Quality Education for Sustainable Development: Evolving Pedagogies to Maintain a Balance Between Knowledge, Skills, and Values-Case Study of Saudi Universities

Abstract

Ozone depletion, global warming, soil degradation, etc., could be, to a great extent, instrumental in making our Earth an unsafe place. Therefore, to prevent further damage, Article 6 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) emphasizes spreading awareness among the members of the planetary community to protect the planet. The study aims to identify teaching pedagogies that can effectively develop awareness and responsibility among university youth for a sustainable future. The study adopts an exploratory triangulation approach and uses three instruments: a closed-ended questionnaire, a focus group interview, and a comparative performance of control and experimental groups. Fifty-one faculties from two government universities of Saudi Arabia: Qassim University, Qassim, and Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj along with 47 students pursuing conversation courses at Level Three in Prince Sattam University participated in the study. JASP 0.9 open-source software was used for statistical analysis. The results revealed that constructivist inquiry-based approaches promoted sustainable development education.

1. Introduction

On 25 September 2015, the Agenda for Sustainable Development was set by the global leaders to eradicate poverty and provide a safe environment, thus protecting the planet and ensuring prosperity. Based on the success of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), on 1 January 2016, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) also known as the Global Goals of the 2030 Agenda were announced. In the 2030 Agenda of the United Nations, “quality education” and “industry, innovation, and infrastructure” were included among the 17 SDGs. Though they were introduced in 2017, serious concerns about sustainability started gaining momentum during the post-pandemic period.

In line with what Nelson Mandela stated, “Education is the most powerful weapon we can use to change the world”, the United Nations has timely stressed the involvement of mass right from grass root level, especially, youth playing an instrumental role in achieving a sustainable future. For this purpose, UNO has introduced Sustainability Education (SE) as a holistic approach to developing knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes to enable decision-making and actions that advance sustainable development. Sustainable education is considered imperative particularly at the higher education level to contribute to the new generation’s understanding of what sustainability entails. To promote sustainability policies and implementations, Green Audits introduced by the National Academic Accreditation Committee (NAAC) to evaluate an organisation’s environmental performance. Green Audits include the assessment of (a) environmental impact such as: water consumption, energy usage, etc. (b) waste management with an emphasis on minimizing waste and promoting recycling, (c) Sustainable Practice: incorporation of green infrastructure and eco-friendly transportation, and (d) curriculum integration: integrating sustainability-related topics into curricula to promote awareness about environmental challenges. Thus, Green Audits ensure that educational institutions play an important role in shaping the attitudes and behaviors of youth.

Quality in education is influenced by what the learners have learned and the methodology in which they learn. Concerning imparting sustainability education, quality education focuses on three aspects: (a) knowledge-fostering environmental and social awareness and developing a deeper understanding of the environmental and social challenges [1], (b) developing critical thinking skills and equipping individuals with the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate information, make informed decisions, and solve complex problems and [2], (c) values: empowering individuals to understand the impact of their actions on the environment and society, enabling them to make more sustainable choices in their daily lives [3,4]. Incorporating sustainability in imparting quality education can be accelerated through Green Pedagogy. Originally developed in Austria in Germany, it is a teaching method that helps students learn by exploring and understanding their values. It is beneficial for incorporating sustainable practices into lessons, following guidelines from the UN Sustainability Goals. This approach benefits teachers by allowing them to teach both subject-specific and sustainability skills at the same time. It means that sustainability does not need to be a separate topic but can be integrated into many parts of the curriculum. Instead of forcing teachers’ values onto students, Green Pedagogy helps students discover their values through the learning process. It also encourages students to think about how different people are affected by issues, highlighting the importance of sustainability. The Green Pedagogy approach is based on well-known pedagogical theories such as constructivism, experiential learning, and conceptual change.

Research Problem

The 2030 Agenda expects the teaching fraternity to foster a comprehensive grasp of sustainability and support its integration into its teaching practices. Although the importance of integrating sustainability is acknowledged, there is still some reluctance about how it is incorporated into higher education. Even in developed nations, sustainability education is often overlooked in mainstream educational systems. Sustainability Education (SE) is progressively being integrated into both formal and informal educational settings across all levels. According to a UNESCO report [5], by 2020, 84% of countries had included SE in their education policies and curricula at primary, secondary, or tertiary levels. However, a significant gap persists between policy and practice, and SE has not been fully realized in many countries. Therefore, the research aims to highlight the necessity of delivering high-quality education in sustainability, emphasizing three key areas: knowledge, skills, and values. It specifically addresses environmental sustainability, social sustainability, education for sustainable development (ESD), and green skills education. The following research questions guided this study: (1) To what extent are the academicians familiar with utilizing theoretical frameworks and Green Pedagogical approaches for the design and delivery of Sustainable Education at the University level? (2) How does course delivery based on Green pedagogical approaches develop and facilitate sustainable education in learners?

2. Literature Review

“ESD is both holistic and transformational, it demands an action-oriented transformative pedagogy. This is characterized by self-directed learning, participation and collaboration, problem-orientation, and inter and transdisciplinary. Such pedagogical approaches are essential to the development of the competencies needed to promote sustainable development” [6]. Pedagogies and learning approaches included in ESD draw on earlier work in environmental education, global citizenship education, and experiential education. Education for sustainability employs innovative teaching and learning for sustainability [7]. Pedagogies in ESD are community-oriented [7] and should follow appropriate novel innovative teaching and learning student-activating approaches [8]. However, Pedagogical innovation is only recognized in institutions that prioritize student learning [9]. The framework for Education for Sustainable Development emphasizes the importance of providing high-quality education for sustainable development by utilizing various pedagogical approaches through a multi-method approach. UNESCO (2017, 2023) [10,11] outlined five pedagogical approaches in Education for Sustainable Development: “Critical reflection comprises reflexive accounts, learning journals, and group discussions. (a) Systemic thinking and analysis cover real-world and project-based learning that uses the local campus as a source of stimulus activities. (b) Thinking creatively for future scenarios focuses on role-play, the real world, future visioning, and (c) problem-based learning that provides space for emergence. (d) Participatory learning encompasses experiential learning, action research/learning to act, case studies with local people and businesses, and peer and group conversational learning. (e) Collaborative learning: includes Collaboration and work-based learning, both interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary”. Other popular approaches are activity-based learning which involves learners with stimulating activities to match specific learning outcomes, inquiry-based learning which encourages higher levels of thinking, using virtual reality technology, blended Learning, 3D printing, the design-thinking process, and project work based on real-life experiences [12]. ESD should be ‘Interdisciplinary and holistic’ [11], to incorporate sustainability into curricula, offering teachers training on sustainability principles, and implementing capacity-building programs, to achieve sustainable education. “UNESCO (2014)”. “We need a curriculum that can adapt and evolve as needs change” (Report of the Council of Skills Advisers, 2023: 8). Westover [13] called for integrating environmental education in all the subjects taught. Wall and, Hindley [14] advocated curriculum reform, the worldwide shift in curriculum design from emphasizing subject-based knowledge acquired through teacher-led instruction to valuing knowledge for practical use and problem-solving gained through self-regulated learning and collaboration. Quendler et al. [15] explored SD competence, knowledge, and skills needed in the workplace, and reported that promoting SD demands a high level of knowledge, and skills to reflect job requirements, course design, and teaching techniques in HE. He highlighted the need for knowledge of the environment, natural resources, biodiversity ecological integrity, skills in efficiency, leadership, sustainable planning effective communication, system thinking, and analysis of environmental problems. They recommend that empirical evidence is needed to verify the benefits of these in a real-world domain. Pouratashi and Zamani [16] discussed University students’ level of knowledge, attitude, and behavior toward sustainable development and found a significant relationship between knowledge, attitude, and behavior. However, El-Kholei and Yassein [17] investigated students’ knowledge, attitude, and practices and their sustainability awareness. They went further to see if education made any prompt changes in students’ behaviors, and the role of instructors to maintain sustainability. Two methods were used: document analysis to study plans and course specifications, and a questionnaire distributed to public, private, and international school students. The results showed no significant correlation between students’ knowledge and sustainability awareness. Arasinah [18] explored incorporating green skills in the sustainable development of PTV in Education Sustainability Development (ESD) to preserve the environment and found significant results. They ensured the country needs to implement these measures to transmit to a low-carbon economy. McGrath, Powell and Skills [19] examined VET (vocational educational training) development skills for sustainable development for the welfare of the people, society, and the planet, developing “skills for work, that is decent, life-enhancing, solidaristic, environmentally-sensitive and intergenerationally-aware” [19]. UNESCO has developed GCE (Global Citizenship Education) that focuses on all aspects of learning, recognizing the need for education to go beyond just knowledge and cognitive skills to foster values, soft skills, and attitudes that can encourage global cooperation and societal change (UNESCO, 2014: 9). Lozano [12] investigated the connections between sustainability teaching, sustainability competencies, and pedagogical approaches used. The results showed that sustainability in higher education can be achieved by using pedagogical approaches that address competencies. Ekselsa, Purwianingsih, Anggraeni, and Wicaksono [20] intended to develop high school students’ thinking skills through ESD-laden project-based learning on environmental change material. The results showed a moderate development of students’ systems thinking skills, due to project-based learning containing Education for Sustainable Development. Libertson [21] examined incorporating Intra-Personal Skills in Education for Sustainable Development. The results revealed that intra-personal skills need to be formally included in education, and students should receive intra-personal skills training. Janssens [22] examined how the European agencies of quality assurance support transformative learning for sustainable development. Word frequency analysis and a coding approach were used to collect data to ensure the inclusion of transformative learning for sustainable development. The findings point to a lack of transformative learning in most of the quality assurance frameworks. Ludvik [23] stated that mindful compassion pedagogical practices instill Global Citizenship Education (GCED) and Education for Sustainable Development of emotional, and behavioral competencies for all, from preschool to tertiary-level education, as well as professional development programs for educators. Huang, Pagano, and Agostino [24] examined using a values-based education approach to introduce a pedagogical framework for education for sustainable development, to test the impact of applying values-based education principles in the educational system and students’ learning on driving sustainable development. They used a deductive–inductive approach and found significant results. They suggested that VbESD could be a useful approach for schools and teachers to develop strong, morally conscious leaders who can advocate for the social changes necessary for a peaceful, thriving, and enduring society. Shrestha and Adhikari [25] examined knowledge management initiatives for achieving sustainable development Goal 4.7: higher education institutions’ stakeholder perspectives and found understanding and inculcating these initiatives in the academic programs could provide value-adding higher education in the country. Saeid, Narges, Mina, and Fariba [26] investigated the extent to which social, and cultural factors and education for sustainable development render students develop enculturation. The findings indicated that enculturation in education is influenced by parents’ values and teachers’ beliefs, family cultural background, and students’ attitudes and evaluations in different school environments. Tang [27] found integrating soft skills in sustainable higher education helps achieve sustainable development in higher education. Jakes [28] discussed the role of TK (traditional knowledge) in sustainable development, using secondary research data. The finding showed a gap in traditional knowledge in SD, the empirical review revealed the importance of TK in SD “offering valuable insights and practices in resource management, biodiversity, conversation, and food security through traditional agricultural practices. Additionally, TK provides effective strategies for climatic resilience and adaptive capacity” [28]. He highlighted the need for TK to be integrated into modern sustainable development practices. Nanjundaswamy, Baskaran, and Leela [29] discussed digital pedagogy for sustainable Learning. They based the conceptual model on ‘Digital Collaboration and Sustainable Learning’. The results indicate collaborative learning, blended learning, flipped learning, open dialogue, creativity, and innovation are essential in education, creating a system for sustainable learning and development. Lampropoulos, Astara, Skordoulis, and Panagiotakopoulou [30] examined the effect of education and ICT knowledge on higher education students’ perceptions of sustainable development. Data analysis revealed that the students’ perception of sustainable development was influenced by the level of ICT knowledge, and education. The researchers recommended the inclusion of courses in sustainable development and relevant educational programs in both the universities and the companies.

Pedagogical innovation is a process that “reinvents teaching practices, with the goal of better-supporting student learning” [31]. It encompasses novelty, change, reflection, application, improvement, the relationship between technology and pedagogy, and human relations. Walder [32] “an intentional action that aims to introduce something original into a given context, and it is pedagogical as it seeks to substantially improve student learning in a situation of interaction and interactivity” [33]. That is created through pedagogical reasoning and human interactions [34]. Moreover, “Innovative Pedagogy is the process of proactively introducing new teaching strategies and methods into the classroom to improve academic outcomes and address real problems to promote equitable learning”. For example, “…heartening teaching and learning through an interactive learner-focused approach that qualifies explorative, action-driven, and transformative learning experiences. Students are empowered to engage in critical systematic thinking that cultivates values and attitudes towards a sustainable future” [6]. In higher education, pedagogical innovations pass through stages of development: personal innovation driven by individuals; then, financed innovation guided by institutions; and finally, regulated innovation to meet the university’s goals of increasing profits in modern technologies and enhancing student-focused learning [9]. Achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) is impossible without the involvement of HEIs in teaching, research, innovation, and community engagement. “In a university context, pedagogical innovations are often described as everything which is not lecturing, the method still used by the overwhelming majority of professors” [33]. “Any new teaching practice that differs from the traditional lecture, to improve learning” [32]. Pedagogical innovation is only recognized in institutions that prioritize student learning (Ibid). The professor needs to exert more effort to meet higher performance standards as a result of the technological, financial, and social changes in modern universities, which are evaluated based on qualitative criteria by peers and students. Higher education institutions play a role in the development of building competent individuals for the creation of sustainable societies, and citizens who are conscious of sustainability [35]. “We need universities and colleges that produce work-ready graduates that are equipped with the latest knowledge and skills to make an immediate and meaningful impact [36]. Therefore, innovation should essentially entail curriculum in planning and delivery of instruction, with the use of appropriate effective strategies and pedagogical techniques to enable the individual learner to develop various skills, such as critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities, and be responsible for the overall learning. The curriculum is a conceptual tool, that provides a unique viewpoint on significant pedagogical innovation [37]. UNESCO (2014) suggested incorporating sustainability into curricula, offering teachers training on sustainability principles, and implementing capacity-building programs, to achieve sustainable education. “…we need a curriculum that can adapt and evolve as needs change” (Report of the Council of Skills Advisers, 2023: 8). In addition, teaching and learning student-activating methods should come into play [8].

3. Methodology

The study aims to identify teaching pedagogies that can effectively develop awareness and responsibility among the University youth towards a sustainable future. The study adopted an exploratory triangulation approach.

3.1. Participants

To acquire the quantitative data of the study, the first fifty -faculties from the Department of English, Qassim University and College of Languages and Humanities, Department of English and Literature, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated in the closed-ended questionnaire to identify the perceptions of the academicians. Second, 47 Level Three female EFL students aged between 18 and 20, pursuing the Conversation course for four hours per week at the undergraduate level, randomly formed the control and the experimental group. To acquire the qualitative data, seven members from the Department of English, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University were part of the focus group.

3.2. Instruments

The study adopted a triangulation approach. The data were obtained through three instruments. (See Figure 1). First, a pre-training questionnaire was administered to measure the faculty’s awareness. Second, a post-training focus group interview was conducted at the Department of English, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University to evaluate the effectiveness of the training on Green Pedagogical approaches through thematic analysis. Third, the quantitative data in the form of pre-test and post-test performance was analyzed using JASP 0.9 Open Source Software. Finally, the effectiveness of the treatments was measured using a paired sample test.

3.3. Procedure

3.3.1. Questionnaire to Understand Perceptions of Faculty Members

A closed-ended questionnaire was distributed to fifty-one faculty members at the Department of English Language at Qassim University and Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia to understand the perceptions of the teaching faculty towards sustainability. (Appendix A 

Table A1. Perceptions of the teaching faculty towards sustainability.

Perceptions of the Teaching Faculty Towards Sustainability
	Agree	Neutral	Disagree
	Sometimes	Often	Never
1. Sustainability an important issue during the Pandemic	86.3	13.7	0.0
2. Sustainability themes in course activities	27.5	64.7	7.8
3. Discourage use of plastic bottles, paper use	29.4	47.1	23.5
4. Real life examples to sensitize towards surroundings.	58.8	35.3	-
5. Emotional support to underprivileged students	68.6	-	29.4
6. university policies have an impact on the society	43.1	54.9	-
7. Modifying curricula to spread awareness.	80.4	19.6	-

). The variables were period of concern, themes, pedagogy, skills, and motivation. In total, (83.6%) of faculty members started giving more importance to teaching sustainability during the post-pandemic period. The majority of the faculty members (64.7%) incorporate Sustainability themes ‘sometimes’ in their course activities. The majority of the faculty members consider a combination of pedagogies to spread awareness about Sustainability. Majority of the faculty members consider both types of motivation to make university graduates more responsible towards the planet. A total of (47.1%) of the faculty members sometimes discourage students from using plastic bottles and minimizing paper use on campus. In total, (58.8%) of the faculty members often give examples relating to real-life to make the students sensitive towards their surroundings. A total of (68.6%) of the faculty members often provide emotional support to the students belonging to underprivileged strata. Also, (80.4%) of the faculty members consider modifying curricula could help in spreading awareness among the students.

Pollution and social equality are the most preferred themes (25%) each (See Figure 2). followed by social equality (23%), next preference is given to global citizenship (19%), and least to wildlife (9%)

Poverty was considered to be the most important issue (See Figure 3).

(31%) of faculty considered it to be the top priority. A total of (25%) considered unemployment to be the top priority, (13%) considered land access to be the priority, and (23%) considered social protection to be the top priority.

(62.7%) of the faculty consider all the stated pedagogy to be suitable (See Figure 4).

However, project-based learning is considered to be the most suitable (21.6%), followed by immersion (11.8%). Multidisciplinary is considered to be the least preferred (3.9%).

In total, (42%) of the faculty members considered communication skills to be the most useful (See Figure 5). (21%) considered research, (19%) considered collaboration, (14%) considered reflection, while the least important as per the data is given to analytical skills (4%), to develop awareness about sustainability.

In total, (29%) of the faculty members showed a preference for community work (See Figure 6). (27%) considered discussions and activities, and an equal number of faculty members (22%) for each option, considered encouraging the students to explore on their own and introducing topics of their interest to be effective.

Based on the findings of the questionnaire, under the supervision of the Quality committee, online training based on Green Pedagogy with a focus on the three central pillars of Quality Education: knowledge, skills, and values was provided to 18 faculty members teaching the four language proficiency skills: Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University on February 12 and 13. Training was imparted in five types of pedagogies to provide quality education for sustainability development. All five pedagogies were student-centered and transformative. The pedagogies aimed at promoting learning through active, participatory, and experiential learning. The pedagogies focused on climate change, biodiversity, sustainable use of resources, and equality. The first pedagogy aimed to develop concern for well-being. The faculty were trained in Participatory community programs to encourage the university students to develop civic compassion. This pedagogy could hone the social and emotional behavioral competencies of the learners. The second pedagogy focused on the eco-linguistical aspect. The content and discussions related to the four language skills: reading, writing, listening, and speaking focus on the ecosystem. The third pedagogy was based on project-based learning. The trainees were asked to encourage their learners to perform a SWOT Analysis to identify the positive and negative aspects. This pedagogy also promotes interdisciplinary learning. The fourth was digital pedagogy. It aimed to develop awareness through e-magazines and virtual e-learning platforms as these platforms instill a feeling of universal community partnership and give a feeling of ‘Our Earth’ or ‘We together’. Finally, the fifth was creative pedagogy. It aimed to encourage the learners to share their concerns and suggestions to make Earth a better place to live in.

3.3.2. Focus Group

Post-training based on Green pedagogy, a focus group interview was conducted for 5 faculty members from the Department of English, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, teaching the four proficiency courses (Appendix A 

Table A2. Focus Group Interview A2.

Q1. What type of activities on sustainability do the learners find enjoyable?

A: Brainstorming, projects based on reusing resources

B: Doing online research, watching videos,

C: Presentations

D: Discussion

E: real-world case studies

Q2. How do you incorporate themes on sustainability issues in your classroom discussions?

A: Talking about our role as individuals in saving the environment.

B: For listening audios are effective.

C: In reading courses reading comprehension passages, vocabulary etc are beneficial.

D: In speaking sessions through oral presentations.

E: In writing courses, Blogs, and discussion boards can be useful and entertaining.

Q3. What teaching method according to you is more effective to impart education on sustainability?

A: Projects–Extracurricular activities

B: p-p-p presentation production and practice

C: A multi-disciplinary approach

D: hands-on activities

E: Using Technology

Q4. Do you include any immersion activities while spreading awareness of a sustainable future among students? What were the activities?

A: role-playing exercises

B: Creating videos about the importance of a green environment

C: field trips

D: community service projects

E: Environmental counseling

Q5. What do you suggest to the policymakers and curriculum designers about environmental concerns?

A: To put posters on the campus “Toward a green university”, and “The 3 Rs: reduce, reuse & recycle”. To put sorting rubbish bins. Activate global events such as the Earth Day.

B: Add more topics to the curriculum

C: The curriculum should include new texts.

D: Maintain a balance between Immersion activities and theoretical assessment

E: International community building Analysis

). The findings revealed that there is no one perfect method to teach sustainability. Themes should be vital and interesting. Learners should be given the flexibility to express their ideas freely. The platform should be provided to the learners to showcase their talent through model-making, projects, etc. Learners should be encouraged to add value to the knowledge imparted by the teacher through self-research. Learners should be provided a global platform to understand global community and citizenship. Policymakers play an instrumental role in spreading awareness about the significance of a sustainable future.

3.3.3. KSV-Based Interventions for Experimental Group

Forty- seven female EFL learners aged between 18 and 20 years formed the experimental and control groups. (See

Table 1. Performance of both the groups in the pre-test.

	Vocabulary		Information		Expression		Discourse
	Exp	Cont	Exp	Cont	Exp	Cont	Exp	Cont
Knowledge	10.48	10.52	9.88	9.63	9.46	9.38	8.89	8.78
Skills	10.83	10.78	11.12	10.98	10.23	10.10	9.14	9.20
Values	11.64	11.67	11.76	11.72	11.80	11.86	10.15	10.24

). They were randomly divided into two groups of twenty three and twenty four participants respectively. A pre-test was conducted for both groups. Three conversation tasks based on knowledge, skills, and values were assigned for assessment. The evaluation was out of twenty and based on four criteria: Vocabulary, information, expression and discourse

Control group performed better when compared to the experimental group in the three tasks (See

Table 2. Difference in the performance of both the groups in the pre-test.

	Control Group	Experimental Group
SD	1.0064323	1.0355104
Variance	1.0129061	1.0722818
Count n=	24	23
Mean	12.636667	10.448333

). However, it is to be noted that both groups scored the maximum in the task based on values.

The experimental group received three-tier treatment for four hours (2 sessions) per week for a total period of six weeks. For the first two weeks, students were given information (knowledge), the next two weeks were for displaying their skills, and the last two weeks were for values.

Treatment for Knowledge: For the first two weeks, to nurture a comprehensive understanding of sustainability, an Interdisciplinary Approach was adopted. It integrates knowledge and skills from various disciplines, including science, social studies, and humanities. Participants were given a knowledge-based conversation activity. Each week two topics were assigned. Week 1: What are the major challenges of sustainable development, what is a green revolution? Week 2: Discuss some of the goals of the UNO about sustainable development, and define global citizenship and its relevance. The problem-Based Learning Approach was employed in the third and the fourth week with a focus on critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Participants were confronted with real-world sustainability challenges such as: (a) suggest ways to control water pollution, (b) how can you work towards social equality at the community level? Participants were expected to come up with innovative solutions. The action-oriented approach was adopted to instill values (a sense of civic engagement and empowerment), thus motivating students to take concrete steps toward promoting sustainability in their lives and communities. What would you do if: (a) In your neighborhood people were cruel towards stray dogs? (b) Your teacher discriminates between fast and slow learners?

In the eighth week, the post-test was conducted for both groups (See

Table 3. Performance of both the groups in the post-test.

	Vocabulary		Information		Expression		Discourse
	Cont	Exp	Cont	Exp	Cont	Exp	Cont	Exp
Knowledge	11.20	13.58	12.52	14.68	12.46	13.87	12.45	4.32
Skills	11.48	13.92	11.89	15.10	13.96	15.10	13.44	14.80
Values	12.10	14.25	12.48	15.60	13.78	15.45	13.88	15.60

).

The results of the post-test indicated the effectiveness of the three interventions provided to the experimental group for six weeks. (See

Table 4. Difference in the performance of both the groups in the post-test.

	Control Group	Experimental Group
SD	0.93426036	0.70130344
Variance	0.87284242	0.49182652
Count n=	24	23
Mean	12.636667	14.689167

). A remarkable difference was seen between the performances of both groups. The experimental group outperformed the control group in terms of a better range of vocabulary related to sustainable development, better equipped in terms of knowledge (information), confidence, and spontaneity (expression), and logically connected well-organized ideas (discourse management).

To measure the effectiveness of the pedagogies used, the performance of the experimental group in the pre-test and post-test, were compared using paired t-tests (See

Table 5. Paired t-test.

p-value	2.005 × 10−8
t	14.2141
Sample size (n)	23
Average of differences ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$d)	4.2842
SD of differences (Sd)	1.0441
Normality p-value	0.4148

).

4. Results

Findings

A paired t-test was conducted for the experimental group based on the hypothetical statement: The experimental groups’ performance improved after interventions, then, Green pedagogical approaches develop and facilitate sustainable education. The results of the paired t-tests for the experimental group indicate that the difference between the averages of pre-test and post-test is large. The p-value equals 2.005 × 10⁻⁸, (p(x ≤ 14.2141) = 1). It means that the chance of a type I error (rejecting a correct H0) is small: 2.005 × 10⁻⁸ (0.000002%). Since the p-value is smaller, it supports H1. The observed effect size d is large, 4.1. This indicates that the magnitude of the difference between the average of the differences and the expected average of the differences is large. Therefore, the p-value < α, H₀ is rejected. The findings underscore the potency of sustainability education as a transformative tool. The findings also reveal that the students in the control group did not benefit from conventional teaching pedagogy. This stresses the significance of introducing various awareness activities to support engagement with sustainability issues inclusively.

5. Discussion of Results

This study explored two central research questions: the extent of academicians’ familiarity with theoretical frameworks and Green Pedagogical approaches in designing and delivering sustainable education at the university level, and the impact of Green Pedagogical approaches on learners’ development of sustainable education. The findings contribute to the growing body of literature on sustainable education, with implications for both theoretical frameworks and practical pedagogical strategies. The study indicates a varied level of familiarity among university academicians with theoretical frameworks and Green Pedagogical approaches. This observation aligns with the literature indicating that while some educators are well-versed in integrating sustainability into their teaching practices, there remains a significant gap in widespread adoption and understanding. For instance, Quendler et al. [15] emphasized the necessity of robust knowledge and skills in sustainability to effectively reflect job requirements and teaching techniques. However, the findings suggest that while many faculty members recognize the importance of sustainability, their actual implementation of these frameworks and approaches remains inconsistent. This reflects the need for more structured training and resources to enhance academicians’ competence in these areas. The variability in knowledge and application could be attributed to several factors, including institutional support, personal interest, and availability of professional development opportunities. Pavlova and Huang [38] highlights the benefits of integrating green-skill components into education, yet the study found that many educators still struggle to apply these skills effectively. This disparity underscores the necessity for targeted professional development and institutional support to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application. Analysis reveals that Green Pedagogical approaches can significantly enhance students’ engagement with sustainability issues, though the extent of this impact varies. Studies such as those by [20,37] support the notion that innovative pedagogical methods like self-inquiry-based learning and project-based learning contribute positively to students’ competencies in sustainable development. Findings corroborate this, showing that pedagogical approaches emphasizing real-life examples and hands-on activities are more effective in fostering students’ understanding and commitment to sustainability. However, results also point to a notable gap in the effectiveness of traditional teaching methods. The observed large effect size of 16.87 and a p-value of 0.00005721 suggest that conventional pedagogical approaches are less effective in engaging students with sustainability topics compared to more innovative methods. This finding resonates with [12], who argue for the re-evaluation of conventional pedagogies in favor of those that better address sustainability competencies. The need for pedagogical innovation is further emphasized by [29,30], who highlight the importance of integrating digital and collaborative learning methods to support sustainable education. The role of educators in promoting sustainability is crucial, as evidenced by the majority of faculty members incorporating sustainability themes into their courses. However, the inconsistency in how these themes are integrated and the varying levels of effectiveness underscore the need for a more cohesive approach. Findings suggest that faculty members who provide real-life examples, emotional support, and curriculum modifications tend to create a more engaging and impactful learning environment. This aligns with the recommendations of Cebrián, and Junyent [39] for a broader and more integrated approach to sustainability in education. Moreover, policy-makers play an instrumental role in supporting sustainable education initiatives. The observed significant statistical results and the feedback from faculty members indicate a clear need for policies that encourage and facilitate the integration of sustainability into higher education curricula. This includes not only providing resources and training but also creating an institutional culture that values and supports sustainability education.

6. Conclusions

Quality education for youth can be significantly advanced by emphasizing a sustainable future through transformative practices. The results reveal that Green Pedagogical approaches: self-inquiry-based learning, and project-based learning contribute positively to students’ competencies in sustainable development. The findings suggest that faculties that provide real-life examples, emotional support, and curriculum modifications tend to create a more engaging and impactful learning environment. Thus, a broader and more integrated approach is required to train the youth towards a sustainable future. Though the study indicates a varied level of familiarity among university academicians with theoretical frameworks and Green Pedagogical approaches, there remains a significant gap in widespread adoption and understanding. There is a pressing need for more consistent and comprehensive implementation strategies. Future research should focus on developing and evaluating specific strategies to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, ensuring that sustainability education is effectively integrated into university curricula. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on sustainable education by highlighting both achievements and areas for improvement, providing a foundation for future efforts to enhance the role of higher education in fostering a more sustainable future.

7. Recommendations for Future Research

While this study has given us useful information about sustainability education, there are a few important areas to explore next. It is also important to find out if there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between sustainability education and students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors using experimental methods. Comparing different approaches to sustainability education can help academicians to understand which methods work best. Researching how sustainability education performs in different cultures and locations can provide a broader view of its effectiveness. Finally, studying how sustainability education connects with other subjects like psychology and sociology could help integrate it better into overall education.