Next Article in Journal
Intergenerational Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Leveraging AI
Previous Article in Journal
Populist Radical Right: Illiberal Erosion or Liberal Decay? Assessing Theoretical Explanations in the Wake of the 2024 European Parliament Election
Previous Article in Special Issue
Teacher Education, Diversity, and the Prevention of Hate Speech: Ethical and Political Foundations for Inclusive Citizenship
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Exploring Sustainable Development Goals and Curriculum Adoption: A Scoping Review from 2020–2025

by
Robert Pham Xuan
1,* and
Marcia Håkansson Lindqvist
2
1
Center for Learning Systems Design and Transformation, University for Continuing Education Krems, 6091 Krems, Austria
2
Department of Education (UTV), Mid Sweden University, Campus Sundsvall, Holmgatan 7, 851 70 Sundsvall, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Societies 2025, 15(8), 212; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15080212
Submission received: 16 May 2025 / Revised: 28 July 2025 / Accepted: 29 July 2025 / Published: 31 July 2025

Abstract

This scoping review examines the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—specifically SDG 4, which concerns quality education—into national curricula at various levels of education between 2020 and 2025. This qualitative study uses the scoping review method to synthesise international research, identifying thematic trends, methodological approaches, and implications for curriculum development. The analysis reveals a strong focus on higher education, with articles from Asia and Europe dominating the discourse, while perspectives from early childhood education and the Global South are under-represented. Most articles favour qualitative designs, engaging with the SDGs as curricular content, institutional transformation frameworks, or community-based education tools. Despite these promising approaches, significant gaps remain in addressing behavioural change and equity across educational systems. Therefore, the study calls for more inclusive, context-sensitive, and interdisciplinary strategies to support the transformative ambitions of the 2030 Agenda.

1. Introduction—The SDGs and Curricula Design

The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—a global framework to address pressing economic, social, and environmental issues by 2030 [1,2]. Building on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the SDGs aim to end poverty, promote equitable growth, and ensure sustainability by addressing five key areas: people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership. The interconnectedness of these areas forms a robust and intuitive framework [3,4]. Technologies, including artificial intelligence, are increasingly being used to advance these goals [5]. SDG 4 on quality education is particularly noteworthy, requiring the commitment of all social actors to achieve its transformative goals. SDG 4 aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and to promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. The goal is to provide accessible, quality education at all stages of life, from early childhood to adulthood [6]. SDG 4 focuses on issues such as access to early childhood development and care and pre-primary education; equality of access for men and women to affordable, quality technical, vocational, and tertiary education; the elimination of gender disparities in education and equality of access for persons with disabilities, vulnerable and indigenous groups; and the achievement of literacy and numeracy for all youth and a large proportion of adults (ibid.). With 10 specific targets, SDG 4 focuses also on educational structures and resources in terms of qualified teachers and adequate infrastructure (ibid.). As a ‘meta-goal’, SDG 4 underpins the achievement of all other SDGs by empowering individuals with the knowledge and skills to address global challenges [7].
Therefore, the relationship between education and sustainability is bidirectional: sustainability must be integrated as essential content in education, while education serves as a privileged space to cultivate attitudes and practices for sustainable living [6,8]. The implementation of SDG 4 is characterised by a fundamental tension between an instrumentalist approach that emphasises measurable educational outcomes and economic goals, and a values-based approach that emphasises social justice and sustainability [2,9]. This tension gives rise to debates about how educational quality should be defined, which can impact curriculum development. An instrumentalist focus can marginalise interdisciplinary topics that are difficult to quantify, such as education for sustainable development (ESD). This hinders the integration of topics relevant to the SDGs, such as climate change, gender equality, and democratic participation. Such topics require a holistic, values-based perspective [9]. This is reflected in the preference for globally comparable, results-oriented assessment models that penalise less measurable issues [9]. Conversely, a values-based approach enables the design of curricula that prepare students for complex global challenges, even if this means moving away from standardised assessment frameworks. The different mandates and ideological approaches of stakeholders may exacerbate these challenges, leading to efforts to reframe the SDG 4 agenda and neglect certain goals, such as learning environments and teacher support, in favour of measurable outcomes [9]. The 2030 Agenda reflects the power dynamics of the 2015 agreement and therefore can reproduce existing imbalances while also challenging structural failures and opening pathways for social, environmental, and economic justice. This ambivalence highlights the importance of systematically examining patterns of SDG integration in curricula in order to identify ways of embedding sustainability in educational practice.
Incorporating the SDGs into educational curricula is critical to equipping individuals with the knowledge, skills, and values needed to address global challenges such as sustainable resource use, gender equity, and democratic participation [10,11]. Educational institutions, as key agents of change, play a critical role in embedding SDG principles in curricula to promote lifelong learning, foster inclusivity and equity, and enable students to address sustainability issues by developing perspectives and solutions for a sustainable society [6,12,13]. This integration not only enhances human capital but also inspires action towards sustainable living, in line with UNESCO’s guidelines for the 2030 Agenda. Therefore, before teachers can offer sustainability-sensitive lessons in line with the SDGs, the curriculum also needs to be adapted to reflect the many changes in social systems and teaching content. This must address issues such as sustainability, climate change, and human health [14,15]. Governments and educational institutions are therefore challenged to prioritise curriculum design that integrates these principles to drive systemic change. Despite the recognised importance of the SDGs in promoting the 2030 Agenda and the key role of educational institutions in driving systemic change, there is still a significant knowledge gap regarding an overview of current trends and syntheses of the implementation of the SDGs in school and university curricula. In particular, there is a lack of comprehensive analyses that systematically examine the extent to which SDG 4 and the other SDGs have been incorporated into education systems worldwide. Furthermore, there is a general lack of data and indices on development processes and achievements in the context of the SDGs and modern education [16].
The purpose of this scoping review is to examine the integration of the SDGs into national school and tertiary-level curricula, with a focus on SDG 4. It emphasises the importance of the SDGs in promoting the 2030 Agenda and seeks to identify trends and gaps in their implementation within education systems, as well as shifts in teaching and learning at all levels in relation to sustainability and equity issues. The research is guided by three questions:
  • RQ1: What patterns can be observed in the integration of the SDGs in the design of educational curricula from 2020 to 2025?
  • RQ2: What are the demographic characteristics (geographical distribution, level of education, year of publication) and methodological approaches of the articles included in this scoping review?
  • RQ3: Are the articles directly related to curriculum development or do they have implications for future curriculum development?
We identified eight distinct categories of relationships between SDGs and questions of curriculum design in our sample using the scoping approach. We also found a broad participation of Asian and European researchers in terms of geographical distribution, as well as a strong focus on higher education and only a minor emphasis on primary and secondary education. By analysing literature from academic databases such as Scopus, this study assesses the implications of promoting sustainable development in educational practice. The paper concludes with implications for future research.

2. Methodology

Through a scoping review, this article employs a systematic literature synthesis based on Arksey and O’Malley’s [17] methodological framework to ensure transparency and replicability. The decision to conduct a scoping review is based on methodological reasoning: This form of systematic literature search and analysis provides a transparent and reliable way of identifying trends, examining the current state of research, and determining key characteristics. It also serves as a preliminary stage for further systematic reviews [18]. With our search string, we found 60 papers in the period 2020–2025 that deal with SDGs and issues of curriculum design in education.

2.1. Methods and Materials

The main purpose of this scoping review is to evaluate the current scope and range of research literature on developments in curriculum development with regard to the integration of the SDGs. As our scoping review is not guided by a meta-analysis approach that would seek to calculate effect sizes, we still followed a systematic and transparent procedure that can be reconstructed using the PRISMA guidelines [19]. The review process is structured into five key stages: (1) defining initial research questions to guide the search, (2) conducting comprehensive searches of academic databases, in this case Scopus, (3) applying pre-established criteria to select relevant articles in line with the PRISMA guidelines, (4) organising and visualising the extracted data, here through graphical representations, and (5) synthesising and presenting the findings in a clear, evidence-based manner. In particular, the content-related synthesis was carried out by reading the papers’ abstracts, introductions, and discussions. In order to be included in the review, it was important that the articles dealt specifically with curriculum development in an educational context, which led us to a deductive analysis in line with a qualitative content analytical approach [20,21]. Table 2 presents the specific coding rules for the extracted categories. The analysis process was supported by Excel, so that the graphical representation of the results is also based on Excel tables and figures. The review was not registered.

2.1.1. Selection of Articles

Following the guidance of Arksey and O’Malley [17] a broad set of search terms was developed to capture a comprehensive range of relevant literature. The SCOPUS database was chosen to explore and identify articles of high academic standard, for example, those that have undergone peer review and adhere to high open access standards. Comparative analyses on databases also conclude that Scopus enables access to a 20% broader range of journals than Web of Science, for example [22], as well as a more specific coverage of social science [23,24]. In addition, Scopus excels in terms of technical connectivity and standardised metadata. The export and analysis functions provided by Scopus also make this database particularly well-suited to interdisciplinary scoping reviews, such as the one we conducted. The search strategy included the terms Sustainable Development Goals, education, curricula, curriculum, syllabus, and SDG 4 to identify articles that addressed the SDG-related development in education systems. The full search string was: TITLE-ABS-KEY (Sustainable and Development AND Goals and Education AND Curricula OR Curriculum OR syllabus AND SDG 4) AND PUBYEAR > 2019 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “SOCI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “PSYC”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”). The keywords in the search were used in a comprehensive string, i.e., not in pairs, triplets, or quadruplets separately, but as a continual search string. The time period was limited to the years 2020 to 2025.
The initial search in Scopus yielded 132 articles. To refine the results, Arksey and O’Malley’s [17] recommendation to establish inclusion and exclusion criteria was applied. Therefore, the publication timeframe was restricted to 2020–2025 (last time of search = 7 July 2025), which reduced the number of articles to 127. The subject area was prioritised to include only ‘social sciences’ and ‘psychology’, retaining the same 85 articles. Finally, the document type was restricted to articles, resulting in a final set of 60 articles (a full list of included articles is provided in Table A1). The selection process for the included articles is detailed in Table 1 below.

2.1.2. Validity and Reliability

This scoping review adheres to the five-step methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [17], which provides a systematic and transparent approach to synthesising literature. These structured processes ensure the review’s validity and reliability. The validity of the review was further enhanced by applying rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, conducting iterative team consultations to refine the research questions and the data charting process, and ongoing cross-verification of the extracted data within the author team. This minimised bias and ensured accuracy. Reliability was strengthened by maintaining a detailed audit trail of methodological decisions and by consistently applying the five-stage framework of identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, selecting studies, charting data, and collating results. Search strategies and data synthesis processes were transparently reported to enhance reproducibility, scrutiny, and the credibility and robustness of the findings [25].

3. Results

In this section the analysis of the geographic spread, methodological approach as well as general findings are presented.

3.1. Analysis of the Geographical Spread of the Articles

In terms of geographical area of production, our sample shows a diverse global participation, with Asia having a prominent presence with 22 articles. Europe also has a significant presence with 10 articles, followed by 11 papers with a global perspective. North America contributes two papers and Africa five papers, while South America contributes three. Australia has a smaller presence, with one article, and there are eight articles where the geographical origin is not specified. The geographic context of production of the sample is illustrated in Figure 1.

3.2. Analysis of the Methodological Approach

In terms of the methodological approaches of our sample, a wide range of research methods was identified. The following overall perspective of the diverse methodological landscape shows the complexity of research approaches and contributions to the discourse on SDGs and education, as well as curriculum developments. Qualitative research occupies a prominent position with 18 articles. This emphasis on qualitative approaches indicates an effort to provide in-depth insights, contextual knowledge, and nuanced interpretations on the topic of SDGs and curriculum development. Quantitative research methods are also represented with 14 papers. The mixed methods approach was used in 15 papers. Four papers were categorised as theoretical. Six systematic reviews were identified. In addition, the methodological approach of the three papers was not specified. The methodological approach of the sample is illustrated in Figure 2.

3.3. Analysis of the Institutional Level

The analysis shows that higher education is the most frequently represented level, with 33 articles out of 60. Primary education is covered by seven articles, followed by articles covering both primary and secondary education (three articles) and secondary education only (five articles). Approaches covering all levels of education or the whole education system are also present, with seven articles. Vocational education is covered in one article, and special education is covered by two articles. The institutional levels of the sample are illustrated in Figure 3.

3.4. Analysis of the Used Language in the Paper

We also analysed the languages used in 60 articles related to SDG education and curriculum development. English is the predominant language, represented in 56 of the articles, while Spanish appears in 3 and Portuguese in 1 of the articles.

3.5. Analysis of the Year of Publication

The distribution shows that 2025 is already the year with the most articles published, with 20 articles, followed by 2024 with 14 articles. The year 2023 is represented by 11 articles, 2022 by 1 article, and 2021 by 8 articles. The year 2022 is represented by six articles. This distribution is illustrated in Figure 4.

3.6. Synthesising and Presenting the Findings—Categorization of the Articles Analysed

In the following section, we present the synthesis we made after the content analysis of the 60 papers, where we found eight different categories. Table 2 shows the categories in a systematic form, including the coding rules for each category.
Table 2. Overview of the categories and their coding rules.
Table 2. Overview of the categories and their coding rules.
NRTitle of the
Category
Coding Rule for the
Content Analyses
Articles
Number
1Embedding SDGs in Educational CurriculaAssign articles that focus on integrating SDGs into curricula via analysis, redesign, or tools for sustainability learning outcomes, primarily aligned with SDG 4. Prioritize curriculum content over pedagogy.i1, i2, i3, i8, i12, i14, i16, i18, i23, i25, i28, i29, i33, i36, i38, i44, i45, i47, i51, i54, i56, i57, i58, i60
[22 Articles]
2Innovative Teaching Approaches for SDG LearningInclude articles exploring novel pedagogical approaches (e.g., service learning, project-based learning) that foster SDG-aligned competencies such as critical thinking (aligned with SDG 4). Exclude studies focused on the curriculum.i4, i9, i10, i15, i20, i40, i42, i59
[8 Articles]
3Fostering SDG
Awareness and Skills
Assign articles targeting SDG-related awareness, values, or competencies (e.g., environmental awareness) among students or educators, focusing on shifts in attitude for SDG 4. Exclude inclusion-focused studies.i39, i46, i50
[3 Articles]
4Obstacles to SDG Integration in EducationInclude articles that identify barriers to SDG integration (e.g., policy gaps, lack of training), often proposing solutions and focusing on the challenges of SDG 4.7.i11, i13, i52, i54
[4 Articles]
5Educational Contributions to SDG OutcomesAssign articles that examine the impact of education on broader SDG outcomes (e.g., health and economic growth) beyond the classroom and that are linked to SDGs such as 3, 4 and 8.i5, i6, i24, i48, i49, i55
[6 Articles].
6Global and Regional Insights on SDG EducationInclude articles that provide comparative or macro-level analyses of SDG integration across countries/regions, focusing on policy trends for SDG 4.i26, i27, i43
[3 Articles]
7Technology-Enhanced Learning for SDGsUse of specific technology (e.g., AI, VR) to assign articles and enhance SDG education, improving access or outcomes and aligning with SDGs 4 and 9.i19, i32, i53
[3 Articles]
8Promoting Inclusion and Equity in Education (SDG 4)Include articles addressing equitable access or inclusion for marginalised groups (e.g., disabled people, women) that are aligned with SDGs 4 and 10.i7, i17, i21, i22, i24, i30, i31, i34, i35, i37, i41
[11 Articles]

3.6.1. Embedding SDGs in Educational Curricula

This category encompasses research dedicated to integrating the Sustainable Development Goals into educational curricula at all levels, from primary to higher education. It includes studies analysing existing curricula for SDG alignment, proposing frameworks or tools to embed SDG-related learning outcomes, and redesigning syllabuses to foster sustainability competencies. The articles emphasise the importance of curriculum content and structure, as well as its alignment with SDG 4 (Quality Education) and related goals. The aim is to prepare students to become global citizens who are capable of addressing sustainability challenges. For example, one study examined the UAE elementary science curriculum and found that it was strongly aligned with SDG 4 through skills and applications. However, it found that SDGs 6 and 8 were under-represented, highlighting the need for regular curriculum updates [i21]. Another study proposes tools such as the ‘Engineering Sustainability Map’ to integrate ESD-related learning outcomes into engineering curricula, focusing on competencies such as critical contextualisation and ethical principles [i3]. Research in Nepal highlights gaps in SDG integration in higher education curricula and notes that universities often view SDGs as external policies rather than academic responsibilities. Similarly, a study at the University of Iceland maps SDGs 4 and 3 across school curricula, identifying deficiencies in SDGs 1, 2, 6, and 13. Collectively, these efforts aim to transform curricula into vehicles for sustainable development education, ensuring alignment with global sustainability agendas.

3.6.2. Innovative Teaching Approaches for SDG Learning

This category focuses on articles that explore innovative pedagogical strategies to enhance SDG-related learning and foster skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and global citizenship. Approaches include service-learning, project-based learning, and dilemma-based methods. These aim to make education more engaging and relevant to sustainability challenges, thus aligning with SDG 4’s emphasis on quality education. For instance, one study evaluates the Ignite programme, which employs human-centred design to educate secondary school students about water pollution, thereby enhancing their STEM self-efficacy and raising their awareness of SDG 6 [i20]. Another study implemented backward design in an electromagnetism course, improving students’ argumentative and interpretive skills. The reported learning gain (Hake’s statistic of 0.73) may even support SDG 4 in terms of quality education [i10]. Additionally, a Mexican initiative collaborates with legal professionals to teach professional ethics through dilemma-based learning, addressing SDGs 4, 5, 16, and 17 [i15]. Service-learning projects in engineering education also foster environmental values, with 75% of students reporting enhanced social and environmental competencies [i59]. These studies highlight the transformative potential of innovative pedagogical approaches in cultivating SDG-aligned competencies.

3.6.3. Fostering SDG Awareness and Skills

This category includes research aimed at raising awareness of, and fostering the values and competencies related to, the SDGs among students, educators, and stakeholders. The research emphasises the importance of attitudinal shifts and skill-building for sustainable development. The focus of these studies is to equip individuals with the knowledge and values needed to contribute to the SDGs, particularly SDG 4. For example, one study examined green project management competencies among business students and found that strong communication and leadership skills support SDGs 4, 8, 9, 11, and 13 [i39]. Another study examined children’s perceptions of nature using the Visions of Nature framework and revealed a preference for human–nature relationships such as ‘Steward’ and ‘Partner’. This study advocated for curricula that enhance environmental awareness [i46]. A training programme for Syrian teachers doubled knowledge scores in environmental and health education and received high satisfaction ratings, aligning with UNESCO’s directives for SDG 4 [i50]. These efforts highlight the importance of fostering sustainability mindsets through targeted educational interventions.

3.6.4. Obstacles to SDG Integration in Education

This category covers research that identifies the barriers to incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals into educational systems. These obstacles may include policy gaps, inadequate teacher training, or institutional challenges. The research often proposes strategies to overcome these barriers. These studies are essential for understanding the systemic obstacles to achieving SDG 4.7 and other targets. For instance, one scoping review highlights shortcomings in national policies, curricula, and teacher training with regard to SDG 4.7, advocating integrated approaches based on Southern epistemologies [i11]. Another study critiques the limitations of the PISA global competence assessment in informing SDG 4.7 policy, highlighting its inability to guide effective practice [i13]. In Africa, low learning levels and persistent inequalities undermine SDG 4 targets, with many children lagging behind curriculum expectations. A German study notes that ESD is often an ‘add-on’ rather than being fully integrated, particularly with regard to teacher training [i54]. These findings emphasise the need for systemic reforms to ensure robust SDG implementation.

3.6.5. Educational Contributions to SDG Outcomes

This category focuses on studies examining how education can lead to broader societal, economic, or environmental outcomes that are aligned with the SDGs. These outcomes can extend beyond classroom processes and impact areas such as health, poverty reduction, and sustainability. These papers emphasise the role of education as a catalyst for achieving multiple SDGs. For example, the Kha Ri Gude Literacy Campaign in South Africa empowered 4.7 million adult learners by enhancing self-confidence, health awareness, and income generation, thereby supporting SDGs 4 and 8 [i6]. Another study shows that entrepreneurship education in Indonesian vocational schools boosts entrepreneurial intention through value co-creation, supporting SDGs 4 and 8. Additionally, an AI-assisted curriculum can increase adolescents’ environmental protection behaviours, supporting SDGs 4 and 13 [i55]. A South African study conducted during the pandemic links student well-being to degree completion and future job prospects, emphasising SDGs 3 and 4 [i24]. These studies demonstrate the transformative impact of education on sustainable development.

3.6.6. Global and Regional Insights on SDG Education

This category includes comparative or macro-level research on the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals into education systems across countries or regions. The research focuses on policy trends, cross-country comparisons, or regional strategies. These studies provide valuable insights into the global and regional progress towards achieving SDG 4. For instance, one study compares the implementation of SDG 4.7 across 22 Asian countries, using the MGIEP framework developed by UNESCO to evaluate the ethics and values embedded in educational policies and emphasising the importance of methodological considerations [i26]. Another study examines the participation of Saudi Arabian higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings, noting an increase in engagement from 4% to 49% between 2019 and 2024, although gaps remain in SDGs 1, 2, and 12–15 [i27]. A global analysis of indigenisation in higher education (HE) curricula emphasises interculturality to address epistemic violence, aligning with SDG 4.7 [i43]. These studies provide critical benchmarks for global SDG progress in education.

3.6.7. Technology-Enhanced Learning for SDGs

This category encompasses studies that use technology, such as AI, virtual reality, or the Internet of Things (IoT), to improve SDG-related education by enhancing access, engagement, and learning outcomes. Such initiatives are aligned with SDGs 4 and 9, as they utilise technology to drive educational innovation. For instance, one study uses CFD simulation and VR to teach heat transfer, with virtual models that closely align with experimental data, enhancing understanding and supporting SDGs 4 and 9 [i53]. Another study explores the role of ChatGPT in Turkish primary education. Teachers note its user-friendliness and potential to enrich teaching; however, concerns about the impact of misinformation on SDG 4.7 have been raised [19]. Zimbabwe’s updated curriculum incorporates 4IR technologies such as AI and the IoT to promote learner-centred learning and foster critical thinking in support of SDG 4 [i32]. These studies emphasise the role of technology in advancing sustainable education.

3.6.8. Promoting Inclusion and Equity in Education (SDG 4)

This category includes research focused on ensuring equitable access to education and inclusive practices, particularly for marginalised groups such as disabled students, women, and racial minorities. This aligns with SDGs 4 and 10. These studies address systemic inequalities and propose inclusive strategies. For example, a workshop for young adults with ASD in Chennai, India, improves digital empathy and media literacy to support inclusive education [i7]. Another study highlights inequalities in Kazakhstan’s distance schooling, noting disparities in digital infrastructure and support that undermine SDG 4 [i21]. In Bangladesh, research on disaster-prone schools found that only 43.7% of teachers had received disaster management training, which limited inclusion for disabled students [i37]. A Portuguese study identifies the absence of gender perspectives in architecture curricula and advocates for inclusive urban planning education [i35]. These efforts emphasise the role of education in reducing inequalities and fostering inclusivity.

3.7. Relationship of Papers to Direct Curriculum Development or Implications for Further Development

The distribution for the third research question is shown in Table 3 below.

4. Discussion

This study examined how the SDGs (with a focus on SDG 4, quality education) were integrated into national school and tertiary-level curricula and their role in advancing the 2030 agenda. The study aimed to identify trends and gaps in the implementation of the SDGs within education systems, along with associated changes in teaching and learning at all levels in relation to sustainability and equity issues. The following discussion synthesises findings from 60 articles published between 2020 and April 2025, which were guided by three research questions (RQ1–RQ3). The research questions acted as a compass, guiding our exploration of the extensive international literature. Our review of 60 relevant articles from the Scopus academic database revealed a wide range of international experiences within the discourse on education and the SDGs. Using a structured and evidence-based approach, our analysis highlights patterns, demographic and methodological characteristics, the relevance for curriculum development, and research gaps to inform the discourse on SDG-aligned education.
RQ1: What patterns can be observed in the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals in the design of educational curricula from 2020 to 2025? Analysis of 60 articles in this scoping review reveals distinct patterns of SDG integration, emphasising curriculum alignment, innovative pedagogical approaches, and inclusivity. These patterns are linked to UNESCO’s five priority action areas: advancing policy, transforming learning environments, building educator capacities, empowering youth, and accelerating local actions [26]. Therefore, the direct integration of the SDGs into curricula involves incorporating the SDGs into learning objectives at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels [4]. Frameworks for embedding sustainability in subjects such as engineering and teacher training emphasise systematic approaches to curriculum design. Innovative SDG-related pedagogical approaches include service-learning and project-based learning, which foster critical thinking and global citizenship and are becoming more and more part of didactical approaches in educational settings [27,28]. Especially, SDG-related competency-building is a strong focus and part of the discussion [29]. But systemic challenges and barriers, such as inadequate teacher training and policy gaps, highlight the need for institutional support at administrative and educational policy levels [30,31]. Curricula linked to societal outcomes such as poverty reduction could also be relevant in terms of SDG integration but would be very difficult to operationalise in terms of their effects [32]. Beyond these patterns, interdisciplinary frameworks that combine the unique and holistic interrelations of the single SDGs also need to be reflected in current and upcoming discourse [33]. With a view to regions and communities, the approach to localised contextualisation seeks to ensure relevance by aligning curricula with regional challenges, such as combating poverty, addressing water scarcity, and promoting urban sustainability [34]. These systematic approaches highlight the importance of a progressive, interdisciplinary approach to curriculum design in order to properly embed the SDGs.
RQ2: What are the demographic characteristics (geographical distribution, level of education, year of publication) and methodological approaches of the articles included in this scoping review? The analysis of the 60 articles reveals distinct patterns in demographic characteristics and methodological approaches, highlighting both diversity and disparities in SDG education research. In terms of geography, the sample demonstrates significant global participation, with articles from Asia and Europe making up half of the total. Eleven articles offer global perspectives, while North America, South America, Africa, and Australia are less represented in our Scopus sample. Thus, the under-representation of the Global South, i.e., Africa and South America, suggests disparities in research resources and infrastructure, which may limit context-specific contributions to SDG education. The lack of representation of the Global South in scientific discourse is a well-documented and widely recognised issue [35,36]. In terms of institutional levels, higher education dominates by far. Primary education combined with primary and secondary education, and secondary education are also included in our analysis, albeit in smaller numbers. However, studies on all levels of education, vocational education, and special education are less represented, indicating a focus on higher education and a gap in other educational contexts.
Apart from 2022, the total increase in research over the years reflects the growing interest in the SDGs and their relationship with education. Furthermore, this result may be due to the increased interest in the impact of the pandemic on the education sector in general [37], particularly as this period has accelerated the focus on inequality, equity, and sustainability issues in all societal domains [38]. The language analysis shows that English is clearly dominant, with minimal Spanish and one Portuguese article. This suggests that a language barrier may be excluding non-English speakers, thereby limiting their participation in global academic discourse. Such barriers can reinforce the dominance of English-speaking countries in educational research [39,40]. The international dissemination of English-language research increases the influence of English-speaking countries, potentially marginalising the contributions of non-English-speaking scholars and perpetuating linguistic inequalities in academia.
Our scoping review of SDG research reveals a wide variety of methodological approaches, with slightly more focus on qualitative methods (18 articles), which provide contextual insights into SDG integration. Meanwhile, quantitative (14 articles) and mixed-methods (15 articles) approaches provide more generalisable and comprehensive analyses of SDG-related discourse within educational and curriculum contexts. Theoretical work and systematic reviews are severely under-represented, with only four and six articles, respectively, indicating gaps in theoretical foundations and long-term evaluation. Notably, there is a dearth of longitudinal analyses in the sample. Such studies are vital for understanding the long-term effects of SDG interventions in education. For example, they help us to grasp the sustainability of curriculum developments and their long-term impact on student performance. The absence of such studies suggests a methodological shortcoming, as short-term analyses often fail to capture the complex, long-term dynamics of SDG implementation. It is therefore crucial to identify methodological gaps and select the most suitable approaches to address the complex policies and developments in the field of SDG implementation [41,42].
RQ3: Are the articles directly related to curriculum development, or do they have implications for future curriculum development? The findings of this study distinguish between those that are directly related to curriculum development (39 times) and those that have implications for future development (17 times), highlighting their contributions to transforming education aligned with the SDGs. Curriculum development is proposed, as well as specific changes to existing curricula for quality education. Many of the articles in this study have implications for future curriculum development by identifying gaps or making recommendations that could influence curriculum design.
A closer look at the results of our review reveals significant structural imbalances in global educational research on the SDGs. Articles from the Global South, particularly Africa and South America, are significantly under-represented in the sample, despite many countries in these regions being disproportionately affected by the consequences of climate change and environmental degradation [43]. These impacts often intersect with existing socioeconomic, political, and gender inequalities, placing additional burdens on already vulnerable populations [44]. This imbalance raises important questions about how sustainability, education, and curriculum development research can be promoted in regions without the infrastructure to participate in and contribute to discourse on education and global policy frameworks, as proposed by UNESCO and the OECD [4,45].
The dominance of contributions from Europe and Asia may reflect uneven research infrastructure, unequal access to funding, and the linguistic dominance of English in scientific publishing. Furthermore, institutional focus is heavily skewed towards higher education, while early childhood and primary education—despite their critical role in establishing the foundations for sustainable thinking and behaviour—are comparatively neglected [46]. This is particularly problematic given the importance of fostering sustainability-related knowledge and competencies from a young age [47]. Our review also reveals limited engagement with the behavioural aspects of education, with only a few articles directly addressing the role of education in transforming everyday actions and habits. This lack of research is of concern, as achieving the SDGs depends not only on knowledge and awareness but also on the ability to impact meaningful behavioural change [48]. It can generally be assumed that, within the framework of the SDGs, the goal of behavioural change with regard to sustainability is central [49], but that this goal is also accompanied by moral and ethical considerations [50]. In particular, it seems questionable to shift responsibility onto the individual child and their generation as a whole, as it cannot be their task alone to compensate for the failings of previous generations through their behaviour. Accordingly, there is still a need to search for educational concepts that have been critically reflected upon, especially since studies on the effects of previous concepts (in sustainability education) have shown only limited positive (behavioural) effects [51,52].

5. Conclusions

This scoping review summarises the global efforts to incorporate the SDGs, particularly those concerning quality education, into educational curricula. Based on a Scopus analysis, 60 articles from 2020 to 2025 were reviewed. Although eight (almost) distinct categorisations were found within the 60 articles, they can be summarised once again under the following three meta-perspectives. The SDGs can be used as follows:
  • As learning content;
  • As a framework for institutional transformation;
  • As a community-focused educational guide.
These approaches reflect the progress made and the challenges encountered in aligning education with the transformative ambitions of the 2030 Agenda. The integration of sustainability objectives into educational content, institutional reforms that address systemic inequalities, and community-driven pedagogical innovations all aim to further the transformative objectives of the 2030 Agenda. This is primarily accomplished by cultivating critical thinking and inclusive practices within diverse educational settings, as demonstrated by our Scopus sample.
SDGs as learning content: This approach involves incorporating sustainability objectives into primary, secondary, and higher education curricula to promote skills such as environmental awareness, health, and gender equality. While studies demonstrate a clear link with quality education in subjects such as science and physical education, there are gaps in addressing specific SDGs, such as alleviating poverty and hunger, ensuring access to clean water, and taking action on climate change. While efforts to develop sustainability competencies through teacher training and student engagement show promise, they are sometimes limited by a lack of depth and inadequate educator preparation. Comprehensive frameworks are therefore needed to ensure that sustainability transforms learning objectives holistically, rather than merely being added to curricula.
SDGs as an institutional transformation framework: This perspective focuses on systemic changes within educational institutions, particularly higher education institutions, to promote inclusivity and equity. Although research highlights strategies to support marginalised groups, such as accessible curricula and indigenised approaches, systemic challenges such as inadequate policies, limited digital infrastructure, and underdeveloped teacher training hinder progress. Global disparities, with stronger contributions from certain regions, also reflect uneven research infrastructure and funding. Robust national policies and enhanced institutional support are essential to drive transformative change across educational systems.
The SDGs as a community-focused educational guide: This perspective emphasises participatory, context-sensitive learning through innovative pedagogical methods and technology. Approaches such as service-learning, collaborative online courses, and technology-enhanced education (e.g., augmented reality and AI) aim (and try) to foster critical thinking, global citizenship, and the development of practical skills. While these initiatives contribute to societal outcomes such as environmental awareness and economic growth, their impact on broader goals such as poverty reduction remains under-explored, particularly in under-represented regions. Further research is needed to establish links between community-driven and technology-supported approaches and tangible sustainability outcomes. In summary, geographical imbalances, with some regions dominating contributions, and a focus on higher education rather than the early years of education, highlight structural disparities in research and implementation. While the surge in research interest in recent years highlights growing momentum, the under-representation of certain regions and stages of education calls for targeted interventions. Therefore, national policies must also strike a balance between top-down strategies and community-driven, bottom-up initiatives to create a cohesive framework for achieving the 2030 Agenda’s goals. As shown by Morton et al. [3], these types of development within the framework of the SDGs require an overarching developmental framework at all levels and institutions to facilitate comprehensive change processes.

6. Limitations and Future Research

This scoping review is subject to several limitations. Its reliance on the Scopus database alone may have resulted in the overlooking of other relevant literature on SDG integration in educational curricula, as other databases such as Web of Science, ERIC, JSTOR, and Google Scholar could provide further articles and viewpoints that are essential for a thorough understanding of the subject. Furthermore, limiting the analysis to articles from 2020 to April 2025 may exclude foundational research from earlier periods, thereby overlooking essential historical context and alternative viewpoints on this multifaceted discourse. This temporal constraint likely diminishes the depth and generalisability of the findings. To improve the scope of future reviews, it would be beneficial to incorporate multiple databases, extend the temporal scope, and employ a broader or more varied set of keywords to even better capture the complexity and intersectionality of educational research on SDGs.
To ensure the effective implementation of the SDGs, particularly SDG 4, and to achieve lasting impact, urgent attention must be given to under-explored research areas when integrating them into educational curricula. Given the lack of research at primary and kindergarten levels, it also seems important to focus on these institutional levels, as early exposure to the SDGs can foster awareness and knowledge of sustainability issues [48], shaping informed decision-making at later stages of education and encouraging participation in sustainability efforts. Methodologically, large-scale quantitative research is needed to empirically investigate the impact of SDG curriculum development in educational contexts over longer time frames [53], moving beyond the current focus on individual case studies. Such studies could also provide deeper insights into how SDG 4 can be implemented in different school settings and into the long-term effects of doing so. There is also a need to investigate human action and behavioural change in the context of SDG implementation. Effective integration requires transformative changes at institutional and pedagogical levels, yet research into how individual and collective behaviours can either facilitate or impede these changes is limited. Closing this gap is crucial for developing human-centred strategies that align educational practices with the transformative goals of the SDGs, thereby enhancing teaching and learning environments. Finally, the under-representation of Global South perspectives, in Africa and South America, highlights the need for collaborative research to amplify these voices, experiences, and context-specific insights. Strengthening research capacity in these regions is essential to ensure equitable contributions to the global discourse on SDG-aligned education and to address localised challenges in curriculum development.
To improve the practical implementation of the SDGs, particularly SDG 4, in education systems, stakeholders must adopt context-specific strategies that can be put into action. Governments and educational institutions should also prioritise teacher training programmes that equip educators with the pedagogical tools and subject knowledge needed to integrate the SDGs into curricula [54]. These programmes should adopt interdisciplinary approaches to encourage critical thinking and sustainability skills. Additionally, curriculum frameworks should be co-developed with local communities to ensure cultural relevance and address region-specific challenges [55,56]. Reflecting critically on and developing technology-sensitive approaches could also enhance inclusive education for marginalised groups, as well as improve educators’ digital competence [57]. Finally, national education policies should allocate dedicated funding and establish monitoring mechanisms to track SDG integration and ensure alignment with the 2030 Agenda [58,59].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization; methodology; software; validation; formal analysis; investigation; resources; data curation; writing—original draft preparation; writing—review and editing; visualization; supervision; project administration; funding acquisition: R.P.X. and M.H.L. (both authors shared the same amount of time for this paper). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. Open Access Funding by the University for Continuing Education Krems.

Data Availability Statement

The data of this paper can be found in Appendix A of this paper.

Acknowledgments

An AI (DeepL write) was used to proofread the entire article. Open Access Funding by the University for Continuing Education Krems.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest and that there are also no competing interests.

Appendix A

Table A1. Table with all papers analysed (the review was not registered).
Table A1. Table with all papers analysed (the review was not registered).
NRAuthor(s)YearTitleMethodGeographical Area Institutional Level Key Details
i1Rushami Zien N.H., Abu Bakar N.A., Saad R.2025Learning beyond borders: lifelong learning and learning culture in Islamic institutions in the pursuit of quality educationMixed
Method
AsiaPrimary
Education
Assesses lifelong learning and learning culture in Malaysian primary school curricula, aligning with SDG 4 integration.
i2Qablan A., Nowfal N., Al-Faiadh T., Pearson E., Alkaabi A., Alhashmi H., Alderei F., Shamsi A.Y.A.2025Mapping the representation of four SDGs in international elementary science curriculum and textbooksQualitative
Approach
AsiaPrimary
Education
Analyses UAE science curriculum for SDG integration (SDGs 4, 6, 8, 15), focusing on curriculum content.
i3Sánchez-Carracedo F., Segalas J., Bueno G., Busquets P., Climent J., Galofré V.G., Lazzarini B., Lopez D., Martín C., Miñano R., de Cámara E.S., Sureda B., Tejedor G., Vidal E.2021Tools for embedding and assessing sustainable development goals in engineering educationQuantitative
Approach
EuropeHigher
Education
Proposes tools for embedding ESD into engineering curricula, emphasising learning outcomes.
i4Branca E., Vanderstraeten J., Slabbinck H., Maes I.M.R.2025The impact of entrepreneurial education on key entrepreneurial competencies: A systematic review of learning strategies and toolsSystematic
Review
Not specified Higher
Education
Examines entrepreneurial education through innovative learning strategies (experiential, active learning) for SDG 4 and 8.
i5Abdelmagid A.S., Jabli N.M., Al-Mohaya A.Y., Teleb A.A.2025Integrating Interactive Metaverse Environments and Generative Artificial Intelligence to Promote the Green Digital Economy and e-Entrepreneurship in Higher EducationQuantitative approachAsiaHigher
Education
Examines the impact of metaverse and AI education on green digital economy and e-entrepreneurship skills.
i6McKay V.I.2020Learning for development: Learners’ perceptions of the impact of the Kha Ri Gude Literacy CampaignMixed methodAfricaNot
Specified
Assesses the societal impact of a literacy campaign on self-confidence, health, and income generation.
i7Rajagopal T., Chandrashekaran V.2025“Leaving no one behind”: digital empathy and inclusive media literacy education for young adults on the autism spectrumMixed methodAsiaSpecial
Education
Focuses on fostering digital empathy and media literacy among students with ASD, linked to SDG 4.
i8Renta-Davids A.-I., Camarero-Figuerola M., Tierno-García J.-M.2020Assessment of the quality education awareness competence of pre-service educators using vignettesMixed methodEuropeHigher
Education
Examines pre-service educators’ awareness through curriculum analysis, focusing on SDG 4 integration.
i9Asmayawati, Yufiarti, Yetti E.2024Pedagogical innovation and curricular adaptation in enhancing digital literacy: A local wisdom approach for sustainable development in the Indonesian contextQuantitative approachAsiaPrimary
Education
Investigates pedagogical innovation and local wisdom approaches in early childhood education for SDG 4.
i10González J., Martínez L., Aguas R., De La Hoz J., Sánchez H.2023Redesign and Implementation of the Electromagnetism Course for Engineering Students Using the Backward Design MethodologyQuantitative approachNot specified Higher
Education
Uses backward design methodology to innovate teaching in an electromagnetism course, aligned with SDG 4.
i11Opazo H., Castillo J., Carreño Á.2020Challenges of Goal 4.7 of the UN 2030 Agenda for Latin America and the Caribbean: An analysis of evidence from UNESDOCSystematic reviewGlobal perspective All levels Identifies challenges in implementing SDG 4.7 (policy, curriculum, teacher training gaps) via a scoping review.
i12Vaniev A., Malt-Cullen M.2025Mapping pedagogies of education for sustainable development in Scottish higher education institutionsQualitative approachEuropeHigher
Education
The study proposes an ANT-based tool to map gaps in ESD pedagogy implementation in Scottish HEIs, noting university reports focus on content taught rather than how ESD supports SDG 4.7.
i13Chandir H., Gorur R.2021Unsustainable Measures? Assessing Global Competence in PISA 2018Mixed methodGlobal perspective Secondary education Critiques the PISA global competence assessment’s limitations for informing SDG 4.7 policy and practice, focusing on implementation challenges.
i14Boned-Gómez S., Ferriz-Valero A., Baena-Morales S.2025Education for sustainability: analysing the Spanish curriculum in primary education and physical educationQualitative approachEuropePrimary
Education
Analyses the Spanish primary education curriculum for SDG alignment, emphasising competencies.
i15Gallardo Y., Romero A.G.T.2021Collaboration in a professional ethics programme between a professional association and a university: an experience in Mexico Qualitative approachSouth americaHigher
Education
Describes a dilemma-based pedagogy for teaching professional ethics, linked to SDGs 4, 5, 16, 17.
i16Sanosi A.B., Nur H.S., Arafat Y., Muhammad D.2025Developing an ESP Syllabus to Promote Sustainable Development Goals: A Delphi StudyQualitative approachGlobal perspective Higher
Education
Uses the Delphi technique to align ESP syllabi with SDGs, focusing on curriculum design.
i17Eidtson W.H., Konopasky A., Fong J., Schmitt K.E., Foster-Johnson L., Lyons V.T.2024Are Pre-clerkship Remediation, Grading, and Reporting Practices Equitable in the U.S.? A National SurveyMixed methodNorth america Higher
Education
Examines equity issues in medical school grading practices, linked to SDG 4.
i18Kabysheva M.2025Fostering critical thinking in learning outcomes of Kazakhstan initial teacher educationQuantitative approachAsiaHigher
Education
Analyses critical thinking integration in Kazakhstani teacher education curricula, linked to SDG 4.
i19Uğraş H., Uğraş M., Papadakis S., Kalogiannakis M.2024ChatGPT-Supported Education in Primary Schools: The Potential of ChatGPT for Sustainable PracticesQualitative approachAsiaPrimary
Education
Evaluates ChatGPT’s role in primary education for SDG 4, focusing on technology’s contribution.
i20Breen K.C., Dotson M.E., Madonna M.C., Asturias G., Peña D.M., Springate H., Alvarez V., Ramanujam N.2023Community-Centered Design Thinking as a Scalable Stem Learning InterventionMixed methodGlobal perspective Secondary education Evaluates the Ignite programme’s human-centred design pedagogy for STEM and SDGs 4, 6.
i21Durrani N., Qanay G., Mir G., Helmer J., Polat F., Karimova N., Temirbekova A.2023Achieving SDG 4, Equitable Quality Education after COVID-19: Global Evidence and a Case Study of KazakhstanQualitative approachAsiaPrimary and
Secondary education
Highlights inequalities in distance schooling, particularly for disadvantaged groups, linked to SDG 4.
i22Grover P., Phutela N., Yadav M.2025Role of faculty in collaborative online international learning (COIL)—a pedagogical tool for Internationalisation at Home (IaH)Qualitative approachAsiaHigher
Education
Explores COIL for inclusive global learning opportunities, linked to SDGs 4 and 10.
i23Adhikari D.R., Shah B.B.2021The state of the art in the incorporation of sustainable development goals in Nepalese UniversitiesQualitative approachAsiaHigher
Education
Assesses SDG integration in Nepalese HEI curricula, focusing on policy and curriculum gaps.
i24Blignaut S., Pheiffer G., Grange L.L., Maistry S., Ramrathan L., Simmonds S., Visser A.2021Engendering a sense of belonging to support student well-being during COVID-19: A focus on sustainable development goals 3 and 4Quantitative approachAfricaHigher
Education
Investigates COVID-19’s impact on student well-being and degree completion, linked to SDGs 3 and 4.
i25artínez-Acosta M., Vázquez-Villegas P., Mejía-Manzano L.A., Soto-Inzunza G.V., Ruiz-Aguilar K.M., Kuhn Cuellar L., Caratozzolo P., Membrillo-Hernández J.2023The implementation of SDG12 in and from higher education institutions: universities as laboratories for generating sustainable citiesMixed methodNorth america Higher
Education
The study analyses the implementation of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) in higher education through a multilevel approach, identifying key themes like sustainable food and curricula at Tecnologico de Monterrey, with faculty emphasising universities as living labs to promote sustainable cities.
i26Ahmed M.2020Understanding and promoting ethics and values education: The methodological challengeNot specifiedAsiaAll levels The article compares UNESCO’s MGIEP study on SDG 4.7 in Asian curricula with Bangladesh’s Education Watch study on ethics in pretertiary education, highlighting methodological issues and SDG 4.7 policy implications.
i27Wajid H.A.2025The Role of Saudi Arabian Higher Education Institutions in Sustainable Development: Participation, Framework Alignment, and Strategic InsightsQuantitative approachAsiaHigher
Education
The study assesses Saudi Arabian HEIs’ growing SDG engagement (2019–2024), noting gaps and advocating for structured curriculum alignment to enhance sustainability-focused education.
i28de Miranda S.S.-F., Córdoba-Roldán A., Aguayo-González F., Ávila-Gutiérrez M.J.2021Neuro-competence approach for sustainable engineeringSystematic reviewGlobal perspective Higher
Education
The study proposes a neuro-competence engineering model for higher education, integrating connectivism, activity theory, and neuroscience to develop SDG-aligned competencies for sustainable manufacturing.
i29Mosito C.P., Mosia P.A., Buthelezi J.2025How informed are teacher educators in Lesotho and South Africa about the care and support for teaching and learning framework?Qualitative approachAfricaHigher
Education
Examines teacher education curricula in Lesotho and South Africa for CSTL principles, linked to SDG 4.
i30Asad M.M., Malik A.2024Educational quality and inclusion through collaborative hybridised cybergogy: transformative learning horizons in Pakistani universitiesQualitative approachAsiaHigher
Education
The study explores how hybridised cybergogy paradigms boost collaborative learning, diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education, enhancing resource access, critical thinking, and SDG 4 alignment in Sindh, Pakistan.
i31Walker S., Tikly L., Strong K., Wallace D., Soudien C.2023The case for educational reparations: addressing racial injustices in sustainable development goal 4Theoretical paperGlobal perspective All levels The study advocates for revising SDG 4 policies to address colonial histories, redistribute resources, challenge Western epistemes, and prioritise racial equity in education.
i32Yingi E., Hlungwani P.M., Nyagadza B.2022The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) in the Heart of the SDG Agenda: The Role of Education in ZimbabweNot specifiedAfricaAll levels Discusses 4IR technologies (AI, IoT) in Zimbabwe’s curriculum for learner-centred learning, linked to SDG 4.
i33Abdelgalil R., Rissouni K., Alnaief M.2024Sustainability in Education from the Perspectives of Islamic Shari’ah and the United Nations’ SDG4Theoretical paperGlobal perspective All levels The study examines SDG 4 alignment with Shari’ah principles, promoting sustainable, equitable education for all across educational levels.
i34Kim J., Park E.2024Analysis of Perceptions and Requirements for Creative Experiential Activity Curriculum for the Revision of Special Education in South KoreaQualitative approachNot specified Special
Education
The study examines stakeholder views on the 2022 Revised Curriculum in special education, noting needs for sustainability, climate education, and ICT to align with SDGs 4, 10, and 3.
i35Sousa G., Alcindor M.2024Gender perspective in architecture and urban planning curricula in PortugalQualitative approachEuropeHigher
Education
The study identifies the absence of gender perspective in Portuguese architecture curricula, advocating for changes to promote inclusive urban planning and align with SDGs for gender equality, reduced inequalities, and quality education.
i36Fiel’ardh K., Torkar G., Rožman H., Fujii H.2023Sustainable development goals in teacher education: comparing syllabi in a Japanese and a Slovenian universityQualitative approachAsia and europeHigher
Education
Analyses syllabi in Japanese and Slovenian universities for SDG integration.
i37Chowdhury M.A., Bari E., Hossain M.I., Rahman M.M.2025Accessibility of primary education facilities to students with disabilities: a study in the context of disasters in Jashore, BangladeshMixed methodAsiaPrimary
Education
The study examines how 20 Bangladeshi primary schools accommodate disabled students during disasters, noting strengths like accessible infrastructure and weaknesses like parental ignorance to enhance SDG 4-aligned inclusive education.
i38Piazza R., Castiglione G., Guevara J.R.2025Universities in global transformation: Re-thinking curriculum integration and collaboration to co-create our futureTheoretical paperEurope and australia Higher
Education
Reflects on integrating SDGs into university curricula, emphasising transformative learning.
i39Aljaaidi K.S., Abdulmajeed I.A.I., Bafaqeer S.M., Habeeb S.2025Green project management competencies and sustainable development goals (SDGs): Empirical evidenceQuantitative approachAsiaHigher
Education
Assesses green project management competencies among students, linked to SDGs 4, 8, 9, 11, 13.
i40Buerkle A., O’Dell A., Matharu H., Buerkle L., Ferreira P.2023Recommendations to align higher education teaching with the UN sustainability goals—A scoping surveySystematic reviewGlobal perspective Higher
Education
The study surveys how higher education teaching methods align with seven SDGs, identifying positive impacts and goal conflicts to improve sustainable development education.
i41Sok S., Chhinh N., Cheb H., Bo C., Nguonphan P.2023Developmental psychology within Cambodian higher education institutions: how gender influences the achievement of the SDG targets related to quality educationQuantitative approachAsiaHigher
Education
Analyses mismatches in Cambodian HEI curricula for SDG alignment.
i42Lai C.-H., Ho L.-C., Liao Z.-Y.2025ustainability of Programming Education Through CDIO-Oriented Practice: An Empirical Study on Syntax-Level Structural Visualisation for Functional Programming LanguagesQuantitative approachNot specified Higher
Education
Proposes a project-based programming teaching model with visualisation tools, aligned with SDG 4.
i43Mbah M.F., Clifton N., Kushnir I.2024Internationalising higher education curricula for sustainable development: considerations for indigeneity and (inter)culturalitySystematic reviewGlobal perspective Higher
Education
The study explores how indigenizing higher education curricula with non-Western epistemologies supports SDG 4.7, using bibliometric analysis and case studies to emphasise interculturality’s role in sustainable development.
i44Pedraja-Rejas L., Rodríguez-Ponce E., Muñoz-Fritis C., Laroze D.2023Sustainable Development Goals and Education: A Bibliometric Review—The Case of Latin AmericaMixed methodSouth americaNot
Specified
Reviews Latin American scientific production on SDG integration in education curricula.
i45Torres D.I.R.2021Contribution of higher education to the Sustainable Development Goals from teachingSystematic reviewGlobal perspective Higher
Education
Analyses global reports on SDG integration into HEI curricula, focusing on teaching functions.
i46Baser-Kanbak C., Sahin E.2025‘Human-nature relations like a boomerang’: a case study on children’s visions of natureQualitative approachNot specified Primary
Education
Examines children’s values and awareness of nature using the Visions of Nature framework, linked to SDGs.
i47Morales-Casetti M., Ramírez-Valdivia M.2025Incorporation of the SDGs in the industrial engineering curriculum and its contribution to the institutional educational modelQualitative approachSouth americaHigher
Education
Proposes a framework for embedding SDGs into Industrial Engineering curricula.
i48Walidayni C.T., Dellyana D., Chaldun E.R.2023Towards SDGs 4 and 8: How Value Co-Creation Affecting Entrepreneurship Education’s Quality and Students’ Entrepreneurial IntentionQuantitative approachAsiaVocational
Education
Explores how entrepreneurship education impacts entrepreneurial intention, supporting SDGs 4 and 8
i49Wilhelm E.M.S., Pilatti L.A.2024Global sustainability challenges and the role of Higher Education InstitutionsMixed methodGlobal perspective Higher
Education
Analyses HEI’s commitment to SDGs and its impact on country-level sustainability performance.
i50Huseyin M.Y., Dershewi A., Marais D., Albuhtori M.2025Evaluating the effectiveness of a health and environmental education training programme for Syrian teachers in Northern SyriaMixed methodAsiaNot
Specified
Evaluates a training curriculum to enhance teachers’ environmental and health education awareness.
i51Chang Y.-C., Lien H.-L.2020Mapping course sustainability by embedding the SDGS inventory into the university curriculum: A case study from national university of Kaohsiung in TaiwanQuantitative approachAsiaHigher
Education
Maps SDG integration in NUK’s curriculum using a course inventory module.
i52Oketch M.2024SDG 4 targets: Neglected questions on conditions and circumstances for education reforms in AfricaTheoretical paperAfricaAll levels Discusses insufficient SDG 4 target implementation in Africa, focusing on low learning levels and inequalities.
i53Alsurakji I.H., El-Qanni A., Malhis T., Ahmed M., Zayed M., Hmoudah M., Ahmed W.H., Najjar M., Abuabiah M., Shaqour B.2024Bridging theory and practice: CFD simulation and interactive VR for conduction heat transfer learningQuantitative approachNot specified Higher
Education
Uses CFD simulation and VR to teach heat transfer, supporting SDGs 4 and 9.
i54Holst J., Singer-Brodowski M., Brock A., de Haan G.2024Monitoring SDG 4.7: Assessing Education for Sustainable Development in policies, curricula, training of educators and student assessment (input-indicator)Mixed methodEuropeAll levels The study proposes a framework to assess SDG 4.7.1 in German education, highlighting partial ESD integration, educator training deficiencies, and the need for better monitoring to inform policy.
i55Du M., Li X., Wang X., Wang Y., Xu C.2025Exploring adolescents’ acceptance of AI in environmental education: integrating the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology with the 21st century skills frameworkMixed methodNot specified Secondary education Evaluates an AI-assisted curriculum’s impact on environmental protection behaviours, linked to SDGs 4 and 13.
i56Boned-Gómez S., Ferriz-Valero A., Fröberg A., Baena-Morales S.2024Unveiling Connections: A Thorough Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals Integration within the Spanish Physical Education CurriculumQualitative approachEuropeSecondary education Analyses the Spanish PE curriculum for SDG alignment, focusing on curricular elements.
i57Hoang A.-D., Pham H.-H., Nguyen Y.-C., Nguyen L.-K.-N., Vuong Q.-H., Dam M.Q., Tran T., Nguyen T.-T.2020Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable Development Goal 4: The case of primary schools in VietnamNot specifiedAsiaPrimary and
Secondary education
Evaluates curriculum quality in Vietnamese private schools for SDG 4 alignment.
i58Lei C.-U., Tang S.2023An analysis of Hong Kong high school curriculum with implications for United Nations sustainable development goalsMixed methodAsiaSecondary education Identifies SDG topics in Hong Kong’s secondary education curriculum.
i59López-Santiago J., de Francisco Alonso M., Zubelzu-Minguez S., Ruiz-Garcia L., Gómez-Villarino M.T.2024Fostering sustainable development values among engineering students using Service-LearningQuantitative approachNot specified Higher
Education
Assesses service-learning projects to foster environmental values in engineering students, linked to SDG 4.
i60Pálsdóttir A., Jóhannsdóttir L.2021Signs of the united nations sdgs in university curriculum. The case of the university of icelandQualitative approachEuropeHigher
Education
Maps SDG integration in University of Iceland’s curricula across schools.

Note

1
The ‘i’ before the number refers to Appendix A, Table A1.

References

  1. United Nations General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  2. Sayed, Y.; Moriarty, K. SDG 4 and the ‘education quality turn’: Prospects, possibilities, and problems. In Grading Goal Four; Wulff, A., Ed.; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 194–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Morton, S.; Pencheon, D.; Squires, N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and their implementation: A national global framework for health, development and equity needs a systems approach at every level. Br. Med. Bull. 2017, 124, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rieckmann, M. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  5. Allen, C.; Metternicht, G.; Wiedmann, T. Prioritising SDG targets: Assessing baselines, gaps and interlinkages. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 421–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 2025. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/education2030-sdg4 (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  7. Webb, S.; Holford, J.; Hodge, S.; Milana, M.; Waller, R. Lifelong learning for quality education: Exploring the neglected aspect of sustainable development goal 4. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 2017, 36, 509–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Essomba, M.À.; Lleonart, P.; Alfonso, L.; Bin, H. Education for sustainable development in educating cities: Towards a transformative approach from informal and non-formal education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wulff, A. Introduction: Bringing out the Tensions, Challenges, and Opportunities within Sustainable Development Goal 4. In Grading Goal Four; Wulff, A., Ed.; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Unterhalter, E. The many meanings of quality education: Politics of targets and indicators in SDG 4. Glob. Policy 2019, 10 (Suppl. S1), 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hesselbarth, C.; Schaltegger, S. Educating change agents for sustainability—Learnings from the first sustainability management master of business administration. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 62, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lei, C.U.; Chan, W.; Wang, Y. Evaluation of UN SDG-related formal learning activities in a university common core curriculum. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2024, 25, 821–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Leal Filho, W.; Raath, S.; Lazzarini, B.; Vargas, V.R.; de Souza, L.; Anholon, R.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Haddad, R.; Klavins, M.; Orlovic, V.L. The role of transformation in learning and education for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 199, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Parga, D.L.; Mora, W.M. El PCK, un espacio de diversidad teórica: Conceptos y experiencias unificadoras en relación con la didáctica de los contenidos en química. Educ. Química 2014, 25, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cerquera, Y.F.; Essomba, M.Á. Conocimiento didáctico del contenido sobre cambio climático en docentes de educación ambiental de colegios públicos de Bogotá, Colombia. Biografía 2024, 17, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sachs, J.D.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Iablonovski, G. Financing Sustainable Development to 2030 and Mid-Century. In Sustainable Development Report 2025; SDSN: Paris, France; Dublin University Press: Dublin, Ireland, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schreier, M. Qualitative content analysis? In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis; Flick, U., Ed.; SAGE: London, UK, 2014; pp. 83–101. [Google Scholar]
  21. Elo, S.; Kyngäs, H. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 62, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.A.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008, 22, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5113–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019, 39, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap; UNESCO: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ribeiro, L.M.; Miranda, F.; Themudo, C.; Gonçalves, H.; Bringle, R.G.; Rosário, P.; Aramburuzabala, P. Educating for the sustainable development goals through service-learning: University students’ perspectives about the competences developed. Front. Educ. 2023, 8, 1144134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Aramburuzabala, P.; Cerrillo, R. Service-learning as an approach to educating for sustainable development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Giangrande, N.; White, R.M.; East, M.; Jackson, R.; Clarke, T.; Saloff Coste, M.; Penha-Lopes, G. A competency framework to assess and activate education for sustainable development: Addressing the UN sustainable development goals 4.7 challenge. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Supising, J.; Boonrawd, S.; Taweeboonyawat, S.; Chaichana, P.; Puthaprasert, C.; Kosanpipat, S. School Administration Model in Driving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Interdiscip. Res. Rev. 2024, 19, 39–51. [Google Scholar]
  31. Silva, A.F.; Sánchez-Hernández, M.I.; Carvalho, L.C. Local public administration in the process of implementing sustainable development goals. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Akor, V.O.; Jack, A.B. Global challenges and implementation of sustainable poverty eradication strategies using junior secondary school agricultural science curriculum as a panacea in Nigeria. Int. J. Educ. Eval. 2020, 6, 26–34. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kioupi, V.; Voulvoulis, N. Education for Sustainable Development: A Systemic Framework for Connecting the SDGs to Educational Outcomes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Deng, X.; Wang, Y.; Song, M. Development geography for exploring solutions to promote regional development. Geogr. Sustain. 2023, 4, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Demeter, M. Academic Knowledge Production and the Global South: Questioning Inequality and Under-Representation; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  36. Marks, R.A.; Amézquita, E.J.; Percival, S.; Rougon-Cardoso, A.; Chibici-Revneanu, C.; Tebele, S.M.; Farrant, J.M.; Chitwood, D.H.; VanBuren, R. Global disparities in plant science: A legacy of colonialism, patriarchy, and exclusion. bioRxiv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stanistreet, P.; Elfert, M.; Atchoarena, D. Education in the age of COVID-19: Understanding the consequences. Int. Rev. Educ. 2020, 66, 627–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Srinivas, J.; Kolloju, N.; Singh, A.; Naveen, S.; Naresh, S. The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on sustainable development goals-2030. J. Knowl. Econ. 2024, 15, 15485–15498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Amano, T.; Ramírez-Castañeda, V.; Berdejo-Espinola, V.; Borokini, I.; Chowdhury, S.; Golivets, M.; González-Trujillo, J.D.; Montaño-Centellas, F.; Paudel, K.; White, R.L.; et al. The Manifold Costs of Being a Non-Native English Speaker in Science. PLoS Biol. 2023, 21, e3002184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Di Bitetti, M.S.; Ferreras, J.A. Publish (In English) or Perish: The Effect on Citation Rate of Using Languages Other Than English in Scientific Publications. AMBIO J. Hum. Environ. 2017, 46, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Horvath, S.M.; Muhr, M.M.; Kirchner, M.; Toth, W.; Germann, V.; Hundscheid, L.; Scherz, M.; Kreiner, H.; Fehr, F.; Borgwardt, F.; et al. Handling a complex agenda: A review and assessment of methods to analyse SDG entity interactions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 131, 160–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kashnitsky, Y.; Roberge, G.; Mu, J.; Kang, K.; Wang, W.; Vanderfeesten, M.; Rivest, M.; Chamezopoulus, S.; Jaworek, R.; Wignes, M.; et al. Evaluating approaches to identifying research supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2024, 5, 408–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. IPCC. 2023: Sections. In Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Core Writing Team, Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 35–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ngcamu, B.S. Climate change impacts on vulnerable populations in the global south: A systematic review. Nat. Hazards 2023, 118, 977–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. OECD. Better Policies for 2030: An OECD Action Plan on the Sustainable Development Goals; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2016; Available online: https://sdgtoolkit.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Better-policies-for-2030-an-OECD-action-plan-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-1.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  46. Siraj-Blatchford, J.; Mogharreban, C.; Park, E. International Research on Education for Sustainable Development in Early Childhood; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chapman, S.N.; O’Gorman, L. Transforming Learning Environments in Early Childhood Contexts Through the Arts: Responding to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Int. J. Early Child. 2022, 54, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rousell, D.; Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. A systematic review of climate change education: Giving children and young people a “voice” and a “hand” in redressing climate change. Child. Geogr. 2020, 18, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Eilam, E. Considering the role of behaviors in sustainability and climate change education. Front. Psychol. 2025, 15, 1394326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pauw, J.B.; de Petegem, P.V. The effect of eco-schools on children’s environmental values and behaviour. J. Biol. Educ. 2013, 47, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Niebert, K. Effective sustainability education is political education. Educ. J. Res. Debate 2019, 2, 5S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vogl, S. Mixed Methods Longitudinal Research. Forum Qual. Sozialforschung Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2023, 24, 4012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Smith, J.; Heyward, P. Policy efforts to meet UNESCO’s Sustainable development Goal 4: A 3-pronged approach. J. Educ. Teach. 2023, 50, 266–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Buetti, D.; Bourgeois, I. Developing an evaluation training program for community-based organizations: A participatory curriculum development approach. Can. J. Program Eval. 2024, 39, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mpuangnan, K.N.; Ntombela, S. Community voices in curriculum development. Curric. Perspect. 2024, 44, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Méndez, D.; Méndez, M.; Anguita, J.M. Digital Teaching Competence in Teacher Training as an Element to Attain SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). SDG 4 Report Calls to Double Finance for Education Monitoring; SDG Knowledge Hub: New York, NY, USA, 2024; Available online: https://sdg.iisd.org/news/sdg-4-report-calls-to-double-finance-for-education-monitoring/ (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  59. UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report. Monitoring SDG 4. 2025. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/reports/gem-report/en/2024-monitoringsdg4 (accessed on 28 July 2025).
Figure 1. Geographic context of production of the sample. Source: authors. Two papers were categorised in two regions: one was categorised as EUROPE and ASIA, and the other as EUROPE and AUSTRALIA due to their comparative approach.
Figure 1. Geographic context of production of the sample. Source: authors. Two papers were categorised in two regions: one was categorised as EUROPE and ASIA, and the other as EUROPE and AUSTRALIA due to their comparative approach.
Societies 15 00212 g001
Figure 2. Methodological approach of the sample. Source: authors.
Figure 2. Methodological approach of the sample. Source: authors.
Societies 15 00212 g002
Figure 3. Institutional levels of the sample. Source: authors.
Figure 3. Institutional levels of the sample. Source: authors.
Societies 15 00212 g003
Figure 4. Articles per year listed in SCOPUS. * The year 2025 does not cover the whole year because the last time the Scoping Review process took place was on 7 July 2025.
Figure 4. Articles per year listed in SCOPUS. * The year 2025 does not cover the whole year because the last time the Scoping Review process took place was on 7 July 2025.
Societies 15 00212 g004
Table 1. Selection process of this scoping review.
Table 1. Selection process of this scoping review.
StepNumber of Documents Left After Steps
1. Initial search:
Sustainable; Development; goals; Education;
Curricula; Curriculum; syllabus; SDG4
N = 132
2. Timeframe set to: 2020–2025N = 127
3. Inclusion subject areas: ‘Social Sciences’;
‘Psychology’
N = 85
4. Document-type set to ‘Article’N = 60
Table 3. Distribution of articles on research question three.
Table 3. Distribution of articles on research question three.
In total, there were 39 articles directly linked to curriculum development or proposing concrete changes to existing curricula.Articles: i2, i3, i4, i8, i9, i10, i11, i12, i14, i15, i16, i17, i18, i20, i22, i25, i26, i28, i29, i32, i33, i34, i35, i36, i37, i38, i42, i43, i45, i47, i48, i50, i51, i54, i55, i56, i57, i58, i60.
There were 17 publications that were related to implications for future curriculum development and that made recommendations or identified gaps that could be influenced by future curriculum development.Articles: i1, i5, i7, i13, i19, i21, i23, i27, i30, i31, i39, i40, i41, i46, i49, i53, i59.
Four articles were not specifiedArticles: i6, i24, i44, i52.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pham Xuan, R.; Håkansson Lindqvist, M. Exploring Sustainable Development Goals and Curriculum Adoption: A Scoping Review from 2020–2025. Societies 2025, 15, 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15080212

AMA Style

Pham Xuan R, Håkansson Lindqvist M. Exploring Sustainable Development Goals and Curriculum Adoption: A Scoping Review from 2020–2025. Societies. 2025; 15(8):212. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15080212

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pham Xuan, Robert, and Marcia Håkansson Lindqvist. 2025. "Exploring Sustainable Development Goals and Curriculum Adoption: A Scoping Review from 2020–2025" Societies 15, no. 8: 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15080212

APA Style

Pham Xuan, R., & Håkansson Lindqvist, M. (2025). Exploring Sustainable Development Goals and Curriculum Adoption: A Scoping Review from 2020–2025. Societies, 15(8), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15080212

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop