130], with critical thinking being one of the main competencies of the 21st century.

Another of the central aspects in educational sciences is precisely the teaching of science. This didactics of research requires the formation of an epistemic competence for educational research that allows the construction of routes to investigate with ethical, scientific, and methodological rigor. The didactics of science should continue to deepen the epistemological bases of a scientific education that promotes scientific thinking and research culture in educational actors. Decision making in education must be increasingly supported by science. Epistemic competence even allows the scientific systematization of good practices. The educational world is full of good practices, it is full of success stories, which run the risk of fading away and not transcending. Therefore, we need to systematize more the positive nuclei of our educational practices [21] with scientific methods so that this is concretized in the process of science communication. To achieve this purpose, we need scientific literacy, understanding that the review of the history of science education shows that there have been at least nine separate and distinct objectives of science education related to the broader objective of scientific literacy [131].

In this regard, current studies highlight the link between business education and science [132], and some go so far as to speak of the role of science education for a sustainable future [133]. Talking about science education today requires crossing borders, as postulated by Kapon and Erduran [134] who invite us to examine the challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinarity in science education, since today’s world is increasingly interconnected, and disciplinary, environmental, business, and educational fields are increasingly intertwined, and educational [135]. Therefore, educational research is an educational research and science education will necessarily be increasingly interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, and it is precisely the basis of the so-called “transformative education” that lies in a new educational paradigm based on transdisciplinary [136]. This whole framework demands an empowerment of scientific research in education.

None of the above could be achieved if we do not have healthy, motivated educational actors, with adequate socioemotional education, and the development of soft skills such as uncertainty management, conflict management, interpersonal communication, intrapersonal care, and work–family balance, among other aspects. This is why psychosocial factors (communication, motivation, etc.) are essential components for educational development; as human actors are the main managers of educational change, it is increasingly essential to consider their mental health, especially when scientific evidence shows the significant impact of factors such as engagement and role stress on digital competencies and teaching performance.

Since the health and well-being of educational actors is a central component, educational work at the individual, group, institutional, organizational, community, social, or macro-social levels should be a priority, establishing in the organizational culture and shared values an effective management of psychosocial well-being at work that allows the building of healthy organizations [137]. In this regard, it is important to work on motivational aspects such as creative self-efficacy, psychological empowerment, motivation for self-learning, and self-confidence, energizing the psychological capital of educational actors—hope, optimism, resilience, self-efficacy—[138,139]. This calls for rethinking a way to explore the positive cores of teachers and students from positive psychology and appreciative inquiry, emphasizing the management of formative potentialities of university faculty, thus transcending the perspective of deficit-based change and recognizing the relevance of a perspective of positive change based on amplifying good practices, aspirations, hope, wisdom, creativity, future-mindedness, courage, spirituality, responsibility, and perseverance [140,141]. All the above require the education, training, and development of faculty and non-teaching staff, as well as students.

5. Conclusions

Four lines of educational research for sustainable development have been identified and characterized: 1—Quality educational management, 2—Teaching–learning–assessmentn, 3—Educational innovation and ICT, 4—Training, research and psycho-social factors in education. The topics associated with these lines are constituted in the research work of the professionals who study the postgraduate course; thus, each research paper will have a real impact on the achievement of quality education (sustainable development objective 4), contributing to each one from its local context, its specific socio-historical moment, and from the social and ethnic characteristics of the environments and the involved actors.

In addition to the above, in the case of the research line—training, research, and psychosocial factors in education—apart from having an impact on SDG 4, many of its topics have a direct impact on health and well-being in and from the educational context (SDG 3), thus establishing itself as a platform for managing healthy individuals, groups, communities, and institutions. This priority to health and well-being in and from education, has been taking much force in recent times, given the multiple psychosocial factors associated with work, interpersonal relationships, communication, family life, and daily life itself, because as we know life does not stop to manage quality education, and the managers of it do so immersed in different social, economic, political, family, cultural realities, so ensuring health and well-being at all levels is essential for sustainable development.

Of the current works reported, the following percentage behavior is revealed with respect to the lines identified: Quality educational management: 30.7%, Teaching–learning–evaluation: 31.7%, Educational innovation and ICT: 21.8%, Training, research and psychosocial factors in education: 15.8%. The line with the greatest growth in the last two years is Educational innovation and ICT; likewise, Training, research and psychosocial factors in education is denoted as an emerging line.

Among the main limitations of the study is the low participation of Second Specialty students, although this is correlated with the current enrollment in Master’s and Doctoral programs. The study’s prospects call for expanding to other institutions and countries in the region, continuing to generate this Latin American and global dialogue in terms of the objectives of sustainable development from education, where educational research plays a central role. In addition to this, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary dialogue is needed; current educational research must necessarily interact with psychology, sociology, medicine, economics, law, anthropology, and even with other disciplines that do not belong to the field of social sciences. Greater cooperation and dialogue in educational research for sustainable development is required at the levels of institutions, region, actors, and decision makers. This work opens the door to future studies and strategic alliances in this global challenge, and opportunities to contribute to a better and more sustainable future for all.

This study has practical implications directly related to the curricular, formative, and research praxis in the Postgraduate Program of Education of this Private University of Lima, which is one of the main universities in Peru, and its direct implications for the SDGs. At the curricular level, these contents are already being directly associated to the syllabi of the subjects, and these lines become the main focus of execution of the curricular work in Education; at the educational research level, new opportunities for the development of thesis and research work are materialized; at the formative process level, the central research focuses are organized and theoretical support is provided to back them up. It is important to recognize that the students of the Postgraduate Program in Education of this university are teachers and workers with important positions in educational institutions, which have a high social impact, so we are committed to training professionals who become managers of sustainability in their various spaces, and offering support in achieving recognition and management of this sustainability. In this university these are undertaken with a focus on promoting proposals for improvement with a transformative scope, so that our research does not remain on paper but transcends in practical and real ways to the objectives of sustainable development and, thus, to the positive transformation of society. All of the above is based on cooperation and interdisciplinary processes.