Next Article in Journal
A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Agricultural Land Selection
Previous Article in Journal
Designing Care Spaces in Urban Areas
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 23
10.3390/su162310508
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainability Education as a Predictor of Student Well-Being Through Mindfulness and Social Support: A Mediated Moderation Model

by
Yuanhai Gu
1,*,
Bo Sun
1,
Jun He
1 and
Wenjuan Huang
2
1
College of Education for the Future, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai 519087, China
2
Faculty of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(23), 10508; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310508
Submission received: 12 October 2024 / Revised: 19 November 2024 / Accepted: 20 November 2024 / Published: 29 November 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The students of the world face well-being-related issues due to tight competition among the students of higher educational institutions. The existing research suggests that sustainability education is helpful to enhance student well-being. To explore this relationship, the present study assesses the direct relationships between sustainability education and mindfulness, mindfulness and student well-being, and social support and student well-being. Moreover, this research examines the mediating role of mindfulness in the relationship between sustainability education and student well-being. Additionally, this research checks the moderating role of social support between mindfulness and student well-being. Through a purposive sampling technique, cross-sectional data were collected from 413 students studying in Beijing, China. This study uses SPSS v23 and SmartPLS v4.0.8 for data analysis. The results of this study show that all the direct relationships remain significant. Similarly, mindfulness significantly mediates the relationship between sustainability education and student well-being. However, the moderating relationship of social support remains non-significant. This study provides a unique theoretical combination of mindfulness-to-meaning theory and social support theory to assess the relationship among sustainability education, mindfulness, social support, and student well-being in the context of university education in Beijing, China. This research provides actionable insights for academicians and policymakers to design sustainability-focused curricula to enhance student love for the environment, which facilitates mindfulness and well-being, in the presence of social support.

1. Introduction

The demand of educational institutions, expectations of the parents, and international business crises increase competition among students [1]. In this competitive environment, it is difficult for students to find a suitable job or to start a new venture. Moreover, university life is more stressful than school and college life. At university, students feel a complete transition from the traditional mode of education to a more holistic mode of education. The student has to take part in national and international events of universities such as educational competitions, sports, social welfare activities, and many other clubs and societies. The diverse nature of the university environment demands more holistic learning approaches and skills from the students to be successful in university life [2]. This situation creates well-being-related issues for those students, who are unable to handle the diverse nature of university problems. The literature shows similar issues in Chinese students [3]. Besides the practical aspects of student well-being, the call for papers in prestigious journals [4] and the theoretical literature [5,6,7] inspired the authors to explore the predictors of student well-being. Further, this study provides detailed discussions about the predictors of student well-being to solve well-being-related issues.
Mindfulness refers to the situation where a person remains in the present situation and avoids judgments and sensations of the external environment. In the recent past, research on mindfulness has gained popularity in the fields of psychology and education [8]. Training on mindfulness practices is widely available in the form of short courses [9], workshops, and mobile applications. The existing research uses the construct of mindfulness in different contextual situations [10,11]. For instance, a scoping review of Soares et al. [10] explored three thematic areas related to mindfulness research in the educational context: (1) mindfulness in education, (2) mindfulness as education, and (3) mindfulness of education. The second theme of “mindfulness in education” states that the students should remain mindful to stay positive in life. The study by Soares et al. suggested that future researchers should conduct empirical research related to mindfulness in the educational context. Similarly, according to Lee et al. [11], mindfulness has gained popularity in academic spheres, which is helpful to overcome issues of student well-being. Besides the pressing needs of this construct, the studies on mindfulness are divergent and inconclusive [12].
The growing population of the world and the industrial growth of the last two decades imbalance the natural forces of the planet. Industrial carbon emissions of the world are increasing dangerously. According to a report by Statista [13], the current statistics on carbon emission are more than 50 percent higher than the pre-industrial-revolution era. According to a survey [13], China contributes the highest share of global carbon emissions of up to 15.94 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. After China, the USA is the second highest emissions creator with 5.96 billion metric tons. The responsibility falls on the current generation to save the planet from negative effects. Sustainability is one of the trending areas among academics and in practice [14]. Both stakeholders understand the importance of the environment and play significant roles in overcoming environmental issues. For instance, academicians theoretically discuss sustainability-related issues through research papers in prestigious journals such as the Journal of Cleaner Production and Sustainability. Similarly, on the other side, practitioners are trying to reduce industries’ footprints on the environment through environmentally-friendly buildings, hybrid vehicles, environmentally-resistant agriculture, and water conservation in the textile industry [15]. Despite the emerging trends of sustainability in other contextual areas, limited literature is available on the use of sustainability education in the education sector [16]. Recent scholars encourage the use of sustainability education in academic contexts [16]. According to the United Nations’ sustainable development goals (SDGs), all learners must understand sustainable practices by 2030 [16]. This information shows the importance of sustainability education in the education sector.
In today’s complex world, social support by his or her significant others plays an important role in the well-being of an individual. Recent scholars have identified social support as an important resource to protect an individual during difficult times [17]. Resultantly, social support serves as a coping mechanism during stressful situations [17,18]. A cross-national study was conducted in Germany, Sweden, Norway, and the United Kingdom to assess the buffering effect of social support on the well-being of individuals. The findings show a significant association between the contextual variables [19]. The students of Indian universities face psychological well-being-related issues. The study by Chaudhry et al. [2] was conducted in India on 309 management studies students. The data of the study show a significant relationship between social support and student psychological well-being. Recent research on well-being shows the importance of social support as a moderator [20] to enhance the robustness of the predictor and the psychological well-being of an individual. In the presence of existing studies that show the significant importance of social support in stressful situations, limited research is available on the moderating role of social support between mindfulness and student well-being.
Consequently, the pressing needs of time, calls for papers, and the literature on student well-being stimulate the researchers to explore the predictors of student well-being. This ground is helpful to formulate the broader objectives of this study, to assess the impact of sustainability education on mindfulness as well as the influence of mindfulness and social support on student well-being. Additionally, this research examines the role of mindfulness as a mediator between sustainability education and student well-being. Furthermore, this study looks into the moderation of social support in the relationship between mindfulness and student well-being. This study contributes to the literature on mindfulness-to-meaning theory and social support theory in the contexts of education, psychology, and sustainability. Practically, this study provides insights for educationists instructing sustainability courses for different classes at higher educational institutions, psychologists working on university payrolls for mindfulness and student well-being, sociologists dealing with social support activities for students, and environmentalists dealing with environment-related issues.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Mindfulness-to-Meaning Theory and Social Support Theory

This study assesses the influence between sustainability education and mindfulness, mindfulness and student well-being, and social support and student well-being. Moreover, this research examines the mediating role of mindfulness in the relationship between sustainability education and student well-being. Additionally, this study assesses the moderation of social support between mindfulness and student well-being. The conceptual model of this research is covered by two theoretical perspectives, i.e., mindfulness-to-meaning theory and social support theory. The mindfulness-to-meaning theory (MMT) of Garland et al. [21] posits that mindfulness develops positive thoughts in the minds of an individual. The mediated relationship between sustainability education, mindfulness, and student well-being is supported through the mindfulness-to-meaning theory. For instance, sustainability education gives a purpose of life to the university student, which influences mindfulness, and, in return, mindfulness influences the well-being of the university student. The previous literature examines the well-being of employees through mindfulness-to-meaning theory [22,23], patients [24], and daily life [25]. Besides this relationship, the direct relationship between social support and student well-being is supported by the social support model of Cobb [26]. This social support model proposed that social support in different forms is helpful to improve the well-being of an individual. Scholars have extended, described, and applied social support theory in other contextual situations [27]. The combination of mindfulness-to-meaning theory and social support theory is unique in nature and serves as a guide to manage the psychological and sociological influences on student well-being.

2.2. Student Well-Being

In this competitive world, students face manifold well-being-related issues, which also affect the well-being of Chinese students. For instance, a study by Bakker and Mostert [5] discussed the challenges of students (course deadlines, group assignments, financial problems, and exams) which influence their well-being. The challenging tasks of university demand time management, coordination, and the attention of the students, based on the study demands-resources theory. The existing literature on mindfulness, social support, and well-being shows the importance of mindfulness and social support to overcome well-being-related problems. The prior research of Lie et al. [28] on well-being shows that poor health and financial status create well-being-related issues in students. Considering this notion, the constructs of poor health and financial status are covered with mindfulness and social support. Consequently, this study uses mindfulness and social support as predictors of student well-being. Moreover, social support moderates the relationship between mindfulness and student well-being.

2.3. Sustainability Education

The world faces multiple environmental problems due to industrial growth in the past few decades. This industrial growth creates pollution of many types, such as air pollution, water pollution, and noise pollution [29]. The existing literature on the dangers of environmental pollution shows that all kinds of pollution are dangerous for human health and the natural habitats of wildlife [30]. For instance, contaminated water causes stomach- and kidney-related [31] diseases, polluted air affects the respiratory system [32], and noise pollution causes hearing-related diseases [33] in humans. In the recent past, environmentalists have shown their great concern for the concepts of sustainable development and sustainable development goals [34]. Similarly, several scholars [35,36,37] criticize the prevailing sustainable development strategies and sustainable development goals of the world. Scholars have shown the importance of sustainability education for the protection of the environment [38]. To overcome this threat, they proposed regenerative sustainability solutions; sustainability education is one of those strategies to develop awareness among youth to protect the environment for their benefit. For instance, the study by Muela-Bermejo and Pérez-Martínez [39] explores the role of picture books in enhancing sustainability awareness among the school children of Spain. The findings of the study show that students take more interest in environmental sustainability and adult-mediated learning. However, the students show less interest in social sustainability and small-group learning techniques. Furthermore, a study was conducted [40] on the students of a masters class studying accounting courses in Indonesia. The study explores the relationship between mindfulness and sustainability education in accounting-related courses. The instructor added the concepts of sustainability and mindfulness along with the main curriculum of accountancy. Consumption; financial freedom; helping others; personal happiness; meaningful life; acceptance; gratitude; mindfulness; the interconnectedness between business, society and the environment; compassion; kindness; innovation; spiritual experiences; sustainability; accounting accountability and reporting; decision-making; and problem-solving themes emerged from the study. Consequently, considering the importance of sustainability education as a predictor of mindfulness, this study presumes the following:
H1: 
Sustainability education is significantly related to mindfulness.

2.4. Mindfulness

Mindfulness is the practice of an individual consciously involved in the present situation without thinking about the past or worrying about the future. Academicians and researchers have taken a keen interest in mindfulness in recent years [38]. The study by Frank et al. [38] posited that mindfulness is a self-confirmation process, which reinforces an individual’s prevailing values, expectations, and intentions. In a higher educational context, scholars’ research is mainly related to mindfulness and academic performance and the well-being of students. For instance, Egan and colleagues [41] examined the relationship of mindfulness to academic performance, which shows a significant association between the variables. Similarly, Goretzk and Zysk [42] conducted a pilot study on the students of University of South Australia to assess the impact of mindfulness to promote well-being among students. The findings of the study show that mindfulness significantly influences the mental well-being of the students. Additionally, scholars have assessed the relationship between mindfulness and student well-being in the context of medical students. For instance, the study by Fino et al. [43] examined the mediating relationship of mindfulness between trait anxiety and the well-being of medical students. The findings showed a significant mediating role of mindfulness between trait anxiety and student well-being. Additionally, a mixed-method study was conducted by Matthias et al. [12] on doctors to assess the role of mindfulness on well-being. The data of the study were collected through a focus group (a qualitative approach) and a questionnaire (a quantitative approach) from doctors. The association between the variables remains positive and significant. Moreover, a study was conducted to assess the role of formal and informal mindfulness practices on psychological well-being [8]. The results of the study depicted a significant association of formal and information-mindful practices with the well-being of an individual. The results of the study showed that the success of the mindfulness practice of students depends on practical resources, following routine, peer support, and attitudes. Hence, we posit the following:
H2: 
Mindfulness is significantly related to student well-being.
H3: 
Mindfulness mediates the relationship between sustainability education and student well-being.

2.5. Social Support

Humans are social beings who need resources from others for their psychological and social functioning [44]. The previous literature on social support discusses the phenomenon of social support to enhance psychological and social well-being [45]. An integrated review shows that social support provides manifold beneficial outcomes for individuals. The study encourages future research based on three aspects: (1) the literature on social support is fragmented; (2) the definitions of social support are not suitable; and (3) measurements are not easily available for the measurement of social support. An empirical study by Szkody et al. [18] was conducted on the victims of COVID-19 to assess the influence of social support to overcome stressful situations. The study depicts a negative association between social support and stressful situations. In the same vein, Ozer [17] conducted a study on Danish students to assess the association between social support and life satisfaction during COVID-19. The findings of the study show a non-significant association between social support and life satisfaction.
More specifically, in a higher educational context, colleges and universities in Beijing are competitive. For instance, according to the QS University ranking, Beijing Normal University falls in the top 271 universities in the world [46]. The professors and universities expect more from the students in these kinds of higher educational institutions. The students face many kinds of pressures to be successful. This competitiveness is responsible for creating well-being-related issues in students, which qualifies the use of social support as a moderator of the relationship between mindfulness and student well-being. Moreover, the study by Birtwell et al. [8] posited that social support (support from others) strengthens the relationship between mindfulness and student well-being. Researchers have encouraged the use of social support as a moderator to assess the well-being of individuals [45]. Besides the importance of social support on student well-being, limited literature is available on this relationship in higher educational contexts. Accordingly, this research presumes the following and the hypothetical relationships depicted in Figure 1:
H4: 
Social support is significantly related to student well-being.
H5: 
Social support moderates the relationship between mindfulness and student well-being.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data Collection Procedure

To assess the predictors of student well-being, data were collected from Beijing, China. According to surveys, students studying at Chinese universities face well-being-related issues. Beijing is one of the metropolitan region of China, which holds 92 internationally recognized colleges and universities [47]. The present study is free from generalizability issues. For instance, Ashraf and Merunka [48] discussed the issues of generalizability and divided it into two portions: (1) generalizability across and (2) generalizability to. The concern of cross generalizability arises when the data are related to consumers and the researchers collect data from students. In this case, the findings are generalized to student consumers, not to general consumers. On the other hand, when the population and sample are both students, this raises generalizability concerns. In this case, the findings are generalizable to other members of the population. The questionnaire of this study is divided into two parts. The first part of the questionnaire was developed to acquire demographic information from the respondents. The second portion of the questionnaire assesses the influence of sustainability education on mindfulness, mindfulness and student well-being, and social support and student well-being. Furthermore, this study examines the mediated moderation of mindfulness and social support. The data were collected from the students of universities located in Beijing, China. Self-administrated questionnaires were distributed among 450 university students in the region of Beijing, China. Out of 550 respondents, the data from 37 questionnaires were discarded due to discrepancies. Finally, the responses of 413 students were received appropriately. This study uses a purposive sampling technique. This technique is suitable in situations where the collection of data was undertaken purposefully. For instance, the researchers overview the course content through the university website and select the students for whom the university offers courses related to sustainability. The sample size is appropriate based on existing related studies on the topics of sustainability, education, and well-being. Moreover, the sample size is well above the threshold level of 384 set by Morgan [49]. This study uses a cross-sectional data collection approach. This approach is suitable to collect data from individuals. The previous research studies on similar topics used the purposive sampling technique and cross-sectional data collection approaches [50,51] to assess similar kinds of relationships.
The demographics of the participants presented in Table 1 show that the male respondents were in the majority (53.03%) and the female representation in the dataset was 46.97%. The respondents’ ages ranged from 19–47 years, with an average age of 23.6 years. According to the dataset, the main age category was 18–22 (40.92%), followed by 23–27 (32.20%); fewer participants were found in the other age categories of 28–32 (17.43%) and 33 years and above (9.45%). The educational statistics of the respondents show that the majority of the students were studying in undergraduate classes (62.71%), followed by graduate programs (22.28%), and postgraduate studies (15.01%). The majority of the data were collected from the students of education (44.07%), management studies (33.17%), law (16.22%), and sociology (6.54%) departments. The diverse nature of the data collection is helpful to enhance the generalizability of the study.

3.2. Instruments

Sustainability Education

Sustainability education refers to the educational initiatives of the university to give knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes to protect the environment from human footprints. In this study, sustainability education was evaluated using a seven-item measurement scale adapted from the existing research [52,53]. The Cronbach alpha values of the scale are 0.748, which remains acceptable in the academic literature [54]. A sample item of the sustainability education scale is “the university teaches us about the careful use of natural resources”. This study uses a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as strongly disagree to 5 as strongly agree.

3.3. Mindfulness

Mindfulness refers to the situation where a student remains consciously present in the current situation without being judgmental or overwhelmed. The evaluation of mindfulness was measured using a six-item scale adapted from the existing research related to mindfulness [55]. The previous literature on mindfulness used this scale to measure mindfulness in sustainable and educational contexts. For instance, Kalyar and colleagues [56] used this scale to measure the construct of mindfulness, where the values of Cronbach alpha were 0.84, which is acceptable in the academic literature [54] dealing with statistical values. Moreover, a study was conducted in Taiwan [57] to measure the impact of mindfulness on creativity; the overall value of Cronbach alpha remains at 0.903, which is acceptable. A sample item of the measurement scale is “I am encouraged to express different problems”. Item 4 was deleted due to lower outer loading. This study uses a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as strongly disagree to 5 as strongly agree.

3.4. Social Support

Social support refers to the information, emotional, and practical support of family, peers, teachers, and friends in times of need. Social support was assessed using a three-item validated scale adapted from the existing research of Kocalevent and colleagues [58], the OSLO social support scale (OSSS3). In addition to this, Zhang et al., (2024) validated this scale in China with similar items [59]. A sample item of the social support scale is “I have people close to me whom I can count on during great personal problems”. This study uses a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as strongly disagree to 5 as strongly agree.

3.5. Student Well-Being

Student well-being refers to the overall state of mind (satisfied, happy, content, fulfillment) of the student. Well-being is a very common area for many researchers such as psychology, education, management, and sociology. Scholars have validated a few scales to measure the well-being of an individual [60]. For instance, in the WHO five-point well-being scale [60], student well-being was measured using a five-item measurement scale adopted by previous researchers [60]. Previously, many other scales have measured distress instead of wellbeing, such as SF-36 [61]. A sample item of the student well-being scale is “I am a happy student”. This study uses a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as strongly disagree to 5 as strongly agree.

4. Results

4.1. Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modeling

The researchers used PLS-SEM in diverse fields of pure and social sciences such as psychology, environmental studies, management, marketing, sociology, law, engineering, agriculture, geography [62], and education [63]. The use of PLS-SEM has shown an increasing trend in the recent past [64]. In PLS-SEM, the purpose of the measurement model is to assess the quality of the instrument, and, on the other hand, the structural model is used to assess the hypothetical relationships among variables.

4.2. Measurement Model

This study performs tests of reliability to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire. According to prior researchers, the Cronbach alpha and composite reliability values remain higher than 0.70 [54,65]. Table 2 shows that all values of Cronbach alpha (sustainability education 0.849; mindfulness 0.711; social support 0.889; student well-being 0.816) and composite reliability (sustainability education 0.883; mindfulness 0.821; social support 0.931; student well-being 0.872) meet the criteria set by experts. The study by Hair et al. [54] suggested that the outer loadings between 0.50 and 0.70 are acceptable, which remains more than 0.50 as per the results of data analysis. Additionally, the results depict that the values of AVE are more than the 0.50 [54] threshold mentioned by prior researchers (sustainability education 0.521; mindfulness 0.539; social support 0.818; student well-being 0.579). Hence, this study fulfills the basic requirement of reliability and convergent validity of the instrument.
This study uses the Fornell–Larcker criterion to assess the discriminant validity of the constructs. Prior scholars have encouraged the use of the Fornell–Larcker criterion test for the assessment of discriminant validity [66,67]. The purpose of the discriminant validity test is to assess how much the latent variable is distinct from the other constructs [68]. The study by Fornell and Larcker [67] proposed that the correlation of latent variable should be higher than the indicators. Table 3 shows that the values meet the requirements of discriminant validity based on the thresholds maintained by prior scholars [69]. Consequently, this study maintains the demands of prior researchers related to discriminant validity.

4.3. Structural Model

In SmartPLS4, this study used a bootstrapping method to assess the co-efficient, t-value, and p-value for direct and indirect relationships among variables. The present research paper developed five hypotheses; three out of five are direct relationships and two are indirect (median and moderation). The findings of this study show that three direct and one indirect relationship remain significant: sustainability education and mindfulness (β = 0.476, t-value = 7.933, p < 0.005), mindfulness and student well-being (β = 0.343, t-value = 5.639, p < 0.005), mindfulness as a mediator between sustainability education and student well-being (β = 0.163, t-value = 5.040, p < 0.005), and social support and student well-being (β = 0.327, t-value = 5.733, p < 0.005). Hence, the hypotheses from H1 to H4 are supported based on significant values. However, the moderating relationship of social support between mindfulness and student well-being is not maintained (β = −0.040, t-value = 1.207, p = 0.228). Consequently, the hypothesis H5 is not supported. The results are presented in Table 4 and Figure 2 below.

5. Discussion

The present study uses mindfulness-to-meaning theory and social support theory to assess the relationship between sustainability education, mindfulness, social support, and student well-being through direct and indirect hypotheses. First, the relationship between sustainability education and mindfulness is maintained as predicted. The previous studies show the role of ecological education on mindfulness [70]. Human environmental footprints in Beijing are seen from the reports of the government and other independent organizations. That is why it is necessary for higher educational institutions working in Beijing to overcome the threat of pollution. Considering the government policies, higher educational institutions apply sustainability education in courses of different disciplines. Overall, this study of sustainability education gives purpose to the life of the students.
Second, the relationship between mindfulness and student well-being is significant. The existing research shows similar kinds of results [12]. For instance, higher educational institutes in Beijing are internationally recognized as having excellent ratings. This competitiveness creates a lot of academic stress among the students at these competitive higher educational institutes. These stress factors cause depression in the life of a student. For instance, a study by Dyrbye and Shanafelt [71] briefly explains the factors which create problems in the academic life (learning environment, grading and evaluation system, administrative delays, non-supportive behavior by faculty members) and personal life (family illness, divorce, having children, part-time jobs) of the student. However, the literature on positive psychology suggests that students using mindfulness activities remain positive in life [72]. This positive stance of the student is helpful to create well-being in the life of the student.
Third, the mediating relationship of mindfulness between sustainability education and student well-being remains significant. Similar results were shown by previous studies about the mediating role of mindfulness [73] in young professionals in India. In addition, the results of the study corroborate with the existing studies; the literature on mindfulness-to-meaning explains and endorses the findings of the study. Moreover, contextually, the people of China follow Confucian philosophy. The Chinese philosophy of Confucianism is directly related to sustainability, mindfulness, and student well-being. The philosophy posits that harmony with nature gives self-awareness, which, in turn, translates into inner peace. Considering the norms of Chinese society related to Confucianism, Deng [74] conducted a study on the phenomenon of modernization, Confucianism, and pedagogical practices in the region of China. The study highlighted that religious and cultural Confucius, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Christian literature gives prime importance to the sustainability education, mindfulness, and well-being of mankind.
Fourth, the results show that the association between social support and student well-being is maintained. The literature on the relationship of social support and well-being remains fragmented. For instance, the study by Joly and Colleagues [45] highlighted a significant association of social support with student well-being. On the other hand, the findings of the study conducted by Muarifah et al. [17] showed a non-significant relationship between the relationship of social support and well-being. However, the social support theory of Cobb [26] predicts a significant association of between the variables.
Fifth, the moderating relationship of social support between mindfulness and student well-being remains non-significant. The results of this study corroborate with the existing studies [45]. In Chinese society, parents and teachers teach their students about self-reliance. This self-reliance belief helps the university student to complete challenging tasks without the help of others. Moreover, mindfulness provides self-regulation, emotional control, and inner resilience that is helpful to complete their functions with the social support of other people. From a demographic perspective, the majority of the data were collected from the students of education and management sciences. In comparison to pure sciences, the curricula of these programs are more general in nature and easy to understand for the students. Moreover, the previous literature on Chinese students shows that they practice social honor [75]. In situations like social honor, people will avoid social support and believe in self-reliance and self-regulation initiatives to convert mindfulness into student well-being.

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

This research contributes to the literature on mindfulness-to-meaning theory, social support theory, sustainability education, mindfulness, social support, and student well-being. Due to the uncertain job market, students are struggling with issues related to well-being. This research paper guides academicians to overcome the issue of well-being through sustainable education. The existing literature shows divergent findings on the relationship between mindfulness and student well-being. The researchers who proposed a non-significant relationship between mindfulness and student well-being claim that not all students successfully convert mindfulness into student well-being. Based on controversies on the relationship between mindfulness and student well-being, this study examines the moderation of social support in the relationship between mindfulness and student well-being to overcome the divergent relationship between mindfulness and student well-being. Furthermore, the world is facing many environmental issues in the form of air, water, and noise pollution. These kinds of pollutions create diseases in humans. The simple solution to protect humans from these environmental problems is to educate them about the environment and how to protect the environment from air, water, and noise pollution. Considering the importance of the environment, the present research uses sustainability education as a predictor of mindfulness. This sustainability education gives purpose to the life of an individual, which is helpful to develop mindfulness, which is helpful for the student to use mindfulness techniques to overcome academic pressures and maintain peace of mind (well-being). In addition to the novelty of the conceptual model, the present study uses the two theoretical models of mindfulness-to-meaning theory and social support theory to assess the relationship among the variables of the conceptual model, where mindfulness-to-meaning theory covers the relationships between sustainability education, mindfulness, student well-being, and social support and helps to establish the relationship between social support and student well-being.

5.2. Practical Contributions

Sustainable education plays a significant role in promoting mindfulness practices in university students in China. The people living in China face stress and anxiety-related issues. According to a survey conducted by Statista in May 2022, only 8 percent of participants stated that they are living a contented life, and 58 percent of Chinese people surveyed stated that they are facing higher levels of stress and anxiety than previous years. This situation calls the attention of the higher authorities to take special care of university students. Along with the main curricula of degree programs, the university administration should start sustainability education activities to channel the energies of the youth in the right direction, for instance, mindful consumption, seminars and workshops, tree planting, water energy conservation, recycling drives, sustainability-related peer-mentoring initiatives, and collaborative activities with environmentalists to save the earth from human footprints.
Mindfulness is significantly associated with student well-being. Command of the activities of the mind is highly recommended in university life. University administrations add multiple activities to the curriculum of the students to make them more effective for the job market. To complete the requirements of the course, the students have to participate in and organize different kinds of societies and clubs related to sports, entertainment, literature, and public welfare for students, faculty members, management, and outside audiences. The students need to learn about the techniques of mindfulness to overcome stress-related issues. There are two ways to help students develop the optimum level of mindfulness: (1) physical and (2) cognitive. In the physical domain, coaches may train the students through mindful breathing, mindful walking, mindful eating, and mindful listening. In the cognitive domain, the instructors guide the students through mindful journaling, mindful listening, class assignments, and discussions about mindfulness, mindfulness working groups, books, videos, podcasts, and guest lectures related to mindfulness.
As human beings, we are connected with others for different kinds of needs and resources. The student may receive support from different peer groups. For instance, classmates are helpful to give the student space to take and discuss his/her thoughts with others. The family provides financial support to the student to meet educational and day-to-day expenses. Teachers are an important resource at any educational institution. They can help the student through good teaching methodologies, reading material, special time to solve difficult problems, and professional mentorship. Friends are helping hands for leisure time for amusements, sports, and traveling. Consequently, sustainability education, mindfulness, and social support are helpful to raise student well-being.

6. Limitations and Future Research Directions

A few limitations have been identified in the current study. The present study used mindfulness-to-meaning theory and social support theory to assess the relationship between sustainability education, mindfulness, social support, and student well-being. Future researchers may use the self-determination theory of Ryan and Deci [76]. Self-determination theory discusses three antecedents of the psychological well-being of an individual, i.e., autonomy, sense of competence, and relatedness. An individual may gain autonomy through mindfulness, relatedness through social support, and competence through sustainability education. This theory is appropriate to examine the similar kinds of models in social sciences, for instance, education, psychology, sustainability, sociology, law, and management.
This study uses mindfulness as a mediator between sustainability education and student well-being. Moreover, the present study uses social support as a moderator between mindfulness and student well-being. Considering the importance and developments in the field of positive psychology [77], future research may use variables from the field of positive psychology to connect sustainability education with student well-being. For instance, future researchers may consider eudaimonic well-being, self-compassion, and resilience as moderators between the relationship of mindfulness and student well-being. Similarly, the field of positive psychology is helpful to connect the relationship of sustainability education and student well-being through mediating variables such as environmental efficacy, altruism, and positive identity. Hence, with the intervention of positive psychology, future research will enhance the robustness of the results in an educational context.
Moreover, this study mainly depends on the survey method of data collection to assess the relationship between sustainability education, mindfulness, social support, and student well-being. Future studies may adopt different methods such as the application of sustainability education in the classroom and take real-time results on how intervention changes their existing ideas about sustainability and mindfulness. Additionally, future research may conduct interviews with experts and focus groups of students for the development of literature on these constructs. Furthermore, future researchers may use the case study method to develop cases for classes from real-time situations that are useful in academia and in practice.
Additionally, the present study uses a cross-sectional approach to data collection. This approach assesses the student’s perception at a single point of time, which may change as time passes on. Hence, a future researcher should use a longitudinal data collection approach to avoid this limitation. Moreover, this study uses a self-reported approach for the collection of data from the students. This kind of data collection approach may have some biases, such as social desirability bias, recall bias, and misinterpretation bias [78]. In the presence of these biases, the students may overstate or understate the responses of the questionnaire. Considering the issues of self-reported biases, future researchers may use a multi-level data collection approach, such as teachers, students, fellows, and peers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.G. and B.S. Methodology, B.S. Software, Y.G. and J.H. Validation, Y.G., B.S., W.H. and J.H. Formal analysis, B.S. and J.H. Investigation, Y.G. and B.S. Data curation, W.H. Writing—original draft preparation, Y.G., B.S., J.H. and W.H. Writing—review and editing, Y.G., B.S., J.H. and W.H. Visualization, Y.G. Funding acquisition, B.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Key Project of the 2025 Guangdong Educational Science Planning: Research on the Construction. The grant number is (2025DQJK47).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of College of Education for the Future, Beijing Normal University (BNU-2024-0016).

Informed Consent Statement

Verbal consent was obtained from each participant.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all the participants for their valuable contributions and consent, which made this study possible.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rudolf, R.; Bethmann, D. The paradox of wealthy nations’ low adolescent life satisfaction. J. Happiness Stud. 2023, 24, 79–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chaudhry, S.; Tandon, A.; Shinde, S.; Bhattacharya, A. Student psychological well-being in higher education: The role of internal team environment, institutional, friends and family support and academic engagement. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0297508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Zhang, H. Psychological wellbeing in Chinese university students: Insights into the influences of academic self-concept, teacher support, and student engagement. Front. Psychol. 2024, 14, 1336682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Stress Management and Student Well-Being. 2024. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/special_issues/0V4C780SC4 (accessed on 16 October 2024).
  5. Bakker, A.B.; Mostert, K. Study demands–resources theory: Understanding student well-being in higher education. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2024, 36, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Puiu, S.; Udriștioiu, M.T.; Petrișor, I.; Yılmaz, S.E.; Pfefferová, M.S.; Raykova, Z.; Yildizhan, H.; Marekova, E. Students’ Well-Being and Academic Engagement: A Multivariate Analysis of the Influencing Factors. Healthcare 2024, 12, 1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Khatri, P.; Duggal, H.K.; Lim, W.M.; Thomas, A.; Shiva, A. Student well-being in higher education: Scale development and validation with implications for management education. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2024, 22, 100933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Birtwell, K.; Williams, K.; Van Marwijk, H.; Armitage, C.J.; Sheffield, D. An exploration of formal and informal mindfulness practice and associations with wellbeing. Mindfulness 2019, 10, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Slator, E. Mindfulness and Well-Being: Foundations. 2024. Available online: https://www.coursera.org/learn/foundations-of-mindfulness (accessed on 1 October 2024).
  10. Soares, F.; Lopes, A.; Serrão, C.; Ferreira, E. Fostering humanization in education: A scoping review on mindfulness and teacher education. Front. Media SA 2024, 9, 1373500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lee, W.; McCaw, C.T.; Van Dam, N.T. Mindfulness in education: Critical debates and pragmatic considerations. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2024, 50, 2111–2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Matthias, C.; Bu, C.; Cohen, M.; Jones, M.V.; Hearn, J.H. The role of mindfulness in stress, productivity and wellbeing of foundation year doctors: A mixed-methods feasibility study of the mindful resilience and effectiveness training programme. BMC Med. Educ. 2024, 24, 834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Statista. Which Countries Contribute Most to the Global Emissions? 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/markets/408/topic/949/emissions/#overview (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  14. Hakkarainen, V.; King, J.; Brundiers, K.; Redman, A.; Anderson, C.B.; Goodall, C.N.; Pate, A.; Raymond, C.M. Online sustainability education: Purpose, process and implementation for transformative universities. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2024, 25, 333–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Statista. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Associated with Green Recovery Measures in Emerging Markets* Between 2020 and 2030, by Sector. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1258763/greenhouse-gases-emissions-reduction-by-sector/ (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  16. Blom, R.; Karrow, D.D. Environmental and sustainability education in teacher education research: An international scoping review of the literature. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2024, 25, 903–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Muarifah, A.; Widyastuti, D.A.; Fajarwati, I. The effect of social support on single mothers’ subjective well-being and its implication for counseling. J. Kaji. Bimbing. Dan Konseling 2024, 4, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Szkody, E.; Stearns, M.; Stanhope, L.; McKinney, C. Stress-buffering role of social support during COVID-19. Fam. Process 2021, 60, 1002–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Yue, Z.; Zhang, R.; Xiao, J. Social media use, perceived social support, and well-being: Evidence from two waves of surveys peri-and post-COVID-19 lockdown. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2024, 41, 1279–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fatima, A.; Rehna, T. Self-Compassion and Psychological Wellbeing Among Patients With Hepatitis-C: Social Support as Moderator. Pak. J. Psychol. Res. 2024, 39, 173–194. [Google Scholar]
  21. Garland, E.L.; Gaylord, S.A.; Fredrickson, B.L. Positive reappraisal mediates the stress-reductive effects of mindfulness: An upward spiral process. Mindfulness 2011, 2, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nichols, A.L.; Klussman, K.; Langer, J. Finding meaning in our everyday moments: Testing a novel intervention to increase employee well-being. Balt. J. Manag. 2022, 17, 501–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Reshard, J. The Perceptions and Experiences of Employees Who Incorporate Mindfulness Meditation in Their Lives. Ph.D. Thesis, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  24. Garland, E.L.; Fredrickson, B.L. Positive psychological states in the arc from mindfulness to self-transcendence: Extensions of the Mindfulness-to-Meaning Theory and applications to addiction and chronic pain treatment. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2019, 28, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sgherza, T.R.; DeMarree, K.G.; Naragon-Gainey, K. Testing the mindfulness-to-meaning theory in daily life. Mindfulness 2022, 13, 2324–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cobb, S. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosom. Med. 1976, 38, 300–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kort-Butler, L. Social Support Theory. 2018. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub/774/ (accessed on 14 October 2024).
  28. Liu, I.; Morrison, P.S.; Zeng, D. Wellbeing heterogeneity within and among university students. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2024, 19, 215–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ren, S.; Wang, K.; Zhang, J.; Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Qi, R.; Xu, W.; Yan, C.; Liu, X.; Zhang, F. Potential sources and occurrence of macro-plastics and microplastics pollution in farmland soils: A typical case of China. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 54, 533–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. dos Santos, M. Climate Change, Air Pollution, and Human Health in the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Region, South Africa, and Amazonas, Brazil: A Narrative Review. Atmosphere 2024, 15, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Danziger, J.; Willetts, J.; Larkin, J.; Chaudhuri, S.; Mukamal, K.J.; Usvyat, L.A.; Kossmann, R. Household Water Lead and Hematologic Toxic Effects in Chronic Kidney Disease. JAMA Intern. Med. 2024, 184, 788–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, Z.; Ding, Y.; Guo, R.; Wang, Q.; Jia, Y. Research on the cascading mechanism of “urban built environment-air pollution-respiratory diseases”: A case of Wuhan city. Front. Public Health 2024, 12, 1333077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Singh, V. Noise pollution. In Textbook of Environment and Ecology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 275–281. [Google Scholar]
  34. Salas, E.B. Usefulness of Demonstrating for the Protection of the Environment in France. 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1220830/demonstration-for-environment-protection-france/ (accessed on 4 October 2024).
  35. Biswas Mellamphy, N.; Vangeest, J. Human, all too human? Anthropocene narratives, posthumanisms, and the problem of “post-anthropocentrism”. Anthr. Rev. 2024, 20530196241237249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. McIntyre-Mills, J.J. Regenerative Education and Safe Habitats for Diverse Species: Caterpillar Dreaming Butterfly Being. In Transformative Education for Regeneration and Wellbeing: A Critical Systemic Approach to Support Multispecies Relationships and Pathways to Sustainable Environments; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 3–29. [Google Scholar]
  37. Müller, E. Regenerative development as natural solution for sustainability. In The Elgar Companion to Geography, Transdisciplinarity and Sustainability; Sarmiento, F.O., Frolich, L.M., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MS, USA, 2020; Volume 10, pp. 201–218. [Google Scholar]
  38. Frank, P.; Fischer, D.; Stanszus, L.; Grossman, P.; Schrader, U. Mindfulness as self-confirmation? An exploratory intervention study on potentials and limitations of mindfulness-based interventions in the context of environmental and sustainability education. J. Environ. Educ. 2021, 52, 417–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Muela-Bermejo, D.; Pérez-Martínez, L. Enhancing sustainability education through critical reading: A qualitative study in a Spanish primary school. Environ. Educ. Res. 2024, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Efferin, S.; Soeherman, B. Mindfulness for sustainable development: A case of accounting education in Indonesia. Account. Educ. 2024, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Egan, H.; O’Hara, M.; Cook, A.; Mantzios, M. Mindfulness, self-compassion, resiliency and wellbeing in higher education: A recipe to increase academic performance. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2022, 46, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Goretzki, M.; Zysk, A. Using mindfulness techniques to improve student wellbeing and academic performance for university students: A pilot study. JANZSSA J. Aust. N. Z. Stud. Serv. Assoc. 2017, 25, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  43. Fino, E.; Martoni, M.; Russo, P. Specific mindfulness traits protect against negative effects of trait anxiety on medical student wellbeing during high-pressure periods. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2021, 26, 1095–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hobfoll, S.E.; Freedy, J.; Lane, C.; Geller, P. Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1990, 7, 465–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jolly, P.M.; Kong, D.T.; Kim, K.Y. Social support at work: An integrative review. J. Organ. Behav. 2021, 42, 229–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ranking, Q.U. Beijing Normal University, China. Available online: https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/beijing-normal-university (accessed on 7 November 2024).
  47. Statista. Number of Public Colleges and Universities in Beijing, China from 2010 to 2022. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139377/china-number-of-universities-in-beijing/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20city%20of,high%20in%20global%20university%20rankings (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  48. Ashraf, R.; Merunka, D. The use and misuse of student samples: An empirical investigation of European marketing research. J. Consum. Behav. 2017, 16, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Morgan, K. Sample size determination using Krejcie and Morgan table. Kenya Proj. Organ. (KENPRO) 1970, 38, 607–610. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mokgele, K.R.; Rothmann, S. A structural model of student well-being. South Afr. J. Psychol. 2014, 44, 514–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hossain, S.; O’Neill, S.; Strnadová, I. What constitutes student well-being: A scoping review of students’ perspectives. Child Indic. Res. 2023, 16, 447–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Marx-Pienaar, N.J.; Erasmus, A.C. Status consciousness and knowledge as potential impediments of households’ sustainable consumption practices of fresh produce amidst times of climate change. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dos Santos, M.A. South African postgraduate consumer’s attitude towards global warming. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 5, 4215. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. WILLIAMS, J.J.; Seaman, A.E. Corporate governance and mindfulness: The impact of management accounting systems change. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 2010, 26, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kalyar, M.N.; Ali, F.; Shafique, I. Green mindfulness and green creativity nexus in hospitality industry: Examining the effects of green process engagement and CSR. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 2653–2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H.; Yeh, S.-L.; Cheng, H.-I. Green shared vision and green creativity: The mediation roles of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Qual. Quant. 2015, 49, 1169–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kocalevent, R.-D.; Berg, L.; Beutel, M.E.; Hinz, A.; Zenger, M.; Härter, M.; Nater, U.; Brähler, E. Social support in the general population: Standardization of the Oslo social support scale (OSSS-3). BMC Psychol. 2018, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Zhang, D.; Yuan, T.; Huang, A.; Li, X.; Yang, L.; Wang, C.; Liu, M.; Lei, Y.; Sun, L.; Li, J. Validation of the Chinese version of the Oslo-3 Social Support Scale among nursing students: A study based on Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory models. BMC Nurs. 2024, 23, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Bech, P.; Olsen, L.R.; Kjoller, M.; Rasmussen, N.K. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: A comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five well-being scale. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2003, 12, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Keller, S.D.; Ware Jr, J.E.; Bentler, P.M.; Aaronson, N.K.; Alonso, J.; Apolone, G.; Bjorner, J.B.; Brazier, J.; Bullinger, M.; Kaasa, S. Use of structural equation modeling to test the construct validity of the SF-36 health survey in ten countries: Results from the IQOLA project. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1998, 51, 1179–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Sarstedt, M.; Liu, Y. Advanced marketing analytics using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). J. Mark. Anal. 2024, 12, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nadella, G.S.; Meduri, K.; Satish, S.; Maturi, M.H.; Gonaygunta, H. Examining E-learning tools impact using IS-impact model: A comparative PLS-SEM and IPMA case study. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2024, 10, 100351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Guenther, P.; Guenther, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Zaefarian, G.; Cartwright, S. Improving PLS-SEM use for business marketing research. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2023, 111, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Taber, K.S. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nagwovuma, M.; Maiga, G.; Nakakawa, A. Discriminant Validity of Factors for Evaluating Performance of eHealth Information Systems. In Rethinking ICT Adoption Theories in the Developing World: Information and Communication Technologies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 47–70. [Google Scholar]
  67. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Samantaray, S.K.; Farhan, M.; Singh, P.; Kakkar, A. Impact of e-NAM on organic agriculture farmers’ economic growth: A SmartPLS approach. Org. Agric. 2024, 14, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hair, J., Jr; Hair, J.F., Jr; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling; saGe publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  70. Frank, P.; Fischer, D.; Wamsler, C. Mindfulness, education, and the sustainable development goals. Qual. Educ. 2020, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dyrbye, L.N.; Shanafelt, T.D. Commentary: Medical student distress: A call to action. Acad. Med. 2011, 86, 801–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Graham, A.; Truscott, J. Meditation in the classroom: Supporting both student and teacher wellbeing? Educ. 3-13 2020, 48, 807–819. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sharma, R.; Chhikara, D. Sustainable consumption and mindfulness: Analysing knowledge-attitude-practice gap among Indian young professionals. Int. J. Sustain. Econ. 2023, 15, 263–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Deng, Z. Confucianism, modernization and Chinese pedagogy: An introduction. J. Curric. Stud. 2011, 43, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tao, C. Lide Shuren: National Literacies and Social Status in a Rural and an Urban High School in China; The University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh, Scotland, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  76. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 6229–6235. [Google Scholar]
  77. Tang, G.; Abu Bakar, R.; Omar, S. Positive psychology and employee adaptive performance: Systematic literature review. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1417260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Tourangeau, R.; Yan, T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol. Bull. 2007, 133, 859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 16 10508 g001
Figure 1. Conception model.
Figure 1. Conception model.
Sustainability 16 10508 g001
Sustainability 16 10508 g002
Figure 2. Structural model.
Figure 2. Structural model.
Sustainability 16 10508 g002
Table 1. Demographics of the respondents.
Table 1. Demographics of the respondents.
DemographicsCategoryFrequencyPercentage
GenderMale21953.03
Female19446.97
Age18–22 years16940.92
23–27 years13332.20
28–32 years7217.43
33 and above years399.45
ClassesUnd-graduation25962.71
Graduation9222.28
Post-graduation6215.01
DisciplinesEducation18244.07
Management13733.17
Law6716.22
Sociology276.54
Table 2. Reliability and convergent validity.
Table 2. Reliability and convergent validity.
VariablesItemsOLCACRAVE
Sustainability educationSE10.7380.8490.8830.521
SE20.809
SE30.704
SE40.768
SE50.586
SE60.704
SE70.725
MindfulnessMFN10.8320.7110.8210.539
MFN20.796
MFN30.618
MFN50.668
Social supportSS10.9290.8890.9310.818
SS20.871
SS30.913
Student well-beingSWB10.6850.8160.8720.579
SWB20.835
SWB30.778
SWB40.817
SWB50.675
OL = outer loading; CA = Cronbach alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.
Table 3. Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion).
Table 3. Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion).
MFNSSSWBSE
MFN0.734
SS0.7050.905
SWB0.7210.6980.761
SE0.4760.4090.5880.722
MFN = mindfulness; SS = social support; SWB = student well-being; SE = sustainability education.
Table 4. Hypothesis testing.
Table 4. Hypothesis testing.
HypothesisCoefficientst-Valuep-ValueDecision
H1Sustainability Education → Mindfulness0.4767.9330.000Supported
H2Mindfulness → Student Well-being0.3435.6390.000Supported
H3Sustainability Education → Mindfulness → Student Well-being0.1635.0400.000Supported
H4Social Support → Student Well-being0.3275.7330.000Supported
H5Social Support × Mindfulness → Student Well-being−0.0401.2070.228Not Supported
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gu, Y.; Sun, B.; He, J.; Huang, W. Sustainability Education as a Predictor of Student Well-Being Through Mindfulness and Social Support: A Mediated Moderation Model. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310508

AMA Style

Gu Y, Sun B, He J, Huang W. Sustainability Education as a Predictor of Student Well-Being Through Mindfulness and Social Support: A Mediated Moderation Model. Sustainability. 2024; 16(23):10508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310508

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gu, Yuanhai, Bo Sun, Jun He, and Wenjuan Huang. 2024. "Sustainability Education as a Predictor of Student Well-Being Through Mindfulness and Social Support: A Mediated Moderation Model" Sustainability 16, no. 23: 10508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310508

APA Style

Gu, Y., Sun, B., He, J., & Huang, W. (2024). Sustainability Education as a Predictor of Student Well-Being Through Mindfulness and Social Support: A Mediated Moderation Model. Sustainability, 16(23), 10508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310508

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop