Teachers in Initial Training Facing the Sustainable Development Goals: A Comparative Study Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is one of the main challenges facing humanity. However, the fulfillment of these goals has been hampered by health and climate crises, as well as international conflicts. Despite this, it remains essential that work is carried out on these UN proposals in all areas, especially in education. This study aims to understand future teachers’ conceptions of the SDGs and the importance they give to teaching them. To do this, a non-experimental quantitative survey-type design was used to compare the results from two academic years (pre-pandemic and post-pandemic) in order to detect any differences. The information was collected via a questionnaire, which was completed by 364 students from the Degree in Primary Education course. The results show an increase in knowledge about the SDGs and a change in the assessment scale regarding the importance of each of its 17 goals. Likewise, there has been an increase in the students’ personal involvement in achieving them, linked to a more pessimistic position about their fulfillment. We conclude that there is a difference in the results between the two contexts, and that teaching about SDGs during teacher training should be reinforced.

1. Introduction

In 2015, world leaders agreed to work towards achieving 17 Sustainable Development Goals (hereinafter SDGs). This is a global challenge that seeks, among other things, to end poverty, protect the planet, and improve the lives and prospects of people around the world (United Nations 2015). These SDGs are part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (hereinafter SD), and were approved by all United Nations member states, who committed to achieving them within 15 years. However, despite the measures agreed, the truth is that progress has been slow (Moyer and Hedden 2020; Leal Filho et al. 2023c), since meeting these goals requires shared commitment at a global and a local level, as well as greater mobilization from public institutions, the private sector, and citizens.

Within this complex panorama, new challenges have arisen in recent years that have interrupted the scope of the SDGs and led to setbacks in areas such as health, employment, peace, and education, resulting in more poverty and hunger (Hernández-Castilla and Opazo 2020; Navarro 2020; Zhao et al. 2022). These challenges have been set out in the 2024 SDG Report (United Nations 2024), which details the important hurdles that the world must overcome to achieve these goals. According to the report, with only six years to go, current progress is far behind that required to meet the challenges proposed in 2015, unless massive investment and broader, more committed action is encouraged. The persisting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, escalating conflicts, geopolitical tensions, and growing climate chaos have seriously hindered progress, and generated economic and humanitarian crises. Inequalities continue to increase, progress towards gender equality has been disappointing, and international conflicts such as those in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan have left an unprecedented 120 million people forcibly displaced around the world. As a result, profound economic, social and political transformations are needed to meet all these demands.

Despite these difficulties, the commitment of universities to the SDGs is evident (Avelar et al. 2023). Studies such as those by Candela and Cano (2019), Garrido and González (2022) and Mundaca and Mundaca (2024) have highlighted how the alignment of European and Latin American universities with the SDGs has provided an opportunity for increasing inter-university collaboration and for reorganizing their political structures and strategies. In addition, it makes it possible to redirect educational and training processes towards developing the competencies and skills needed for the 21st century. The philosopher Martha Nussbaum (2012) expressed such a view. She advocated for university education that contemplates not only acquiring competencies aimed at professional development, but also at achieving social justice. However, not all the measures adopted have been sufficient, since it is still necessary to review university curricula and research projects to include the SDGs to a greater extent, strengthen networking and participation with local institutions, involve students more, and increase training opportunities focused on the SDGs that can prepare university staff to address this issue (Leal Filho et al. 2023b).

Regarding initial teacher training, and taking into account that SDG 4 is directly linked to improving educational quality, the integration of sustainable development in the training curricula of future teachers is essential. This also aligns with the requirements of the Spanish educational curriculum (LOMLOE) which, following the recommendations of the European Union Council and UNESCO, has integrated the SDGs as cross-curricular elements of learning. Undoubtedly, it is urgent that citizens are educated to participate in political, economic and social changes so as to promote social and environmental justice (Yemini et al. 2019). However, as García-Morís and Martínez-Medina (2022) point out, the success of the new curricular framework will undoubtedly depend on the quality of teacher training, since this is key to preparing competent teachers for curricular development that includes education in sustainability.

In the teacher-training context, the integration of this approach into university training programs has been noticeably gradual, and still requires improvement. Research carried out over recent years in the Spanish context has informed us of a general lack of knowledge regarding the UN proposal (Zamora-Polo et al. 2019; Gallardo-Milanés et al. 2019; López and Medina 2020; Felices-De la Fuente et al. 2022), as well as a certain tendency to almost exclusively comprehend SD as caring for the environment and actions such as recycling and saving water, ignoring other elements such as human rights, ending poverty and hunger, reducing social inequalities, and achieving gender equality, justice and peace, among others (López-Fernández and Oller 2019). At present, despite the advances in the knowledge and integration of sustainability within universities (Murga-Menoyo 2017; Lozano et al. 2019; Gutiérrez-Pérez and Poza Vilches 2022), the truth is that certain content improvements are still necessary in teacher-training degrees and curricula (Cobos and Romero 2020), in the work methodologies implemented, and in the involvement and training of university teachers themselves (Valderrama-Hernández et al. 2020; Lozano and Figueredo 2021). Along with all this, the interdisciplinary vision of sustainability must be reinforced, not only in terms of the environmental and natural science subjects (Hudler et al. 2019), but also in various disciplines linked to social, cultural, political, and economic aspects. Sustainable development is undoubtedly multifaceted, and must be addressed from a holistic perspective, since, as Lozano et al. (2023) point out, disciplinary thinking and the teachers’ resistance to include sustainability in their classes seem to be some of the reasons why the full integration of sustainable development in the university environment is being hindered.

Education in sustainability must become a critical and democratic process concerning the crisis of civilization and global change, a process that promotes training for action and reflection in the present and the future (Sánchez-Martín et al. 2017). Therefore, teachers (and teacher trainers) are needed who know how to position themselves in a globalized, complex and uncertain world. In turn, they help their students to understand the ethical implications of their actions and to address environmental, social and economic challenges, such as those present in our world, with sustainable behaviors. Nonetheless, all these expectations, as well as the measures and efforts adopted by universities, seem insufficient considering the limited impact on student learning experiences (Evans and Ferreira 2019), the limited knowledge they have of sustainability (Georgiou et al. 2021; Olmos-Gómez et al. 2019), the lack of proactivity when requesting more SDG-related teaching content and research opportunities, or the difficulties they encounter in identifying the multidisciplinary nature of sustainable development (García-González et al. 2020). Future teachers also indicate they do not feel qualified to educate in sustainability, or to educate their future students in these aspects (Dahl 2019).

Given these results, the role of university professors is key. Therefore, one of their main functions and responsibilities must be to prepare their student teachers to be able to build a citizenship prepared for the future, and to live with the uncertainty that surrounds us, influencing the way we observe the present and act in it (Santisteban and Jara 2020). Taking into account what has been stated above, it is worth asking to what extent teachers in initial training are aware of the 17 SDG proposal, what their conceptions of them are, and what importance they give to addressing them in their future professional practice in the context of Primary Education (hereinafter PE). To this end, the present research delves into these issues, using a case study approach and a comparative perspective that contrasts results collected in a pre-pandemic context (the 2019/2020 academic year) to those from a post-pandemic context (2022/2023).

This comparison is made because the pandemic highlighted (among other aspects) two realities: the interconnectivity of humanity, which faces the same challenges in a globalized world, and the need to transform a socioeconomic model that does not ensure the planet’s sustainability or the welfare of present and future generations. Since the pandemic, goals such as health, well-being and care for the environment have been more present than ever, increasing the population’s interest in these issues (Álvarez-García et al. 2023) and the importance of developing the 2030 Agenda proposals. In the political and institutional sphere, commitment to these principles has increased, at least theoretically. However, in the social sphere, the climatic and economic crises that have occurred since the pandemic have increased citizen discontent, as well as tensions and conflicts. This has even led to denialist discourses against compliance with the 2030 Agenda and its objectives (Schwörer and Fernández-García 2024), considering them to undermine the interests of certain production sectors (such as agriculture) and the well-being of citizens themselves. Students in initial teacher training are not immune to these discourses, and sometimes even support them, because they feel close to political positions that question the 2030 Agenda (Gruber 2025).

This research aims to verify whether there have been changes in the results from research previously carried out in the same context, which showed that students had only limited knowledge regarding the SDGs, and mainly comprehend them in terms of environmental issues (Felices-De la Fuente et al. 2023). We also start from the hypothesis that greater attention paid to the SDGs from the educational field in recent years will have led to transformations, both in knowledge and in the perceptions and commitments of our student teachers with regard to the SDGs.

For all the above reasons, the main objective of this research is to determine whether there have been changes in the conceptions and attitudes of future PE teachers regarding the SDGs, by comparing results obtained prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to those obtained afterwards. This research also looks in depth at the SDG training that students have received, and whether this content is being worked on by educational institutions. To delve deeper into this, three specific objectives (SOs) are proposed:

SO1. To explore students’ knowledge and representations of SD and the SDGs;

SO2. To investigate future teachers’ interest in the SDGs and their treatment in PE classrooms;

SO3. To identify the main obstacles that future teachers perceive when working on the SDGs in PE classrooms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

To realize the objectives proposed in this study, a non-experimental quantitative research survey has been designed, using a questionnaire as the instrument for collecting information. This type of research was chosen due to its versatility, efficiency, and generalization in the field of education (Hernández and Maquilón 2010). The questionnaire was given to the students during the 2019/2020 academic year, specifically at the end of February 2020, just before the State of Alarm was declared in our country as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently, following the recommencement of face-to-face classes in the 2022/2023 academic year, the information was collected again to contrast changes and continuities.

2.2. Participants

The study sample comprised a total of 364 participants (n = 364), of which 204 subjects completed the questionnaire before the pandemic and 160 afterwards (

Table 1. Sample distribution.

	Gender			Total
	Woman	Man	Lost
2019/2020	130	73	1	204
2022/2023	102	57	1	160

). All of them were students on the Degree in Primary Education course at the University of Almería. All were informed of the research objectives, the confidentiality and anonymity of the responses, and the voluntary nature of their participation. The total percentage of female participants was higher than that of men. Likewise, the percentage of female participants remained practically the same in both academic courses, at 63.7% in 2019/2020 and 63.8% in 2022/2023.

2.3. Instrument

An ad hoc questionnaire of a mixed nature was designed; this was composed of open questions and closed questions with multiple answers. Responses were given on a Likert scale with values ranging from 1 (“Totally disagree”) to 5 (“Totally agree”). It was developed based on an adaptation of the research carried out by Murga-Menoyo (2009) and was structured in three blocks with a total of 15 items (

Table 2. The instrument’s categories and items.

Block	Category	Items	Variable Type
1	Grouping variables	Age	Continuous
		Sex	Dichotomous
		University	Closed
		Training	Closed
2	Students’ prior ideas about SD, SDGs and their knowledge of the measures governments have adopted to achieve these goals	What do you understand by Sustainable Development?	Open
		What measures or actions do you know that current governments are taking to promote Sustainable Development?	Open
		What measures or actions do you think you can take, within your area of activity, to contribute to sustainable development?	Open
		Do you think it is possible to achieve more Sustainable Development and for Western societies to rethink their current economic, social and cultural organization, taking effective measures?	Scale 1 to 5
		Do you know of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development proposal, contained in 17 specific objectives?	Dichotomous
		To attain Sustainable Development, it is essential to achieve…	Multiple choice
		How would you rate (from 0 to 10) your involvement or interest in achieving Sustainable Development for the planet?	Scale 1 to 10
3	Students’ assessment of the SDGs as educational content and the possible limitations they think exist for addressing them in the classroom	In the international context, what lines of action or themes related to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals concern you most?	Multiple choice
		In your local environment (town, city, neighborhood, etc.), what lines of action or themes related to Sustainable Development concern you most?	Multiple choice
		As a teacher, what lines of action or topics related to Sustainable Development would you urgently work on in your classroom?	Multiple choice
		Which of the following aspects do you think could be a brake or obstacle to working on these types of topics at school?	Multiple choice

).

This tool was disseminated via Google Forms to obtain more responses and facilitate access to it.

2.4. Information Analysis Procedure

The information collected via the questionnaire was analyzed using the SPSS v27.0 statistical program, carrying out a longitudinal analysis (pre- and post-pandemic) using a descriptive approach (frequency, trend, and mean in the responses) along with an inferential analysis, which included identifying significant differences (Sig > 0.05) in the pre and post distribution, a Student’s t-test to identify the relationship between the dichotomous scale variables, and a chi square test for the categorical variables. At the same time, Pearson correlation tests were conducted on the scale variables (Items II.4 and II.7). In all cases, those tests that presented a significant outcome in the specific tests (and in the results obtained) are indicated.

As for the qualitative information, the content analysis technique (Boronat 2005) was used, employing an inductive coding process to reduce the responses to thematic or lexical units, and quantifying them to detect trends. To do this, the Voyant Tools text analysis application was used, which measured the frequency of the terms and the correlations between them.

2.5. Ethical Aspects

To undertake this research, consent was obtained from each of the participating students. In addition, the guidelines and considerations of the University of Almería’s Bioethics Commission were followed.

3. Results

3.1. Knowledge, Involvement, and Expectation Linked to the SDGs and SD

The first and most notable result when comparing the student responses before and after the pandemic is the increase in knowledge about the United Nations’ proposal on sustainable development. In 2020, only 12.7% of students stated they were aware of this proposal, whereas in 2023, the percentage of students aware of it had risen to 34.4% (Figure 1).

Regarding the future teachers’ involvement in and expectation of achieving the SDGs, we can state that there were no statistically significant differences before and after the pandemic. However, it should be noted that there is a slight increase in involvement and interest, while the hope for change has decreased (

Table 3. Involvement in and expectation of change in Sustainable Development.

		How Would You Rate (from 0 to 10) Your Involvement or Interest in Achieving Sustainable Development for the Planet?			Do You Think It Is Possible to Achieve More Sustainable Development and for Western Societies to Rethink Their Current Economic, Social and Cultural Organization, Taking Effective Measures?
		$\overline{\mathbf{X}}$	σ	Trend	$\overline{\mathbf{X}}$	σ	Trend
2019/2020	Women	6.85	1.62	7	4.12	0.88	4
	Men	6.70	1.59	7	3.81	0.98	4
	Subtotal	6.79	1.61	7	4.00	0.93	4
2022/2023	Women	7.06	1.33	7	4.06	0.76	4
	Men	6.61	1.54	7	3.79	1.01	4
	Subtotal	6.90	1.42	7	3.96	0.86	4
Total	Women	6.94	1.50	7	4.09	0.82	4
	Men	6.66	1.56	7	3.80	0.99	4

). As we have indicated, the differences are not statistically significant in either case, and a longer-term longitudinal analysis is required to confirm the increase in interest and the decrease in the expectation for change.

There is a marked difference between the groups before and after the pandemic. In the pre-pandemic study, a direct, albeit low, correlation was observed between involvement and expectation (Pearson’s r 0.24), which was not detected or was practically non-existent in the post-pandemic course (Pearson’s r 0.05). At the same time, in the 2020 course, there were no differences in the variables linked to gender—something that has changed in the most recent study (2023), with statistically significant differences appearing between men and women. After the pandemic, women were more hopeful than men that sustainable development is possible and that effective measures for change can be taken (Sig. 0.29), while also declaring themselves more involved (Sig. 0.35).

With regard to the students’ prior ideas about SD and the SDGs, an adequate recognition or conceptualization of the term “Sustainable Development” is observed in both cases, albeit with a clear common denominator relating to the environment, a term that is repeated 38 times in the pre-pandemic responses and 58 times in 2023. This result indicates a clear increase in the link between the SDGs and the environment in the 2022–2023 academic year, and, on the other hand, a decrease in historical–civic awareness, since the appearance of the term “generations” (future) was lower, appearing 27 times in 2020 but only 11 times in 2023 (Figure 2). In this sense, it is worth highlighting a greater interest in the social aspect, given that there is a significant tendency to link the terms “needs” (n = 48 occurrences) and “generations” (n = 27) with the words “future” (n = 14), “futures” (n = 24) and “commit” (n = 14) in the quantitative analysis of the responses from the 2019–2020 academic year. The 2020 results show a concern for the need to responsibly use resources in the present so as not to compromise the well-being of future generations. This approach coincides with the definition of SD offered by the United Nations, although, in 2023, it does not appear in the responses. The definitions given for SD in 2023 are not related to social issues, and the terms “future” or “futures” appear only 26 times in all.

This connection between SD and the environment is also observed when students are asked about the measures that governments are taking to ensure the sustainability of societies. As shown in Figure 3, the measures that stand out are those that guarantee environmental protection and a reduction in the impact of climate change. This is confirmed by counting the terms, with the most often repeated in both cases being recycling (n = 19 and n = 23), renewable energies (n = 9 and n = 24), subsidies for electric cars or a ban on diesel cars (n = 15 and n = 14), and support for public transport (n = 10 and n = 8)—measures that are again almost exclusively linked to the environment and the climate action SDG (SDG 13).

The most significant aspect that stands out here is the high number of responses (in both groups) indicating that no measures are being taken or that the students claim not to be aware of any specific action being implemented in this regard. Adding both percentages together, we find that almost a third of the sample (32.3%) in 2020 and just over a fifth (22.1%) in 2023 express attitudes of ignorance or skepticism in relation to the commitment made by governments to ensure SD and to achieve the SDGs over the coming years.

When students were asked about the actions they could take to contribute to SD within their personal sphere of action, they again recognized recycling (n = 72 and n = 64), reducing consumption, using water responsibly (n = 61 and n = 51), and using public transport (n = 30 and n = 27) as the main measures available, as shown in Figure 4. Alongside these, other frequently repeated measures appear, such as renewable energies (n = 9 and n = 24), reducing electricity consumption (n = 16 and n = 14), and using the car less (n = 9 and n = 7), all of which are related to responsible consumption and respect for the environment.

The results link SD almost exclusively to the environment, something that was confirmed when the participants were asked what they consider needs to be done to achieve adequate SD (Figure 5). In both cases, environmental protection, responsible consumption, and stopping climate change were the most frequently mentioned actions. Furthermore, it turns out that the percentage of students that opted for these issues increased after the pandemic, while the percentage of students who were in favor of seeking global economic growth and promoting fairer situations for all societies decreased. It is also important to point out that the most significant change was the increase in the number of responses mentioning the goal related to achieving peace, justice and strong institutions, with an 11.5% increase compared to the pre-pandemic context.

3.2. Interest in the SDGs and Their Treatment in the Classroom

To discover the interest that the SDGs aroused in future teachers, the participants were questioned in two ways. On the one hand, the aim was to explore the importance they attached to each of the goals, both in the global and local context; and on the other, to delve into how they value the integration of these topics in the classroom, thinking in terms of their future professional teaching careers.

In the results relating to the global or international context, the most prominent SDGs were ending poverty (SDG 1), good health and well-being (SDG 3), and quality education (SDG 4). We link the last of these results to the relationship that the respondents (future teachers) have with education. But the most notable finding (Figure 6) is the increased importance students gave after the pandemic to issues such as health and well-being (SDG 3), quality education (SDG 4), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), and peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16). For these goals, the percentage of students who care about them has increased considerably (by more than 10%). At the same time, we observed a decrease in the importance given to gender equality (SDG 5), access to water (SDG 6), and climate action (SDG 13).

These results show significant differences (Sig > 0.05) between the assessments made by men and women regarding some of the SDGs in the international context, as well as some longitudinal changes. In the pre-pandemic period, women were more interested in gender equality (SDG 5) and responsible production and consumption (SDG 12) than men, a result that is not repeated in the 2023 test. Likewise, before the pandemic, men were more interested in affordable and clean energy (SDG 7) and climate action (SDG 13). The only significant differences observed in the 2023 test are the men’s greater interest in industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), and in improving global partnerships between governments (SDG 17).

As for those SDGs that are of most concern in the immediate or local environment (Figure 7), these vary from those indicated in the international context. The most notable aspects in both academic courses are quality education (SDG 4), health and well-being (SDG 3), and gender equality (SDG 5). Regarding the international context, concern for health and well-being increased significantly, whereas it was gender equality that did so in the local context. Conversely, interest in ending poverty dropped, probably because this aspect, although extremely important, is not considered in terms of the immediate environment. Also notable was the low interest in having access to clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), a fact that is surprising in a semi-arid region with an economy linked to greenhouse production, where access to water and its scarcity generates ever greater problems.

From one academic year to the next, the importance of health and well-being (SDG 3) and quality education (SDG 4) again stands out, but the most significant changes occurred in goals such as access to water (SDG 6) and peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16). In the former, interest in having access to water decreased considerably, while in the latter, the percentage of concern about achieving goal 16 (aimed at achieving peace, justice and strong institutions) increased by 13.8%.

It should be noted that the differences observed between women and men in the international context disappeared at the immediate (or local) context level in both courses, apart from the greater interest shown by men in industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9).

From an educational perspective, the SDGs considered most valued to work on in the classroom in 2020 were gender equality (61.8%) and quality education (60.8%). However, in 2023, health and well-being (53.8%) stand out among the most urgent to address in the classroom, while the percentage of future teachers concerned about achieving quality education dropped considerably (46.3%). Once again, we observe an increase in concern for peace, justice and strong institutions (33.8%), which represents an increase of 13.8% (Figure 8).

In the pre-pandemic responses, we found differences between men and women. While women were more interested in life in terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15) and ending poverty (SDG 1), men showed greater interest in affordable and clean energy (SDG 7). These differences did not appear after the pandemic. However, it is interesting to note that, in 2020, women were more interested in working in the classroom on topics such as global partnerships between governments striving for sustainable development (SDG 17), whereas after the pandemic, men were significantly more interested in this SDG than before.

Finally, a question was included in the questionnaire to find out which elements future teachers thought might hinder the integration of the SDGs or other socio-environmental issues (local or global) in PE classrooms. The results (Figure 9) show that the curriculum is considered the main obstacle to working on the SDGs in the classroom in both courses (60.3% and 59.4%). There is also a notable increase in concern about the content and the social reactions that working on the SDGs in the classroom might generate in the environment. Consequently, future teachers are increasingly concerned about aspects such as families (increasing by 16.9%), social implications (increasing by 11.9%) and school teams (10.1%).

4. Discussion

Returning to the specific research objectives, if we look at the first one (SO1: to explore the students’ knowledge and representations of sustainable development and the SDGs), we observe that there has been a slight increase in the percentage of students who know the goals proposed by the UN. Thus, while in the 2019/2020 academic year, only 12.7% knew how to identify what the SDGs were, by the 2022/2023 academic year, this percentage had risen to 34.4%. Despite this improvement, the truth is that a state of ignorance prevails overall (65.6%). These results are similar to those shown in other research studies (Zamora-Polo et al. 2019; Gallardo-Milanés et al. 2019; López and Medina 2020; Felices-De la Fuente et al. 2022; Aguiriano et al. 2023), indicating the need to integrate the SDGs in teacher training plans to a greater extent, either in a cross-curricular fashion (across all subjects taught) or in specific modules that reinforce this learning.

There has also been a slight increase in student involvement, interest, and awareness of the SDGs, a trend already noted by Clemens et al. (2020), although there has also been a decrease in expectations for change, along with a certain pessimism. These results coincide with those provided by Mediavilla et al. (2020) and Alberdi and Corrales (2024), who, in their research on future teachers, warn of the less optimistic view that students have and their concern about such issues, especially environmental problems.

In our study, it should be noted that, despite the decrease in the level of confidence in achieving sustainability, the truth is that women are more hopeful and involved than men. This trend has also been observed in works such as that by Leiva-Brondo et al. (2022), carried out with university students from the Polytechnic University of Valencia, or that by Aleixo et al. (2021) in the Portuguese context, which analyzed the perceptions of Higher Education students in relation to SD. They show greater sensitivity in women towards environmental problems, greater concern about the responsibility that governments have in these issues, and greater involvement in frequent reuse and reduction practices.

Another notable result is the decrease in references to future generations, recognizing them as a stakeholder involved in our current commitment to sustainability. This denotes a lower historical–civic awareness in students, who only project themselves into the present, without taking into account the future implications of their actions. In this sense, it would be important to intervene in training to promote the responsible use of resources and not compromise the survival of future generations (Lozano and Fernández 2020). Along with this result, another aspect that remains, and has even increased, is the assimilation between sustainability and the environment, while leaving aside the economy and society as concepts that also interrelate with sustainability. As some authors have shown (Díaz-Moreno et al. 2019; Felices-De la Fuente et al. 2022; Lozano et al. 2023), university students by and large link SD to the environment, but not to other areas covered by the SDGs. Future teachers seem more concerned about the consequences of climate change (Alberdi and Corrales 2024), however, they do not recognize actions aimed at changing and improving other areas, which are equally important for SD at the local and global level, related to the social, economic, or political contexts.

This predominance of the environment in the students’ conceptions was also reflected in the results from the questions asking about the measures that they believe governments are adopting to achieve the SDGs, or those that they themselves can adopt (in terms of personal behaviors) to ensure sustainability. In both cases, actions aimed at protecting the environment and reducing the impact of climate change are highlighted more than any others, ignoring measures linked to the socioeconomic, institutional or political spheres. Therefore, amongst the governmental or individual measures for achieving the SDGs, those aimed at reducing poverty, hunger, and social inequalities, and guaranteeing human rights or gender equality, are overlooked. Such results are not exclusive to our research, as similar studies have shown how future teachers in initial training do not usually recognize the multidimensionality of SD (Moreno-Crespo and Moreno-Fernández 2015; Martínez 2018; Gallardo-Milanés et al. 2019; Lozano and Figueredo 2021).

From our standpoint, it is important to highlight the wide presence of the term “water” (from a responsible-use approach) in the results related to the governmental and individual actions necessary to achieve SD. This fact is explained, in our opinion, by the geographical context from which the sample comes, the province of Almería, a region where water, as a resource, is an increasingly scarce commodity and essential for an economy based on greenhouses and tourism, a sectoral relationship that generates great controversy due to its use and management (Díaz-Moreno 2016). This reality, which is at the forefront of the students’ minds, has been related to responsible consumption, one of the main measures that have begun to be implemented, both by local and regional institutions, as well as by the citizens themselves.

Returning to the questions that asked students about the measures they believe governments are taking to promote SD, it should be noted that, in addition to linking these measures mainly to the environment, the truth is that there is also a certain lack of knowledge and skepticism regarding the commitment made by governments to ensure SD, and whether the SDGs will be achieved over the coming years. The percentages in this regard have decreased slightly from 32.3% to 22.1% (recorded in the 2022/2023 academic year), which shows that students are somewhat more aware of the actions being carried out, probably as a result of greater knowledge about the SDGs.

In terms of the SDGs to which participants attach the greatest importance, and taking into account the predominant association made between SD and the environment, we observe that the most valued goals are precisely those linked to responsible consumption and climate action, which have been receiving greater attention since the pandemic. Likewise, there has also been a significant rise in interest regarding SDG 16 related to achieving peace, justice and strong institutions, this being the most significant novelty compared to the results from the 2019/2020 academic year. This increase might be explained by the fact that the 2022–2023 academic year survey was carried out a few months after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, a conflict that has revealed the complex balance of political and economic interests of the powers in a globalized world, and that has challenged any attempt at agreement and understanding between the warring blocs. Moreover, from the beginning, the war significantly affected the European economy, causing prices to rise and shortages of certain products to occur. These events have probably led to a greater appreciation by students of aspects such as peace and the importance in the 21st century of having solid, democratic governments and institutions that reject war and do not violate human rights.

Regarding the second specific research objective (SO2: to investigate future teachers’ interest in the SDGs and their treatment in PE classrooms), we see that, in the global context, the SDGs for which there is the most interest are the end of poverty (SDG 1), health and well-being (SDG 3) and quality education (SDG 4). We observe, therefore, that in the global context after the pandemic, problems linked to health and the economic recession are clearly seen in the students’ responses. They are aware of the international context, which is marked by a global health, political and economic crisis, and which also impacts the near and immediate context. In this sense, the increased importance that students attach after the pandemic to issues such as health and well-being (SDG 3), quality education (SDG 4), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8) and peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16) is noteworthy. In these goals, the percentage of students who care about them has increased considerably, by over 10%. At the same time, there has been a decrease in the assessment of goals such as gender equality (SDG 5), access to water (SDG 6), and climate action (SDG 13), which are given less importance.

In terms of the local context, quality education (SDG 4) and good health and well-being (SDG 3) are widely included in the responses, and there is growing interest in poverty eradication (SDG 1), decent work (SDG 8) and peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16). However, there is less attention paid to gender equality (SDG 5), sustainable cities (SDG 11), clean energy (SDG 7) or access to clean water and sanitation (SDG 6).

Regarding SDG assessment, this seems to vary depending on the context (international/global or near/local) in which the SDGs are framed, except for SDG 4, relating to quality education, and SDG 3, relating to health and well-being, which were considered priorities in both contexts. We interpret this result as a direct consequence of the research participants’ profile given that, as future teachers, they consider education essential for achieving social transformation and greater levels of equality and well-being. Likewise, having gone through a pandemic would explain their greater concern for health and well-being, given the boredom and frustration that the confinement period and online classes have aroused in university students (Gómez et al. 2022).

A striking fact is that, despite the participants’ initial interest in environmental care and protection, when asked about the SDG assessment, goals such as climate action (SDG 13) took a backseat. Even more significant is the scant consideration given to objectives such as life below water (SDG 14) or life on land (SDG 15), despite being closely linked to environmental protection, and despite the majority of participants linking SD with the environment. Consequently, when comparing the students’ conceptions of the SDGs with their assessment of them, certain contradictions are observed, probably due to the limited knowledge that participants continue to have about SD, the SDGs, and the elements to which they are related (Baena-Morales et al. 2022).

If we look at the educational field, differences in the assessments are again observed—whereas in 2019/2020, the SDGs most closely related to education and their treatment in the classroom were gender equality (61.8%) and quality education (60.8%), in 2022/2023, health and well-being (53.8%) became one of the most urgent goals to address in school, with the percentage referring to quality education decreasing considerably (down to 46.3%). Once again, however, we observe an increase in concern for peace, justice and strong institutions (33.8%). This result shows the importance of the social context when choosing the topics of interest to bring to the classroom.

Finally, with regard to the third specific objective of the study (SO3: to identify the main obstacles that future teachers perceive when working on the SDGs in PE classrooms), one finds that the curriculum continues to be the element conceived as the major obstacle, as it receives the highest percentages, both in the pre-pandemic context and afterwards. This result highlights the need to continue working in initial training to deconstruct the epistemological conceptions of future teachers regarding social knowledge, thus transforming the representation they have of the curriculum as an impediment that stops them from using problematizing approaches to teaching and learning, linked to the local and global environment, which help develop social and civic competences (Pagès 2019). Despite the experiences developed in the university training framework on the ways the curriculum can address controversial issues (Felices-De la Fuente 2021), the data show how important it is to delve deeper into this approach, especially by taking into account the LOMLOE principles, which are fully aligned with the SDGs.

Along with the curriculum, there are other obstacles that are considered more in the post-pandemic context, such as families, school management teams, the personal and emotional implications for teachers of dealing with these issues in the classroom, and the students’ own skills and abilities in dealing with them. In this regard, authors such as Washington and Humphries (2011) have already pointed out the emotional and/or intellectual immaturity of students as a possible obstacle to addressing these issues in the classroom, since students might feel upset or uncomfortable about them. It should be noted that these same obstacles have also been highlighted in similar research (Zembylas and Kambani 2012; Jerome and Elwick 2019; Reiss 2019; Ortega-Sánchez and Pagès 2020; López and Felices-De la Fuente 2023), focused on recognizing the limiting factors that teachers encounter when addressing controversial topics. Finally, programming development and teacher training are aspects that are considered less, as they are not seen as limiting when working on the SDGs in the classroom.

5. Conclusions

One of the conclusions highlighted by this study is the widespread lack of knowledge about the proposed SDGs on the part of future PE teachers. There is also a disconnect between the teaching students’ representations of the goals proposed by the UN and their true nature, which encompasses measures that go beyond environmental protection and the fight against climate change. In this sense, future teachers seem to be aware of the needs facing humanity, but they do not draw a relationship between these needs and the documents prepared by the UN aimed at tackling such challenges; nor do they seem to be sure of how to integrate these goals into their classes to generate new knowledge that stimulates responsible and committed behavior, not only at a local level, but also globally.

On the other hand, a prevalent link is also detected between sustainable development and environmental care and climate change repercussions, ignoring the multidimensional nature of SD. This considerably limits the view that future teachers have of SD, of the SDGs, and how they should be worked on in the classroom. By comparing the pre- and post-pandemic contexts, we have verified that the aspects indicated (the students’ lack of knowledge regarding the SDG proposal and the link between SD and the environment) show continuity in the results. However, changes were observed in how the students consider the UN goals and in the concern these goals arouse in them at the global, local, and educational levels. Hence, the results extracted at each moment (pre-pandemic and post-pandemic) have clearly been conditioned by the situation in which the survey was applied, with the students considering the SDGs, and their importance, differently. In addition, different levels of expectation have been observed regarding the achievement of these goals, with a decrease in confidence that they can be attained, yet, at the same time, optimism about being able to act or intervene to bring about change.

As for the study implications, these are diverse. Firstly, the results achieved show the need to reinforce the SDGs in teacher-training programs in three ways: by increasing knowledge about them, by developing the future teachers’ personal skills to allow them to believe in their capacity for action, and by providing teaching skills that enable SDG integration, taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the curriculum to do so. Consequently, the university must become an active agent of social transformation, adding to its academic role by fostering awareness, sensitization, and communication to implement these goals (García and Herranz 2021).

Furthermore, it will be important to clearly define what sustainability training we want to provide. For their part, Lozano et al. (2023), taking up the analysis of Pashby et al. (2020), alert us to the existence of sustainability teaching that is linked to neoliberalism now being applied to global citizenship education, even seeing it being interwoven with social justice and humanistic intentions. Through this orientation, local and individual issues are transferred to supranational legal frameworks, such as the United Nations, where relations are global and between countries, thus disguising the lack of commitment to structural inequalities. The cited authors propose an alternative, one to which we adhere, namely, a critical- or post-critical approach to global citizenship education that changes the status quo, defends human rights, and becomes transformative and anti-oppressive. However, all of this requires rethinking the approaches and perspectives from which the SDGs are addressed. As López et al. (2024) pointed out, the results of this and other similar research require a review of university educational policies in order to promote knowledge and to work on the SDGs with the future teaching staff, since it is this group that will promote and disseminate the objectives of the 2030 Agenda in the classrooms (Vega-Marcote et al. 2015).

For our part, as teacher educators, we are committed to building a more sustainable model that guarantees the well-being of all humanity and is based on principles such as solidarity, empathy, social justice, and equal opportunities from the human rights perspective (Westheimer 2022; Lozano and Fernández 2021). To this end, at the university level, it is essential to work on the SDGs within the framework of all subjects and, especially, those linked to teaching social sciences and developing global citizenship (Medina 2020). Likewise, we consider that the relationship between the SDGs and curricular knowledge should be included in the training of future education professionals. All of this contributes to sustainable skills training, and helps to avoid contextual fears, as well as making future teachers aware of the importance of educating students to participate in political, economic and social changes, which require development based on social and environmental justice (Murga-Menoyo 2018).

In accordance with the approaches of Parra et al. (2020), we also believe that training in SD (and for SD) should aspire to learning oriented towards sustainability, resilience, and the acquisition of skills through personal experiences in Education for Sustainability that contemplate collective problem-solving processes. These experiences enhance one’s ability to link knowledge with action, and with the ability to work in teams and in different knowledge communities. Both we, as teacher educators, and the future teachers themselves must engage with other parts of society to transform it into a more sustainable society through education, providing knowledge, attitudes and values oriented towards responsibility and action. It would also be advantageous to maintain an open conversation with institutions to encourage policy-makers to make appropriate decisions (Seed 2019).

As for the study’s limitations, the first to note is that our work was conducted in only one university with a limited sample, so it would be desirable to expand the sample and replicate the study in other universities. It would also be pertinent to check whether successive Climate Summits, as well as the events we are witnessing (wars, an increase in poverty and inequality, natural disasters, etc.), have led to a change in the future teachers’ involvement and commitment to the SDGs. As a prospective extension of this work, it would be of great interest to propose new research lines that analyze the study plans, as Serrate et al. (2019) did, and the views of university professors regarding the incorporation of these contents in their teaching programs. The results obtained also encourage us to continue investigating the differences between genders with respect to each of the SDGs, and how these are addressed in formal educational contexts (Morote and Hernández 2022).

We conclude that university education, and the university as a public institution, can provide numerous opportunities that contribute to change and to building social awareness, since they can integrate SDG content into their study plans. They can also involve the student community and citizens in an active commitment to achieving these goals (Leal Filho et al. 2023a). For all these reasons, as far as initial teacher training is concerned, it is essential to work on this perspective with our students if we truly aspire to transform education, and for it to become a springboard for changing the world (Collazo and Geli 2017). Finally, we would like to point out that this research has given us the opportunity to reflect on University Social Responsibility (Martínez-Usarralde et al. 2017) by proving that our teaching work can complete, through incorporating the SDGs, the comprehensive training of a more critical global citizenship in an interconnected world.