Science Teachers’ Awareness and Perceptions Regarding the Sustainable Development Goals and Their Integration in Middle School in Israel

Abstract

Sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are garnering significant attention due to growing global challenges, including poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, and climate change, with the latter addressed specifically through SDG 13. This study examined the level of self-reported awareness of six science-related SDGs—SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land)—among science teachers in the Arab sector in Israel as a function of background variables: gender, seniority, degree type, academic institution, school type, area of specialization, and the integration of these SDGs into the science curriculum. The study employed a mixed-methods approach: in the quantitative component, 204 science teachers responded to a Likert-scale questionnaire; the qualitative component consisted of semi-structured interviews with 30 middle school science teachers from the Arab sector. The findings indicated a moderate level of self-assessed awareness regarding SDGs. Significant differences in awareness were found according to teaching subject: environmental studies teachers demonstrated the highest awareness, followed by general science, biology, and physics teachers, with chemistry teachers ranking lowest. No significant differences were found for the remaining variables (p > 0.05). Qualitative findings indicated that while teachers perceived SDG-related content as implicitly present in the curriculum, explicit and systematic integration of the SDG framework is largely absent. Overall, the findings suggest that teachers are not adequately exposed to the SDGs. Therefore, it is recommended to incorporate these topics into teacher-training courses and professional development programs and to further integrate them into curricula. This study contributes to the growing body of research on SDG integration in science education, particularly within underexplored minority educational contexts.

1. Introduction

The 21st century is experiencing a global environmental crisis, leading to an international consensus that future graduates of educational systems require a new approach. Consequently, in Israel, the Ministry of Education, in collaboration with the Ministry of Environmental Protection, is leading processes to advance education for sustainability. The educational program is underpinned by the understanding that the development of values and behavioral norms for a sustainable lifestyle will occur within frameworks based on multidisciplinary integration in learning and action for the environment.

The years 2005–2014 were declared by the United Nations as the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. The aim of education for sustainable development (ESD) is to promote education as a crucial tool for preparing young people to become responsible future citizens, enabling subsequent generations to shape society in a sustainable manner that considers environmental preservation [1]. In response to these challenges, 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were set, defining global priorities for 2030 and offering an opportunity to eradicate extreme poverty and place the world on a sustainable trajectory [2].

In recent years, substantial resources have been invested in developing environmental education programs, and numerous studies have shown that factors such as school-based educational activities and external projects motivate environmentally conscious behavior [1]. Environmentally friendly behavior is a primary objective of sustainability education; however, efforts to foster this approach through knowledge have not yielded the desired results, and adequate attention has not been devoted to teachers [3].

However, before going into the details, it is necessary to clarify the essential constructs that are relevant for this study. “Sustainability” means that development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [4]. “Education for Sustainable Development” (ESD) is a learning process that is based on ideas and principles that help individuals address planning for solutions to issues of sustainability while developing the knowledge, skills, values, and competencies necessary for informed action [5]. “Environmental behavior” means actions taken by individuals or groups that help or hinder environmental sustainability [6].

Despite the growing body of literature on the topic, an important gap still exists in scientific literature. Indeed, although a number of research studies have focused on the sustainability knowledge and attitude of students and pre-service teachers [7,8,9], little research has been conducted to examine the SDG awareness of in-service science teachers from underrepresented or under-examined minority educational contexts. The majority of the existing research literature has been conducted in the context of Higher Education or majority groups from Western or East Asian cultures [10,11], leaving a notable gap in knowledge regarding the SDG awareness of teachers from minority and underserved educational communities. The current research is intended to fill the gap. Focusing on a specific minority educational community provides an opportunity to examine how contextual and systemic factors interact with global sustainability agendas, an intersection that majority-focused studies have largely overlooked. The Arab education sector in Israel constitutes approximately 20% of the student population. Research has noted that this sector has encountered distinct challenges in resource allocation, professional development opportunities, and integration of new educational reforms, reflecting broader patterns of differential development between the Arab and Hebrew-speaking sectors [12,13]. Studies have also noted lower levels of academic attainment, budgetary limitations in Arab sector schools, and comparatively lower enrollment in higher education [14,15]. These factors have been shown to influence teachers’ access to professional development opportunities and their capacity to engage with innovative educational approaches [13,16]. These disparities make the Arab sector a particularly important context for investigating SDG awareness, as limited resources and professional development may constrain teachers’ ability to engage with global sustainability frameworks. Moreover, studying this population addresses a notable gap in the ESD literature, which has largely focused on majority populations in Western and East Asian contexts. The rationale for this study is to expose science teachers to, and engage them in, the international framework for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. The significance of this research stems from its aim to investigate and characterize the level of self-assessed awareness among science teachers regarding the SDGs amid the escalating climate crisis and to examine differences in awareness levels according to background variables among teachers in the Arab sector in Israel.

Accordingly, the research objectives are:

• To examine the level of self-reported awareness regarding SDGs among science teachers in various schools in the Arab sector in Israel;
• To examine differences in the level of self-reported awareness regarding SDGs among science teachers in relation to background variables: gender (male, female), teaching seniority (1–10 years, 11–20 years, over 20 years), academic institution (college or university), degree type (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree), school type (elementary, middle school, or high school), and area of specialization;
• To conduct a focused, in-depth qualitative investigation of SDG awareness specifically among middle school science teachers, complementing the broader quantitative analysis in Objective 2 by providing detailed insight into this sub-group’s awareness profiles, sources of knowledge, and professional perceptions;
• To assess the extent to which, according to middle school science teachers, selected “science-related” goals are integrated into the middle school curriculum.

Based on these objectives, the following research questions guided this study: (1) To what extent are science teachers in the Arab sector in Israel aware of the SDGs, and what are their sources of knowledge? (2) To what extent is there a relationship between awareness levels and teacher background variables (gender, teaching seniority, teaching subject, academic degree, academic institution, and school type)? (3) To what extent are middle school science teachers aware of selected science-related SDGs? (4) According to middle school science teachers, to what extent are selected SDGs integrated into the science curriculum? The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the literature review, covering sustainability concepts, ESD, the SDGs and their relationship to education, and the Israeli science curriculum. Section 3 describes the research methodology, including participants, instruments, and analytic procedures. Section 4 presents the findings and discussion organized by research question. Section 5 offers conclusions, practical recommendations, and directions for future research.

In accordance with the formulated research questions and literature review, the following hypotheses were formulated for the quantitative phase of this study: (H1) Science teachers in the Arab sector will show a moderate overall level of self-reported SDG awareness, considering the limited integration of SDGs in teacher training courses [10,11]; (H2) Significant differences in SDG awareness will exist among teachers by their teaching subject; environmental studies teachers will show the highest level of SDG awareness due to their disciplinary training background [1,17]; (H3) No significant differences in SDG awareness will exist among teachers by gender, academic degree, or type of school, as no such relations are theoretically grounded [18,19]; (H4) SDG-related content will be reported by middle school teachers as being present in the curriculum in an implicit manner, considering the lack of a framework for SDG integration in Israeli science curricula.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainability and Sustainable Development

Following the publication of the report “Our Common Future” [4] and Agenda 21 [20], sustainability became an integral regulatory concept in national and international policy worldwide [21]. Today, the understanding of sustainability and sustainable development is no longer limited to environmental issues but encompasses the development of mankind and society as a whole. Most theoretical concepts pertaining to sustainability include at least three distinct dimensions: ecological, economic, and social. However, there is no consensus among researchers regarding whether to add an additional dimension—culture [22]. Most modern concepts of sustainability are multidimensional, incorporating at least the ecological, economic, and social dimensions while weighing their relative importance.

2.1.1. Education for Sustainability

The development of human society has contributed to improving the quality of life for many. However, this progress endangers the continued functioning of the ecological system upon which we depend while simultaneously widening social disparities that weaken people’s ability to meet their needs. The concept of “sustainability” seeks to answer the question: how can we continue to develop as a society while ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live with dignity, regardless of their place of residence, in our generation and in future generations? The social and environmental challenges that distance us from this aspiration are termed the sustainability challenge [23].

The topic of human sustainability has attracted public attention. Some argue that sustainability is inherently political and therefore unsuitable for public schools. Nevertheless, in the United States, resource management, biodiversity, and related topics are addressed within science education. Various ideas pertaining to sustainability have played an important role in both science and curricula, and Agenda 21 advances a policy that includes promoting sustainability through educational reform [18].

Education for sustainability must reflect the fragmented nature of the field itself, which is populated by competing models, theories, methods, and arguments. Practical variation and multiple definitions of the sustainability crisis make it impossible to advocate for the best approach to sustainability education or to reach consensus on global priorities. Definitions, paradigms, and concepts are contested because sustainability is a moral and political phenomenon, as well as a scientific one, meaning that it cannot be empirically justified or tested [21,23].

Therefore, the manner in which sustainability is discussed and conceptualized is important, as is transparency regarding underlying interests and agendas. Such transparency develops the capacity to understand and respect other positions that are just as valid and justified. Equally important is encouraging the willingness to seek common ground against the backdrop of existing diversity in collective negotiation regarding acceptable pathways for implementing change, where solidarity, equality, interdependence, safety, connectivity, and caution are explicitly considered as critical benchmarks.

The arguments above constitute a message to educators and academics on what should actually be included in the concept of education for sustainability, so that it can be implemented responsibly among the different groups of educational stakeholders affected by it [24].

2.1.2. ESD

In 1987, the concept of sustainable development entered the political arena with the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development report, known as the Brundtland Report. According to the commission, sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [4]. In response to this definition, ideas, concepts, and tools were developed to assist organizations and governments in addressing socioecological problems; however, these created confusion in the absence of a uniform operational definition [23].

Agenda 21 [20] delegated some of the actions necessary for sustainability to the educational field. During 2005–2014, the United Nations implemented the Global Action Program (GAP) for Education for Sustainable Development [5], and the 2030 Agenda recognizes education as a separate goal, with targets and indicators included in the SDGs [25].

ESD is a learning process grounded in ideals and principles that prepares the population to plan and find solutions to sustainability challenges [5]. The focus of ESD is to foster a sense of responsibility that considers the social, economic, and environmental impacts on human life [1]. This education emphasizes active student participation and encourages a sense of responsibility for developing a sustainable lifestyle.

It is important to emphasize that consensus on the meaning of ESD is not necessary; rather, what is needed is consensus on core principles regarding its scope, purpose, and practice while adapting to local issues and cultural context. Quality education leads to improved developmental outcomes for individuals, communities, and nations, including better access to employment and health, a reduction in gender gaps, and greater resilience [10].

The aim of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development [5] is to promote education as a crucial tool for preparing young people to become responsible citizens who will shape a sustainable society. Developing student agency is crucial for achieving sustainability goals, as it encompasses students’ capacity to act, make decisions, and influence their environment toward sustainable transformations [1,26]. The concept of ESD, as formulated by UNESCO [5], emphasizes the acquisition of life skills and prepares the younger generation for participation in a democratic society [5,20]. This focus is similar to the German philosophy of general education (Allgemeinbildung) applied to science education [27] and parallels activity theory that justifies educational competencies for social participation. Students need to learn to take responsibility for themselves and for society [28]. All educational domains, including high school chemistry education, should contribute to ESD [1].

Various models for implementing ESD in teaching [1,17] propose grounding education around social issues at local, regional, and global levels, using an interdisciplinary approach. Furthermore, chemistry education research suggests that systems thinking and convergent approaches are essential for addressing complex sustainability challenges, requiring integration of knowledge across disciplinary boundaries [29]—natural sciences with economics, social sciences, and ethics. ESD approaches require a skills-oriented teaching paradigm and a reexamination of educational policy, including the development of creative skills, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, problem-solving, and practical citizenship [30].

Research has demonstrated the importance of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward educational reforms [31,32,33], as these serve as filters that shape the application of knowledge in the classroom [34]. Investment in science teacher training is essential for implementing effective ESD reform [31,32,35], as educational innovation is doomed to failure without changes in teachers’ beliefs [36].

2.2. SDGs and Education

In 2015, leaders from 193 countries sought to face the future together. They developed a plan, termed SDGs—17 goals that looked 15 years into the future with the intention of eliminating poverty and hunger and preventing the devastating impacts of climate change. This was an ambitious plan, but there has already been considerable evidence of success. The UN Development Program is one of the SDG pilot programs through 2030, with representatives from 170 countries and regions participating to help countries turn goals into reality so that people everywhere know how to do it for themselves.

The SDGs offer an opportunity to expand ESD [10]. Their implementation requires addressing a wide range of social, economic, and environmental aspects, with complex interrelationships, uncertainty, and conflicts over values. The aim is to provide learners with thinking skills through dialogue and communication, develop new perspectives and reach creative insights, and evaluate whether activities support or detract from achieving the SDGs. Along with other important skills, such as knowledge and professional expertise, these will help accelerate SDG implementation.

Despite extensive literature on ESD, studies evaluating how different educational institutions engage with the SDGs are in their infancy [10]. A 2023 UNESCO content analysis of more than 530 ninth-grade science and social science curricula across 100 countries, targeting students aged approximately 14–15 years, found that 69% did not mention climate change and 66% omitted sustainability. Despite claims by some teachers that these topics were covered, 50% admitted they did not teach them [37]. This finding underscores the persistent gap between policy intentions and classroom implementation in sustainability education.

In the last decade, UNESCO has advanced several initiatives and projects in higher education institutions, such as the implementation of new curricula and the RUCAS sustainability project, a European Union Tempus initiative. The main objective of the RUCAS project was to reorient SD (sustainable development) curricula for course development at 11 universities in Europe and the Middle East, providing knowledge, skills, new perspectives, and sustainability values. Several initiatives were undertaken within the RUCAS project to develop resources, revise and cultivate new curricula, and build capacity and strengthen national and regional networks. To date, several actions have been taken: a competency framework for students in ESD was developed, validated, and implemented, and a curriculum-revision process was implemented to infuse sustainable development principles into various university courses in schools of economics, education, engineering, applied sciences, and social sciences [24]. Academics participating in RUCAS updated their courses to address sustainability while embedding it in classrooms. Curriculum-updating activities led to the adoption of transformative teaching methods, often resulting in changes in teaching style. As a result of curriculum updates, academics shifted from lecturing to more focused teaching methods, clarifying values and critical thinking [24].

Recent research emphasizes the critical role of teacher education in achieving sustainability goals. Fiel’ardh et al. [11] found that while teacher-education programs demonstrate a strong focus on quality education (SDG 4), certain SDGs, such as climate action (SDG 13), are less represented, marking potential areas for enhancement. Furthermore, research indicates that integrating the SDGs into curricula remains inconsistent; while some subjects align closely, others lack direct connections, limiting their effectiveness [38].

Citizens must be educated in ways that foster their engagement in society and their sense of agency. Agency-centered sustainability education enables learners to gradually develop competencies, strengthen their efficacy, and experience the joy of doing meaningful things together [26]. According to Annan-Diab and Molinari [39], promoting quality education in society is essential for improving citizens’ lives and advancing sustainable development. The SDGs are an ambitious step to spread sustainability to new areas. However, researchers are primarily concerned with implementing those changes [40]. Recent studies have found that although students are frequently exposed to SDG messaging through education and media, a disconnect exists between awareness and action, suggesting that passive exposure alone is insufficient for behavioral change [41].

SDG legislation requires the ongoing participation of all individuals. Therefore, the focus should be on students’ knowledge, attitudes, and actions toward the SDGs. Several knowledge, attitude, and practice studies have been conducted to identify people’s level of awareness of environmental sustainability, for example, studies measuring levels of SDG awareness among potential elementary teachers [7]; energy consumption and awareness levels of university communities in southwestern Nigeria [8]; sustainable consumption among students at various universities; environmental knowledge, attitudes, and practices of students and teachers [6]; and awareness environments in high schools. Studies of this type show not only the characteristics of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors but also individual perceptions regarding content. This can be viewed as an educational diagnosis [9].

2.3. Selected SDGs Examined in This Study

Six SDGs were selected for examination in the qualitative component based on their direct relevance to the natural sciences and the middle school science curriculum. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land) were chosen because their content domains align with core topics in biology, chemistry, physics, and environmental studies taught at the middle school level [1,42]. Other SDGs, such as SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) or SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), while also related to science, were excluded because they are more strongly associated with agricultural sciences and economics, which are not central to the Israeli middle school science curriculum [43,44]. This selection allows for a focused analysis of SDGs that teachers would be most likely to encounter within their subject matter.

2.3.1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being

SDG 3 aims to achieve comprehensive health coverage, including essential medicines and vaccines. Critical steps have been taken to extend life expectancy and reduce the prevalence of child and maternal mortality. Advanced research has been conducted on access to clean water and sanitation, as well as on reducing malaria, tuberculosis, polio, and the spread of AIDS. However, only half of women in developing countries have received essential medical care, and the need for family planning increases exponentially as populations grow. To date, more than 225 million women have been left without access to contraception. This goal targets reducing deaths and morbidity of infants and children under five by 2030, including from diseases such as tuberculosis, intestinal diseases, and waterborne diseases. Additionally, good health and well-being must be considered to integrate targets related to drug treatment, deaths and injuries from road accidents, and hazards from chemicals, greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and soil contamination.

2.3.2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

As of 2017, it is estimated that 4.5 billion people lack access to safe sanitation. SDG 6 concerns the increasing importance of using clean water in daily life. To this end, the parties involved have devised various sanitation indicators, such as facilities in schools and offices. This goal also emphasizes water cleanliness, particularly for drinking, as well as reductions in dirty water and sewage [42].

2.3.3. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

The target of SDG 7 is to achieve sustainable energy by the end of the implementation period. The goal is to increase the production and use of renewable energy internationally. To achieve this, the holistic cooperation of all countries is needed. If this goal is achieved, economic development will also occur sustainably.

2.3.4. SDG 13: Climate Action

In December 2015, the UN identified climate change as a threat to world peace. According to the Paris Climate Change Conference report, SDGs must be implemented to address climate change. Furthermore, the climate issue is linked to several factors, such as poverty, gender equality, and energy. Therefore, the UN proposed that the public sector drive initiatives to reduce negative environmental impacts [42].

2.3.5. SDG 14: Life Below Water

Oceans cover approximately 71% of the Earth’s surface and contain more than 200,000 species, contributing to primary protein sources. However, approximately one-third of marine habitats are facing extinction, and another third are overexploited. Moreover, 15 tons of plastic enter the sea every minute [14]. A few countries, including Kenya, as well as various communities worldwide, prohibit the use of plastic for retail purchases. Progress in improving ocean water contributes to reducing poverty among low-income families. This goal integrates avoiding or reducing marine pollution and destruction with ensuring marine environments and coastlines for fisheries management [42].

2.3.6. SDG 15: Life on Land

SDG 15 aims to protect biodiversity from further destruction, including ecological systems in forests, deserts, and mountains. A “land degradation-neutral world” can be achieved through the recovery of degraded forests and lands lost to drought and flooding. This goal requires preventing the introduction of invasive species and protecting endangered wildlife. The coverage index is used to monitor biodiversity-restoration activities toward achieving this goal [42].

2.4. The Science Curriculum and SDGs

In recent years, the science and technology curriculum for elementary and middle schools has been based on the STS (science, technology, and society) approach, which integrates these fields. This aligns with the Ministry of Education’s policy on meaningful learning and the desire to encourage active and experiential learning [43,44].

The science curriculum addresses the connection between science and technology and social and cultural aspects, thereby linking the world of scientific and technological concepts to everyday life and incorporating relevant examples at the daily, national, and global levels. Natural sciences are a central domain in human culture for understanding the world around us. Alongside the expansion of knowledge, they influence the development of human society and its culture [44]. While the curriculum does not explicitly reference the SDGs by name, several content domains present potential alignment points. For example, the seventh-grade units on water systems and the human body connect to SDG 6 (Clean Water) and SDG 3 (Health); the eighth-grade ecology and ecosystems units correspond to SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land); and the ninth-grade energy units align with SDG 7 (Clean Energy). However, these alignments remain implicit, as the curriculum framework does not provide explicit guidance for teachers to connect these topics to the broader SDG framework or to sustainability as an overarching concept [43,44]. This gap between curricular content and the SDG framework is consistent with findings from international studies showing that science curricula often contain SDG-relevant content without deliberately framing it within the sustainability discourse [15,16].

The science curriculum calls for developing awareness of the value of scientific and technological knowledge, the scientific inquiry process, and the technological process for forming positions at national and international levels; developing recognition of the value of work and production for individuals and society; developing a positive attitude toward the environment and its preservation; nurturing a sense of belonging to the immediate environment and to the country’s nature and sites; developing awareness of habits for maintaining hygiene, health, and quality of life; and developing awareness of wise consumerism [44].

As such, a perusal of the literature discussed above points to a recurring theme: whereas there is a consensus on the importance of ESD and SDG frameworks at the policy level, their integration in practice, particularly in classrooms and in teachers’ professional consciousness, is still wanting. Research suggests that teachers’ background in the discipline, pre-service training, and professional support are significant factors in teachers’ adoption of sustainability frameworks [1,10,11]; however, such factors have yet to be examined in concert in one minority educational setting. The Israeli Arab sector’s science curriculum, as discussed above, possesses implicit alignment with some of the SDG frameworks but lacks an explicit framework for integration [44]. This is the basis for this study and is relevant to this paper in terms of informing this investigation’s research questions.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

For this paper, we conducted a mixed-methods descriptive study. The first component was quantitative, examining the distribution of science teachers’ awareness of SDGs. The second component was a qualitative inductive study that examined, through semi-structured interviews, the integration of selected science-related SDGs into the curriculum and teachers’ attitudes toward their potential incorporation.

3.2. Research Participants

In the first component, 204 teachers participated from various types of schools in northern and central Israel, with diverse background characteristics as presented in

Table 1. Sociodemographic data of participants.

Variable	n (%)
Gender
Male	43 (21.1)
Female	161 (78.9)
Teaching Subject
Biology	43 (21.1)
Chemistry	57 (27.9)
General science	68 (33.3)
Environmental studies	21 (10.3)
Physics	15 (7.4)
Academic Degree
Bachelor’s degree	76 (37.3)
Master’s degree	128 (62.7)
Teaching Experience
1–5 years	28 (13.7)
6–10 years	27 (13.2)
11–15 years	43 (21.1)
16–20 years	35 (17.2)
Over 20 years	71 (34.8)
School Type
Elementary	30 (14.7)
Middle school	103 (50.5)
High school	71 (34.8)
Higher Education Institution
College	96 (47.1)
University	108 (52.9)

n = 204.

. The inclusion criteria included being currently employed as a science teacher in an Arab-sector school in Israel, teaching at least one of the following subjects: biology, chemistry, physics, environmental studies, or general science. The participants were expected to volunteer to participate. Teachers on extended leave or not actively teaching were excluded.

In the second component, 30 middle school science teachers with diverse backgrounds were interviewed (

Table 2. Characteristics of interviewees.

Variable		n	(%)
Gender	Male	7	(23.4)
	Female	23	(76.6)
Academic institution	University	8	(26.6)
	College	22	(73.4)
Seniority	1–10 years	7	(23.4)
	11–20 years	15	(50.0)
	Over 20 years	8	(26.6)
Academic degree	Bachelor’s	8	(26.6)
	Master’s	22	(73.4)

n = 30.

). All teachers taught in public middle schools and held teaching certificates and licenses. Teachers participated after being informed about the nature of the study, providing consent, and being assured complete anonymity.

3.3. Research Instruments

The first research instrument was a closed survey questionnaire containing the 17 SDGs. In the first section, participants reported background data; in the second section, they reported their level of self-assessed awareness of each goal on a 1–5 Likert scale, where 1 indicated “not at all aware” and 5 indicated “very highly aware.” It should be noted that this instrument measures self-reported familiarity rather than objective knowledge; thus, the term “awareness” throughout this paper refers to teachers’ self-assessed perception of their familiarity with each SDG.

The second research instrument was a semi-structured interview aimed at confirming the questionnaire findings and mapping the extent of SDG integration into the middle school curriculum. The interview featured open-ended questions, audio recording, and note-taking. Interview questions were validated through two preliminary interviews with veteran teachers. Some interviews were conducted via Zoom and others face-to-face, with each lasting approximately 45 min.

3.4. Research Procedure

3.4.1. Part A

A 17-item questionnaire was collaboratively developed by the researcher and supervisor based on the formulation of the SDGs and relevant background variables. The questionnaire was converted to an online format using Google Forms and validated in a pilot study with 32 teachers (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.842). The internal consistency coefficient of 0.842 indicates good reliability, consistent with accepted thresholds in educational survey research [45]. The content validity of the instrument was established through expert.

3.4.2. Part B

Approximately 10 guiding questions were developed for the semi-structured interview, divided into three categories: teacher awareness of science-related SDGs (the six selected goals), the extent of integration of these goals in teaching, and in which topics/units they can be incorporated. Two pilot interviews were conducted with veteran teachers to pilot test the interview guide, assess the clarity and flow of the questions, and refine the protocol prior to full data collection. Subsequently, 30 science teachers from northern and central districts were selected using purposive convenience sampling, prioritizing teachers with varied teaching subjects, levels of seniority, and school types to ensure diversity of perspectives. Teachers who agreed to participate were identified and interviewed via Zoom or in person (approximately 45 min each). If a teacher was unfamiliar with a particular goal, a brief explanation was provided to enable responses to the remaining questions. It should be acknowledged that this procedure may have influenced teachers’ subsequent responses regarding integration, as providing information about an SDG before asking about its curricular presence could introduce a priming effect. However, this step was deemed necessary to enable meaningful discussion of curriculum integration, which was the primary focus of the qualitative component. The awareness categorization was based on teachers’ initial responses prior to any explanation being provided. Recordings were transcribed and summarized under appropriate categories.

3.5. Selected Science-Related SDGs

The following goals (from the UN’s 17 SDGs) were examined:

• SDG 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all ages;
• SDG 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all;
• SDG 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy for all;
• SDG 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts;
• SDG 14: Develop Life Below Water;
• SDG 15: Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt biodiversity loss.

3.6. Data Analysis

3.6.1. Quantitative Component

Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 28.0.1.0(142), and central tendency measures are presented: frequencies, means, and standard deviations. The reliability of the awareness questionnaire (17 items) was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α = 0.969). This high reliability coefficient may reflect conceptual overlap among the 17 SDG items, as all measure self-assessed awareness within the same sustainability framework. Exploratory factor analysis was not conducted in the present study, as the questionnaire was designed to capture a single composite awareness score across all 17 SDGs rather than to distinguish between latent subdimensions. Future research should consider conducting factor analysis to examine whether distinct awareness dimensions (e.g., environmental, social, and economic) emerge among the SDG items.

3.6.2. Statistical Tests

For the first research question, mean questionnaire responses were calculated, and descriptive and inferential statistics were used to test the hypotheses.

For the second research question, independent-samples t-tests were conducted to examine differences in awareness levels by type of academic institution (college/university), gender, and academic degree (bachelor’s/master’s). Additionally, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine differences by school type (elementary/middle/high school), professional seniority, and teaching subject (chemistry/biology/physics/environmental studies/general science).

3.6.3. Qualitative Component

Data-focused content analysis was conducted following a directed content analysis approach [45]. Responses were recorded, transcribed, and compared. Data were categorized using a deductive coding scheme based on the six selected SDGs, and quotations from teachers were collected, with reference to percentages, by gender, seniority, academic degree, and academic institution. Two researchers independently coded a subset of 10 interviews (33%) to establish intercoder reliability, achieving an agreement rate of 87%, which is considered acceptable for qualitative research [46].

Awareness Level Categories

• Category A—Full awareness of the goal;
• Category B—Partial awareness of the goal;
• Category C—Lack of awareness of the goal.

Curriculum Integration Categories

• Category A—Full integration of the goal in the science curriculum;
• Category B—Partial integration of the goal in the science curriculum;
• Category C—Goal not integrated into the science curriculum.

4. Findings and Discussion

4.1. Research Question One

To what extent are science teachers aware of the SDGs, and what is the source of their knowledge?

To address the first research question, descriptive statistics were used, including measures of central tendency and dispersion (means, standard deviations, and frequencies) for the SDG awareness questionnaire items, as presented in

Table 3. Measures of central tendency and dispersion for teachers’ awareness questionnaire items regarding sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Item (SDGs)	M *	SD	n (%)
No poverty: Eradicating poverty in all of its forms worldwide	3.73	1.16	133 (65.2)
2. Zero hunger: Achieving food security, improving nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture	3.7	1.13	133 (65.2)
3. Good health and well-being: Ensuring healthy lives and well-being at all ages	3.8	1.09	133 (65.2)
4. Quality education: Ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all	3.7	1.09	131 (64.22)
5. Gender equality: Achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls worldwide	3.67	1.09	129 (63.24)
6. Clean water and sanitation: Ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all	3.57	1.16	121 (59.31)
7. Affordable and clean energy: Ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy	3.54	1.1	116 (56.86)
8. Decent work and economic growth: Promoting sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all	3.49	1.15	112 (54.9)
9. Industry, innovation, and infrastructure: Building resilient infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and fostering innovation	3.48	1.12	112 (54.9)
10. Reduced inequalities: Reducing inequality within and among countries	3.51	1.11	111 (54.41)
11. Sustainable cities and communities: Making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable	3.5	1.17	111 (54.41)
12. Responsible consumption and production: Ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns	3.49	1.09	109 (53.43)
13. Climate action: Taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts	3.4	1.15	104 (50.98)
14. Life below water: Conserving and sustainably using oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development	3.37	1.1	104 (50.98)
15. Life on land: Protecting, restoring, and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably managing forests, combating desertification, halting and reversing land degradation, and halting biodiversity loss	3.41	1.07	103 (50.49)
16. Peace, justice, and strong institutions: Promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels	3.32	1.13	94 (46.08)
17. Partnerships for the goals: Strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing global partnerships for sustainable development	3.26	1.1	83 (40.69)
Total	3.53	0.92	156 (64.22)

n = 204. * High or very high awareness.

.

Half of the participants were familiar with the term “sustainable development goals.” Sources of that knowledge are reported in

Table 4. Knowledge and awareness of sustainable development.

Variable	n (%)
Familiarity with the term “Sustainable Development.”
Yes	102 (50)
No	102 (50)
Sources of knowledge on the topic
Professional development and training	28 (27.5)
Academic studies	45 (44.0)
Written media, press, and websites	9 (8.9)
Curriculum	10 (9.8)
Other	10 (9.8)

.

The data in Table 4 and Figure 1 indicate that 102 participants (50%) reported being familiar with the term “sustainable development goals” (SDGs). Regarding sources of knowledge about SDGs: 28 (27.5%) reported professional development and training, 45 (44.0%) reported academic studies, 9 (8.9%) reported written media, press, and websites, 10 (9.8%) reported the curriculum, and 10 (9.8%) reported other sources. However, the most striking feature in this data is the preeminence of formal academic study as a first source of knowledge, suggesting that awareness of SDGs among this sample is passed on via formal channels and not via individual interests or media channels. This has significant implications for teacher training courses, as if formal academic study is a first source of SDG knowledge, then the absence of SDG education in most Israeli teacher training programs [15] is a structural, as opposed to motivational, issue.

The findings indicate that science teachers demonstrated moderate awareness of the SDGs, with academic studies as the primary source of knowledge, followed by professional development (Figure 1). Some of the teachers were unaware of the goals, even when they were included in the curriculum, because they had not been exposed to it in this context. This finding aligns with the research literature [47,48,49], indicating that teachers are typically not exposed to the SDGs prior to entering the profession and, within schools, teachers of subjects unrelated to these goals do not engage with them [36,50]. For instance, survey studies in France, Australia, and Russia found that most teachers were unfamiliar with the concepts of sustainable development and ESD [49,51]. Exceptions were teachers who engaged personally in relevant activities or studied environmental sciences at university [24,52], demonstrating some familiarity and understanding of sustainable development [47,53].

UNESCO’s objectives for ESD focus on integrating sustainable development into educational activities, reorienting lifelong education, raising awareness of the concept, and providing ongoing teacher education [18,19]. However, numerous researchers have argued that knowledge and understanding of sustainability do not necessarily lead to responsible behavior or effective teaching [54,55]. Nevertheless, extensive knowledge of sustainability issues may enhance teachers’ confidence and willingness to engage in ESD [30,56,57,58]. Assisting teachers in modifying their attitudes may lead to greater impact on their students [2,22].

These results are also consistent with those of a 2023 UNESCO study of over 530 ninth-grade science and social science curricula that found 69% made no mention of climate change and 66% made no mention of sustainability [37], similar to our results but also cautioned that passive exposure alone is not sufficient to drive sustainable behavioral changes in teaching practices.

4.2. Research Question Two

To what extent is there a relationship between awareness levels and teacher background variables: seniority, gender, teaching subject, academic degree, type of academic institution, and school type?

To address the second research question, a series of independent-samples t-tests and ANOVAs were conducted, as presented in

Table 5. Means and standard deviations for teachers’ awareness of SDGs, and t-tests and ANOVAs examining differences in awareness by background variables.

Variable		Mean	SD	Statistical Test
Gender	Male	3.35	1.13	t = 1.70 ns
	Female	3.57	0.85
Academic degree	Bachelor’s	3.37	1.04	t = 1.90 ns
	Master’s	3.62	0.83
Academic institution	College	3.60	0.86	t = 1.03 ns
	University	3.46	0.96
Specialization	Biology	3.51	0.91	F(4,199) = 2.46 *
	Chemistry	3.25	0.90
	Science	3.69	0.83
	Environment	3.83	0.89
	Physics	3.43	1.18
Teaching seniority	1–10 years	3.42	1.00	F(2,201) = 0.30 ns
	11–20 years	3.53	0.91
	Over 20 years	3.60	0.85
School type	Elementary	3.22	1.08	F(2,201) = 2.03 ns
	Middle school	3.60	0.93
	High school	3.55	0.80

^ns, not significant; * p < 0.05.

.

Female teachers showed slightly higher awareness of the SDGs than male teachers, but the difference was not significant. Teachers with master’s degrees demonstrated higher SDG awareness than those with bachelor’s degrees, but again, the difference was not significant, and there was no difference between college and university graduates. However, there were significant differences in SDG awareness by teaching subject. Environmental studies teachers demonstrated the highest awareness (p < 0.05). Post hoc comparisons using the Scheffé test revealed that environmental studies teachers scored significantly higher than chemistry teachers (mean difference = 0.58, p < 0.05). No other pairwise comparisons reached statistical significance. There was no significant difference in SDG awareness by teaching seniority. Nevertheless, teachers with over 20 years of experience reported the highest awareness, followed by those with 11–20 years, while teachers with 1–10 years showed the lowest awareness. Finally, there was no significant difference in SDG awareness by school type. However, middle and high school teachers demonstrated relatively higher awareness than elementary school teachers. The most theoretically interesting result in Table 5 is not the string of non-significant findings per se, but rather what they collectively suggest: namely, that SDG awareness among this sample is not a function of demographics or seniority, but rather almost entirely a function of content exposure. This interpretation is entirely consistent with H2 and H3 as stated above and suggests an important practical implication: content-based professional development rather than awareness campaigns may be the most effective solution to the challenge of improving SDG integration among the teaching staff.

The answer to the second research question indicated that the teaching subject is the only factor influencing SDG awareness, with environmental studies and science teachers demonstrating the highest levels of awareness. This finding aligns with the research literature, which suggests that ESD is broader than environmental education, encompassing sociocultural and political issues [1,18]. ESD promotes core values such as respect for others, the environment, and Earth’s resources [2,57], and should be a lifelong process including five domains: ESD knowledge, systems thinking, emotions, ethics and values, and environmental actions [17,19]. Our findings further align with studies indicating that colleges training environmental and science teachers emphasize practical aspects of SDGs through dedicated courses, whereas university learning tends to be more theoretical [1,17,49,59].

The lack of a relationship between teaching seniority and SDG awareness supports the notion that the dominant variable influencing awareness is knowledge derived from exposure to relevant content; in other words, practice, not seniority, determines awareness [42]. No difference in gender awareness of the SDGs indicates that this is practical knowledge that any teacher can acquire through reading, professional development, or other means [18,19]. Academic degree type had no effect on SDG awareness because neither bachelor’s nor master’s level teachers have been exposed to the required knowledge [2,22]. Similarly, the course content of both universities and colleges fails to focus on SDG awareness [1,18]. Consequently, these teachers lack the necessary awareness of sustainability goals, regardless of the grade level they teach [2,22,30,57].

4.3. Research Question Three

To what extent are middle school science teachers aware of selected “science-related” SDGs, and what is the source of their knowledge?

In this section, 30 middle school science teachers with diverse backgrounds were interviewed. They were asked about their familiarity with the term “sustainable development goals” and their awareness of six of these goals, selected for their association with science. Responses were categorized as A (full awareness), B (partial awareness), or C (no awareness) (

Table 6. Distribution of teachers’ awareness of selected science-related SDGs.

Selected Goal	Category A (Full)	Category B (Partial)	Category C (None)
SDG 3: Good health and well-being	22 (73%)	8 (27%)	0 (0%)
SDG 6: Clean water and sanitation	16 (53%)	13 (43%)	1 (3%)
SDG 7: Affordable and clean energy	29 (96)	1 (3%)	0 (0%)
SDG 13: Climate action	17 (56)	13 (43%)	0 (0%)
SDG 14: Life below water	12 (40)	17 (56%)	1 (3%)
SDG 15: Life on land	26 (86)	4 (13%)	0 (0%)

n = 30.

).

Regarding the effects of background variables on teachers’ awareness of the selected SDGs (

Table 7. Distribution of teachers’ awareness by background variables.

Variable		n (%)	Full Awareness	Partial Awareness
Gender	Male	7 (23%)	4 (57%)	3 (43%)
	Female	23 (77%)	18 (78%)	5 (22%)
Academic degree	Bachelor’s	8 (27%)	5 (63%)	3 (37%)
	Master’s	22 (73%)	14 (64%)	6 (36%)
Academic institution	College	22 (73%)	18 (82%)	4 (18%)
	University	8 (27%)	5 (63%)	3 (37%)
Teaching seniority	1–10 years	7 (23%)	4 (57%)	3 (43%)
	11–20 years	15 (50%)	10 (67%)	5 (33%)
	Over 20 years	8 (27%)	6 (75%)	2 (25%)

), the interview analysis revealed that more female teachers were fully aware of the SDGs than male teachers. Female teachers noted that they extend beyond the curriculum to include environmental and sustainability topics. College graduates showed greater awareness of the SDGs than university graduates because colleges emphasize these topics more. Teachers with over 20 years of experience demonstrated higher awareness and better familiarity with the curriculum.

Thus, science teachers demonstrated partial to full awareness of SDGs, concluding that these goals are important for fostering environmental and social belonging. The primary knowledge source was teaching materials (

Table 8. Distribution of teachers’ sources of SDG knowledge.

Source of Knowledge	n (%)
Teaching materials at work	19 (63)
Professional development	7 (23)
Academic studies	3 (10)
Media	1 (3)

n = 30.

). Awareness varied by teaching subject: physics teachers emphasized energy goals, while biology teachers emphasized health goals.

This high reliance on teaching materials as a primary knowledge source (63% of interviewees) is in contrast to Ferguson et al. [59], who indicated that teachers in similar contexts relied more on their own values and informal community engagement than on formal instructional resources. This could imply that in the Arab sector, the lack of embedded professional development might heighten reliance on readily available teaching materials. The fact that teachers in this study tended to show more SDG awareness in certain subject areas, depending on their own discipline, is in line with Kalsoom and Qureshi [58], who indicated that in-service teachers generally remained aware of SDGs in areas most proximal to their own discipline unless professional development intervened to bridge this divide.

Despite efforts toward ESD since 2004, it is not yet standard practice in many curricula, and interdisciplinarity remains challenging for educators [36,52]. To incorporate ESD, educators require knowledge, positive attitudes, and awareness of appropriate teaching approaches. Lack of knowledge remains a significant barrier [56,60].

4.4. Research Question Four

According to middle school science teachers, to what extent are selected SDGs integrated into the science curriculum, and in which topics/units are they integrated?

Teachers were asked about the six selected science-related SDGs’ integration into the curriculum (A, full integration; B, partial integration; C, not integrated at all), in which topics, and at which grade levels. The results are presented in

Table 9. Teachers’ responses regarding integration of selected goals in the middle school science curriculum.

Selected Goal	Category A (Full)	Category B (Partial)	Category C (None)	Topics (Grade Levels)
SDG 3: Good health and well-being	22 (73%)	8 (27%)	0 (0%)	Health and circulatory system (7th); Nutrition (9th); Systems and processes in living organisms (7th)
SDG 6: Clean water and sanitation	13 (43%)	16 (53%)	1 (3%)	Importance of water (7th); Water and heat balance in humans and animals (7th)
SDG 7: Affordable and clean energy	29 (96%)	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	Energy (7th, 9th); Material and energy transfer in ecosystems (8th); Energy conservation law (9th)
SDG 13: Climate action	16 (53%)	13 (43%)	1 (3%)	Ecosystems (8th); Environmental pollution and its effects (8th)
SDG 14: Life below water	14 (46%)	14 (46%)	2 (6%)	Biodiversity(8th); Human impact on environment (8th); Species preservation (8th)
SDG 15: Life on land	28 (93%)	2 (6%)	0 (0%)	Diversity in nature (8th); Biodiversity (8th); Ecological balance (8th)

n = 30.

.

Teachers perceived all selected goals as integrated directly or indirectly into the school science curriculum. Goals identified as fully integrated were Good Health, Energy, and Life on Land. Only a small percentage indicated that Clean Water and Life Below Water were not integrated (Table 9).

Teachers explained that the goals are addressed within the Ecosystems unit. One teacher noted: “Main science topics include ecosystems, water importance, systems and processes in living organisms, nutrition, and energy.” Teachers reported integrating goals through projects, including green school initiatives, cross-curricular integration, and healthy food projects.

Sustainable development content was reported to be integrated at moderate to high levels in the curriculum. All teachers confirmed a strong connection between science topics and SDGs. However, many interviewees noted that the curriculum lacks explicit guidance for teaching these goals. One participant stated: “There is no explicit incorporation of SDG values; students learn topics theoretically without direct exposure to the goals—this requires active initiatives and projects.”

All teachers agreed that the curriculum provides environmental principles and opportunities for teachers to address environmental issues, but it is insufficient as it does not directly address all goals. This finding aligns with studies indicating that SDGs span a broad range of topics that curricula cannot fully accommodate [30,57]. Many goals are not easily understood theoretically without demonstration [2,22], and the problem originates with teachers who did not receive adequate illustrations during their training [24,50].

This trend is comparable to that observed by Miedijensky and Abramovich [16], who demonstrated that even where sustainability content is present within Israeli school curricula, effective implementation of that content into teaching is contingent upon specific pedagogical scaffolding and institutional support structures that may not always be.

4.5. Research Limitations

The use of convenience sampling introduces research biases, particularly a lack of representativeness, and findings cannot be generalized to all teachers. The correlational nature of the study does not allow for inferring the direction of relationships or causality. The academic institution type cannot be causally responsible for differences in awareness. Moreover, this study did not include a broad range of variables influencing teachers’ awareness and knowledge, including control, mediating, and moderating variables. Several additional limitations should be acknowledged. First, the questionnaire measured self-reported awareness rather than objective knowledge; therefore, responses may be subject to social desirability bias, with teachers potentially overstating their familiarity with the SDGs. Second, during the qualitative interviews, brief explanations were provided to teachers who were unfamiliar with specific SDGs before asking about curricular integration. While necessary for enabling meaningful discussion, this procedure may have introduced a priming effect that influenced subsequent responses. Third, no exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the questionnaire, which limits conclusions about its construct validity and the dimensionality of the awareness construct. Fourth, the study focused exclusively on science teachers in the Arab sector, and findings may not generalize to teachers in other subjects or other educational sectors in Israel. Fifth, future research can focus on the inclusion of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), as well as the others not explicitly embedded within the current science curricula.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations for the Educational Field

First, teachers demonstrated high awareness of the SDGs only when the SDGs were professionally relevant to the subject being taught. Without this connection, teachers showed low levels of awareness. Thus, knowledge stems from professional necessity rather than environmental concern. Second, despite teachers’ agreement that the SDGs are essential for developing students’ environmental awareness, implementation remains far from systematic or widespread, according to teachers’ perceptions. Most teachers reported that their knowledge derives primarily from theoretical materials rather than from practical experience or fieldwork. In addition, teachers recognized that the school curriculum has significant gaps in its teaching of the SDGs. The implementation methods do not meet practical teaching criteria, as the content is theoretical and only partially connected to students’ lives.

The awareness patterns identified among the participants may be interpreted, tentatively and with caution, in light of factors related to their academic preparation and broader sociocultural context. These interpretations are offered as possible explanations grounded in the existing literature rather than as conclusions directly evidenced by the data collected in this study, and they suggest directions for future empirical investigation. In terms of academic background, higher educational institutions in Israel, both at the college and university levels, have not systematically incorporated SDGs into teacher training programs [57]. Science teacher training programs focus primarily on chemistry, biology, and physics, with minimal exposure to cross-disciplinary approaches to sustainability. As a result, teachers are not provided with a foundation in SDGs and are therefore aware of them to the degree to which their subject matter includes exposure to sustainability. In this context, environmental studies teachers scored highest in awareness, while chemistry and physics teachers scored lowest. In terms of sociocultural background, the context of Arab society in Israel warrants consideration. Arab society in Israel is a specific cultural and linguistic entity, making up 20% of the general population, concentrated mainly in northern and central Israel, in rural and suburban communities on the socioeconomic periphery, generally characterized by low-to-middle SES, and having specific cultural traditions based on intergenerational responsibility and a strong attachment to land and community [12,13]. Such cultural values are naturally consistent with the values underpinning the SDGs and may potentially function as an intrinsic motivational base for engagement in sustainability issues [61]. However, as a relatively neglected cultural group within the context of the ESD research tradition, Arab sector teachers do offer a significant and understudied population in terms of their SDG awareness profiles, warranting specific empirical examination. However, this was not assessed within the current study, and this interpretation should be treated as a hypothesis for future potential examination.

In conclusion, the findings of the present study suggest that, overall, science teachers are only moderately aware of the SDGs. Even though a majority of the participating teachers were aware of the term “sustainable development goals,” the awareness of the goals was only on a surface level and only focused on the goals that directly overlapped with the subject matter of the teachers’ classes. A comprehensive awareness of the total scope of the 17 SDGs was noticeably absent in most of the participating teachers. This level of awareness, or lack thereof, highlights potential challenges to integrating the SDGs effectively into formal education systems. If the teachers, who are the conduit through which the knowledge of sustainability needs to be passed on for the future, are lacking in awareness, then the chances of achieving the SDGs through the educational system may be limited, at least within this population. Not only does the achievement of the SDGs demand a commitment at the policy level, but it also requires a teacher force that is sufficiently aware of the SDGs and can make the necessary connections between the abstract global goals and the practical reality of the classroom.

It is important to develop teacher awareness of ESD pedagogies and practices: acting willingly, understanding the teacher’s role, developing students as future leaders, understanding connections between global and local events, and recognizing cause-and-effect relationships. Required competencies include presenting ESD in the curriculum, convincing students of the importance of sustainability, designing situations for ESD understanding, and presenting examples for daily life implementation. In particular:

• Institutions for teachers’ professional development and ministries of education should develop professional development courses on SDGs for all science teachers, exposing each teacher to diverse and up-to-date knowledge;
• Theory is insufficient—there is a need to make knowledge practical through teacher participation in dedicated SDG workshops;
• Teachers should impart environmental knowledge through diverse means, such as projects analyzing environmental issues relevant to students’ lives, thereby deepening and expanding that knowledge.

Overall, this study contributes to expanding theoretical knowledge in environmental education, particularly regarding SDG awareness among science teachers in an underexplored minority educational context. It is recommended to develop professional development programs for teachers to clarify and expand the topic and to integrate SDGs while considering teacher diversity based on background variables: gender, seniority, degree type, and specialization area. Future research should employ validated instruments with established factorial structures to measure SDG awareness more precisely, examine the relationship between teacher awareness and actual classroom implementation through observational studies, and investigate whether targeted professional development interventions can improve both awareness and integration. Comparative studies across different educational sectors in Israel and similar contexts internationally would also help to disentangle the effects of sociocultural factors from structural educational disparities. The results of this research suggest that there is a pressing need for professional development, and recent research offers not only empirical support but also conceptual guidance as to what such development might entail. Grosseck et al. [62] utilized a bibliometric analysis of nearly three decades of ESD research to demonstrate that there is one major finding to which the ESD research community has been able to agree: the need to translate sustainability policy into teaching practice requires deliberate, competency-based development, not simply goodwill or knowledge of the subject matter at hand. The question of what those competencies are that are most important has been directly addressed by González-Salamanca et al. [63] through a systematic review of the research to date, suggesting that agency, systems thinking, and futures literacy are the most important skills to be possessed by teachers for effective integration of the SDGs into curricula. This might serve as a potential framework for designing in-service education programs for Arab sector science teachers that move beyond the level of awareness of the importance of the environment to the actual skills necessary to implement the SDG curriculum into practice. Goldman and Aram [64] found that, within the Israeli national curriculum, ESE is not considered a mandatory element, and therefore integration into curricula depends on the initiative of individual teachers and their discipline. This mirrors our findings that formal academic study is the primary means through which teachers become aware of the SDGs within the Arab sector.