Next Article in Journal
Coupling Coordination Measurement and Obstacle Diagnosis of New Urbanization and Rural Revitalization in the Basin Area of Sichuan Province, China
Previous Article in Journal
Financing Sustainability: Unveiling the Role of Government Debt in Carbon Reduction Performance
Previous Article in Special Issue
Learning Sustainability: Post-Graduate Students’ Perceptions on the Use of Social Media Platforms to Enhance Academic Writing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 21
10.3390/su16219208
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhancing Sustainable Development Competence in Undergraduates: Key Determinants in the Context of “Dual-Carbon” Targets

by
Shuyu Qi
,
Penglong Jiang
and
Mi Zhou
*
The Capital Research and Development Center for Engineering Education, Institute of Higher Education, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(21), 9208; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219208
Submission received: 30 July 2024 / Revised: 19 October 2024 / Accepted: 21 October 2024 / Published: 23 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Technology Supports for Sustainable Development of Human Society during and Post-pandemic Contexts)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sustainable development is vital for achieving balanced progress across the economic, environmental, and health domains, and it is closely tied to the global drive for addressing climate change and environmental challenges. In this context, reaching the “Dual-Carbon” targets—carbon peaking and carbon neutrality—have become critical priorities both domestically and internationally. As a result, the cultivation of Dual-Carbon professionals is essential for driving sustainable development. This paper investigates the sustainable development capacity of Dual-Carbon professionals through an empirical study of 613 undergraduates in China utilizing Astin’s I-E-O theoretical model. This research examines the impact of course experience, self-efficacy, and learning engagement on sustainable development capacity. The results demonstrate that the course experience has a significant positive direct effect on sustainable development capacity. Moreover, self-efficacy mediates the relationship between the course experience and sustainable development capacity, while both self-efficacy and learning engagement serve as chain mediators. Based on these findings, this paper offers practical strategies to enhance the sustainable development capacity of Dual-Carbon undergraduates, providing valuable insights for the education and training of future Dual-Carbon professionals.

1. Introduction

At present, global environmental problems are worsening, extreme weather is exacerbating, and excessive pollutant emissions are putting tremendous pressure on the environment [1]. Rising sea levels, extreme rainfall, the loss of biodiversity, and water scarcity threaten the sustainability of human and natural systems. Consequently, there is a growing emphasis on sustainable development. In 1987, the United Nations’ Brundtland Report defined sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [2]. In 2015, the UN member states adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, focusing on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which aim to provide action plans to address economic, environmental, and social challenges [3]. In 2017, the United Nations released Education for SDG Guidelines, aligning the 17 SDGs with educational objectives and emphasizing the critical role of education in developing students’ sustainable development capacities and achieving the SDGs [4]. Sustainability represents the essential capability individuals need to address today’s complex challenges and is closely linked to the SDGs.
China’s “Dual-Carbon” policy focuses on two goals: carbon peaking and carbon neutrality [5]. Carbon peaking aims to reduce emissions after reaching the maximum by 2030, while carbon neutrality seeks to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060 using renewable energy and carbon sinks. By 2030, the key targets will include a 65% reduction in carbon emissions per unit of GDP and 25% non-fossil energy consumption. By 2060, China aims to achieve 80% non-fossil energy use, with full carbon neutrality and have a green, low-carbon economy in place. China’s Dual-Carbon policy is a positive response to the Paris Agreement and Article 13 of the Sustainable Development Goals, and it is not only a strategic measure for China to address climate change and promote green development, but also closely related to the climate commitments and goals of the international community. This not only contributes to China’s own environmental protection and economic transformation [6], but also plays an important role in global climate governance, demonstrating China’s active participation in and support for global climate action [7].
Among other things, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will ensure that by 2030, all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, the promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and an appreciation of cultural diversity and culture. Therefore, this study defines education for sustainable development (ESD) as education to improve people’s understanding and sustainable development capacity and promote social, economic, and environmental harmony, with the core goal that citizens can solve future challenges and promote the transformation of individuals and societies towards more sustainable lifestyles through the acceptance of ESD.
As an important institution for promoting ESD in the world, the UNESCO should respond positively to cooperation between countries and build partnerships between domestic and foreign exchanges, education, and environmental protection institutions to jointly formulate and implement ESD strategies. ESD can help people understand the core concepts of sustainable development, including environmental protection, social equity, and economic sustainability, so as to enhance their awareness and concern for related issues. At the same time, ESD emphasizes an international vision and global responsibility and provides support for solving global environmental and social problems by cultivating global citizenship and promoting transnational cooperation and joint efforts [8]. ESD not only contributes to the goals of environmental protection and social equity, but also lays the foundation for harmonious global development.
To meet the global CO2 peaking challenge, China issued a Notice on Printing and Distributing an Action Plan for Reaching Peak CO2, which explicitly promotes the cultivation of undergraduates specializing in low-carbon-related subjects [9]. These “Dual-Carbon” majors refer to disciplines that directly or indirectly support China’s goals of carbon peaking and neutrality, encompassing a range of traditional and emerging fields, including environmental science, energy engineering, sustainable development, environmental economics, carbon management, and others.
Under the “Dual-Carbon” targets, sustainable development has become a core competency for undergraduates in related disciplines, serving as a significant force in promoting the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Therefore, this paper selects 613 Chinese undergraduates as the research object for empirical research. This study will analyze the key influencing factors of college students’ sustainable development in order to cultivate their cognitive and practical ability to achieve sustainable development, and at the same time, provide data support for colleges and universities to design and optimize ESD courses and ensure that the educational content can match the actual needs and challenges to help teachers improve teaching effectiveness and stimulate students’ interest and participation in environmental protection.

2. Theoretical Basis and Research Hypothesis

2.1. I-E-O Model Theory

The Astin’s Input–Environment–Outcome (I-E-O) model (Figure 1) is a foundational theoretical framework for analyzing institutional impacts [10]. The I-E-O model elucidates how input factors (Is) and the learning environment (E) collaborate to shape outcomes (Os) during a student’s university experience. Central to this model is the understanding of how students’ initial characteristics and the educational environment co-influence their learning outcomes.
The input factors encompass demographic characteristics, learning habits, and motivation. The environment includes educational elements encountered during university years, such as the curriculum, the teaching methods, and the faculty. Astin emphasized that the learning environment provided by the institution significantly impacts students’ development, necessitating students to fully utilize this environment for personal growth. The outcomes refer to the knowledge, attitudes, and skills acquired through university education.
The I-E-O model provides a theoretical framework for understanding the mediating role of individual students’ abilities and engagement in different university contexts. The influence of ecological civilization concepts on students before and after university can be categorized as input factors (Is) and the learning environment (E), respectively, which together impact the student outcomes (Os). This model allows for exploring the mediating effect of students’ engagement on their educational outcomes, highlighting the dynamic interplay between the initial inputs, the educational environment, and the resulting outputs.

2.2. The Main Effect of the Course Experience

The course experience encompasses the learner’s feelings and reactions during the learning process, involving an intertwined dynamic of reason and sensibility, emotion, and thought. In this study, Qiudi et al. [11] classified the course experience into the teaching experience and the course-focused experience.
With the advancement of sustainable education, scholars increasingly emphasize the connection between teaching methods and students’ sustainable development. Ng and Lo [12] found that the commonly used teaching methods, such as the case method and the flipped classroom model, had a positive impact on students’ sustainable thinking and behavior. Similarly, Alali et al. [13] found that STEM-based teaching methods can promote students’ sustainable development capacity. A combination of various teaching methods also positively influences students’ sustainable development capacity.
The content taught in courses is a crucial factor affecting the learning outcomes. Reflecting global sustainability trends, a Malaysian university introduced a course titled “Engineering Sustainability” for engineering undergraduates. Compared to other course types, compulsory courses on sustainability topics have the most substantial effect on the interest and knowledge of sustainability among chemical engineering undergraduates [14]. Bielefeldt et al. [15] demonstrated that emphasizing sustainability in introductory courses for civil and environmental engineering students enhances their sustainability knowledge and attitudes. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.
H1. 
The course experience has a significant positive on students’ sustainable development capacities.

2.3. The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s subjective judgment of their own abilities. The teaching methods can significantly influence students’ self-efficacy during the learning process. The impact of self-efficacy on individual behavior manifests in three key areas: First, in choice behavior, individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to select challenging tasks. Second, in effort and perseverance, such individuals tend to exert greater effort and maintain it longer when facing difficulties. Finally, in thought patterns and emotional responses, higher self-efficacy fosters a more positive mindset, reduces stress and anxiety, and enhances belief in the ability to accomplish tasks incrementally. Al-Abyadh and Abdel Azeem [16] showed that self-efficacy is a positive predictor of students’ academic achievement, and that self-efficacy and academic achievement are inter-related and mutually reinforcing. Hu et al.’s [17] research showed that the scientific use of online learning resources, combining traditional classrooms with the internet, can improve students’ self-efficacy.
Additionally, the mediating role of self-efficacy in education and students’ ability improvement has been well documented. Usán Supervía and Quílez Robres [18] showed that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between school education and students’ ability development. In this study, self-efficacy plays a dual role. On the one hand, it acts as an input, influencing students’ initial capabilities for sustainable development at the start of a project. On the other hand, self-efficacy serves as a mediating variable, affecting the relationship between students’ abilities and their sustainable development outcomes.
Based on the above discussion, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:
H2. 
Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between the course experience and students’ sustainable development capacities.

2.4. The Intermediary Role of Learning Input

Learning engagement refers to the time and effort learners dedicate to effective educational practices [19]. Geletu’s [20] research showed that teachers’ instruction in cooperative learning methods has a positive impact on students’ learning engagement and outcomes. Alemayehu and Chen [21] showed that higher-education students’ motivation was positively correlated with learning self-efficacy, self-monitoring, and learning engagement, and that motivation had a direct impact on school engagement, but the direct impact was not strong.
When students invest more time and energy in activities with clear and effective educational goals, they receive more feedback and improve their knowledge, skills, and temperament. Therefore, students’ learning engagement has a positive impact on learning outcomes [22]. Carini et al. [23] found that various measures of student engagement, including learning engagement, are positively correlated with the academic learning outcomes.
Li and Xue [24] found that if teachers show negative behaviors such as criticism and scolding in the learning environment, students will have negative emotions and learning behaviors, such as exhaustion, absenteeism, and emotional anxiety, and their learning participation will be reduced. The results of a study by Brandisauskiene et al. [25] suggested that students’ emotional and behavioral engagement is strongly associated with the variables of a sustainable school environment. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.
H3. 
Learning engagement mediates the relationship between the course experience and sustainable development capacities.

2.5. The Chain-Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy and Learning Engagement

Khoroushi et al. [26] found that there was a positive and significant correlation between the learning emotions and cognitive attitudes and teacher–student self-efficacy, and that self-efficacy increased with the enhancement of emotional and cognitive attitudes, and learning emotional attitudes were more predictive of self-efficacy. At the same time, the findings of Honicke and Broadbent [27] showed a positive correlation between students’ levels of engagement in learning and self-efficacy, which is consistent with the previous findings [28,29]. As students enhance their learning engagement, they acquire more knowledge and develop a deeper understanding, thereby boosting their self-confidence and self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy can mediate the relationship between learning engagement and student development. Sharif Nia’s [30] research showed that academic self-efficacy is significantly correlated with the increase in online learning participation, which can promote students’ language learning and promote students’ future development. Increased learning engagement improves students’ self-efficacy, providing them with high levels of confidence and strength and promoting the intrinsic motivation to learn. This, in turn, enhances their abilities. Active engagement not only improves academic performance, but also allows for students to experience inner satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment from learning tasks, thereby enhancing self-efficacy and forming a virtuous cycle of learning [31]. Thus, this paper proposes the following hypothesis.
H4. 
Self-efficacy and learning engagement play a mediating role in the chain between the course experience and students’ sustainable development capacities.

3. Research Design

3.1. Sample Selection and Data Collection

The survey for this study was conducted nationwide from October to November 2023, targeting university students enrolled in low-carbon-related majors, such as energy and power, electrical engineering, transportation, and construction. The survey included undergraduate engineering students from 361 universities, whose disciplines are closely aligned with the “Dual-Carbon” strategy. Teachers incorporated Dual-Carbon policies into their teaching and assessed students’ environmental awareness. Using a convenience sampling method, a total of 666 questionnaires were collected. After rigorous screening, invalid responses, such as identical answers or completion times under 60 s, were excluded, resulting in 613 valid questionnaires. Although convenience sampling may have certain limitations, several measures were taken to ensure the representativeness of the sample: first, the large sample size of 613 valid questionnaires provides sufficient data to reduce the sampling error; second, the survey covered a wide range of universities across the country, ensuring broad geographic coverage and regional representation. Additionally, the participants were all students in low-carbon-related majors, which is highly relevant to the research topic, enhancing the target population’s representativeness. Moreover, the strict screening criteria improved the data quality and reliability. Finally, the two-month survey period helped mitigate the impact of time-related factors on sample representativeness. In conclusion, this study’s sample is largely representative and provides a reliable data foundation to support the in-depth analysis of the environmental awareness of university students in low-carbon-related majors.
Basic information of the respondents from the formal questionnaires is shown in Table 1. In terms of gender ratio and Residential Location, there are more male students, and more than half of the students are from rural areas. In terms of the students’ grades and majors, the number of freshmen is the highest, the number of seniors is the lowest, and more than 40% of them are from a construction major. Construction and transportation are the professional categories closely related to the “Dual-Carbon” strategy, and a total of 390 people were selected in this questionnaire survey, accounting for 63.6% of the total number of people, which is in line with the assumption of the research object in this study. In summary, the basic information of the survey subjects is in line with actual life, and the major category is in line with the research purpose. Research on the sustainable development capacity evaluation of the undergraduates majoring in “Dual-Carbon”-related fields can be analyzed in depth through the questionnaire survey sample.

3.2. Variable Measurement and Analysis Tools

Based on Astin’s I-E-O theory, this study examines the impact of the educational environment on the students’ ability output, with a particular focus on learning engagement as a crucial variable influencing students ‘sustainable development capacity. Self-efficacy was selected as the input variable, defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to control events affecting their life, representing an intrinsic psychological trait. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between self-efficacy and learning engagement. The research model is shown in Figure 2.
The measurement of sustainable development capacity refers to the comprehensive ability of students to identify, analyze, and solve sustainable engineering challenges by applying professional knowledge grounded in low-carbon ecological principles. To accurately assess this capacity, this study utilized several prominent frameworks, including the UNESCO’s “Education for Sustainable Development Goals–Learning Objectives” (2017) and the European Commission’s “Environmental Sustainability Education: Policies and Approaches of EU Member States” (2021) [4,32]. In addition, it incorporated insights from China’s “Dual-Carbon” policy [33,34,35,36], the relevant academic literature [37,38,39,40], and information from official university and research institute websites [41,42,43]. These sources helped to establish a clear framework for assessing the sustainable development abilities of undergraduates in “Dual-Carbon” disciplines.
Following a thorough screening process, three core competency elements of sustainable development capacity were identified: Ecological Value Thinking Ability, Engineering Foresight and Innovation Ability, and Team Interpersonal Skills. These competencies were measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In addition to measuring sustainable development capacity, this study examined several key influencing factors, including the course experience, self-efficacy, and learning engagement, as these were hypothesized to significantly affect the students’ sustainable development abilities. Established scales were employed to measure these influencing factors. The Self-Efficacy Scale, originally developed by Schaufeli [44], consists of ten items, of which three were selected for this study to align with the specific context of “Dual-Carbon” disciplines. Learning engagement was measured using a simplified version of the scale developed by Schaufeli [44] and Fredricks et al. [45], and three items were selected as suitable for this study.
To measure the course experience, this study adapted a questionnaire developed by Lattuca et al. [46], which originally contained 17 items. These were reduced to four items following translation and contextual adaptation to fit the Chinese educational environment. Similarly, the scale for teaching methods, which originally had nine items, was refined to four items following cultural and contextual modifications. Table 2 describes the constructs of the proposed model in this research, the numbers of measurement items, and the descriptive statistics.

4. The Results of Empirical Research

4.1. Measurement Model Analysis

In this study, three indicators were employed to evaluate the convergent validity of the measurement model: Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and the average variance extracted (AVE). The analysis results revealed that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and composite reliability of the measurement instruments utilized in this research exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.7, demonstrating satisfactory internal consistency for each construct. Furthermore, the AVE values for each latent variable surpassed 0.5, indicating that the latent variables could explain more than half of the variance in their respective measurement indicators [47]. Overall, the findings across these three indicators met the suggested criteria established in the existing literature, supporting the notion that the measurement model in this study exhibited strong convergent validity. This implies that the measurement items within each construct effectively assessed the same latent variable (as shown in Table 3).
To verify discriminant validity, this study compared the square root of the AVEs for any two constructs with the correlation coefficient between these two constructs. If the square root of the AVE for two constructs is higher than their correlation coefficient, this result indicates the presence of discriminant validity. Table 4 presents the correlation coefficient matrix of the constructs, with the diagonal elements replaced by the square root of the AVE for each construct. As these diagonal elements (the square root of the AVE) are greater than the corresponding non-diagonal elements (correlation coefficients) in the same row and column, the findings demonstrate sufficient discriminant validity in this study.

4.2. Structural Model Inspection

4.2.1. Goodness-of-Fit Test of the Model

The goodness-of-fit results for both the measurement model and the structural model demonstrate strong model adequacy across several key fit indices (as shown in Table 5). The chi-square (χ2) values for both the models are identical at 209.996. Although the chi-square statistic is often sensitive to the sample size, the χ2/df ratio for both the models is within the acceptable range (<5), with values of 3.138 for the measurement model and 3.088 for the structural model. These results indicate that both the models fit the data reasonably well. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values are 0.987 for the measurement model and 0.984 for the structural model, both of which exceed the 0.9 threshold, indicating a very good fit. Similarly, the Normed Fit Index (NFI) values for both the models are well above the accepted 0.9 cut-off, with the measurement model scoring slightly higher at 0.981 compared to 0.976 for the structural model. This indicates that both the models fit the observed data well when compared to the baseline model. The Incremental Fit Index (IFI) values are also robust, with the measurement model at 0.987 and the structural model at 0.984. These values indicate that the models offer a substantial improvement in fit over the null or independence model. The Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) further confirms this strong fit, with values of 0.982 for the measurement model and 0.978 for the structural model, both comfortably exceeding the 0.9 threshold. Finally, the RMSEA values are below the standard 0.08 threshold, indicating a close fit of the models to the data. The structural model has a slightly better RMSEA value of 0.058, while the measurement model has a value of 0.059, both of which are within the acceptable range and suggest good approximation of the models to reality.
In summary, both the measurement and structural models exhibit strong goodness of fit across all the indices, confirming their validity and reliability for further hypothesis testing and the interpretation of the structural relationships. The slight differences in values suggest that both the models are well calibrated, with the measurement model showing a marginally better fit in some respects.

4.2.2. Path Relationship Test Between Variables

The results of the path analysis provide important insights into the mechanisms through which the course experience, self-efficacy, and learning engagement influence students’ sustainable development capacities. As shown in Table 6, analysis reveals that course experience has a significant and direct positive impact on students’ sustainable development capacities (H1, Beta = 0.127, p < 0.001). This underscores the importance of well-designed and engaging courses in fostering students’ competencies in sustainability, as they provide essential knowledge and experiential learning opportunities that enhance students’ capacity to apply sustainable practices.
Furthermore, self-efficacy is found to play a significant mediating role between the course experience and students’ sustainable development capacities (H2, Beta = 0.049, p = 0.006). This suggests that students’ belief in their own capabilities significantly contributes to the translation of positive course experiences into sustainability-related competencies. When students have confidence in their abilities, they are more likely to effectively engage with the course content and apply the knowledge they acquire in practical contexts.
However, the role of learning engagement as a direct mediator between the course experience and students’ sustainable development capacities is not supported by the data (H3, Beta = 0.036, p = 0.502), indicating that engagement alone may not be sufficient to drive improvements in students’ sustainable development capacities. Despite this, the combined effects of self-efficacy and learning engagement demonstrate a significant chain-mediating effect (H4, Beta = 0.015, p = 0.010). This finding highlights the complex interaction between these two factors, where increased engagement leads to enhanced self-efficacy, which, in turn, positively influences students’ sustainable development capacities.
In summary, the findings suggest that while both the course experience and self-efficacy are critical for improving the students’ sustainable development capacities, the interplay between learning engagement and self-efficacy is the key to understanding how educational experiences translate into practical competencies. Therefore, educators should focus on designing courses that not only deliver content effectively, but also boost students’ confidence and active engagement, thereby maximizing their potential to develop sustainability-related skills.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Curriculum Experience as the Key Driver for Sustainable Development Students’ Sustainable Development

This study highlights the significant role of curriculum experience in enhancing undergraduates’ students’ sustainable development abilities. According to Astin’s I-E-O model, the curriculum is a crucial environmental factor influencing student development. A well-designed curriculum integrates current knowledge, practical learning experiences, and interdisciplinary approaches, which collectively foster students’ skills in students’ sustainable development [48].
To effectively promote sustainability, educational institutions should design curricula that incorporate the latest theories, policies, and technologies related to carbon neutrality and carbon peaking [49]. This ensures that students stay aligned with the industry trends and real-world challenges [50]. Utilizing case studies, laboratory experiments, and project-based learning allows for students to engage with real-world problems, enhancing their ability to apply theoretical knowledge practically.
Additionally, fostering interdisciplinary learning is vital. By integrating courses in environmental science, engineering technology, economics, and law, institutions can develop students’ systems thinking skills. This broader perspective enables students to design innovative solutions and contributes to achieving the students’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
In summary, integrating up-to-date knowledge, promoting practical learning experiences, and encouraging interdisciplinary education are essential for enhancing students’ students’ sustainable development capabilities. The curriculum experience thus serves as a pivotal external driver in advancing this educational goal [51].

5.2. Enhancing Students’ Sustainable Development through Self-Efficacy: The Role of Curriculum Experience and Engagement

Self-efficacy is a crucial mediating factor in the relationship between the curriculum experience and students’ sustainable development. This study highlights that positive course experiences significantly enhance students’ self-efficacy, which, in turn, influences their capacity to achieve successful outcomes in students’ sustainable development. Effective teaching practices that balance the difficulty of the course content, make learning enjoyable, and build students’ confidence are the key to boosting self-efficacy [52]. High self-efficacy enables students to explore new strategies, tackle challenges with resilience, and persist through difficulties, directly impacting their motivation and performance in sustainability-related tasks [53,54].
Self-efficacy is shaped by students’ engagement behaviors, cognition, emotions, and the sense of fulfillment they derive from learning [55]. This study confirms that a positive course experience enhances self-efficacy, which then positively affects students’ sustainable development. Astin’s concept of “engagement” refers to the physical and mental energy students invest in achieving their academic goals. Although learning engagement can predict academic performance to some extent, it does not always establish a causal relationship. Individual differences mean that the quality of engagement varies, and its impact on academic performance can be inconsistent. Consequently, this study did not find a significant impact of learning engagement on the sustainability outcomes.
To improve self-efficacy, several strategies can be employed. Setting challenging, yet attainable goals helps students build confidence and competence incrementally [56]. Teaching students problem-solving skills, strategy development, and results evaluation equips them to handle complex tasks more effectively [57]. Engaging in team projects and case studies can further enhance critical thinking and innovation. By implementing these strategies, educators can boost students’ self-efficacy, making them more confident and capable in facing the challenges related to the “Dual-Carbon” goals. This increased self-efficacy, in turn, drives more active and effective engagement in their studies and future careers, fostering students’ sustainable development.

5.3. Learning Engagement and Self-Efficacy as Chain Mediators

This study reveals that learning engagement and self-efficacy serve as crucial chain mediators in the relationship between the curriculum experience and students’ sustainable development capabilities. While learning engagement alone does not significantly mediate this relationship, it plays a vital role in the chain-mediation process involving self-efficacy. Positive curriculum experiences enhance learning engagement, which, in turn, boosts self-efficacy. When students are actively engaged in their learning, they gain a deeper understanding of the content, develop a greater interest, and improve their knowledge acquisition. This process enhances their sense of accomplishment and self-confidence.
Students with higher self-efficacy are more likely to set ambitious goals, engage more in classroom activities, and participate actively in practical training, all of which contribute to improved students’ sustainable development abilities. Effective curriculum design and teaching strategies that foster both engagement and self-efficacy are essential for achieving the sustainable development outcomes. Therefore, educational institutions should focus on creating learning environments that not only engage students, but also build their self-efficacy.
To bridge the gap between the curriculum experience and sustainable development through learning engagement and self-efficacy, several strategies can be implemented. Providing personalized learning plans allows for students to choose course content and activities that align with their interests and learning pace, thus increasing engagement and relevance [58]. Creating a supportive learning environment where collaboration and knowledge sharing are encouraged enhances social skills, fosters a sense of belonging, and promotes teamwork [59]. Additionally, facilitating students’ establishment and monitoring of both the short-term and long-term learning objectives through the utilization of either digital platforms or conventional methodologies has been demonstrated to enhance motivational factors and foster an increased perception of autonomy over their educational journey [60].
By effectively implementing these strategies, educational institutions can enhance students’ learning engagement and self-efficacy, thereby linking the curriculum experience with students’ sustainable development abilities. This integrated approach ensures that students are better prepared to tackle sustainability challenges and contribute meaningfully to their academic and professional fields.

6. Countermeasures and Suggestions

6.1. Empowering Curriculum Design to Enhance Students’ Sustainable Abilities and Skill Development

The curriculum should continuously emphasize the integration of theory and practice [61]. In theoretical learning, students should be encouraged to apply the theories they have learned to practical problems through course exercises, project cases, and group cooperation [62]. For ability training, establishing school–enterprise cooperation is essential, where tutors from both inside and outside the school collaboratively develop practical training plans, providing students with opportunities for enterprise training [63]. The curriculum content should also emphasize innovation, fostering students’ forward-looking awareness and innovation capabilities. The course content should be designed with themes related to future societal needs and integrate cutting-edge knowledge, such as artificial intelligence and sustainable development, enabling students to understand the trends and impacts of these fields [64].
Teachers who want to raise students’ awareness of the Dual-Carbon policy in the classroom can do so in a variety of ways. First, in terms of curriculum design, teachers can integrate the content of the Green Transition into relevant disciplines [65]. For example, a geography course could explain the impact of carbon emissions on climate change, and an economics course could explore the workings of the carbon trading market. At the same time, special lectures or units can be designed to explain the background, goals and implementation measures of the Dual-Carbon policy to ensure that students learn relevant knowledge systematically. Second, in terms of practical activities, teachers can carry out campus green action projects, such as energy conservation and emission reduction plans, garbage sorting, and recycling, to practice the concept of the Dual-Carbon policy, enhance students’ practical ability, and encourage students to participate in community environmental protection activities, such as afforestation and energy conservation publicity,, to enhance the practical experience of the Dual-Carbon policy [66]. Third, in terms of interdisciplinary cooperation, teachers can cooperate with teachers of other disciplines to design interdisciplinary courses, combine the Dual-Carbon policy with knowledge of science, technology, society, and other fields, improve students’ comprehensive understanding, and organize interdisciplinary research projects or competitions involving all the aspects of the Dual-Carbon policy and encourage students to think and solve problems from multiple perspectives. By integrating these curricula contents, carrying out practical activities, and interdisciplinary cooperation, teachers can effectively improve students’ understanding of the Dual-Carbon policy, which not only helps students understand the background and implementation methods of the policy, but also stimulates them to participate in practical actions and contribute to the response to global climate change [67].

6.2. Transforming Teaching Practices to Enhance Sustainable Capacity Building and Skill Development

Unlike the traditional teaching methods, case teaching can transform student participation from passive to active, making the classroom experience more relevant to real life [68]. Establishing a case database through school–enterprise cooperation is recommended [69]. Before implementing enterprise case teaching, undergraduates and teachers can jointly screen and select typical cases for professional training within the students’ ability range. In terms of teaching methods, teamwork can enhance students’ sense of cooperation and improve their interpersonal interaction and communication skills [70]. For large courses encompassing multiple majors, organizing interdisciplinary teaching and practical activities can be beneficial, allowing students to apply their professional knowledge collaboratively and enhance their sense of professional efficacy.

6.3. Enhancing Efficiency to Foster Sustainable Capacity Building and Students’ Sustainable Development Capacities

Colleges and universities should emphasize the importance of self-improvement to students, maintaining a positive and healthy psychological state through care and motivation, and providing psychological and spiritual support [71]. Teachers should consistently monitor students’ mental states, establish a dynamic supervision system for self-efficacy, understand psychological changes, and develop targeted adjustment strategies [72]. Students should break down their learning goals into small, specific, and achievable tasks, create detailed study plans, regularly check their progress, and adjust their schedules as needed. This approach helps reduce anxiety and confusion in learning, builds self-efficacy through the completion of small tasks, and effectively increases learning engagement.

6.4. Expanding Investment to Cultivate and Strengthen Sustainable Development Capacity

Schools should scientifically organize teaching curricula, structuring the courses from basic to advanced levels each semester, establishing a coherent and comprehensive curriculum system. Teachers should design knowledge consolidation sessions tailored to teaching objectives to help students thoroughly understand the material and build a solid foundation. Including examples of the major’s contributions to social development in course content can challenge students’ preconceived notions about the discipline, clarify professional positioning, and boost learning enthusiasm. In terms of course assessment, increasing the proportion of formative evaluation can encourage students to adopt consistent study habits, reduce last-minute cramming before exams, and enhance daily learning engagement. Additionally, students should focus on cultivating concentration and gradually improving self-efficacy through dedicated and wholehearted learning.

7. Research Contributions and Limitations

At present, empirical research based on sustainable development capacity generally lacks a theoretical basis and evaluation tools, and there has been minimal empirical analysis of the “Dual-Carbon” professional group. Based on the concept of sustainable development education, this study constructs an evaluation model for the sustainable development capacity of “Dual-Carbon” professionals, which provides a reference for engineering education.
Based on the I-E-O model theory, this study deeply analyzes the impact of environmental factors and personal factors on students’ sustainable development capacity, and the research results provide an empirical basis for promoting the sustainable development capacity of “Dual-Carbon” professionals and provide a direction for colleges and universities to clarify the training goals and improve their training paths. At the same time, it is conducive to guiding students to pay more attention to their own sustainable development capacity. In addition, talent development is closely related to social progress, and cultivating “Dual-Carbon”-related talents with sustainable development capabilities will help promote the sustainable development of society, provide a talent guarantee for China to achieve the “Dual-Carbon” goal, and help achieve the goal as scheduled.
In this study, the sample was collected from all over the country, and the collection was not divided into regions. There are differences in the education levels in central and western China, and we will pay attention to this in follow-up research. At the time of sample collection, we will divide the area and conduct a comparative study.
Additionally, this study may be limited by its non-random sampling due to the convenience sampling method used when distributing the questionnaire. Data collection was conducted across universities nationwide, targeting engineering students in “Dual-Carbon” majors. However, this approach does not fully encompass all engineering students. Furthermore, the questionnaire was distributed between October and November, a period coinciding with China’s autumn recruitment and numerous exams, such as those for the civil service, career editing, and graduate schools. Consequently, many fourth-year students were either too busy or disinterested to complete the questionnaire, resulting in a small sample size for this group and limiting its representativeness of the broader population of Chinese university students.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Q.; methodology, S.Q. and P.J.; formal analysis, S.Q.; investigation, S.Q. and M.Z.; writing—original draft preparation S.Q. and M.Z.; writing—review and editing, S.Q. and M.Z.; visualization, S.Q., M.Z. and P.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is sponsored by Planning Subject for the 13th five-year-plan of National Education Sciences (BIA200185).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Song, H.J.; Choi, W.; Wang, Z. Abnormal Climate in 2022 Summer in Korea and Asia. Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci. 2024, 60, 385–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Secretary-General UN; World Commission on Environment and Development. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Note/: By the Secretary-General. 1987. Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/139811 (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  3. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development|Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2015. Enrolled on 2 October 2024. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  4. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. 2017. Available online: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/ (accessed on 5 September 2022).
  5. Mallapaty, S. How China could be carbon neutral by mid-century. Nature 2020, 586, 482–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, M.; Feng, C. The win-win ability of environmental protection and economic development during China’s transition. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 166, 120617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Belis, D.; Joffe, P.; Kerremans, B.; Qi, Y. China, the United States and the European Union: Multiple bilateralism and prospects for a new climate change diplomacy. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 2015, 9, 203–218. [Google Scholar]
  8. Education Transforms Lives|UNESCO. 2024. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/zh/education (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  9. Wang, Y.; Guo, C.H.; Chen, X.J.; Jia, L.Q.; Guo, X.N.; Chen, R.S.; Zhang, M.S.; Chen, Z.Y.; Wang, H.D. Carbon peak and carbon neutrality in China: Goals, implementation path and prospects. China Geol. 2021, 4, 720–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Astin, A.W. Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhao, Q.; Liu, X.; Ma, Y.; Zheng, X.; Yu, M.; Wu, D. Application of the modified college impact model to understand chinese engineering undergraduates’ sustainability consciousness. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ng, L.K.; Lo, C.K. Flipped classroom and gamification approach: Its impact on performance and academic commitment on sustainable learning in education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. AlAli, R.; Alsoud, K.; Athamneh, F. Towards a sustainable future: Evaluating the ability of STEM-based teaching in achieving Sustainable Development Goals in learning. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lattuca, L.R.; Stark, J.S. Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in Context; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bielefeldt, A.R. Incorporating a sustainability module into first-year courses for civil and environmental engineering students. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2011, 137, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Al-Abyadh, M.H.A.; Abdel Azeem, H.A.H. Academic achievement: Influences of university students’ self-management and perceived self-efficacy. J. Intell. 2022, 10, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hu, J.; Lai, Y.; Yi, X. Effectiveness of social media-assisted course on learning self-efficacy. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 10112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Usán Supervía, P.; Quílez Robres, A. Emotional regulation and academic performance in the academic context: The mediating role of self-efficacy in secondary education students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kuh, G.D. What We’re Learning About Student Engagement From NSSE: Benchmarks for Effective Educational Practices. Chang. Mag. High. Learn. 2003, 35, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Geletu, G.M. The effects of teachers’ professional and pedagogical competencies on implementing cooperative learning and enhancing students’ learning engagement and outcomes in science: Practices and changes. Cogent Educ. 2022, 9, 2153434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alemayehu, L.; Chen, H.L. The influence of motivation on learning engagement: The mediating role of learning self-efficacy and self-monitoring in online learning environments. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023, 31, 4605–4618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhu, X.; Gong, Q.; Wang, Q.; He, Y.; Sun, Z.; Liu, F. Analysis of students’ online learning engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study of a SPOC-based geography education undergraduate course. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Carini, R.M.; Kuh, G.D.; Klein, S.P. Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Res. High. Educ. 2006, 47, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, J.; Xue, E. Dynamic interaction between student learning behaviour and learning environment: Meta-analysis of student engagement and its influencing factors. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Brandisauskiene, A.; Buksnyte-Marmiene, L.; Cesnaviciene, J.; Daugirdiene, A.; Kemeryte-Ivanauskiene, E.; Nedzinskaite-Maciuniene, R. Sustainable school environment as a landscape for secondary school students’ engagement in learning. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Khoroushi, P.; Nili, M.R.; Abedi, A. Relationship between “Cognitive and Emotional Engagement of Learning” and “Self-Efficiency” of Students Farhangian University of Isfahan. Educ. Strateg. Med. Sci. 2014, 7, 229–234. [Google Scholar]
  27. Honicke, T.; Broadbent, J. The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educ. Res. Rev. 2016, 17, 63–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Walker, C.O.; Greene, B.A.; Mansell, R.A. Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2006, 16, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pellas, N. The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of Second Life. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 35, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sharif Nia, H.; Marôco, J.; She, L.; Khoshnavay Fomani, F.; Rahmatpour, P.; Stepanovic Ilic, I.; Mohammad Ibrahim, M.; Muhammad Ibrahim, F.; Narula, S.; Reardon, J.; et al. Student satisfaction and academic efficacy during online learning with the mediating effect of student engagement: A multi-country study. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0285315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Abubakar, A.M.; Abubakar, Y.; Itse, J.D. Students’ engagement in relationship to academic performance. J. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2017, 8, 5–9. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mulvik, I.; Pribuisis, K.; Siarova, H.; Vezikauskaite, J.; Sabaliauskas, E.; Tasiopoulou, E.; Gras-Velazquez, A.; Bajorinaite, M.; Billon, N.; Fronza, V.; et al. Education for Environmental Sustainability: Policies and Approaches in European Union Member States: Executive Summary. 2021. Available online: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/105975 (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  33. State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Notice of the State Council on Printing and Distributing the Action Plan for Carbon Peaking Before 2030. 2021. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2021-10/26/content_5644984.htm (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  34. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Notice on Printing and Distributing the Action Plan for Carbon Neutral Science and Technology Innovation in Colleges and Universities. 2021. Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A16/moe_784/202107/t20210728_547451.html (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  35. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Notice on Printing and Distributing the Work Plan for Strengthening the Construction of Higher Education Talent Training System for Carbon Peak and Carbon Neutrality. 2022. Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A08/s7056/202205/t20220506_625229.html (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  36. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Notice on the Issuance of the “Implementation Plan for the Construction of the National Education System for Green and Low-Carbon Development”. 2022. Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A03/moe_1892/moe_630/202211/t20221108_979321.html (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  37. Jiao, J.; Song, J.; Ding, T.; Li, J. What are the deep-level factors driving carbon emissions from energy consumption? A Meta-analysis. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Malla, S. CO2 emissions from electricity generation in seven Asia-Pacific and North American countries: A decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, J.; Lin, H.; Li, S.; Yang, E.; Ding, Y.; Bai, Y.; Zhou, Y. Accurate gas extraction (AGE) under the dual-carbon background: Green low-carbon development pathway and prospect. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 377, 134372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bergero, C.; Gosnell, G.; Gielen, D.; Kang, S.; Bazilian, M.; Davis, S.J. Pathways to net-zero emissions from aviation. Nat. Sustain. 2023, 6, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Our School’s Carbon Peak Carbon Neutrality Action Plan Was Released-North China Electric Power University. 2021. Enrolled on 24 September 2024. Available online: https://www.ncepu.edu.cn/xwsd/f8324e344817495ba5e7ff7715490ace.htm (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  42. College of Carbon Neutral Future Technology, Sichuan University. 2022. Available online: http://ccnft.scu.edu.cn/ (accessed on 24 September 2024).
  43. Schwarzer, R. Optimistic self-beliefs: Assessment of general perceived self-efficacy in thirteen cultures. World Psychol. 1997, 3, 177–190. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B.; Salanova, M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 701–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fredricks, J.A.; Blumenfeld, P.C.; Paris, A.H. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 2004, 74, 59–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lattuca, L.R.; Knight, D.B.; Ro, H.K.; Novoselich, B.J. Supporting the development of engineers’ interdisciplinary competence. J. Eng. Educ. 2017, 106, 71–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  48. Holm, T.; Sammalisto, K.; Grindsted, T.S.; Vuorisalo, T. Process framework for identifying sustainability aspects in university curricula and integrating education for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sen, G.; Chau, H.W.; Tariq, M.A.U.R.; Muttil, N.; Ng, A.W. Achieving sustainability and carbon neutrality in higher education institutions: A review. Sustainability 2021, 14, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Azevedo, A.; Apfelthaler, G.; Hurst, D. Competency development in business graduates: An industry-driven approach for examining the alignment of undergraduate business education with industry requirements. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2012, 10, 12–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zguir, M.F.; Dubis, S.; Koç, M. Embedding Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and SDGs values in curriculum: A comparative review on Qatar, Singapore and New Zealand. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bush, S.; Calloway, A.; Bush, E.; Himelblau, E. A course-based teaching experience for STEM undergraduates improves student perceptions of teaching self-efficacy and attitudes toward teaching careers. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2022, 21, ar7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Schutte, N.S.; Bhullar, N. Approaching environmental sustainability: Perceptions of self-efficacy and changeability. J. Psychol. 2017, 151, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Scharenberg, K.; Waltner, E.M.; Mischo, C.; Rieß, W. Development of students’ sustainability competencies: Do teachers make a difference? Sustainability 2021, 13, 12594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chong, W.H.; Liem, G.A.D.; Huan, V.S.; Kit, P.L.; Ang, R.P. Student perceptions of self-efficacy and teacher support for learning in fostering youth competencies: Roles of affective and cognitive engagement. J. Adolesc. 2018, 68, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Moeller, A.J.; Theiler, J.M.; Wu, C. Goal setting and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Mod. Lang. J. 2012, 96, 153–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Topsakal, İ.; Yalçın, S.A.; Çakır, Z. The effect of problem-based stem education on the students’ critical thinking tendencies and their perceptions for problem solving skills. Sci. Educ. Int. 2022, 33, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pratama, M.P.; Sampelolo, R.; Lura, H. Revolutionizing education: Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence for personalized learning. Klasikal J. Educ. Lang. Teach. Sci. 2023, 5, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Alam, A. Improving Learning Outcomes through Predictive Analytics: Enhancing Teaching and Learning with Educational Data Mining. In Proceedings of the 2023 7th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS), Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India, 17–19 May 2023; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 249–257. [Google Scholar]
  60. Brown, A.L.; Palincsar, A.S. Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In Knowing, Learning, and Instruction; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 393–451. [Google Scholar]
  61. Rakhimovna, B.N. Integration of theory and practice of the dual education system in the field of light industry education. Eur. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Manag. Stud. 2024, 4, 336–341. [Google Scholar]
  62. Maros, M.; Korenkova, M.; Fila, M.; Levicky, M.; Schoberova, M. Project-based learning and its effectiveness: Evidence from Slovakia. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023, 31, 4147–4155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhou, Y.; Xu, G. Vocational school–enterprise cooperation in China: A review of policy reforms, 1978–2022. ECNU Rev. Educ. 2023, 6, 433–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Supriani, Y.; Meliani, F.; Supriyadi, A.; Supiana, S.; Zaqiah, Q.Y. The Process of Curriculum Innovation: Dimensions, Models, Stages, and Affecting Factors. Nazhruna J. Pendidik. Islam 2022, 5, 485–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lozano, R.; Ceulemans, K.; Alonso-Almeida, M.; Huisingh, D.; Lozano, F.J.; Waas, T.; Lambrechts, W.; Lukman, R.; Hugé, J. A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: Results from a worldwide survey. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Maurer, M.; Koulouris, P.; Bogner, F.X. Green awareness in action—How energy conservation action forces on environmental knowledge, values and behaviour in adolescents’ school life. Sustainability 2020, 12, 955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bassachs, M.; Cañabate, D.; Serra, T.; Colomer, J. Interdisciplinary cooperative educational approaches to foster knowledge and competences for sustainable development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Montrosse-Moorhead, B.; Ensminger, D.C.; Roseveare, C. How do we teach and learn with cases? New Dir. Eval. 2021, 2021, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Connolly, T.M.; Begg, C.E. A constructivist-based approach to teaching database analysis and design. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 2006, 17, 43. [Google Scholar]
  70. Hermawati, R.; Chen, D. Increasing student cooperation through a project-based learning model with the theme of ecosystems. J. Basic Educ. Res. 2023, 4, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Roeser, R.W.; Midgley, C.; Urdan, T.C. Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. J. Educ. Psychol. 1996, 88, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dimitropoulos, G.; Cullen, E.; Cullen, O.; Pawluk, C.; McLuckie, A.; Patten, S.; Bulloch, A.; Wilcox, G.; Arnold, P.D. “Teachers often see the red flags first”: Perceptions of school staff regarding their roles in supporting students with mental health concerns. Sch. Ment. Health 2021, 14, 402–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 09208 g001
Figure 1. I-E-O theoretical structure diagram.
Figure 1. I-E-O theoretical structure diagram.
Sustainability 16 09208 g001
Sustainability 16 09208 g002
Figure 2. Research model.
Figure 2. Research model.
Sustainability 16 09208 g002
Table 1. Demographic information of survey respondents (N = 613).
Table 1. Demographic information of survey respondents (N = 613).
VariableCategoryNumberPercentage
Gendermale33654.8
female27745.2
Residential Locationurban26142.6
rural35257.4
Gradefreshman23438.2
sophomore19732.1
junior15425.1
senior284.5
Majorelectronic information447.2
machine142.3
construction26242.7
transportation12820.9
automation609.8
other10517.1
Table 2. Measurement of variables.
Table 2. Measurement of variables.
CategoryConstructMeasurementNumber of ItemsMeanStandard Deviation
Sustainable Development CapacityEcological Value Thinking AbilityFocus on students’ attitudes towards the ecological environment44.2790.769
Engineering Foresight and Innovation AbilityFocus on students’ foresight, innovation in project planning, and predictions of future impacts63.9990.740
Team Interpersonal SkillsFocus on students’ communication and cooperation skills54.0200.747
AntecedentCourse ExperienceEmphasizes innovation, application of knowledge to solve practical problems, and integration of technologies83.8650.878
Self-efficacyFocus on solving problems, dealing with challenges, and building confidence33.9430.758
Learning EngagementEnergetic, persistent, and actively engaged in learning activities23.8030.821
Table 3. Convergent validity.
Table 3. Convergent validity.
ConstructCronbach’s AlphaCRAVE
Engineering foresight and innovation ability0.9630.9110.719
Team interpersonal skills0.9680.8720.537
Ecological value thinking ability0.9600.9300.725
Course experience0.9780.9370.715
Self-efficacy0.9660.9380.835
Learning engagement0.9380.9070.830
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
Construct(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
(1) Team interpersonal skills0.733
(2) Ecological value thinking ability0.615 **0.851
(3) Engineering foresight and innovation ability0.690 **0.691 **0.848
(4) Course experience0.375 **0.274 **0.281 **0.846
(5) Self-efficacy0.783 **0.625 **0.767 **0.287 **0.914
(6) Learning engagement0.646 **0.517 **0.682 **0.247 **0.781 **0.911
Note: ** p-value < 0.01; diagonal values in bold represent the square root of AVE (average variance extracted) for each construct.
Table 5. Goodness of fit of the measurement and structural model.
Table 5. Goodness of fit of the measurement and structural model.
Statistical
Check		Goodness-of-Fit
Criteria		Measurement ModelStructural ModelResult
χ2/df<53.1383.088Good
CFI>0.90.9870.984Good
NFI>0.90.9810.976Good
IFI>0.90.9870.984Good
TLI>0.90.9820.978Good
RMSEA<0.080.0590.058Good
Table 6. Testing results of hypotheses.
Table 6. Testing results of hypotheses.
HypothesisRegression WeightS.E.p-ValueResults
H1: Course Experience → Sustainable Development Capacities0.1270.0180.000Supported
H2: Course experience → Self-efficacy → Sustainable Development Capacities0.0490.0180.006Supported
H3: Course experience → Learning Engagement → Sustainable Development Capacities0.0360.0450.502Not Supported
H4: Course Experience → Learning Engagement → Self-efficacy → Sustainable Development Capacities0.0150.0060.010Supported
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qi, S.; Jiang, P.; Zhou, M. Enhancing Sustainable Development Competence in Undergraduates: Key Determinants in the Context of “Dual-Carbon” Targets. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219208

AMA Style

Qi S, Jiang P, Zhou M. Enhancing Sustainable Development Competence in Undergraduates: Key Determinants in the Context of “Dual-Carbon” Targets. Sustainability. 2024; 16(21):9208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219208

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qi, Shuyu, Penglong Jiang, and Mi Zhou. 2024. "Enhancing Sustainable Development Competence in Undergraduates: Key Determinants in the Context of “Dual-Carbon” Targets" Sustainability 16, no. 21: 9208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219208

APA Style

Qi, S., Jiang, P., & Zhou, M. (2024). Enhancing Sustainable Development Competence in Undergraduates: Key Determinants in the Context of “Dual-Carbon” Targets. Sustainability, 16(21), 9208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219208

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop