Diagnostic Evaluation of the Contribution of Complementary Training Subjects in the Self-Perception of Competencies in Ethics, Social Responsibility, and Sustainability in Engineering Students

Abstract

Higher education institutions, as organizations that transform society, have a responsibility to contribute to the construction of a sustainable and resilient world that is aware of the collateral effects of technological advances. This is the initial phase of a research that aims to determine whether subjects in the complementary training area have a significant effect on ethical, social responsibility, and sustainability (ERS) competencies in engineering students at a public higher education institution (HEI). To this end, a quantitative approach was used, adopting a descriptive comparative cross-sectional design and applying a self-perception instrument to a population of 418 students in the first and last semesters of engineering undergraduate programs. As a result, it was found that students that took subjects in the complementary area did not show significant development in social responsibility and sustainability competencies but did in ethical dimensions. Furthermore, in the triad of ERS competencies, there was a significant difference in students over 36 years of age, suggesting that time and academic experience contribute to a greater understanding and application of ethical and moral principles. These results support the idea that ethics and social responsibility are the pillars of sustainability. The findings highlight the importance of intervening in these subjects and complementing them with educational strategies that promote the continuous development of ERS competencies throughout the entire training itinerary, not only in complementary subjects, but as cross-cutting components of all specific engineering discipline subjects.

1. Introduction

Global trends, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), information and knowledge societies, and digital transformation (DT), have placed higher education at the top of the international agenda, setting the tone globally and in Latin America and the Caribbean. Notably, competency-based training, learning outcomes, teaching for peace, human rights, and education for sustainable development are among these trends [1,2].

Science, engineering, and technology have the potential to drive progress and development in multiple aspects of society. Science helps us understand the world around us and make advances in all areas of knowledge. Engineering enables us to design and build practical solutions, such as infrastructure, devices, and systems. Lastly, technology allows us to create tools and applications that improve our quality of life and connect us globally [2]. Together, these fields contribute to solving societal problems, thus supporting citizenship-building and peace-building goals.

In contrast, it has historically been argued that these disciplines can lead to environmental and social problems as side effects of the advancements made. One of the apparent reasons is that higher education in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) areas often neglect the discussion of the ethical, environmental, and social responsibilities inherent to these disciplines [3]. However, there is a paradigm shift underway where the focus on technical aspects is being balanced with greater attention to social and human factors related to generic competencies, thus demonstrating an evolution in society’s perception of engineering [4]. For example, the rapid technological growth, which demands huge amounts of increasingly scarce natural resources, is substantially transforming the engineering perspective, making sustainable development a pressing issue [5].

In the Colombian context of the last decade, education has been considered a crucial factor with the potential to promote peace and positively impact people’s quality of life, driving an authentic social transformation. In this sense, the Colombian Ministry of National Education (abbreviated MEN in Spanish) has set the ambitious goal of positioning Colombia as the most educated country in Latin America by 2026. This vision is embodied in Colombia’s National Development Plan 2022–2026, which stresses the importance of fulfilling the SDGs of the UN 2030 Agenda [6].

Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a leading role as agents of change and have become key actors in driving sustainable development [7]. The Education Plan of Medellín (abbreviated PEM in Spanish) prioritizes human talent as the central focus of education, aiming to improve employability and educational quality indicators that are measured through national and international tools such as the PISA test. In addition, it seeks to support economic growth through science, innovation, and technology, aligning educational programs and projects with the SDGs [6]. To achieve this laudable goal, it is imperative to transform society [8] by fostering learning, awareness, and social participation and targeting sustainable development through coherence, transparency, and innovation [9].

This approach aims to generate added value for the benefit of the entire community within a conceptual framework known as social responsibility. This concept refers to the duty of companies and organizations to contribute to the welfare of society, considering factors such as environmental impact and sustainability, professional ethics, and shared responsibility for the local and global community [10].

According to [6], “young people are not ‘future citizens’ but active citizens now”. Therefore, HEIs have a responsibility to establish mechanisms to train engineering students with an ERS approach [8]. This process should include elements of individual and collective responsibility, self-management, self-esteem, integrity, and empathy [11]. Moreover, it should address moral decisions faced by engineers involving aspects such as character, politics, and social and business relationships linked to technology and development. These aspects, which are considered socioemotional competencies, can be grouped under the umbrella of professional ethics [12]. Thus, social responsibility and professional ethics are critical elements in higher education and are necessary for ensuring sustainable development [6].

2. Theoretical Framework

In this section, the constructs for the ERS competencies and dimensions of analysis are elaborated, supported by representative authors and reliable literature to provide a background of characteristics and particularities of the variables, theories, and approaches that give conceptual basis to the variable operationalization table and to the respective items of the self-perception instrument formed.

Ethics is important to engineers’ personal and professional lives; in this regard, ref. [12] defines engineering ethics as the examination of moral issues and decisions faced by individuals and organizations in the engineering field and the impact of their actions on society and the environment. The development of ethical competencies in HE, especially in the field of engineering, is essential for training ethical, responsible professionals committed to social and environmental well-being [13]. According to [14], engineering ethics passes beyond compliance with rules and regulations, involving acting with moral responsibility in professional practice and contributing to the well-being of society and the conservation of the environment.

Regarding measuring ethical dimensions, this study adopted the “Attitude Scale about Professional Ethics” proposed by [15]. The author, based on the theory of reasoned action by Fishbein and Ajzen, exposes an ethical model that “conceives man as a rational being who issues judgments, evaluations and makes decisions, based on the interrelation of social, cognitive, affective factors. Vocal and behavioral aspects that intervene in training in professional ethics and the respective change in attitudes” (p. 3). In this regard, it proposes six dimensions for ethical competence: responsibility; honesty; professional and personal ethics; act with the idea of providing a service to society; I respect; and act subject to moral principles and professional values.

This concept is closely related to that of social responsibility which, when outlined in engineering, is assumed as “the exercise of the profession characterized by attitudes and behaviors that arise from social conscience, seeking that at the same time as engineering value is created, it contributes to the common good in a sustainable way” [16]. According to [17], social responsibility in engineering involves prospectively considering the ethical, social, and environmental impact of the decisions and actions involved in the exercise of the profession. Furthermore, authors such as [18] highlight that engineers must be able to involve ethical and moral principles that social responsibility entails in projects to proactively address the social and environmental challenges of the 21st century. Authors such as [19] emphasize the importance of engineering programs incorporating social responsibility as a fundamental component of professional training, preparing students with holistic thinking that encourages them to commit to social well-being and contribute positively to sustainable development from the engineering solutions that are proposed.

To assess social responsibility, this study used as a reference the “instrument to evaluate the characteristics of Social Responsibility in university students” built and validated by [8]; in this work, supported by theoretical references, seven characteristics of university social responsibility are defined as indicators: awareness; commitment; controversy with civility; respect for diversity; citizenship; social justice; and change.

For its part, the concept of sustainable development is defined as “a change process, in which the societies improve their quality of life, reaching dynamic equilibrium between the economic and social aspects, while protecting, caring for, and improving the natural environment” [20]. In engineering programs, it is essential to integrate competencies in sustainability to train professionals that are capable of addressing the environmental and social challenges proposed by the UN 2030 agenda; For this reason, ref. [21] states that sustainability involves considering the life cycle of technological products, the energy efficiency, and the minimization of negative environmental impacts. Authors such as [22] highlight that engineers must have the skills to design sustainable projects and solutions that balance human needs with the preservation of the environment. Sustainability in engineering goes beyond reducing or correcting negative impacts of interventions carried out, requiring a holistic vision that allows for better long-term decision making; according to [23], engineering programs must include sustainability as a transversal axis to the disciplinary study objects, promoting innovation and social responsibility in future professionals. The integration of sustainability competencies in the training of engineers is crucial for promoting sustainable development and contributing to the well-being of society and the planet.

To evaluate sustainability, this study combined the perspectives of [24,25] based on the sustainable development goals (SDGs). In [24], six dimensions are established that “typify a competent sustainability professional”: disciplinary and normative competence; anticipatory competence; systems thinking competence; strategic competition; interpersonal competence; and action competence for interventions. In turn, ref. [25] establishes two holistic units of competencies in sustainability: the first emphasizes the comprehensive vision of sustainability according to the UN 2030 Agenda, defined as: “Understands how the natural, social and economic systems and the mutual interrelationships, as well as the problems linked to them, both at a local and global level” (p. 18); and the second is defined as: “Sustainable use of resources in the prevention of negative impacts on the natural and social environment” (p. 19). These units of holistic competencies can be derived in the dimensions proposed by [24].

3. Review of Related Research

The academic interest in investigating the importance of ERS competencies in the context of HE and among the student population is not recent. Some studies have shown the influence that a special education course has for sustainable development [26], ethics [27], or social responsibility [28] must build results of learning for these skills. In other studies, surveys are carried out to analyze the opinions of students on the notions of ethics [29], social responsibility [30], or sustainability [31]. They relate the number of subjects in the study plan to the development of these competencies at the end of the degree [32], and others relate it to cultural factors [16].

The findings of [33] indicate that students’ perceptions of sustainability and social responsibility are influenced by the national context and cultural background, that is, from the expected behavior or so-called “morality of integrity” in which there is a balance between the economic, sociocultural, and environmental dimensions; however, when addressing real behavior, referred to by the author as “morality of opportunism”, it can be observed that the notion changes, causing the dimensions to be treated differently and the economic dimension to prevail over the others. Authors such as [32,34] study the number of subjects or hours that cover sustainability, contained in the study plans of social sciences, engineering, economics, bachelor’s and Master’s programs. Most programs contain between one and two subjects related to environmental sustainability issues. Social sciences programs are more focused on the social dimension, engineering mainly addresses environmental and technical issues, and economics emphasizes the economic perspective. In some HEIs, the subjects are more of an optional nature, while in others they are mandatory; in other cases, the topics are integrated into disciplinary subjects.

Regarding ethics, ref. [35] evaluated the ethical development in engineering students from two public universities and from different semesters. The results differed significantly between freshmen and seniors. The authors highlighted that the intellectual changes that occur throughout college contribute to moral development, which justified the difference in scores between freshmen and seniors in the study. And incorporating this ethics requirement into more classes at one of the universities may have provided students with opportunities to learn and apply ethics in their engineering lessons. In [36], first-year students report learning close to 50% in sustainability competence, and fourth-year students report 66%. This implies an average relative learning of 33%. Meanwhile, ethics is the competence that both students declare less learning in, in relative terms of 24%. Other research focuses on students’ curricular and co-curricular experiences. Ref. [37] compiled surveys of nearly 4000 undergraduate engineering students at 18 institutions across the United States, and the quantity and quality of formal curricular and co-curricular experiences related to student ethics was high. Additionally, they presented data for three constructs of ethical development (knowledge of ethics, ethical reasoning, and ethical behavior), where levels of ethical knowledge and reasoning varied, as did ethical behavior. Findings from [38] also demonstrated that co-curricular experiences have an important influence on ethical development and that institutional culture affects how students behave and how they articulate concepts of ethics.

In relation to social responsibility, ref. [39] presents the results on the sense of social responsibility of university students. Presenting gaps in social responsibility awareness scores among students from different universities and disciplines, the scores are headed by law followed by medicine, science, engineering, economics, administration, and education. The significant difference in the social responsibility awareness score of urban university students with respect to rural university students stands out, as well as the score of women being higher than that of men. In their study, ref. [40] sought to examine which of these factors (personal values, gender, religion, political ideology, field of academic study, and volunteering) influenced the orientation of social responsibility of students in higher education contexts. The most important findings include that women, religious students, and volunteers have a stronger philanthropic orientation and that women appear to have a stronger ethical orientation. Ref. [16] demonstrated that there are statistically significant differences in the degree of the global social responsibility of professionals in favor of the group that has taken the subject of social responsibility and, likewise, with significant differences for each dimension, present in the degree of personal discovery of values, social awareness, commitment to others, commitment to the environment, and approach to the profession as a service. Ref. [41] analyzed the perception of first-year students. The findings found that social and cultural factors such as ethnicity and religion can affect the development of social responsibility. Female participants are more strongly oriented toward the ethical and philanthropic dimensions of social responsibility. Similarly, people with a religious orientation (Catholicism, Islam, and Hinduism) have a greater philanthropic capacity and ethical orientation.

Based on the literature found, it is possible to establish that there are few investigations that measure ERS competencies in engineering programs; however, the study of ref. [42] showed how to integrate ERS competencies into engineering study plans in a holistic and systematized way through the identification of good practices and other models as references. The same way [43] was proposed as an integrative and holistic approach to guide the integration of ethics, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability in management education. The approach aims to improve students’ knowledge and attitudes by implementing a model with three interdependent levels of analysis: institutional, curricular, and instrumental. These three levels together produce a leverage effect on students’ learning. In addition, according to the authors, social responsibility values should be fostered both implicitly and explicitly inside and outside the classroom through a culture aimed at a deeper and lasting change in students’ attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors. However, the authors argued that the current curricular design was not adequate for achieving a successful integration of the ERS concept. Consequently, HEIs should incorporate more pedagogical and instrumental tools into their academic processes, as well as specific teaching and learning strategies at the micro-curricular level, in addition to an institutional culture that supports this process at the mass- and meso-curricular levels. This process requires the involvement of the entire academic community (faculty, students, alumni, and administrative staff) and different stakeholders to identify the aspects that should be considered at each level.

Ref. [44] compiled the recommendations of several scholars on processes that HEIs need to rethink and substantially transform to empower future professionals and leaders with ERS competencies. These recommendations include (a) rethinking and reorienting curricula; (b) developing graduates with appropriate skills and competencies; (c) supplying ERS education for practitioners; (d) developing specialist ERS education for industries; (e) raising public awareness of sustainable development; (f) conducting research to advance knowledge on ERS; (g) training the workforce; and (h) implementing sustainability within one’s own institution.

Similarly, ref. [45] proposed a sustainable human development training program aimed at both motivating and empowering professors and improving the integration of specific ERS principles in university culture and values. The authors suggested that these professional development initiatives be targeted at groups of volunteer professors and be reinforced with incentives and active institutional support to reduce the barriers and resistance of scholars who are not convinced of these innovative processes.

In this regard, ref. [46] presented an innovative proposal developed at the University of New Mexico called peace engineering, which focuses on science- and engineering-based solutions to address global challenges. The authors asserted that engineers must understand, measure, and predict the intended and unintended consequences of their work and products. To this end, they summarized an approach composed of complex systems for measuring positive and negative peace interactions. This approach provides a pathway to analytical and predictive tools that link engineering abstraction with real-world experiences. In general terms, peace engineering is divided into the scientific and the social components. Historically, engineering education has heavily focused on the scientific and mathematical components [4], neglecting the development of attitudes, skills, and abilities related to generic competencies that are essential for personal growth and life. This lack of attention to the character and ethical personality of engineering students has had a negative impact on their critical thinking, empathy, and global and environmental awareness, especially when dealing with international engineering issues [47].

HEIs, as a catalyst of change in society, play a crucial role in building a sustainable, resilient, conscious, and responsible world in the face of technological advances [48]. Their social responsibility extends beyond the mere transmission of knowledge to fostering collective awareness of the risks and consequences of unsustainable actions. Although the intent of complementary subjects of the curriculum of engineering programs is to contribute to the development of ERS competencies, it may be that they have not yielded the expected results, as has happened in other HEIs [20,32,34].

At the national level, the education system uses the state higher education graduation tests as a standardized instrument for assessing educational quality. Within this framework, the citizenship competencies module aims to assess students’ ability to understand their social reality from an integral perspective. However, the recent results of citizenship competencies in STEM areas reveal an important gap, with an average of 143 points compared with the national average of 158. At the international level, Colombia is ranked among the lowest in the PISA test scores.

Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano (ITM), a public HEI in Medellín (Colombia), offers academic programs in mechatronics engineering, electromechanical engineering, telecommunications engineering, systems engineering, and electronics engineering. Their curricula include some subjects and thematic units with ERS components, conceived as complementary components for engineering education programs. For example, some courses are environmental fundamentals; science technology and society (STS); and chair for peace.

Although some progress has been made at the meso-curricular level, the poor results obtained in the educational quality tests cannot be attributed exclusively to the curricular design of the institution. For this reason, a macro research project is formulated that consists of three phases: a first phase, which is the one documented here, with a diagnostic evaluation of the contribution of subjects from the complementary training area in the self-perception of ERS competencies in engineering students; a second phase where, based on the diagnosis obtained, these subjects are intervened and complemented with educational strategies that promote the continuous development of ERS competencies throughout the curriculum; and a third phase in which the impact of the interventions proposed in phase 2 will be measured.

4. Materials and Methods

The purpose of this article is to document the first phase, which seeks to determine if subjects in the complementary training area have a significant effect on ERS competencies in engineering students. This study phase uses a quantitative approach, adopting a descriptive comparative cross-sectional design and applying a self-perception instrument to a population of 418 students in the first and last semesters of engineering undergraduate programs.

4.1. Study Population

The study population consisted of students in the first and last semesters of various engineering undergraduate programs at ITM. As shown in

Table 1. Study population.

Sociodemographic Variables		First Semester		Last Semesters		Total
		n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender	Female	34	13.7	18	10.7	52	12.4
	Male	210	84.3	151	89.3	361	86.4
	Other	5	2.0	0	0	5	1.2
Age	15–25 years	209	83.9	86	50.9	295	70.6
	26–35 years	33	13.3	64	37.9	97	23.2
	36 years and above	7	2.8	19	11.3	26	6.2
Stratum	1	64	25.7	32	18.9	96	23.0
	2	110	44.2	83	49.1	193	46.2
	3	69	27.7	54	32.0	123	29.4
	4	6	2.4	0	0	6	1.4

, a total of 418 valid responses were recorded, which represents a significant sample size considering the total number of students in the school of engineering at the institution. The substantial number of valid responses demonstrates students’ commitment and interest in actively contributing to research, thereby reinforcing the validity and relevance of the collected data.

Upon examining the distribution of respondents based on their socioeconomic status, it was found that 98.6% of respondents belonged to low-income strata (1, 2, and 3), which is consistent with the demographic makeup of the ITM population, where 98% of students fall into these strata. This coherence between the research sample and the general population indicates representativeness, providing reliability to the conclusions drawn from this analysis.

Regarding gender, men constitute 86.4% of the research sample, which highlights the existing gender gap in STEM areas. In terms of age distribution, 70% of the population fell within the 15–25 age range, which is a crucial phase of personal development and formation. Only 6.2% of students were aged 36 years or older, representing the working student segment. This detailed demographic characterization provides depth to the sample analysis and enriches the overall perspective of the study.

4.2. Instrument

The self-perception instrument administered to students was validated by 21 experts in the field, who accepted to participate in the study and received the initial version of the questionnaire via e-mail. Of these experts, 13 hold a Master’s degree and 8 hold a PhD. In addition, most of them have over ten years of experience in higher education, and 66% have over ten years of experience in the productive sector, as shown in

Table 2. Experts.

Experts		Total
		n	%
Higher education level	Master’s degree	13	61.9
	Doctor’s degree	8	38.1
Age	26–35 years	1	4.8
	36–45 years	6	28.6
	46–55 years	8	38.1
	56 years and above	6	28.6
Experience in education	1–5 years	1	4.8
	5–10 years	3	14.3
	Over 10 years	17	81.0
Experience in the productive sector	Yes	14	66.7
	No	7	33.3
Years in the productive sector	1–5 years	1	4.8
	5–10 years	1	4.8
	Over 10 years	12	57.1
TOTAL		21	100

. The questionnaire consisted of 37 items, with 9 items being related to sustainability competencies, 8 items being related to social responsibility, and 18 items being related to professional ethics. To avoid response bias, experts recommended reformulating some questions for clarity. By unanimous decision, five items that seemed to be redundant were eliminated: one from the sustainability section, one from the social responsibility section, and three from the ethics section.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between the 32 items that composed the instrument, providing a measure of the homogeneity of the responses. This coefficient was also used to measure the internal consistency of criteria such as clarity of wording, relevance, response induction, language appropriateness, and validity. The statistical software SPSS_v26 was used to perform calculations, yielding a value of 0.93, as shown in

Table 3. Reliability of the instrument.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha	Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items	N of Elements
0.930	0.934	30

. This value suggests a high coherence between the criteria evaluated, thus supporting the questionnaire’s reliability in terms of internal consistency.

Table 4. Operationalization of the instrument.

Competency	Dimensions	Indicator	Item
Social Responsibility [8]	Awareness	I am aware that I am in the world to contribute responsibly to its transformation	R1
		I understand that being part of this world entails a responsibility towards the members of a group or organization for the benefit of society	R2
	Commitment	I am familiar with and care about local issues and their connection to national and global factors	R3
	Citizenship	As a student, I feel that I have the skills to contribute to social, political, and economic changes in my community	R4
		As a student, I would like to contribute to public policies that improve the quality of life for (ethnic, racial, sexual) minority groups and other vulnerable groups (children, women…)	R5
	Social justice	I believe that my educational process provides me with the necessary tools to follow up on public or private programs and initiatives aimed at social transformation	R6
		I believe that, through my profession, I can contribute to reducing poverty and inequality in my country	R7
Ethics [15]	Responsibility	In my daily actions, it is important to fulfill my commitments on time	E1
		In my daily actions, I am willing to take responsibility for any mistakes	E2
	Act with moral principles and professional values	I am willing to spend time updating my knowledge about my career	E3
		There are ethical decisions that are so important in my career that I cannot leave them to the sole discretion of others	E4
		In my daily actions, maintaining confidentiality is crucial	E5
		Doing the right things in my daily life brings me inner peace	E6
		I communicate my values through my daily actions	E7
	Professional and personal ethics	To avoid mistakes in my profession, I must be aware of the limits of my knowledge and skills	E8
		Working with passion is part of my personal fulfillment	E9
		Ethical aspects are crucial to my career and future profession	E10
		I must assess the consequences before making important decisions	E11
		It is good to aspire but not have excessive ambition	E12
		To perform well in my career, developing technical skills alone is not enough	E13
	Honesty	To be a good professional, I cannot ignore the problems of the society I live in	E14
		I take the risk of making mistakes to improve my career performance	E15
Sustainability [24] (S1, S6, S7, S8) [25] (S2 to S5)	Systemic	I analyze individually or in groups situations related to sustainability and their impact on society, the environment, and the economy, both locally and globally	S1
	Discipline and regulations	I am aware of the importance of sustainability in society. I learn and then I impact my community	S6
	Anticipatory	I use resources sustainably in the prevention of negative impacts on the environment and social and economic systems	S7
		I anticipate and understand the impact of environmental changes on social and economic systems	S3
	Strategic	I am aware of the potential of the human and natural resources in my environment for sustainable development	S8
		I actively participate in groups or communities committed to sustainability	S2
	Action competence for interventions	I am coherent in my actions, respecting and appreciating (biological, social, cultural) diversity and committing myself to improving sustainability	S4
		I create and provide critical and creative solutions to technology and engineering issues, always considering sustainability	S5

shows the operationalization of the dependent variable, corresponding to the ERS competencies. To assess social responsibility (seven items), this study used as a reference the “Instrument to evaluate the characteristics of social responsibility in university students” [8]; from the dimensions presented by the author, the following were chosen: awareness, “which strengthens the student’s confidence, identity and autonomy to make decisions and communicate them with respect and empathy with others” (p. 85); commitment, which urges the student to “show passion for what they do, credibility, responsibility and persistence” (p. 85); citizenship, which implies “complying with collective duties and state regulations, as well as demonstrating your status as a citizen as an agent of social change (p. 86); and social justice, which urges you to “contribute from your profession to the permanent search for a more just and humane society” (p. 86). Similarly, to measure ethics (15 items), this study adopted the “Attitude Scale about Professional Ethics” proposed by [15]. From the dimensions presented by the author, the following were chosen: responsibility; act with moral principles and professional values; professional and personal ethics; and honesty.

Lastly, to evaluate sustainability (eight items), this study combined the perspectives of [24,25]. Of these, the dimensions worked on are: systemic; discipline and regulations; anticipatory and strategic; and action for interventions.

To assess the degree of association among the ERS competencies that comprise the dependent variable, a Pearson analysis was conducted, and its results are summarized in

Table 5. Pearson correlation.

Competencies	Social Responsibility	Ethics	Sustainability
Social responsibility	1
Ethics	0.566 **	1
Sustainability	0.719 **	0.484 **	1

Note: ** 95% confidence.

.

A strong positive correlation was observed between social responsibility and sustainability (r = 0.719), followed by a moderate correlation between ethics and social responsibility (r = 0.566) and ethics and sustainability (r = 0.484). The values with two asterisks indicate that all competencies are positively correlated to each other at a 95% confidence level.

4.3. Data Analysis Technique

The response data were analyzed using the SPSS-28 statistical package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was set at the level of p < 0.05. Means and frequencies were used as descriptive statistics of the sociodemographic characteristics and the main research variables. Student’s t-test and the non-parametric Mann–Whitney test were used to identify statistically significant differences between two independent groups with respect to the ERS competencies.

When analyzing variance and identifying significant differences between the means of multiple groups, an ANOVA test was employed to determine how sociodemographic factors such as age, socioeconomic status, and gender influenced ERS competencies as dependent variables. When the ANOVA test showed significant differences in at least one group but did not provide details on the exact variations between means, Duncan’s multiple range test was used to make direct comparisons between two means and examine in-detail variations between specific groups.

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

As part of the descriptive analysis, the mode was used as a statistical tool to highlight the similarities between the study groups (students in the first and last semesters of engineering programs). This approach is particularly important because it seeks to mitigate the possible influence of sociodemographic variables on the analysis, thus favoring a more accurate and specific comparison of the aspects of interest. Notably,

Table 6. Sociodemographic analysis.

Group		Gender	Age	Stratum
Mode	First semester	2	1	2
	Last semesters	2	1	2
	All	2	1	2

Note: Gender: (1) female, (2) male; age: (1) 15–25 years, (2) 26–35 years; socioeconomic stratum: 1–5.

shows that that there is homogeneity in the sociodemographic trends between groups—a finding that supports the coherence of the analysis and the validity of the comparisons performed between groups.

According to Table 6, the sample consisted mostly of males between the ages of 15 and 25 years from socioeconomic stratum 2.

5.2. Analysis of Competencies in ERS vs. Courses Taken

A descriptive analysis was carried out of the ERS competencies vs. courses taken, where the group in the last semester stood out as achieving superior results in all three evaluated competencies, as shown in

Table 7. Descriptive analysis of ERS competencies.

Group	Social Responsibility	Ethics	Sustainability
First semester	4.028 (0.656)	4.496 (0.453)	3.798 (0.689)
Last semester	4.101 (0.589)	4.577 (0.447)	3.921 (0.646)

.

There are slight differences in the mean values obtained for the two study groups. Therefore, to determine if there were statistically significant differences in the ERS competency results of first- and last-semester students, an independent sample t-test was applied. The results of the homogeneity between the first semester and the last semester in terms of performance can be seen in

Table 8. Student’s t-test results.

	Levene Test		t-Test for Equality of Means
	F	Sig.	t	Gl	Sig (Bilateral)	Mean Differences	Standard Error Differences	95% Difference Confidence Interval
Social responsibility	0.919	0.338	−1.167	416	0.244	−0.07332	0.06281	−0.19679	0.05014
Ethics	1.277	0.259	−1.808	416	0.071	−0.08127	0.04494	−0.16961	0.00706
Sustainability	0.128	0.721	−1.839	416	0.067	−0.12317	0.06698	−0.25483	0.00849

. According to the Levene test, equality of variances is assumed in the three competencies. For the social responsibility competency, the distribution between the first semester 4.028 (0.656) and the last semester 4.101 (0.589) was homogeneous, which was supported by Levene’s test for equality of variances with a value of F (F_Levene = 0.919, p = 0.338). Furthermore, there were no significant differences (t = −1.167, p = 0.244 > 0.05) between the two groups. For the ethics competition, the distribution between the first semester 4.496 (0.453) and the last semester 4.577 (0.447) was homogeneous, which was supported by Levene’s test for equality of variances with a value of F (F_Levene = 1.277, p = 0.259). There were also no significant differences (t = −1.808, p = 0.071 > 0.05) between the two groups. And for the sustainability competition, the distribution between the first semester 3.798 (0.689) and the last semester 3.921 (0.646) was homogeneous, which was supported by Levene’s test for equality of variances F value (F_Levene = 0.128, p = 0.721). Like the previous two, there were no significant differences (t = −1.839, p = 0.067 > 0.05) between the two groups. Table 8 presents the results of the Student’s t-test of the ERS competencies.

Because the t-test assumptions are not met, a tool is then used to compare both groups. Unlike the t-test, the Mann–Whitney test does not require that the data be normally distributed, and its analysis is performed with the medians, which becomes a useful alternative as it makes fewer assumptions about the data. As shown in

Table 9. Mann–Whitney test results.

Statistical Tests	Social Responsibility	Ethics	Sustainability
Mann–Whitney U test	20,073.500	18,501.000	19,304.500
Wilcoxon W test	51,198.500	49,626.000	50,429.500
Z test	−0.800	−2.101	−1.435
Bilateral asymptotic sig.	0.424	0.036	0.151

, when comparing the two groups of students, a statistically significant and substantial difference (p < 0.05) was found in the ethical competency, with a value of 0.036.

5.3. Relationship of ERS Competencies with Sociodemographic Variables

The complexity of factors that influence the acquisition of these competencies demands further studies into how some sociodemographic variables may affect this process.

Table 10. ANOVA test results.

ANOVA	Gender		Age		Stratum
	F	Sig.	F	Sig.	F	Sig.
Social responsibility	0.438	0.646	11.052	0.000	1.705	0.165
Ethics	0.337	0.714	7.404	0.000	0.227	0.877
Sustainability	0.805	0.448	9.237	0.000	0.742	0.527

presents the results of the analysis of variance of the ERS competencies vs. the sociodemographic variables.

The relationship between age and the three ERS competencies is noteworthy. The results show a positive and significant correlation, with a p value < 0.05, indicating that the higher the age of the participants, the higher the level of the three competencies, as observed in Table 10.

Subsequently, Duncan’s test was used to find the specific age range that contributed to the significant difference in the development of the ERS competencies.

Table 11. Duncan post hoc calculation.

Social Responsibility
Age	N	Subset
		1	2
15–25 years	295	3.9603
26–35 years	97	4.2180
36 years and above	26	4.5357	4.5357
Sig.		0.091	0.221

shows that this significant difference was particularly found in the relationship between the age of 36 years and the social responsibility competency.

6. Discussion

The research presented in this article seeks to highlight an important problem for engineering education related to the need to develop ERS competencies. In the implementation of the study, a quantitative approach was used with the goal of comparing the development of ERS competencies between students who began their studies as engineers and those who were in the final stage and had already taken complementary courses that were related to these ERS competencies, such as environmental fundamentals; science technology and society (STS) and chair for peace.

Initially, a Student’s t-test was carried out, which showed that there were no significant differences between the self-perception of the groups of students from the first semester and those from the last semesters in ERS competencies. For the purposes of this first phase of the research, this finding shows that the students’ self-perception regarding awareness of ERS competencies from the complementary training courses of the curricula are insufficient; that is, they are not generating the expected training impact in ERS competencies. This result is consistent with what some authors maintain, such as [20,32,34], in that the number of hours of academic work invested in courses that enhance these ERS competencies is low, even showing that some HEIs offer them as elective or extracurricular courses, which are not necessarily mandatory for all students.

Because the t-test assumptions were not met, an inferential statistical tool was used to further detail the comparison between the study groups; for this, the Mann–Whitney test was used, which showed a significant difference in ethical competence for the group of last-semester students. This may be due to the fact that from the levels of school training, and even with values instilled from home, they are reflected in the ethical behavior of HE students. Additionally, it is a guideline for the curricular development of the classes that teachers instill good practices associated with ethical and moral behaviors inscribed in the student regulations without the need to require specific subjects for this. This is consistent with [49], who affirm that ethics is essential in engineering programs as a tool that allows students to face moral dilemmas in a reflective manner and make responsible and informed decisions based on their critical thinking in such a way that it benefits the local and global community. This is important when considering that engineers often must make complex ethical decisions in work, family, and community contexts [42].

It can be stated that in the national context, ethical competence has been working to strengthen ethical and moral values since the first years of schooling; however, competencies in social responsibility and sustainability have only been incorporated in the last decade in the curricula of all educational levels, inspired by the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN 2030 agenda. Some authors indicate that first-semester students could show better results in the development of their classroom projects about sustainability than those in recent semesters [26]. In first-world countries, they have advanced for decades, strengthening from the secondary-level concepts of sustainable development and main challenges of climate change, population growth, and the preservation of ecosystems, problems that must be addressed to guarantee a sustainable future [34]; likewise, in HE, the SDGs are basic learning objectives for undergraduate students [26].

Regarding the Pearson correlation, the results showed a strong correlation between the competencies of social responsibility and sustainability and a moderate correlation between ethics with social responsibility and ethics with sustainability. This is in accordance with the research of [50], which affirms that corporate social responsibility contributes directly to sustainable development, providing comparative advantages not only to companies, but to society and the environment in general; this is accomplished by improving the quality of final goods and services, social progress, level of customer satisfaction, and loyalty and fidelity in users; increasing productivity and profitability; raising awareness of environmental impacts; generating incentives for reducing pollution levels of companies; and promoting a sustainable environment. At the same time, relationships are established between state institutions and private organizations, with which the development of innovation is promoted.

The results also highlighted the importance of emotional maturity, experience, and reflective capacity in ethical decision making, which was particularly observed in students over the age of 36 years [51]; however, it is necessary to replicate the research with more participants in this age group. This contrasts with the findings of [52], who observed that the perception of ethics decreased significantly with age and work experience. It could also be seen that neither socioeconomic stratum nor gender made a difference in the triad of ERS competencies of the students; nevertheless, ref. [40] found that female participants were more strongly oriented toward ethical and social responsibility dimensions [53,54], which provides evidence that within each community, social and cultural factors (such as ethnicity, the gender, and religion) can affect the development of social responsibility.

7. Conclusions

The results show that there were no significant differences in the students’ self-perception regarding ERS competencies. This reveals that complementary training courses, environmental fundamentals; science technology and society (STS), and chair for peace, are not generating the expected training impact on these types of ERS competencies. This shows that hours of academic work in these types of competencies are insufficient in meeting the expected learning outcomes for the engineering programs analyzed in this research. These findings emphasize the pressing need to design educational strategies that not only aid in the initial acquisition of ERS competencies but also promote them in various contexts throughout the entire university experience.

It is imperative that engineering programs integrate ERS competencies with the disciplinary objects of study. Furthermore, teachers must play an active role in raising students’ awareness of the great importance of these competencies in their educational process, which is key in increasing their active participation.

8. Future Work

To date, research on ERS competencies in ITM engineering students has only completed its first phase. It is necessary to continue with the second phase of the research where, based on the diagnosis obtained, complementary training subjects are intervened and educational strategies are designed that promote, at the curricular and extracurricular level, the continuous development of ERS competencies throughout the curriculum. Likewise, the third phase must follow, wherein a mixed investigation measures the impact of the educational strategies proposed in phase 2, not only applying the quantitative instrument used but also involving qualitative techniques and tools for triangulation of the results.