Professionalization of Academic Teaching in Latin American Universities to Address SDGs Applying the Stages of Concern Theory

Abstract

In the face of escalating sustainability challenges globally, such as climate change, poverty, inequality, and injustices, the need for a systematic approach to tackle them through the infusion of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in higher education has become increasingly critical. This article explores the crucial issue of professionalizing academic teaching, emphasizing the readiness of academic teachers to cope with sustainability and SDGs in higher education. Using the Stages of Concern Theory and the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) to professionalize academic teaching to address SDGs in teaching, learning, and the curriculum, a sample of 1566 academic teachers in nine Latin American universities responded to the survey. This study aimed to answer two key questions, as follows: (1) How do the years of teaching experience affect academic staff’s stages of concern? (2) How do different academic teaching areas influence the academic staff’s stages of concern? The trend reveals that faculty members with fewer than four years of service scored higher than those with twenty or more years. Similarly, academic teaching staff from the Education Sciences have a significantly higher mean score and effect size than faculty members from the Humanities, Engineering, Social Sciences, Sciences, and Health Sciences across all stages of concern. However, despite these differences, professional development initiatives should be designed to match all teaching staff regardless of years of service and subject area by encouraging teamwork and increasing understanding of the critical importance of transformative teaching and learning.

1. Introduction

The United Nations (UN) Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has been widely seen as a strategic framework for measuring the progress for sustainable well-being. Focusing on sustainability and the SDGs in higher education is crucial due to rising global issues like food security, human hunger, poverty, inequality, and climate change. An increasing body of research shows that to solve the complex global sustainability problems humanity is facing, academic teaching needs to change from an instructive to a constructivist and transformative teaching and learning paradigm [1,2,3]. It has been stated that the urgency of tackling these sustainability problems, primarily through education, plays a key role in creating a more sustainable future [4]. Making academic teaching more suitable for redesigning curricula to integrate SDGs into education effectively is vital. In Latin America, universities are starting to see the need to embed SDGs in their study programs, addressing local and regional sustainability issues [5,6,7]. Such initiatives are crucial for creating an educational environment that prepares students to handle these critical challenges.

Previous research indicates that academic teaching practices must shift from traditional lectures to more interactive, student-focused methods in order to tackle complex global sustainability issues like the 17 SDGs [8,9]. This transformation is especially relevant in Latin America, where academic teachers lack support for using methods related to transformative teaching and learning [10,11]. The ExConTra (Experiential–Constructivist–Transformative) learning framework, consisting of processes such as experiencing, constructing, reflecting, conceptualizing, acting and transforming, aligns well with sustainability goals [12], empowering students to engage with the SDGs actively and inspiring them to create sustainable solutions in Latin American universities [13]. The ExConTra learning paradigm is associated with educational approaches such as inquiry and discovery-based learning, service learning, place-based learning, and reflective/reflexive learning, all associated with teaching methods and strategies suitable for education for sustainability. Such a paradigm shift in teaching, learning, and curriculum development can significantly enhance students’ knowledge and abilities to address sustainability issues locally and globally. There is a need for teaching frameworks that prioritize values-based education, collaborative curriculum creation, interdisciplinary teaching, and systems thinking [14,15,16].

A primary obstacle to integrating sustainability and SDGs into professionalizing academic teaching and curriculum development is the lack of faculty training, which previous research has referred to as a barrier at the system, teacher, and education/school levels [17]. Faculty development also involves curriculum improvement and ensuring academic staff are ready to adjust university curricula to reflect SDGs, supported by ICTs [18,19,20,21]. The crucial information necessary for creating practical activities to enhance academic teaching could be overlooked if the teaching staff’s stages of concern are not identified.

Using the Stages of Concern Theory and the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) to professionalize academic teaching to address SDGs in teaching, learning, and the curriculum has been seen as a critical strategy [22,23,24]. The CBAM consists of three main parts, namely, Innovation, Configuration, Use Levels, and Stages of Concern. Their importance can be summarized as follows:

• Understanding teaching staff views. The Stages of Concern Theory shows teaching staff’s concerns when using new teaching innovations, like adding SDGs to their teaching, learning, and course content. By recognizing stages from awareness to collaboration, educational institutions can adjust professional development to meet specific concerns and embed SDGs into their teaching practices;
• Emphasizing change processes. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model perceives the curriculum as facilitating attempts to handle the challenges of introducing new innovative teaching practices;
• Enhancing professional development. By identifying and addressing teaching staff’s concerns, universities can appropriately develop capacity-building programs related to sustainability education and the embedding of SDGs into course curricula;
• Building a meaningful learning environment. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model can create a positive environment promoting dialectics between education and society;
• Assessing, planning, and implementing. By determining how well teaching staff perceive and integrate SDGs into their teaching, educational leadership can better tackle and plan what is needed to reach meaningful learning outcomes.

The Stages of Concern (SoC) framework divides the concerns of teaching staff into seven categories, contextualized for the study of SDGs, as follows:

• Unconcerned. There is no awareness of the new practice or its impact. Teaching staff show little interest in changes regarding SDGs in their work;
• Informational. Teaching staff seek to learn more about the SDGs and their benefits and challenges;
• Personal. Teaching staff start thinking about how including SDGs might affect their roles;
• Management. Teaching staff focus on handling the logistics and steps needed to implement SDGs in education;
• Consequential. Attention is placed on evaluating the effects of including SDGs across different subjects, especially on students;
• Collaboration. Teaching staff look to collaborate with peers and others to improve implementation and share resources and ideas;
• Refocusing. In this last stage, teaching staff think beyond adding SDGs to their lessons and subjects.

The above-defined stages capture multiple perspectives of teaching staff envisioned to support the professional growth needed to meet the global challenges of embedding SDGs in various academic disciplines. Research findings show that faculty members were primarily concerned about their personal situations and management issues before seeing more significant effects on student involvement and teamwork opportunities [25]. This change highlights the importance of specific workshops to help with early faculty concerns identified in the SoC model [26], especially during curriculum redesign [27]. A longitudinal study applying the SoC theory [28] explored how concerns shift as faculty members adapt their teaching methods. They showed that as teachers become more at ease with paradigm teaching shifts, their concerns move from personal fears to student learning results.

Based on the previous literature review, it may be assumed that linking the SoC theory with sustainability can create a more meaningful and effective approach for analyzing and managing the challenges teaching staff meet in dealing with global and local sustainability issues. Understanding the SoCs of the academic teaching staff in conjunction with the SDGs will be key to developing effective capacity-building initiatives that support a more resilient and sustainable future. Two factors to be examined regarding the seven SoCs in creating effective capacity-building programs are (a) the past experiences of the academic teaching staff and (b) the teaching areas they belong to. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following key questions: (1) How do the years of teaching experience affect academic staff’s stages of concern? (2) How do different academic teaching areas influence the academic staff’s stages of concern? Although the study is primarily explorative, the following research hypotheses have been formulated to reflect the two research questions:

H1. 

New academic teaching staff, defined by years of teaching experience, are expected to exhibit higher concerns about embedding SDGs in their teaching practices and courses.

H2. 

Academic teaching staff from education-related subject areas are expected to exhibit higher concerns about embedding SDGs in their teaching practices and courses.

2. Methodology

2.1. Participants

A sample of 1566 academic teaching staff from nine universities in four Latin American countries, Argentina (N = 140), Colombia (N = 166), Costa Rica (N = 772), and Mexico (N = 488), were purposively sampled to take part in the ACT4SDGs survey. The following criteria justify the purposive sampling employed in this study: (a) the study focuses on nine universities involved in an EU-funded project and its population is expected to provide particular insights relevant to the project objectives; and (b) respondents in the study will be considered as potential trainees in the project’s capacity building and course curriculum reconstruction. Particular attention was paid to cover all subject areas across the nine universities, and the number of respondents was aligned with the sizes of the targeted universities.

The ACT4SDGs is a project financed by the European Commission from November 2024 to October 2026. Regarding gender, 49% of the participants in the survey are women, 50% are men, and 1% declared other. The number of participants in each country reflects the number of universities and their size; 9% of the participants hold a bachelor’s degree, 53% a Master’s and 38% a Ph.D. Each participant university collected the data following institutional policies regarding research ethics and research. Participation was voluntary, and the participants were informed about the study and ensured anonymity.

2.2. The Research Instrument

The research instrument was formulated using the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ), which consists of 35 standard questions developed initially by Hall and Hord [25] to measure academic teaching staff’s concerns about an innovative methodology. For this study, the 35 items were appropriately reformulated to address SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) as a creative teaching and curriculum praxis. It also included some background variables such as gender, subject area, type of academic degree, experience in using ICTs, SDG knowledge, capacity for merging ICTs with SDGs, and teaching methods applied. Participants rated their concerns as follows: 0 (irrelevant), 1–2 (not true of me now), 3–4 (somewhat true of me now), or 5–7 (very true of me now). As pointed out in the introduction, the SoCQ consists of seven distinct categories: unconcerned, informational, personal, management, consequence, collaboration, and refocusing. Thus, questions arose, such as the following: “Am I more concerned about another innovation than integrating SDGs in teaching and course curricula?” “Am I concerned about how integrating the SDGs into my teaching will affect students’ learning and career opportunities?” “Am I concerned about my inability to manage the complexity of integrating SDGs into teaching, learning, and curricula?” Such questions and feelings are worked through to identify where the academic teaching staff stands regarding SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) innovation. If academic teaching staff fall into a category such as collaboration or refocusing, they will likely be less concerned about integrating SDGs into their teaching and courses. On the other end of the spectrum, scores that fit into the informational or personal categories would indicate more concern from the academic teaching staff regarding integrating SDGs into teaching, learning, and course curricula. Adapting the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) context requires carefully considering various factors to ensure its methodological robustness and relevance across different academic and cultural environments. For example, from a linguistic point of view, the SoCQ was translated from English into Spanish. This involved literal translation and cultural adaptation to ensure consistency with the original intent and meaning, adjusting wording to enhance clarity and relevance. The adaptation process also considered the specific educational contexts in which the SoCQ would be used, especially regarding familiarity with sustainability concepts. Although the SoCQ was validated initially, its contextualization with SDGs had to be tested in terms of internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) to ensure that the instrument accurately measures the Stages of Concern regarding the integration of SDGs. The overall questionnaire reliability measured with a Cronbach’s alpha test was 0.95, which is considered very high, and the reliabilities of each of the seven stages ranged from 0.61 to 0.91, with the highest reliability scores found for stages 1 (0.84), 2 (0.91), and 5 (0.90).

2.3. Type of Analysis

Besides descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was chosen to test the research questions set. ANOVA is a powerful and widely used method for comparing means across multiple groups. It is essential in many academic fields to apply any innovation, such as reconstructing academic courses through professionalizing teaching methodologies, to address SDGs. A diagnostic analysis revealed that some of the variables that comprised the SoCQ had relatively high standard deviations, exceeding 1.00, suggesting a wide range of responses and varied perceptions among respondents related to their stages of concern for integrating SDGs into teaching, learning, and course curricula. Positively skewed (right-tailed) results were found for the stages of “Unconcerned” (0.37) and “Management” (0.37). Negatively skewed (left-tailed) values were found for the “Informational,” “Personal,” “Consequence,” “Collaboration,” and “Refocusing” stages, ranging from −0.010 to −0.36. Generally, skewness values close to zero indicate a normal distribution, while values close to or exceeding ±0.5 suggest moderate skew. All variables also have negative kurtosis, indicating platykurtic distributions (flatter than usual). The skewness and kurtosis values, ranging from 0.47 to −1.06, reveal that the distributions of responses are relatively standard with some asymmetry but generally align with characteristics of typical survey data. Thus, to comply with the statistical analysis chosen, the Welch ANOVA test, initially developed by Welsch [29], was selected to determine if there are significant differences between the means of the two factors tested, since the assumptions of normality and equal variances (homogeneity of variance) were not met for most of the variables. One of the advantages of the Welch test is that it is less sensitive to violations of these assumptions compared to the traditional t-test, and does not assume equal variances among the groups being compared [30]. It can also maintain the Type I error better than the standard t-test when the assumption of homogeneity of variances is violated [31]. Accordingly, Welch ANOVA provides a robust way to test for differences in specific group means using post hoc tests adjusted for unequal variances, such as the Games–Howell test, while maintaining control over the overall error rate. Like other tests analyzing means, the output of the Welch test can be easily interpreted and provides a clear understanding of whether groups differ significantly.

Another type of analysis applied refers to measuring effect sizes, which are crucial in quantitative research because they do not simply determine if an effect exists. Still, they also measure its magnitude [32]. Effect sizes are also vital to understanding the subject under study and the practical implications of its findings, enabling comparisons and informing future research planning [33]. Cohen’s d was chosen as suitable for ANOVAs that describe the standardized mean difference of an effect [34,35,36].

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Results

The frequency distribution for the “Unconcerned” variable provides a detailed breakdown of how respondents perceive or rate this variable across the other categories. As pointed out, the data was analyzed based on a Likert scale or similar rating system, from “0” (Irrelevant) to “7.00” (Very true). The responses are categorized from low concern (e.g., “Not true” to high concern (e.g., “Very true”)). Few respondents responded to the category of “Irrelevant” (0.8%), but as we approach the middle of the stage, the levels of concern gradually increase. The category of “Somewhat True” (8.3%) marks a notable point where the respondents’ concerns began to gain more traction. The most significant cumulative percentages appear in the middle range (around 1.80 to 4.00), indicating that the predominant response pattern comprises moderate to high levels of concern. The participants’ teaching experiences varied; 14% of the academic teaching staff reported up to 4 years of teaching experience, 19% had 5–9, and an equal number had 15–19 years of teaching, while the majority (26%) reported more than 20 years and 10–14 years (22%).

In addition, the correlation test provides helpful information about the relationships between the stage “Unconcerned” and the other six stages of concern. It has been found that the correlation coefficients (r) range from 0.26 to 0.60, reflecting various strengths of relationships. More concretely, Pair 1 (Unconcerned and Informational) has a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.42), suggesting that as feelings of being “Unconcerned” increase, perceptions related to “Informational” aspects also tend to increase. Pair 2 (Unconcerned and Personal) also has a moderate correlation (r = 0.40), showing a similar trend. In contrast, Pair 3 (Unconcerned and Management) reveals a more substantial positive correlation (r = 0.60) between being “Unconcerned” and how people see management issues. Pair 4 (Unconcerned and Consequence) shows a moderate correlation (r = 0.44), signifying that those less concerned also view consequences more favorably. It is worth pointing out that Pair 5 (Unconcerned and Collaboration) has the weakest correlation (r = 0.26) compared to the others. Lastly, Pair 6 (Unconcerned and Refocusing) displays a moderate positive connection (r = 0.42) regarding how respondents view focus-related aspects related to their concern levels. It has to be stressed that all correlations have a statistically significance value (p-value) of 0.000, suggesting valid associations between the variables.

3.2. Pair-t-Test and One-Way ANOVA Results

The pair-t-test analysis shows that in Pair 1 (Unconcerned–Informational), the mean difference is −1.61 (t = −37.82, at p = 0.000), suggesting that, on average, responses to the “Informational” stage are significantly higher than to “Unconcerned”. The mean difference for Pair 2 (Unconcerned–Personal) is −1.57 (t= −34.68, at p = 0.000). Similar to Pair 1, responses to “Personal” are significantly higher than “Unconcerned”. The mean difference in Pair 3 (Unconcerned–Management) is −0.021 (t = −0.64 at p = 0.52), indicating almost no difference between the two paired means. The mean difference in Pair 4 (Unconcerned–Consequence) equals −1.06 (t = −26.81, p = 0.000). The difference suggests that “Consequence” scores are significantly higher than those for “Unconcerned”. The mean difference in Pair 5 (Unconcerned–Collaboration) is −1.082 (t = −21.39, p = 0.000). This also shows that “Collaboration” scores are higher than " Unconcerned " scores. Finally, in Pair 6 (Unconcerned–Refocusing), the mean difference equals −1.05 (t = −26.36, p = 0.000). As with previous pairs, “Refocusing” scores are higher than “Unconcerned” scores.

Table 1. One-way ANOVA results on SoC by years of teaching experience.

Stages of Concern for SDGs by Years of Teaching Experience		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Stage 1: Unconcerned	Between Groups	0.641	4	0.180	0.88	0.986
	Within Groups	2839.423	1561	1.819
	Total	2840.064	1565
Stage 2: Informational	Between Groups	71.526	4	17.881	6.098	0.000
	Within Groups	4577.162	1561	2.932
	Total	4648.689	1565
Stage 3: Personal	Between Groups	71.532	4	17.883	5.409	0.000
	Within Groups	5161.375	1561	3.306
	Total	5232.907	1565
Stage 4: Management	Between Groups	13.357	4	3.339	1.402	0.231
	Within Groups	3718.413	1561	2.382
	Total	3731.771	1565
Stage 5: Consequence	Between Groups	47.501	4	11.875	4.793	0.001
	Within Groups	3867.179	1561	2.477
	Total	3914.680	1565
Stage 6: Collaboration	Between Groups	81.164	4	20.291	5.875	0.000
	Within Groups	5391.196	1561	3.454
	Total	5472.360	1565
Stage 7: Refocusing	Between Groups	27.298	4	6.825	2.865	0.022
	Within Groups	3718.820	1561	2.382
	Total	3746.118	1565

displays a one-way ANOVA analysis of the “Stages of Concern for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” according to different years of teaching service. At Stage 1 (Unconcerned), the F-value is 0.88, with a significance (Sig.) value of 0.986. This indicates no statistically significant differences in SDG concerns among different groups based on years of teaching experience. On the contrary, at Stage 2 (Informational), the F-value is 6.098, with a significance level 0.000. This result shows a statistically significant difference in concerns among groups. Similarly, in Stage 3 (Personal), the F-value is 5.409 at p = 0.000, indicating statistically significant differences among groups. This suggests that years of teaching experience influence personal concerns about SDGs. However, in Stage 4 (Management), the F-value is 1.402 at p = 0.231, showing no significant differences in management concerns among the groups. Stage 5 (Consequence) has an F-value of 4.793 at p = 0.001, indicating that teaching experience plays a role in how teachers perceive SDG consequences. The same is evident for Stage 6 (Collaboration), with an F-value of 5.875 at p = 0.000, showing that teaching experience affects these concerns. At Stage 7 (Refocusing), the F-value of 2.865 at p = 0.022 suggests that years of teaching experience impact how teachers refocus their concerns regarding SDGs. Summing up, teaching service significantly affects concerns regarding the “Informational,” “Personal,” “Consequence,” “Collaboration,” and “Refocusing” stages of concerns related to SDGs. However, no significant differences have been found for the “Unconcerned” and “Management” stages, indicating that these aspects are likely less related to years of teaching.

In summary, the number of years the academic teaching staff has significantly affects concerns regarding the stages related to “Informational,” “Personal,” “Collaboration,” and “Refocusing”. At the same time, no significant differences have been found for the “Unconcerned” and “Management” stages, indicating that these two variables are likely less related to the academic teaching staff’s years of teaching.

The Games–Howell post hoc test was conducted following the ANOVA analysis to determine differences in means between years of teaching across the seven stages of concerns and their constituencies: Unconcerned, Informational, Personal, Management, Consequence, Collaboration, and Refocusing. At the “Unconcerned” level (Stage 1), the analysis reveals that the years of teaching has a small mean difference from significance levels exceeding the threshold of 0.05, indicating no statistical differences. The means are relatively low, ranging from 2.87 for respondents with up to 4 years of teaching to 2.88 for those with 20+ years of teaching service.

Conversely, the “Informational” category (Stage 2) has yielded much higher mean scores. The most contrasting difference is that the academic teaching staff with up to 4 years of service scored an average of 4.91, while those with 20+ years of service scored an average of 4.24. Teaching staff with up to 4 years of teaching experience show a significant mean difference compared to those with 10–14 years of experience (0.44, p = 0.021, 95% CI: [0.043 0.8269]) and even more pronounced differences for the 15–19-years group (0.53212, p = 0.003, 95% CI: [0.1265, 0.9377]) and the 20+ years group (0.67, p = 0.000, 95% CI: [0.2893, 1.0427]). The CIs (Confidence Intervals) suggest more consensus among respondents regarding the importance of informational content.

As we move to the “Personal” (Stage 3), the results reveal the same trend as was identified in the previous stage. Respondents with teaching service up to 4 years had a mean score of 4.86, and those aged 20+ averaged 4.19. More specifically, teaching staff with up to 4 years of teaching experience exhibit mean differences of 0.41 (p = 0.042, 95% CI: [0.0087, 0.8147]) when compared to those with 10–14 years of teaching, and an even more significant mean difference of 0.67 (p = 0.000, 95% CI: [0.2841, 1.0726]) when compared to those with 20+ years of teaching experience. Similar to the informational dimension, the personal scores range from 4.19 to 4.86, indicating that respondents attach a high significance to personal factors. At the same time, the CIs consistently show lower bounds above 4.00, reinforcing that individual elements are reasonably valued.

The “Management” variable (Stage 4) presents a different picture, showing no significant differences among the various groups exceeding the threshold of 0.05. Moving to the “Consequence” stage (Stage 5), noteworthy statistically significant differences emerge, particularly favoring teaching staff with fewer years of teaching experience. Thus, teaching staff with up to 4 years of teaching experience have significant mean differences when compared to those with 10–14 years (0.42718, p = 0.012, 95% CI: [0.0645, 0.7899]) and 15–19 years (0.50824, p = 0.003, 95% CI: [0.1241, 0.8924]). Furthermore, a significant mean difference has been revealed for the 20+ years group (0.51751, p = 0.001, 95% CI: [0.1615, 0.8736]). CIs range from lower bounds of around 3.62 to over 4.10, reflecting moderate response variability. These results suggest that as the years of teaching experience increase, academic teaching staff develop a greater awareness of the impacts and consequences of their teaching, leading to enhanced pedagogical practices.

At the “Collaboration” stage (Stage 6), respondents with fewer years of teaching averaged 4.37, while those with more years averaged 3.64, exhibiting a notable increase in collaborative tendencies, with a mean difference of 0.72331 (p = 0.000, 95% CI: [0.3112, 1.1354]). The findings for the 5–9-year group compared to the 20+ years group indicate a minor but still meaningful mean difference of 0.40486 (p = 0.038, 95% CI: [0.0146, 0.7952]). The CIs indicate some variability, but generally agree with respondents regarding the importance of collaborative efforts. Finally, in the “Refocusing” category (Stage 7), teaching staff with up to 4 years of teaching experience scored an average of 4.17, while the oldest group scored 3.79, with a mean difference of 0.39 (p = 0.012, 95% CI: [0.0580, 0.7211]). While the CIs show variability, with lower bounds consistently above 3.63, the refocusing means range reflects a recognition of the need for positive attitudes towards changing teaching practices to embed SDGs in course curricula.

The Cohen (d) analysis on effective sizes depicted in

Table 2. Summarized effect sizes on the comparison of years of teaching experience.

Stage of Concern	Comparison	Mean Difference	Cohen (D)	Effect Size Description	Significance (p-Value)
Unconcerned	UP TO 4 vs. 5–9	0.0391	−0.0285	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	5–9 vs. 10–14	0.0567	0.0440	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	10–14 vs. 15–19	−0.0081	−0.0062	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	15–19 vs. 20+	−0.0262	−0.0195	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
Informational	UP TO 4 vs. 5–9	0.3117	0.1917	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	5–9 vs. 10–14	0.1232	0.0983	Small Effect	p > 0.05
	10–14 vs. 15–19	0.0972	0.0579	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	15–19 vs. 20+	0.1339	0.0752	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
Personal	UP TO 4 vs. 5–9	0.3157	0.1844	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	5–9 vs. 10–14	0.0960	0.0501	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	10–14 vs. 15–19	0.0776	0.0382	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	15–19 vs. 20+	0.1890	0.1050	Small Effect	p > 0.05
Management	UP TO 4 vs. 5–9	0.0833	0.0536	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	5–9 vs. 10–14	0.1081	0.0672	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	10–14 vs. 15–19	0.0083	0.0051	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	15–19 vs. 20+	0.0724	0.0752	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
Consequence	UP TO 4 vs. 5–9	0.3062	0.1913	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	5–9 vs. 10–14	0.1209	0.0750	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	10–14 vs. 15–19	0.0811	0.0428	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	15–19 vs. 20+	0.0093	0.0050	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
Collaboration	UP TO 4 vs. 5–9	0.3185	0.1730	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	5–9 vs. 10–14	0.0488	0.0259	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	10–14 vs. 15–19	0.0755	0.0405	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	15–19 vs. 20+	0.2805	0.1484	Small Effect	p < 0.05
Refocusing	UP TO 4 vs. 5–9	0.1637	0.1092	Small Effect	p > 0.05
	5–9 vs. 10–14	0.0936	0.0552	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	10–14 vs. 15–19	0.0955	0.0633	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	15–19 vs. 20+	0.0367	0.0230	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05

reaffirms that academic teaching staff with up to 4 years of teaching experience tend to exhibit greater concerns about embedding SDGs in teaching, learning, and course curricula, and adds more concrete evidence on the size of effects. In particular, the findings indicate that the comparisons of up to 4 years of teaching experience against 5 to 9 years of experience tend to exhibit small but statistically significant effects in the categories of Informational, Personal, Consequence, and Collaboration. Collaboration also has a statistically significant effect when comparing 15–19 years of experience against 20+ years.

Overall, based on the multiple comparison analysis and the Cohen’s d analysis, the results confirm the hypothesis that younger academic teaching staff, defined by years of teaching experience (up to 4 years), exhibit more favorable concerns regarding the embedding of SDGs into their teaching practices and courses than older academic teaching staff. As will be further elaborated in the discussion section, this could be due to various factors, including an increased awareness of global issues, the influence of current educational trends, and the fact that younger faculty may be more motivated by new pedagogical innovations.

It is clear that in comparisons performed at the unconcerned stage, all effect sizes are negligible, as they are in most other groups across the rest of the stages. As will be further elaborated in the discussion section, negligible effects depend on the statistical significance, and especially in large samples, even minor mean differences can be statistically significant. Thus, negligible effects should be interpreted in context, and can be meaningful, despite their statistical insignificance.

Table 3. One-way ANOVA results of SoCs by academic teaching area.

Stages of Concern for SDGs by Academic Teaching Area		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Stage 1: Unconcerned	Between Groups	83.676	5	16.735	9.47	0.000
	Within Groups	2756.388	1550	1.767
	Total	2840.064	1565
Stage 2: Informational	Between Groups	215.629	5	43.126	15.17	0.000
	Within Groups	4433.059	1550	2.842
	Total	4648.698	1565
Stage 3: Personal	Between Groups	249.451	5	49.890	15.62	0.000
	Within Groups	4983.456	1550	3.195
	Total	5232.907	1565
Stage 4: Management	Between Groups	51.957	5	10.391	4.40	0.001
	Within Groups	3679.814	1550	2.359
	Total	3731.771	1565
Stage 5: Consequence	Between Groups	157.047	5	31.409	13.04	0.000
	Within Groups	3757.632	1550	2.409
	Total	3914.680	1565
Stage 6: Collaboration	Between Groups	158.573	5	31.715	9.31	0.000
	Within Groups	5313.787	1550	3.408
	Total	5472.360	1565
Stage 7: Refocusing	Between Groups	150.974	5	30.195	13.10	0.000
	Within Groups	3595.144	1550	2.305
	Total	3746.118	1565

summarizes the results concerning the relationship between different academic teaching areas. It is clear that the F values across all seven stages are statistically significant at p = 000 and range from 9.31 to 15.62. These results suggest that teachers’ academic teaching/subject area plays a vital role in shaping their concerns at different stages when integrating SDGs in multiple academic disciplines. Starting with the Unconcerned stage, the results show a marked difference between the groups, and a significant F-statistic at 9.47 (p < 0.001). This implies apparent differences in concern among different subject areas or academic disciplines, with a notable degree of indifference towards SDGs among some groups. Moving to Stage 2, the results show an even more substantial variation among the groups (F = 15.17, p < 0.001). In Stage 3, the findings reflect significant differences (F = 15.62, p < 0.001), showing personal variations regarding SDGs. A similar trend is denoted in the rest of the stages (Management, Consequences, Collaboration, and Refocusing), emphasizing the need for tailored approaches to enhance concerns related to embedding SDGs in teaching and course curricula across all subject areas.

The Games–Howell post hoc test, in line with the Cohen’s d effect size analysis (

Table 4. Summarized effect sizes comparing subject areas.

Stage of Concern	Comparison	Mean Difference	Cohen’s d	Effect Size Description	Significance (p-Value)
Unconcerned	Health Sciences vs. Education	−0.5458	−0.373	Small to Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Engineering vs. Education	−0.2183	0.152	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	Humanities vs. Engineering	−0.3797	−0.279	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	Humanities vs. Education	−0.1614	−0.118	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	Sciences vs. Education	−0.2768	−0.205	Small Effect	p < 0.05
Informational	Health Sciences vs. Education	−1.2462	−0.677	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Social Sciences vs. Education	−0.3425	−0.215	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	Humanities vs. Education	−0.5834	−0.335	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Sciences vs. Education	−0.7945	−0.457	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Engineering vs. Education	−0.4839	−0.287	Small to Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Health Sciences vs. Humanities	−0.6628	−0.358	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
Personal	Health Sciences vs. Education	−1.4409	−0.845	Large Effect	p < 0.001
	Humanities vs. Education	−0.6728	−0.413	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Sciences vs. Education	−0.9936	−0.525	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Engineering vs. Education	−0.6378	−0.390	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Health Sciences vs. Humanities	−0.7681	−0.767	Large Effect	p < 0.001
Management	Health Sciences vs. Education	−0.6000	−0.449	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Humanities vs. Education	−0.5000	−0.183	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	Sciences vs. Education	−0.7000	−0.231	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	Engineering vs. Education	−0.3000	−0.037	Negligible Effect	p > 0.05
	Social Sciences vs. Education	−0.8500	−0.136	Small Effect	p < 0.05
Consequence	Health Sciences vs. Education	−1.1000	−0.690	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Humanities vs. Education	−1.0000	−0.375	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Sciences vs. Education	−0.8000	−0.386	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Engineering vs. Education	−0.9000	−0.177	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	Social Sciences vs. Education	−1.0500	−0.177	Small Effect	p < 0.05
Collaboration	Health Sciences vs. Education	−0.5500	−0.593	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Humanities vs. Education	−0.4500	−0.282	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	Sciences vs. Education	−0.2500	−0.358	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Engineering vs. Education	−0.1500	−0.220	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	Social Sciences vs. Education	−0.3500	−0.178	Small Effect	p < 0.05
Refocusing	Health Sciences vs. Education	−1.2000	−0.780	Medium to Large Effect	p < 0.001
	Humanities vs. Education	−1.0000	−0.292	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	Sciences vs. Education	−0.9000	−0.438	Medium Effect	p < 0.01
	Engineering vs. Education	−0.8000	−0.180	Small Effect	p < 0.05
	Social Sciences vs. Education	−1.1000	−0.200	Small Effect	p < 0.05

), has revealed significant differences. Starting at the Unconcerned stage (Stage 1), academic staff in Health Sciences report feeling notably more unconcerned compared to their counterparts in Education, evidenced by a mean difference (MD) of −0.54 (p < 0.01), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.1202 to 0.9713. Engineering follows the same trend compared to Education, marked by a mean difference of −0.21 (p < 0.05), with a CI of [−0.6400, −0.0360], indicating significant concern. The Humanities also displays a higher level of unconcern compared to Engineering, with a mean difference of −0.37 (p = 0.032, CI: [−0.7394, −0.0200]), highlighting varying levels of engagement across these fields. The 95% confidence intervals suggest that the confidence levels for these means generally do not overlap significantly, showing distinct concerns across the fields. The Cohen’s d values for most comparisons indicate small to medium effects, with significant differences evident in the comparisons involving Health Sciences and Education. Additional comparisons between Engineering and Education yielded a small effect (mean difference of 0.2183, Cohen’s d of 0.152, p < 0.05). Humanities, Sciences, and Education comparisons also reveal small effects, with mean differences ranging from −0.1614 to −0.3797 and Cohen’s d values between −0.118 and −0.279 (p < 0.05).

Moving to the Informational stage (Stage 2), statistically significant differences have been detected among academic teaching staff from Health Sciences and Education, who felt more informed than their colleagues from the other subject areas, especially Health Sciences, with a mean difference of −1.2462 (p < 0.01, with 95% CI: [0.7786, 1.7139]), and a Cohen’s d of −0.677. This indicates a medium effect on their informational concerns towards SDGs. Medium effects were also observed in Humanities versus Education, with a Cohen’s d of −0335 and a mean difference of −0.5834, and in Sciences versus Education (Cohen’s d equal to −0.7945), reflecting a relatively strong concern regarding informational issues in the field of Education.

In the Personal stage (Stage 3), the same trend is evidenced, exhibiting a mean difference of −1.44 (p < 001), CI: [−1.9295, −0.9522], with a Cohen’s d of −0.845, revealing one of the two largest and most significant effects across all comparisons, showing that staff in Health Sciences observe a considerable gap in their field compared to their peers in Education. Additionally, all comparisons of Humanities, Sciences, and Engineering with Education reveal medium effects, with mean differences ranging from −0.6378 to −0.9936 and Cohen’s d scores between −0.390 and −0.525, t p < 0.01.

The Management stage (Stage 4) reveals results in which academic teaching staff from Education still maintain a relatively positive perception compared to Health Sciences, with a mean difference of −0.060 (p < 0.01, with 95% CI: [0.1108, 1.06095]) and a Cohen’s d value of −0.449, indicating a medium size effect. Comparisons between Humanities and Education reveal a small effect with a mean difference of −0.5000 (Cohen’s d of −0.183, p < 0.05). Engineering showed a negligible impact compared to Education, as indicated by a Cohen’s d of −0.037 (p > 0.05), while Social Sciences, compared with Education, exhibited a small effect.

In the Consequence stage (Stage 5), a clear distinction is evident, with Education academic teaching staff perceiving their work as significantly more consequential compared to Health Sciences, with a mean difference of −1.10 (p < 0.01, CI: [0.5917, 1.4748]), and a Cohen’s d value of −0.69. Conversely, academic staff in the Humanities reported a lower perception at the Consequence stage than Education, indicated by a mean difference of −1.00 (CI: [−1.0283, −0.1117]), with a Cohen’s value of −0.375 (p < 0.01), indicating a medium effect. Sciences (−0.80, Cohen’s d of −0.386) also showed medium effects compared to Education.

Moving to the Collaboration stage (Stage 6), similar trends can be noted, indicating variabilities among the subjects, especially between Heath Sciences and Education, with a mean difference of −0.55 (p < 0.01, with 95% CI: [0.55, 1.63]) and a Cohen’s d of −0.593, showing a medium effect. Other comparisons of Education with the Humanities, Sciences, and Engineering range between small and medium impact, as denoted by their Cohen’s values. These trends reflect the distinct differences in perceived collaboration across these subject areas, suggesting tailored interventions for those scoring less in collaborative concerns.

Finally, in the Refocusing stage (Stage 7), the findings show a medium to large effect when comparing Health Sciences and Education (mean difference at −1.00, Cohen’s d at −0.780 (p < 001)). These results illustrate a strong tendency for Health Sciences and Education staff to exhibit a CI of [0.5601, 1.4620], indicating adeptness in shifting focus. Similarly, academic teaching staff from Sciences, Engineering, and Social Sciences, compared with Education, demonstrate significant refocusing capabilities, further suggesting that these disciplines exhibit substantial adaptability. These results confirm the hypothesis that academic teaching staff from the field of education sciences exhibit higher concerns regarding embedding SDGs in their teaching practices and courses. This can be explained by the fact that the academic teaching staff in education have been challenged to address sustainability education in their study programs.

4. Discussion

The discussion presents a detailed analysis and interpretation, along with the implications, of the results related to the 1566 academic teaching staff from nine universities across four Latin American countries (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico) regarding their stages of concern with the integration of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into teaching, learning and curriculum development. We started with the first research question, “How do the years of teaching experience affect academic staff’s stages of concern?”

Based on the Games–Howell post hoc test results, the mean scores for the years of teaching service at the “Unconcerned Stage” are not statistically significant. Scoring similarly could be interpreted as respondents not actively thinking that the innovation studied can lead to changes in the unconcerned situation. It seems that teaching staff may be indifferent at this stage, as they do not perceive the need or the will for change, or may not be ready to understand the proposed innovation. Previous research suggests that at this stage, they often display uniformity in their conceptions of sustainability due to tensions raised by the challenges associated with the innovation [37].

At the “Informational Stage,” the research results show that the mean score of those with up to 4 years of teaching experience is significantly higher (4.91) than that of those with 20+ years of experience (4.25), with strong significance (p < 0.01). This finding implies that academic teaching staff with more years of service have fewer concerns about incorporating the SDGs into their lessons and techniques, and they would like to talk less about the challenges of changing their teaching styles to accommodate the integration of SDGs in their teaching practices and courses. They are also not inclined to understand more about the resources needed to accommodate the integration of SDGs into their classes and how this could enhance their teaching and curriculum development skills. Previous research shows that embedding SDGs in teaching, learning, and curriculum will profoundly transform our thinking and acting [38,39]. This transformation can only be accomplished through capacity building that fosters critical reflection on the prevailing teaching practices, curriculum perceptions, worldviews, and systems that promote unsustainable thinking, being, and behaving [40].

At the “Personal Stage,” a similar trend was evidenced, showing that faculty members with fewer than four years of service were scoring higher (4.86) than those with twenty or more years of service (4.19), at p < 0.01. They are more concerned with knowing how incorporating the SDGs into teaching, learning, and the curriculum will impact their professional standing, and what tactics will be employed. Additionally, they are more concerned about trying innovative teaching strategies to comply with integrating the SDGs into their classes, and understanding how this would affect their social and academic roles. Previous research shows that teaching staff with many years of experience often use specific teaching methods for years, and are less inclined to change than newer teachers [41,42]. Also, older teaching staff are usually involved in many other tasks, and face time constraints. They could even be sceptical of innovations, thinking past attempts did not yield the expected outcomes [17,43]. Thus, combining years of teaching, long-standing teaching practices, cognitive and administrative overload, and skepticism towards innovations, teaching staff with many years of teaching are expected to be less concerned about SDGs in teaching, learning, and curriculum reconstruction. Added to the above, studies underpinned by the cognitive dissonance theory show that when experienced teachers are confronted with innovations that do not align with their firm personal theories or habits of mind, they might express lower levels of concern [44,45].

At the “Stage of Management,” the significance levels are only at the p < 0.05 threshold, even though the mean scores show a similar pattern, with faculty with up to 4 years of teaching experience scoring 3.06 against 2.79 for those with 20+. This suggests potential challenges in balancing additional responsibilities, indicating that the younger teaching staff cohort is more concerned about tackling managerial issues such as a lack of time, fragmented curricula, and cognitive overload in integrating SDGs in their instruction and courses. They are also more concerned about their knowledge and skills, and the tension between their obligations and interests. Several studies found that time constraints [17] and heavy workloads hinder teaching staff’s efforts to embed sustainability in teaching and learning [46]. Policies should prioritize specific drivers such as resource allocation, recognition, and incentives. Addressing these managerial issues could create a conducive environment for teaching staff, helping them integrate SDGs in teaching, learning, and curricula.

At the “Consequences Stage,” again, there was a significant difference (p < 0.01) between the faculty with fewer years of service, scoring 4.31, and their older counterparts, who scored 3.80. This indicates that teaching staff with fewer years of teaching exhibit more concern with incorporating the SDGs into their courses, and how it would impact their learning and career chances, which appear to be of greater importance to younger academic teaching personnel. They are more concerned with student input and feedback in assessing how their academic instruction affects students’ learning by incorporating the SDGs into their classes [47,48].

At the “Collaboration Stage,” faculty members who have been teaching for up to four years also show a similar tendency, scoring higher (4.37) than the group of teaching staff having twenty years and beyond (3.64), with strong significance (p < 0.01). This implies that faculty members with fewer years of teaching exhibit more concern than their counterparts with more years of service in engaging in collaborative instruction activities and revising course curricula to address SDGs. It is evident from previous research that enhancing the alignment of professional development with SDGs requires collective efforts [49]. By fostering a culture of inter/cross-disciplinary teamwork, teaching staff can feel more concerned and empowered to shift from instructivist to constructive and ultimately transformative teaching and learning paradigms [50].

Finally, at the “Refocusing Stage,” there is a significant difference (p < 0.01) between the mean scores of 4.17 for faculty with fewer years of service and 3.78 for other faculty, indicating similar results to the previous stages of concern. This again suggests that younger teaching staff would be more concerned about reconsidering and modifying their pedagogical approaches to integrate SDGs into their curricula and practices. Additionally, they are more concerned with improving teaching strategies to make them appropriate for curriculum development to address SDGs. They would prefer to adapt their courses more than others in light of students’ experiences and interests. These findings can be explained by the fact that younger teaching staff were more exposed to a learning environment during their studies, emphasizing sustainability issues. They are also more open to new challenges and innovations that could enable them to change their teaching, learning, and curriculum practices to address real-world problems connected with SDGs.

The analysis of the effect sizes comparing groups related to years of teaching experience using Cohen’s d technique has demonstrated a mixture of small and negligible effects. As pointed out in the results section, many categories exhibited negligible effects (Table 2), whereby the Cohen’s d values were close to 0 and the p-values were greater than 0.05, meaning that the differences in the means across the years of teaching experience groups are minimal and not statistically significant. However, it has to be pointed out that negligible effects may still have practical implications. Indeed, even the negligible effects of slight differences can be meaningful in specific contexts, especially in future research, policy-making, and training practices.

The findings highlight the need to develop policies for SDG integration, particularly between younger and more experienced teaching staff. Thus, educational leadership can use the findings to develop targeted policies to promote the reorientation of university curricula and address SDGS within these university curricula, ensuring alignment with national policies in the targeted Latin American countries and regions. The results also suggest a need for transparent frameworks that guide higher education institutions in implementing SDG-related curricula. This could be aligned with the CBAM approach, which provides a structured way to address faculty concerns and support effective SDG integration.

We now turn to the study’s second question, “How do different academic teaching areas influence the academic staff’s stages of concern?” The findings indicate considerable variation in concerns about incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) across different academic fields. At the “Unconcerned Stage”, the most noticeable variations are in comparisons of Health Sciences versus Education, which demonstrated a small to medium adverse effect (−0.5458 with a Cohen’s d of −0.573), suggesting that Health Sciences academic teaching staff feel more unconcerned than those in Education. A small but positive difference (0.2183), with a Cohen’s d of 0.152 found in Engineering compared to Education, suggests that academic teaching staff from Engineering feel slightly less concern about embedding SDGs in their teaching and courses than staff from Education.

Similar trends were evidenced when comparing Health Sciences and Education and Sciences and Education at the “Informational Stage”. These results suggest that the academic teaching staff of the Health Sciences, Humanities, and Sciences feel less significantly informed than staff in Education. These findings imply that Health Sciences teaching staff would need to know more about (a) the potential use of alternative teaching methods, (b) the resources available and necessary for incorporating the SDGs into their teaching and courses, and (c) the impacts of incorporating the SDGs into their courses. These areas indicate an urgent need for training and organizing instructional materials focusing on SDGs for staff in the Humanities and Sciences. Such findings suggest that professional development initiatives should be designed with these disciplines in mind to facilitate access to relevant resources and training sessions focusing on integrating SDGs into course curricula. These findings highlight the need for promotional strategies tailored to the varying informational needs of targeted subject areas to address specific informational concerns.

At the “Personal Stage,” a notable difference in personal concerns was seen, especially between Health Sciences and Education (mean difference = −1.4409), with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.845). This indicates that individuals in Education felt much more personal concern than those in Health Sciences. Most comparisons maintained small to medium effect sizes, highlighting important distinctions between academic disciplines. Faculty members in the field of Education are increasingly keen to match their teaching philosophies with more general educational objectives and learn how SDG integration may affect their professional positions. They are specifically interested in knowing more about how incorporating the SDGs into teaching, learning, and the curriculum will impact their professional standing, what teaching methods and strategies will be employed, and how their teaching will be altered due to course revisions addressing SDGs. Additionally, they show increased enthusiasm in innovative teaching strategies and how incorporating the SDGs into their classes would impact their social and academic roles.

These findings emphasize the necessity of focused training sessions highlighting the value and advantages of integrating SDGs in teaching, learning, and curricula. This can foster a more assertive personal investment and dedication to the ACT4SDGs objectives. Personal concerns may vary significantly based on discipline, suggesting that tailored emotional support resources may be beneficial. In particular, understanding vertical differences between disciplines may challenge certain assumptions regarding personal well-being concerns.

At the “Management State,” Health Sciences and Education faculty again exhibited higher concerns than other disciplines (mean difference = −0.60), with Cohen’s d values of −0.449, indicating a medium effect. Academic teaching staff from the Health Sciences were more concerned about the inability to handle all of this when incorporating the SDGs into teaching, learning, and curricula. The differences imply that unique management strategies may be necessary in faculties other than Education, such as the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Sciences. Fostering leadership and management strategies can help address the concerns of future educators. These findings suggest that educational institutions should consider offering time management tools and training to alleviate these challenges and facilitate the integration of SDGs into course curricula.

Similar trends were noticed at the “Consequences Stage,” mostly with medium effects. Cohen’s d values ranged from −0.177 to −0.690 (from small to medium impacts), indicating that concern regarding consequences varies across disciplines. In general, academic teaching staff from the Health Sciences, Humanities, Sciences, Engineering, and Social Sciences need to be encouraged towards interventions that increase their capacity to understand how their students feel about incorporating the SDGs into their classes, and how they would impact their education and future employment prospects. This underscores the importance of raising awareness in assessing how academic instruction affects students’ learning, and the staff would like to engage their students more when incorporating the SDGs into their classes.

At the “Collaboration Stage,” the most considerable mean difference was also found between Health Sciences and Education (−0.55, with a medium effect size (Cohen’s d at −0.593, and p > 0.01)). These results imply that those in the field of education perceive collaborative efforts as more vital than their colleagues in health sciences. They therefore have a greater need to support faculty members in their efforts to incorporate the SDGs into their courses, collaborate with others and the community on SDG-related topics, and enhance collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches in embedding SDGs in their teaching and courses. Interdepartmental initiatives or team-based workshops can strengthen this culture of collaboration and provide better results.

Lastly, at the “Refocusing Stage,” the results reveal the same trends as in the previous stages, with small to medium effect sizes. It has been consistently shown that academic teaching staff from the field of Education seem to be more receptive to embracing SDGs into their teaching practices and course content. These findings align with previous research on how sustainability can inspire teacher educators to embed sustainability into their practice, encouraging a broader commitment to preparing younger generations to act sustainably [51,52]. In particular, teacher education prepares citizens for the global sustainability challenge by adopting appropriate teaching methodologies and content. Thus, it is unsurprising that teacher education programs were among the first to respond to the SDGs [53,54].

These findings suggest the need for dedicated training sessions to equip other academic teaching staff to address their focus on changing pedagogical paradigms to integrate SDGs into their course curricula and teaching practices. Across all these stages, it has been found that Health Education lags in its concerns, even though many SDGs and their indicators directly or indirectly relate to health issues [55]. These include SDG 1 (Poverty), SDG 2 (Hunger), SDG 3 (Good health and well–being), and SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation), which in turn can be related to many other SDGs. For example, poverty can lead to hunger, malnutrition, and health problems that may prevent children from accessing schooling (SDG 4) or adults from getting jobs (SDG 8). As the global climate crisis (SDG 13) continues, the impacts on human health and well-being will also accelerate. Climate change has negatively affected health services and resources in various ways, and without further action, this problem will likely worsen [56]. Thus, teaching staff from Health Sciences may feel a more substantial professional and ethical commitment to address SDG health issues and to promote general public health more equitably.

Emphasizing the importance of collaboration among faculty from different disciplines can help inform policies that facilitate inter- and cross-departmental initiatives such as joint projects and workshops, fostering a culture of teamwork aimed at SDG integration. Furthermore, higher education institutions might consider policies that promote SDG integration in their core mission and vision statements.

Taking into consideration that in the Latin American region, there has been a slowing of progress toward the SDGs [11,57,58], professionalizing academic teaching means that the partner institutions of the ACT4SDGs project should implement training programs that give faculty members from various disciplines the required know-how to integrate SDGs into their curricula, teaching, and learning, with particular attention paid to older faculty members. Providing pertinent materials, including guidelines, excellent examples and case studies, is another suggestion for effectively integrating SDGs across diverse academic fields and establishing networks for teaching staff to engage in cross-disciplinary collaborations. Previous research highly supports such interventions in Latin American higher education [13]. Furthermore, it is also essential to develop systems to gather student input on the significance and effects of SDG integration to assist teaching staff in enriching their teaching methodologies. Also, fostering incentives and recognition for academic teaching staff efforts to incorporate SDGs into course curricula and teaching could encourage more positive engagement. These interpretations highlight the urgent need for a thorough and multifaceted approach to professionalizing teaching staff to address SDGs in multiple academic disciplines to contribute meaningfully to building a more sustainable and just society.

Based on the above discussion, which was driven by the statistically significant findings,

Table 5. Key recommendations for professionalizing academic training to address SDGs in multiple academic disciplines.

Experience Level (Years of Teaching)	Training Focus	Key Recommendations
Early-Career Teaching Staff (up to 4 years)	Constructing foundational knowledge, skills, and action for embedding SDGs in teaching and course revision.	Introductory workshops on the importance of SDGs in teaching methodology and curriculum integration. Developing knowledge and skills on peer mentoring, especially with colleagues from other subject areas who express low concerns.
Mid-Career Teaching staff (6–15 years)	Shifting from instructional to transactive and transformative teaching methods in line with collaborative/participatory course curriculum development to address SDGs.	Advanced workshops on innovative teaching and curriculum reconstruction, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration. Opportunities for co-creating sustainability projects with multiple stakeholders. Share best practices through peer-reviewed teaching and student-driven course assignments.
Senior-Career Teaching Staff (15+ years)	Leadership in embedding SDGs through peer coaching and mobile mentoring.	Leadership training for advocating institutional policies aligning with the 17 SDGs. Engage in action research on the effectiveness of SDG-oriented curricula. Facilitate symposiums or conferences to share insights on embedding SDGs in professionalizing academic teaching and curriculum innovation.
Subject Area (Course Teaching)	Training Focus	Key Recommendations
Education Sciences	Education for Sustainable Development Leadership in pre-service and in-service teacher training.	Integrate all SDGs within a pedagogical context, emphasizing SDG 4 (Quality Education). Train in collaborative active learning strategies. Focus on peer coaching and mobile mentoring with academic teaching staff from other subject areas.
Social Sciences and Humanities	Understanding the causes of the sustainability crisis, sustainable development trends, and ethical implications of the SDGs.	Exploring interconnections between SDGs. For example, achieving SDG 1 (No poverty) can positively impact other goals like SDG 2 (Zero hunger) and SDG 3 (Good health and well-being). Addressing the socio-cultural pillar of sustainability through the lens of the SDGs. Encouraging discussions on social justice and global citizenship. Developing interdisciplinary approaches connecting social sciences and humanities with other subject areas.
Engineering and Technology	Contextualize SDGs with engineering and technology course curricula.	Engineering is closely aligned with numerous Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to water (SDG 6), energy (SDG 7), industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG 9), sustainable cities (SDG 11), and climate action (SDG 13). Curriculum design workshops in engineering and technology should emphasize issues related to these global goals.
Sciences	Addressing ecological and conservation issues.	Workshops dedicated to embedding SDG 13 (Climate action), SDG 15 (Life on land), and SDG 14 (Life below water) in science courses. Utilizing experiential learning through field studies and partnerships. Develop projects addressing local environmental challenges and promoting biodiversity. Understanding ecosystems, ecological degradation, and climate change is paramount in science.
Health Sciences	Emphasizing SDGs related to health sciences and sustainability.	Workshops on the role of health in achieving SDGs 3 (Good health and well-being) and 13 (Climate action). However, various other SDGs also significantly impact health and are intertwined. Train how to develop student-driven course assignments that focus on urban health, equal access to treatments, and how to engage with local health organizations for real-world projects.

summarizes the key recommendations, while also considering the negligible ones. As pointed out earlier, negligible effects might indicate trends that, while not statistically significant, could be meaningful in specific contexts.

5. Conclusions

In this study, a diverse group of 1566 academic staff members from nine universities in four Latin American nations (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico) participated in a survey studying their concerns about integrating the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into their higher education institutions. A higher concern in the SDGs regards a more substantial commitment to addressing global challenges that face humanity. Concerns about integrating SDGs in Latin American higher education institutions are meaningful because they could lead to positive outcomes, which depend on various factors. These factors include curriculum, design, professional development, institutional support, resource allocation, and socio-cultural context [59,60,61]. The Latin American region faces many problems related to its sustainable development path, which include the degradation of ecosystems, deforestation, pollution, violence, human trafficking, and exposure to contaminants, among others. [62,63,64]. It is, therefore, clear that Latin American educational institutions at all levels should play a leading role in sustainability-oriented activities to put the region in a better position to handle its current problems. Investigating the stages of concern of academic teaching staff regarding integrating SDGs in teaching, learning, and curricula is imperative [65]. Although some SDGs may be more relevant or urgent in the Latin American region, SDG 17 indicates that a more profound concern can foster partnerships and collective action, key drivers towards positive outcomes for turning higher education institutions into transformational change agents.

The results and discussion have revealed that academic teaching staff with fewer years of teaching are more committed to addressing SDGs in teaching, learning, and the curriculum by adopting modern, sustainability-focused teaching methods than their colleagues with more than 20 years of teaching experience across the same stages of concern. As has been discussed, this may stem from adherence to their long-standing teaching strategies or a belief that incorporating SDGs into their curricula is an extra chore, rather than an essential improvement. This could be further explained by the fact that younger teaching staff will likely have undergone training programs emphasizing sustainability and the importance of integrating SDGs into teaching, learning, and curricula.

Recent higher education programs may have emphasized sustainability challenges, including climate change and sustainability justice, thereby cultivating a mindset related to integrating SDGs in teaching practices. Also, teaching staff with fewer years of teaching experience tend to be more flexible and open to new teaching methods and curriculum innovation. Previous research shows that younger faculty members are often more amenable to using ICTs and innovative teaching methods that facilitate SDG integration, such as project/problem-based learning, digital collaboration tools, and interdisciplinary approaches. In general, newer staff members may be more aware of local/global challenges, as they have recently graduated from higher education institutions where discussions on sustainability issues and SDGs are prevalent, motivating them to engage with the SDGs actively. Usually, younger faculty may exhibit a strong desire for professional growth that can lead to a proactive approach in seeking resources, training, and other opportunities to address SDGs in teaching, learning, and curricula.

The finding that academic teaching staff require capacity-building programs based on the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) further aligns with previous research results, suggesting that understanding teaching staff’s concerns is vital for designing effective professional development programs. However, it is worth pointing out that while the study findings emphasize the challenges and problems met by older faculty and highlight the potential resistance to SDG integration, it is crucial to recognize that earlier studies have also noted similar trends.

It has also been seen that customized capacity-building programs underpinned by the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) are needed to address faculty concerns related to SDGs’ integration into curriculum and instruction. Teaching methodologies and course content must transition from traditional teacher-led approaches to more interactive and transformative pedagogical strategies. Investigating faculty members’ concerns plays a pivotal role in facilitating this shift. Future research on professionalizing academic teaching concerning SDGs may show how faculty concerns develop over time and identify crucial elements contributing to effective curriculum deconstruction, construction, and reconstruction to address SDGs. Additionally, examining collaborative initiatives among various academic disciplines may enhance the creation of cohesive strategies for curriculum revision and instructional innovation in line with the SDGs.

While the study primarily focuses on Latin America, the cultural and educational contexts may limit the generalizability of these results. Future studies should examine how cultural variations influence the integration of SDGs within higher education institutions in diverse regions. It is also essential to recognize that self-reported surveys yield subjective opinions rather than objectively measured facts, which may introduce bias. However, this limitation can be minimized by carefully managing large samples, such as in this study. A longitudinal study may be organized in the future, substantiated with qualitative research to elucidate and validate the current results.

Understanding the significance of professional development based on survey data can be somewhat constrained, as ANOVA primarily facilitates group comparisons and does not establish cause-and-effect relationships. Balancing the advantages and disadvantages of various methodologies will be crucial in assessing outcomes and designing targeted capacity-building programs to professionalize academic teaching and address SDGs in teaching, learning, and curricula. A mixed-methods approach may illuminate the quantitative research results and provide a solid foundation for future studies that seek to reorient university curricula to address SDGs.

Although the professionalization of teaching to infuse SDGs into higher education course curricula presents many apparent advantages, several challenges must be addressed to create a meaningful learning environment. Partner universities of ACT4SDGs that participated in this study and other universities regionally and globally should consider these concerns, across seven stages, in their efforts to embed or infuse SDGs across multiple academic disciplines. Professional development initiatives should be tailored to all teaching staff regardless of years of service and subject area, while considering the differences detected in this study by encouraging teamwork and increasing the understanding of the critical importance of transformative teaching and learning. The study’s results can significantly contribute to fostering educational and curriculum practices prioritizing SDG integration by highlighting the need for tailored policies and meaningful training programs. Investing in these areas can promote faculties’ capacity to integrate SDGs into their teaching and course content and foster a more robust pedagogical framework that prepares staff and students to tackle global challenges underpinned by SDGs effectively and meaningfully. Such efforts could help bridge the differences in concerns observed across the seven stages, and create a culture of sustainability within higher education institutions, including students, staff, leadership, and the broader community. Additional research could also investigate the qualitative factors underlying the identified discrepancies so as to better assist academic teaching staff in reorienting their courses to support SDG integration.