Enhancing Sustainability: Exploring the Knowledge, Actions, and Willingness of Pre-Service Primary School Teachers

Abstract

In this study, the impact is assessed of a sustainability course on pre-service primary school teachers’ knowledge, behavior, and willingness towards sustainability. It aims to determine how this type of education empowers future educators as agents of change towards more sustainable practices in school settings. In this study, a quasi-experimental design is employed with questionnaires administered before and after the sustainability course to 56 pre-service primary school teachers. Robust statistical methods were used to analyze the data for independent and paired samples, as well as Spearman’s correlation to explore associations between cognitive, behavioral, and conative dimensions of sustainability. The results showed significant improvements in cognitive and conative dimensions following the intervention. Students increased their knowledge about sustainability and demonstrated a greater willingness to adopt sustainable behaviors. However, the change in concrete behaviors was less pronounced, suggesting the need for additional strategies to translate knowledge and willingness into effective action. In this study, the impact is highlighted of sustainability education on pre-service teachers, emphasizing the need for its effective integration into teacher training curricula to foster both knowledge acquisition and practical application of sustainable behaviors.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the integration of sustainability principles into education has gained significant global attention, particularly within teacher training programs. Education for sustainable development plays an essential role in equipping future educators with the knowledge and skills to promote environmental awareness and responsible citizenship among students. However, while sustainability education has been widely implemented at the higher education level, its integration into pre-service teacher training remains inconsistent. Many teacher education programs still lack structured sustainability components, leaving future educators without the necessary competencies to incorporate sustainability concepts into their teaching practices. Addressing this gap is needed for ensuring that sustainability education becomes a fundamental part of primary education, influencing young learners from an early stage.

1.1. The Importance of the Education for Sustainable Development

Sustainability has become a buzzword in recent years, but what does it actually mean? At its core, according to the Brundtland Report, sustainability refers to the ability to maintain a certain level of activity or behavior without depleting resources or causing harm to the environment [1]. This concept has become increasingly important as humanity faces a growing number of environmental and social challenges, from climate change and pollution to social inequality and economic instability. The concept of sustainability can be comprehended through various perspectives, depending on the context in which it is applied. In environmental terms, sustainability involves ensuring that natural resources are used in a way that allows them to be replenished over time, rather than being depleted or degraded [2]. This includes everything from using renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, to conserving water and reducing waste. In social terms, sustainability means creating systems and institutions that are fair, equitable, and promote social justice [3]. This involves addressing issues like poverty, inequality, and discrimination, and ensuring that everyone has access to the resources and opportunities they need to thrive. It also means considering the long-term impacts of decisions on future generations and working to create a world that is resilient and adaptable in the face of change. Furthermore, sustainability extends into economic realms, advocating for systems that are not only environmentally and socially conscious but also economically viable over the long haul [4]. This involves creating businesses and industries that are profitable, while also being sustainable and socially responsible.

Consequently, sustainability is a concept that is also becoming increasingly important in all stages of both formal and non-formal education. It is imperative to equip students with the tools to become responsible, engaged, and informed global citizens capable of shaping a sustainable future [5]. In this context, education for sustainable development (ESD) assumes an important role in adopting critical thinking, problem-solving, and civic engagement skills vital for addressing contemporary sustainability challenges.

Therefore, ESD provides learners of all ages with the knowledge, skills, values, and capacity to tackle global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, unsustainable resource use, and inequality [6]. In the context of teacher education, ESD is important in preparing future educators to not only understand sustainability but also to integrate it effectively into their teaching practices. Recent studies have shown that pre-service teachers’ confidence in their sustainability-related competencies, known as self-efficacy, is a key factor in successfully translating knowledge into classroom practice [7,8]. A transdisciplinary approach that integrates creativity and awareness has been shown to be effective in fostering sustainability competencies in teacher training [9]. This includes development of critical thinking, ethical decision-making, and promoting sustainable behaviors among students, which is vital in shaping the next generation of global citizens [10]. Additionally, studies have highlighted the impact of interventions in sustainability in enhancing pre-service teachers’ readiness to address complex environmental issues [11]. However, research has still identified gaps in pre-service teacher training curricula regarding environmental competencies [12]. To bridge this gap, it is essential that teacher education programs prioritize the development of interdisciplinary approaches and practical learning experiences in sustainability. These findings suggest that the integration of ESD into initial teacher training is crucial for equipping future educators with the tools needed to lead sustainable practices in schools and raise long-term behavioral change among students [13].

As the importance of ESD grows, the concept of sustainability awareness has evolved significantly in recent years. Early research works [14] have identified environmental awareness as a combination of the following five dimensions: cognitive (knowledge about environmental issues), affective (concern for the environment), conative (individual willingness to act), individual active (personal behaviors), and collective active (societal behaviors and actions). While this framework primarily focused on environmental awareness, later studies have broadened its scope to include sustainability awareness, encompassing more than just environmental consciousness. In this study, previous approaches are followed [15,16], which have integrated the cognitive (knowing), behavioral (acting), and conative (willingness/commitment) dimensions in the context of ESD. These dimensions capture how individuals comprehend sustainability, their engagement in sustainable behaviors (such as recycling or energy conservation), and their commitment to sustainability, including values and attitudes about future responsibilities. According to UNESCO [6], ESD encompasses cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral learning objectives, which align with the dimensions used in this study. While we focused on the cognitive, behavioral, and conative dimensions in this research, we reserved the affective dimension (emotional concern for sustainability) for future investigations, acknowledging the interplay between knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in promoting effective ESD [17]. Moreover, the significance has been underscored of personal and social factors, such as values, goals, and perceived control, in shaping pro-environmental behaviors [18]. They emphasize that while knowledge is foundational, real behavioral change is often driven by an individual’s motivation and willingness to act sustainably, shaped by their personal experiences and social contexts. Building on this framework, in this study, it is investigated how pre-service teachers’ willingness to act sustainably evolves through targeted educational interventions, highlighting the conative dimension as a critical driver of long-term behavioral change in ESD.

The focus on pre-service primary school teachers is of particular importance because primary educators play a foundational role in shaping the values, knowledge, and attitudes of young children. As they lay the groundwork for future learning, their understanding of sustainability is crucial in embedding sustainable practices early in students’ lives. Primary school teachers are also uniquely positioned to promote environmental awareness and responsibility, which can influence the long-term behavior of their students. Given that ESD is not yet fully integrated into teacher training programs, understanding how pre-service primary teachers engage with sustainability is essential for improving curricula and teacher preparation.

Several compelling reasons underscore the importance of ESD. Firstly, it facilitates the development of a profound understanding of the intricate connections among environmental, social, and economic systems, empowering students to tackle sustainability challenges with agility and insight [19]. Additionally, ESD cultivates a sense of responsibility among students, imbuing them with the agency to effect positive change in their communities and beyond. This sense of empowerment serves as a potent motivator for student engagement and activism on sustainability issues [6,20]. Moreover, ESD prepares students for the evolving demands of the workforce, where sustainability considerations are increasingly paramount. With industries and sectors increasingly prioritizing sustainability, there is a growing demand for professionals equipped with the knowledge, skills, and experience to address sustainability challenges [21]. By integrating ESD into curricula, educational institutions can ensure that students are equipped to make meaningful contributions to global sustainability efforts, thus promoting a brighter and more sustainable future.

Universities play a key role in driving sustainability transformations through their teaching, research, operational practices, and community engagement. ESD aims to empower students across different fields and professions, enabling them to contribute meaningfully to sustainable development [22]. In recent years, there has been a notable surge in the adoption of ESD. Schools and universities, crossing from primary stages to higher education, are increasingly integrating sustainability into their curricula. This integration manifests in various forms, ranging from dedicated courses and programs focusing solely on sustainability including recent references and the infusion of sustainability themes and concepts into existing courses across diverse disciplines.

Therefore, it can be concluded that ESD plays a fundamental role in preparing future educators to integrate sustainability into their teaching. It promotes critical thinking, problem-solving, and ethical decision-making, which are essential for addressing global sustainability challenges. However, while ESD is widely recognized as an important educational framework, there remain gaps in its effective implementation within teacher training programs, particularly at the pre-service level. Addressing these gaps requires structured interventions that not only provide knowledge but also foster behavioral change and commitment to sustainability.

In this study, the impact is investigated of a structured sustainability course on pre-service primary school teachers’ knowledge, behaviors, and willingness to engage in sustainable practices. The research employs a quasi-experimental pre-post-test design, allowing for a systematic comparison of participants’ sustainability awareness before and after the intervention. A distinctive feature of this study is its focus on three interconnected dimensions of sustainability consciousness, as follows: cognitive (knowledge), behavioral (actions), and conative (willingness/motivation). Additionally, this research explores potential gender-based differences in sustainability engagement, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of how sustainability education influences diverse learner groups. By addressing these elements, in this study, not only is the effectiveness of sustainability education in teacher training evaluated but also insights are offered into strategies for bridging the gap between knowledge and action in educational settings.

1.2. Global Perspectives on Education for Sustainable Development

ESD is a key approach for equipping learners with the competencies necessary to address global sustainability challenges. Across different regions, ESD implementation reflects diverse strategies, shaped by institutional contexts, governance frameworks, and resource availability.

In Europe, governance and accountability mechanisms are central to advancing ESD. Cassano et al. [23] emphasized the importance of national evaluation systems in aligning institutional practices with sustainability goals. These systems encourage stakeholder engagement, transparency, and continuous improvement, providing a solid foundation for embedding sustainability into educational curricula and school operations. Although Europe has made significant progress, disparities between countries highlight the ongoing need for coordinated efforts and resource allocation.

In the Americas, ESD reflects shared challenges and regional distinctions. In North America, the integration of environmental education (EE) with ESD often blurs their conceptual boundaries, pointing to the need for clearer frameworks that address sustainability comprehensively [24]. Meanwhile, Latin America and the Caribbean have made strides in community-based sustainability practices. Leal Filho et al. [25] highlighted the contributions of higher education institutions (HEIs) in addressing pressing regional issues such as deforestation and water scarcity. However, systemic barriers, including fragmented policies and limited funding, continue to constrain the scalability of these initiatives. Strengthening institutional capacities and aligning efforts with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remain critical in overcoming these obstacles.

In Asia, higher education institutions demonstrate varying levels of ESD integration. Leal Filho et al. [25] identified institutions in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand as leaders in adopting sustainability practices, including green campus initiatives and community-based projects. Despite these successes, many institutions face challenges such as policy misalignment, inconsistent frameworks, and limited resources. Franco et al. [26] argued that fragmented efforts undermine the overall impact of ESD, emphasizing the need for systematic approaches that better align institutional initiatives with regional and global sustainability goals.

African universities are increasingly adopting sustainability frameworks as part of their institutional mandates. In South Africa, for example, Awuzie and Emuze [27] documented efforts by institutions like the Central University of Technology to embed sustainability into teaching, research, and community engagement. These initiatives are often driven by cost reduction and institutional transformation, underscoring the importance of governance in achieving sustainable development goals. Nevertheless, systemic challenges such as weak governance structures, socio-economic disparities, and limited resources persist, impeding broader implementation of ESD across the continent.

Australia presents a unique approach to ESD, where it intersects significantly with education for global citizenship (EGC) through the Australian curriculum. This alignment addresses real-world issues like climate change. Menzie-Ballantyne and Ham [28] highlighted the use of inquiry-based and cross-disciplinary approaches to foster critical thinking and problem-solving skills in students. However, competing priorities, such as the focus on literacy and numeracy, often hinder the deeper integration of ESD. Greater alignment between national policies and curriculum frameworks is essential for empowering educators and ensuring the effective implementation of sustainability education.

Despite regional advances, significant challenges remain worldwide. Institutional constraints, weak governance structures, socio-economic disparities, and cultural influences often hinder the full realization of ESD’s potential. UNESCO’s ESD for the 2030 Roadmap offers a cohesive framework to address these gaps by promoting inclusive policies, cross-sector collaboration, and resource mobilization. By strengthening global and local strategies, ESD can continue to evolve as a powerful tool for fostering sustainability awareness and action.

The integration of ESD varies significantly across regions, influenced by institutional frameworks, policy priorities, and available resources. While European countries emphasize governance and evaluation systems, the Americas focus on community-based approaches, and Asia, Africa, and Australia each have unique challenges and strengths in their sustainability education strategies. Despite progress, systemic barriers such as policy misalignment, resource limitations, and inconsistent implementation persist worldwide. These disparities highlight the need for globally informed teacher education programs that can adapt successful strategies from different regions while addressing local challenges.

1.3. Education for Sustainable Development in Spain

Education for sustainable development in Spain, as in many other places, has evolved significantly from its early stages of environmental education to its current comprehensive approach that encompasses the economic, social, and environmental pillars of sustainability. This evolution mirrors global shifts towards sustainability and is influenced by international agreements, European Union directives, and national legislation [29,30]. The origins of the inclusion of sustainability in education in Spain can be traced back to the environmental movements of the 1970s and 1980s, which laid the groundwork for the integration of environmental concerns into the educational system. However, it was the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit, that served as the catalyst for incorporating sustainability into education. The Earth Summit’s Agenda 21 emphasized the critical role of education in promoting sustainable development, urging countries, including Spain, to revise their educational policies and curricula accordingly. Following the Earth Summit, Spain systematically began integrating sustainability principles into its educational policies, exemplified by the enactment of the Organic Law of Educational Quality (LOE) and its successor, the Organic Law for the Improvement of Educational Quality (LOMCE) of 2013. These laws marked a significant shift towards embedding sustainability across all levels of education, establishing it a cross-curricular theme.

In recent years, Spain has continued refining its approach to ESD, driven by national priorities and commitments under the European Union’s strategies for sustainable development. The enactment of the Organic Law 3/2020, known as LOMLOE, modified Spain’s educational system to emphasize sustainability, integrating it across curricula to equip students with the knowledge, skills, and values for sustainable development [31]. This legislative framework reflects Spain’s dedication to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development promoting environmental awareness, social justice, and economic viability through education. The focus is to prepare students to effectively address current and future sustainability challenges, encouraging critical thinking, problem-solving, and active citizenship. This approach encourages students to engage with sustainability issues both locally and globally [31].

Moreover, within higher education institutions, legislative measures like the Organic Law on Universities and the Law on Sustainable Economy have been implemented to integrate sustainability into university management, accountability, and broader academic practices [32]. Despite the Conference of Spanish University Rectors having developed different strategies and guidelines to ensure and follow up the progress of Spanish universities on their path to sustainability [33], curricular sustainability has not been properly implemented [32,34].

Despite these efforts, challenges persist in implementing curricular sustainability, necessitating more comprehensive teacher training in sustainability, the integration of sustainability into teacher evaluation and professional development frameworks, and the development of interdisciplinary approaches to engage students with complex sustainability issues [35,36,37]. Effective collaboration between educational institutions, government bodies, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector is essential to support sustainability education initiatives.

In Spain, ESD has evolved through various legislative and institutional reforms, aligning with European and global sustainability frameworks. However, despite policy advancements, the practical implementation of sustainability education in teacher training programs remains insufficient. The integration of sustainability across curricula is often fragmented, and teacher education programs still face challenges in embedding interdisciplinary approaches and experiential learning. To bridge this gap, more comprehensive strategies are needed to ensure that future teachers develop the necessary competencies to incorporate sustainability principles into primary education.

1.4. Teachers’ Professional Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development

Teachers are fundamental in integrating ESD into their classrooms, making it crucial for them to develop specific professional competencies. Recent research has highlighted that teacher attributes such as personality, humor, and emotional regulation significantly influence classroom effectiveness. Qi and Wang [38] found that humor in classroom interactions contributes to a positive learning environment, reinforcing engagement and motivation. Similarly, Qu and Wang [39] demonstrated that teachers’ emotion-regulation strategies and personality traits are closely linked to their overall well-being and effectiveness in promoting student participation. These findings suggest that beyond sustainability knowledge, pre-service teachers must also develop interpersonal and emotional competencies to effectively implement education for sustainable development (ESD) in the classroom.

Specific professional competencies are necessary to enable educators to not only teach sustainability concepts but also inspire students to take action towards a sustainable future. Unlike general sustainability competencies, which may apply broadly, professional competencies in ESD emphasize teachers’ capacity to promote critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making around sustainability issues [40,41,42]. The development of these competencies is essential for helping learners’ comprehension of the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and economic systems. Educators must be prepared to guide students in addressing complex sustainability challenges, from climate change to social justice, all of which require interdisciplinary approaches and systems thinking. Professional competencies in ESD include a wide range of abilities, from facilitating participatory learning and empowering students to engage with sustainability issues to helping them develop the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

However, there is an ongoing debate in the ESD literature regarding which key competencies should be promoted and integrated into education programs [43]. Some studies highlight that while teachers recognize the importance of ESD, they often struggle with its practical implementation due to a lack of institutional support and training resources [44]. Various frameworks have been proposed to clarify core competencies for ESD, each aiming to guide the development of competencies that enable individuals to adapt to the complexity and uncertainty of sustainability challenges. Indeed, different studies [45,46,47] suggest that teachers need to develop competencies in systems thinking, anticipatory skills, normative competence, and strategic competence. These are critical for fostering the ability to envision alternative sustainable futures and engage in collaborative problem-solving that drives real-world action. A widely cited framework [48] that was later expanded [49] emphasized the need for competencies that promote interdisciplinary approaches, ethical reflection, and the ability to engage with multiple stakeholders. These frameworks highlight that educators must prepare students to not only understand sustainability but also to act on it by engaging in transformative processes that redesign societies toward more sustainable practices.

A particular focus is placed on pre-service primary school teachers, as initiating SDGs education at the university level—particularly during pre-service teacher training—is crucial for preparing future educators who will promote sustainable development among young learners [50,51]. Pre-service teachers are key agents of change, as they will inspire and instigate sustainable behaviors among future generations. Studies have shown that students demand competencies related to ESD, which further underscores the importance of developing these skills during teacher training programs [51,52]. Pre-service teachers must develop competencies that will allow them to inspire and instigate behavioral changes effectively. They need to be equipped with the tools to address sustainability challenges both in the classroom and beyond. Research shows that the earlier these competencies are developed, the more effectively teachers will be able to influence sustainable behaviors in their students.

In this study, pre-service primary school teachers are specifically examined, as their role in forming early childhood education is critical for promoting sustainable behaviors from a young age. This involves assessing changes in participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to sustainability before and after the intervention. Furthermore, by analyzing gender-specific responses to the intervention, the research aims to elucidate potential disparities in how males and females perceive and engage with sustainability concepts and behaviors. Additionally, participants’ evolving understanding of sustainability is explored, from defining the concept to discerning its cognitive, behavioral, and consciousness aspects.

Teachers play a crucial role in translating sustainability knowledge into classroom practices, yet many lack the professional competencies needed to effectively integrate ESD into their teaching. The research has highlighted that beyond content knowledge, teachers must develop interpersonal skills, emotional intelligence, and leadership abilities to foster student engagement in sustainability topics. Various frameworks suggest that systems thinking, anticipatory skills, and ethical reflection are key competencies for ESD. However, institutional support and targeted training are still needed to ensure that pre-service teachers are adequately prepared to implement sustainability education in primary schools.

2. Materials and Methods

In this research, the aim was to investigate the impact of a sustainability course on the knowledge, behavior, and willingness of pre-service primary school teachers to engage in sustainable practices. The main research questions are as follows: (1) To what extent does participation in a sustainability course lead to statistically significant changes in pre-service primary school teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to sustainability? How do these changes compare before and after the intervention? and (2) Do male and female pre-service teachers exhibit significant differences in their initial sustainability awareness and post-course improvements? If so, which dimensions (knowledge, attitudes, behaviors) show the most variation between genders? The hypothesis of this study is that pre-service primary school teachers will show significant improvements in their knowledge, willingness, and behavior toward sustainability following the intervention. We also hypothesize that there may be gender-specific differences in these outcomes.

2.1. Research Design

A quasi-experimental pre- and post-test design was employed in this study for assessing changes in participants’ knowledge, behavior, and willingness related to sustainability. The same questionnaire was administered before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the intervention to ensure consistency in measuring shifts in understanding and attitudes. This design enabled us to compare the results and observe how the sustainability course impacted the participants over the duration of this study.

2.2. Sample

At the beginning of the course, the pre-questionnaire was completed by 56 pre-service primary school teachers (students of the 7th semester of the Degree in Primary Education) in the context of a subject on didactics of experimental sciences (Facultad de Educación y Psicología, Universidad de Extremadura, Spain). Inclusion criteria for participants were as follows: (a) enrollment in the 7th semester of the Primary Education degree; (b) prior completion of at least one natural sciences didactics course, i.e., had previously completed courses on the didactics of the natural sciences (including subjects such as matter, energy, living beings, and geology); (c) voluntary participation in this study, with informed consent obtained before data collection; (d) no prior formal coursework specifically focused on sustainability education, allowing us to measure the direct impact of the intervention. As is typical in this type of university degree, 78.6% of the sample were female, and 21.4% were male. Once the semester classes were over, the post-questionnaire was administered.

2.3. Instrument

A pre- and post-test questionnaire was developed and used to collect information before and after the course, respectively. The first part of the questionnaire included sociodemographic questions (age, gender, and previous studies). Additionally, participants were asked to describe their understanding of the concept of sustainability using five words. This open-ended task was chosen to obtain participants’ intuitive and core perceptions of sustainability. The brevity of the task encouraged reflection on essential aspects of sustainability and helped capture shifts in their understanding before and after the course. Responses were later categorized into five themes, as follows: environment, social, economy, behavior, and consciousness, based on standard approaches in the ESD literature [53,54]. The environment category focuses on natural systems, biodiversity, and ecological balance. The social category reflects the human and societal aspects of sustainability, including social justice, welfare, and community dynamics. Economy includes concepts related to resources, development, and economic practices for understanding the economic impacts and dependencies in sustainable practices. Behavior focuses on actions and habits that promote or detract from sustainability; this category is essential for linking knowledge and consciousness to practical application. Consciousness is critical as it relates to the awareness, attitudes, and values that drive sustainable thinking and behaviors, bridging the gap between knowledge and action. Finally, miscellaneous serves as a catch-all for terms that do not neatly fit into the other categories but are relevant to discussions of sustainability, allowing flexibility in categorization.

To develop the second part of the questionnaire, we appealed to pioneering studies that explored the concept of environmental and sustainability awareness. Participants rated their agreement with 29 statements related to sustainability on a scale from 1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum). These items were distributed as follows: 11 items for the cognitive dimension (CG1-CG11), 6 items for the behavioral dimension (BE1-BE6), and 12 items for the conative dimension (CN1-CN12). The same questionnaire was administered before and after the course to ensure consistent measurement of changes in knowledge, behaviors, and willingness to act sustainably.

Table 1. Sustainable awareness dimensions and items.

	Cognitive Dimension
CG1	Reducing water consumption is necessary for sustainable development
CG2	Preserving the variety of living creatures is necessary for sustainable development
CG3	Those of us living today should ensure that future generations can enjoy a quality of life similar to the one we enjoy today
CG4	How important do you think it is to participate in activities to protect the environment?
CG5	Pollution, how much do you think it poses a threat to sustainability?
CG6	Lack of energy, how much do you think it poses a threat to sustainability?
CG7	Water scarcity, how much do you think it poses a threat to sustainability?
CG8	Food shortage, how much do you think it poses a threat to sustainability?
CG9	Climate change, how much do you think it poses a threat to sustainability?
CG10	Overpopulation, how much do you think it poses a threat to sustainability?
CG11	Infectious diseases, how much do you think it poses a threat to sustainability?
	Behavioral dimension
BE1	I recycle as much as I can
BE2	I avoid buying goods from companies with a bad reputation for looking after their employees and the environment
BE3	I have to change my personal lifestyle in order to reduce waste (e.g., throwing away less food or not wasting materials)
BE4	I support an aid organization or environmental group
BE5	I am one of those types of people who can be defined as ecological
BE6	Acting sustainably is an important part of my personality
	Conative Consciousness dimension
CN1	I am prepared to represent a group on sustainability issues
CN2	I would participate and lead activities that make the Faculty more sustainable
CN3	How much personal effort are you willing to make to protect natural resources?
CN4	How prepared do you see yourself to argue your point of view on political/social/environmental issues?
CN5	How prepared do you see yourself to organize a group of students to promote changes for sustainability in the Faculty?
CN6	How likely would you be to lead a climate march?
CN7	How likely would you collect signatures for a petition?
CN8	How likely would you be to contribute your opinion to a forum?
CN9	How likely would you be to participate in an online campaign?
CN10	How likely would you buy fair trade products?
CN11	How likely would you make efforts to be more sustainable?
CN12	How likely would you reduce your energy consumption/meat/pay more for green energy?

provides an overview of the questionnaire items used to assess sustainability awareness, structured across the three key dimensions of cognitive (knowledge), behavioral (actions), and conative (willingness/motivation). The cognitive dimension included items measuring participants’ awareness of major sustainability challenges (e.g., climate change, resource depletion). These items were expected to show a strong improvement post-intervention, given the focus on knowledge-building in the course. The behavioral dimension evaluated actual actions related to sustainability, such as recycling and supporting environmentally responsible companies. Previous studies [55] have suggested that this is the most challenging area to change, as behaviors are often influenced by external constraints. Finally, the conative dimension captured the willingness to engage in sustainability advocacy and leadership. This dimension is crucial, as willingness often precedes behavioral change and long-term commitment to sustainability [56].

Internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (0.869) and McDonald’s omega (0.870), confirming the reliability of the instrument. The questionnaire items were informed by previous research [57,58] and adapted to assess the unique aspects of sustainability knowledge, behaviors, and motivations relevant to pre-service teachers. Recent studies have emphasized the importance of including social responsibility as part of sustainability awareness in teacher training, an aspect also considered in our questionnaire design [59].

2.4. Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection followed a structured pre-post design to evaluate the impact of the sustainability course on participants’ knowledge, behaviors, and willingness to act sustainably. The process was carried out in three phases. Before the course began, all 56 participants completed a pre-questionnaire during a scheduled class session. The questionnaire was administered in person by the researchers to ensure consistency and provide clarifications if needed. Participants were informed of this study’s objectives, and informed consent was obtained before completing the survey. During the eight-week intervention, participants engaged in various sustainability-related activities. While informal observations and reflections were encouraged throughout the course, no formal data were collected at this stage to prevent potential biases in responses. After completing the final session of the course, participants were given the same questionnaire (post-test) to assess changes in sustainability awareness. To ensure data reliability, post-surveys were administered under the same conditions as the pre-test, with researchers present to address any questions. Participants were reminded that their responses remained anonymous, encouraging honest and unbiased answers. Ethical considerations were prioritized throughout this study. The research followed institutional ethical guidelines, and approval was obtained from the university’s Ethics Committee. Participants were informed that participation was voluntary, and they could withdraw at any time without consequences.

Regarding the analysis, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p < 0.05) was conducted to check the distribution of the sample data, and the results indicated that the data did not follow a normal distribution. To explore relationships between the different dimensions of sustainability awareness (cognitive, behavioral, and conative), Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients were calculated. This helped identify associations between knowledge, behavior, and willingness among the participants.

Given the non-normal distribution of the data, robust independent samples t-tests and robust paired samples t-tests were employed to investigate differences between the pre- and post-test results. These tests were conducted using the Walrus–Robust Statistical Methods Package implemented in Jamovi (v. 2.3.28.0) [60], following the recommendations for handling non-parametric data [61]. Additionally, Chi-squared tests were used to analyze qualitative data, particularly in the analysis of the participants’ five-word descriptions of sustainability. This test helped to compare the frequency distributions of categorical data between the pre- and post-test responses, allowing us to assess shifts in participants’ conceptual understanding of sustainability.

2.5. Sustainability Course

The voluntary sustainability course comprised 8 sessions spread over 8 weeks, with one session held weekly. To accommodate participants, the course was conducted outside regular schedules, utilizing an e-learning format [62].

The sustainability course was structured into the following four key components, each designed to enhance participants’ cognitive, behavioral, and conative dimensions of sustainability: (1) Knowledge sessions covered fundamental topics such as climate change (causes and consequences), the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, and sustainable resource management. These sessions featured interactive lectures, multimedia resources, and case discussions to establish a strong theoretical foundation. (2) Sustainable living habits, that explored the environmental impact of various economic sectors while encouraging participants to assess their personal habits and carbon footprint. Activities included guided reflections, quizzes, and group discussions on reducing waste, conserving energy, and adopting more sustainable lifestyles. (3) Didactic sessions, focused on integrating sustainability concepts into primary school curricula, culminating in the design of sustainability-based lesson plans for natural sciences education. Peer reviews and collaborative feedback sessions helped refine these instructional strategies. (4) Final forum, a final discussion-based session where participants reflected on their learning journey, shared key takeaways, and proposed strategies for incorporating sustainability into their future teaching practices.

The eight-session course incorporated a diverse range of engaging methodologies to reinforce sustainability concepts and encourage practical application: Case Studies—participants analyzed real-world sustainability challenges, such as deforestation and urban waste management, formulating practical and context-specific solutions. Role-playing exercises—simulated classroom scenarios (e.g., “teaching students about climate change”) to enhance communication and problem-solving skills. Reflective writing—weekly journals prompted participants to document their evolving perspectives, set sustainability goals, and track progress over time.

To further enrich the learning experience, the course utilized videos, questionnaires, text analyses, sustainability activity design, group discussions, and written reflections. These elements ensured a holistic, immersive, and practice-oriented approach to sustainability education, equipping participants with the knowledge and skills necessary to drive meaningful change in their future classrooms.

It is noteworthy that the design of the sustainability course adhered to experts’ recommendations for integrating sustainability into teacher training curricula. Tailored to each institution’s unique context, the course emphasized practical, experiential learning activities aimed at addressing students’ daily environmental impacts on campus. These activities involved direct actions to mitigate environmental damage, responsible device and resource usage, and effective waste generation and management [63,64].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The Impact of the Intervention on Knowledge, Willingness, and Behavior

The effectiveness of an intervention aimed at enhancing sustainability knowledge and promoting sustainable behaviors among students is examined through pre-test and post-test assessments across various dimensions. Figure 1 illustrates the average scores for each dimension and item before and after the intervention, highlighting the differential impact across cognitive, behavioral, and conative dimensions. The largest improvement is observed in the conative dimension, suggesting that the course was particularly effective in strengthening participants’ willingness to engage in sustainable behaviors. However, despite improvements in the behavioral dimension, the change remains less pronounced than in knowledge and willingness, indicating that knowledge alone may not be sufficient to drive immediate behavioral change. These findings align with prior research [65] on the intention–behavior gap in sustainability education, where participants often develop awareness and motivation but face external and psychological barriers when translating these into action. This result underscores the need for reinforcement strategies beyond coursework, such as long-term sustainability projects, institutional support, and behavioral reinforcement mechanisms.

Initially, notable disparities were observed between students’ knowledge levels and their corresponding behaviors and intentions in daily life. During the pre-test phase, discrepancies between students’ knowledge and their behavioral patterns became evident. Cognitive dimension assessments yielded higher scores, indicating a robust understanding of sustainability threats among participants, as corroborated by previous studies [66]. These improvements observed in the cognitive dimension support the findings of Pegalajar Palomino et al. [59], who emphasized the importance of incorporating sustainability awareness and responsibility into teacher training programs through systematic and interdisciplinary approaches. However, when asked about their habits (behavioral dimension) or intentions to modify these habits (conative dimension), scores decreased significantly to 3.11 and 3.21, respectively. Notably, Spearman’s correlations revealed a positive association between the conative and behavioral dimensions (ρ = 0.529, p < 0.001), highlighting the link between intention and action.

Following the intervention, a marked improvement was observed across all domains, with the conative dimension experiencing the most substantial increase. Participants demonstrated a significant increase in their willingness to engage in sustainability-related activities, particularly those requiring leadership and advocacy skills. This aligns with the findings of Echegoyen-Sanz et al. [9], who emphasized the value of transdisciplinary approaches that promote creativity and critical awareness in teacher training. Their work highlights how integrating creative methodologies can enhance educators’ ability to motivate and lead sustainable practices, a key outcome observed in this study. Consequently, there was a notable rise in the behavioral dimension post-intervention. On the other hand, the cognitive domain exhibited the smallest increase, indicating that while participants possessed adequate knowledge, they may lack the impetus to translate it into practice. Cognitive domain correlated with greater environmental awareness, which can lead to more environmentally friendly behaviors, but the relationship between environmental knowledge and behavior is complex, with some studies showing a positive link while other findings indicating this connection is not always straightforward or significant [65]. Recent research has highlighted that educators often face challenges in translating their sustainability knowledge into practice due to a lack of institutional incentives and external constraints [67]. Actually, enhanced sustainability knowledge and awareness do not always lead to behavioral changes [22], as many actions are influenced by external factors [68]. Outcomes from ESD tend to be primarily personal, such as changes in low-commitment behaviors and increased understanding of self and empowerment [22].

If individual items are analyzed, notable increases in the cognitive domain were evident in CG01 (water consumption) and CG11 (infectious diseases), indicating heightened awareness following the intervention. In the behavioral dimension, noteworthy enhancements were observed in BE02 (buying goods from companies with a bad reputation) and BE03 (reducing waste). This signifies the intervention’s efficacy in influencing consumer behaviors and personal accountability in waste management among participants [52], although they might be considered as light-green sustainability actions [69].

There was also a statistically significant positive changes in the “being ecological” (BE05), and “acting sustainably” (BE06), which may reflect changes in self-perception related to sustainability, revealing that the intervention might have strengthened participants’ identification with sustainable living principles. However, the “support for an aid organization or environmental group” (BE4) decreased slightly (although not significantly), which might indicate a need to better address external engagement in sustainability efforts within the intervention. Indeed, aid organizations and environmental groups were not addressed directly during the course, but it was included in the questionnaire to assess the potential side effects of undertaking the course.

Although various studies have shown that a significant number of students have never participated in environmental activities, such as volunteering for nature conservation, engaging in environmental actions in public spaces, interacting with environmental content on blogs or social media, and choosing holiday destinations with environmental interests in mind [52], thankfully, in our work, the most considerable improvement was observed in the conative domain, particularly in participants’ preparedness to engage in sustainability-related activities positively affecting their intention to engage in sustainability actions [70], confirming previous studies that have indicated that environmental knowledge is essential for influencing individual intention and behavior towards sustainability, considering that intention is the best predictor of environmental behavior [55]. Particularly noteworthy was the significant increase in CN01, indicating a robust surge in participants’ willingness to represent groups on sustainability issues, suggesting the intervention’s effectiveness in motivating leadership in sustainability. Similarly, CN05 demonstrated a marked increase, signifying participants’ heightened confidence in organizing groups to promote sustainability changes. Furthermore, statistically significant increases in CN04 and CN12 indicate that the intervention has equipped participants with the conviction and readiness to debate sustainability issues and make personal lifestyle changes towards sustainability. These findings imply that participants not only acquired knowledge but also developed the determination to act on sustainability matters.

Additional items, such as CN02, CN06, CN07, CN08, and CN09, exhibited significant increases, affirming the intervention’s efficacy in enhancing participants’ intention and readiness to engage in various sustainability-related actions. While positive changes were also observed in CN02, CN03, CN10, and CN11, it is noteworthy that CN03 showed a significant yet smaller increase, possibly indicating a ceiling effect due to the high initial value.

In the pre-test, Spearman’s correlations between dimensions only revealed significant associations between behavior and the conative dimension (ρ = 0.529, p < 0.001), consistent with previous works [71]. However, in the post-test, all dimensions exhibited positive correlations, as follows: cognitive–behavioral (ρ = 0.268, p < 0.046), cognitive–conative (ρ = 0.390, p = 0.003), and behavioral–conative (ρ = 0.614, p < 0.001), mirroring findings from other studies [71,72]. The evident increase in sustainability consciousness among students’ post-intervention underscores the effectiveness of the sustainability course. Mean scores and correlations reflect enhanced knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to sustainability development, aligning with expectations, and supported by previous research [16,41,73,74,75].

Finally, despite significant improvements in knowledge and willingness among participants, the limited behavioral change observed aligns with the prior research emphasizing the complexity of translating awareness into action [65]. This finding is consistent with Mulà and Tilbury [44], who emphasized the significant challenges of integrating sustainability practices into teaching, often stemming from structural and institutional constraints. Several potential barriers may explain this gap, as follows: (a) Psychological factors: behavioral change often requires breaking existing habits and building new ones, which can be a gradual and challenging process. Participants may lack sufficient self-efficacy to enact sustainability practices consistently in their personal or professional lives. As Portus et al. [69] explained, internal psychological barriers, such as the belief that individual actions are insignificant, often hinder meaningful action despite positive attitudes. (b) Social influences: limited behavioral change may also stem from a lack of peer or institutional reinforcement. When individuals do not observe collective action or receive encouragement, their motivation to persist in sustainable behaviors may wane. Borges-Tiago et al. [76] emphasized that perceived behavioral control and social norms significantly influence the likelihood of behavior change, suggesting that reinforcement from peers or institutions can enhance sustainability efforts. (c) Structural constraints: external factors, such as limited access to resources or institutional support, can hinder the ability to adopt new behaviors. For instance, Recio-Román et al. [77] highlighted that those contextual factors, like infrastructure and institutional trust, are critical in facilitating the transition from intention to action.

Therefore, to address these challenges, teacher education programs could incorporate the following: (a) Behavior-focused interventions: including activities such as personal action plans or behavioral contracts that encourage participants to set measurable sustainability goals and track progress. (b) Experiential learning: designing projects that involve participants in hands-on sustainability actions, such as waste reduction initiatives or community engagement campaigns. (c) Institutional support: encouraging partnerships between universities and local organizations to provide participants with tangible opportunities to practice sustainability behaviors. (d) Post-course engagement: offering follow-up sessions or alumni networks focused on sustainability to foster accountability and long-term commitment.

3.2. Students’ Understanding of the Sustainability Concept: Perspectives and Knowledge

The research on sustainable development education and sustainability’s inclusion in curricula has revealed that many students have a vague understanding of sustainability and are not well-versed in key environmental laws, policies, and standards [70,78,79]. Additionally, there is a noted lack of studies investigating students’ actual knowledge and perceptions of sustainability, highlighting an area that requires further exploration [80,81]. Accordingly, our questionnaires, both pre-test and post-test, included an additional question where participants were asked to define the sustainability concept using five words. The results are summarized in Figure 2 and detailed in

Table 2. Word count in each of the categories used to describe the concept of sustainability in both pre-test and post-test.

Category/Words	PRE	POST	Category/Words	PRE	POST
Environment category			Social category
Environment	34	25	Welfare	10	8
Equilibrium	14	15	Care	7	10
Ecology	12	8	Society	7	3
Climate, warming	12	6	Respect	4	8
Biodiversity	11	1	SDG	5	3
Future	3	8	Health	1	1
Pollution, microplastics	6	2	Solidarity, empathy, inclusive	3	0
Biodegradable	3	0	Education	0	1
Cleanness	2	0	Help	0	1
Life	1	2	Population	1	1
Exploitation	1	0	Learning	0	2
Carbon footprint	0	2	Evolution	0	4
Economy category			Generations	0	3
Resources	6	6	Behavior category
Needs	5	7	Recycling	15	13
Development	4	9	Keep	8	9
Economy	5	2	Reuse	3	3
Growth	5	2	Reduce	2	0
Saving	3	1	Arrangement	3	0
Progress	1	1	Rational use	4	0
Energy	3	0	Protect	2	1
Consumption	2	4	Actions, defend	2	0
Benefits	0	1	Improve	3	2
Balance	0	1	Change	3	3
Miscellaneous category			Satisfice	1	0
Sustainability	3	1	Prevent	1	1
Time	3	0	Move	1	0
Renewal	1	0	Availability	1	0
Viability	1	2	Collaboration	0	3
Change	0	3	Habits	0	1
Present	0	1	Share	0	1
Sacrifice, Pain	0	2	Consciousness category
Capacity	0	1	Responsibility, awareness	7	19
Consequences	0	1	Compromise	0	10
Model	0	1	Politics	1	0
Novelty	0	1	Attitude	0	2
Optimize	0	1	Implication	0	2
Positive	0	1	Appreciate	0	1
Re-Establish	0	1
Renewable	0	1
Science	0	1

.

As it can be seen in Figure 2, the selection and percentages of the words chosen were significantly different between pre-test and post-test (p = 0.001, χ²).

Table 2 illustrates how participants’ conceptualization of sustainability evolved following the course. The data reveal a shift from environmentally focused terms (e.g., “biodiversity”, “climate”) toward a broader, more integrated understanding that includes social and behavioral aspects (e.g., “responsibility”, “compromise”, “evolution”). The environmental category remains dominant, but a decrease in terms like “biodiversity” suggests that participants moved beyond ecological awareness to a more holistic view of sustainability. The social category saw an increase in terms like “respect” and “care”, indicating a growing recognition of sustainability’s ethical and communal aspects. The consciousness category experienced a notable rise, with words like “responsibility” and “awareness” nearly doubling, demonstrating a strengthened internalization of sustainability values.

Analyzing the results, a slightly different comprehension of sustainability appeared among participants, covering multiple dimensions. The environment category stood out as the most frequently mentioned, underlining the importance of environmental considerations in sustainability, with “Environment” being the most cited term. This suggests a primary association of sustainability with environmental issues among participants. The prevalence of the term “Environment” itself indicated a direct association with sustainability, while terms like “Equilibrium” and “Ecology” highlighted the necessity of maintaining balance within natural systems and prioritizing ecological health. In contrast, the relatively lower mention of “Society” and “Health” might indicate a narrower focus within the social domain. This observation is consistent with Purvis et al. [82], who observed that environmental aspects often dominate the sustainability discourse. Economic references such as “Resources” and “Development” were frequently mentioned, indicating an awareness of the economic dimensions of sustainability. However, terms like “Growth” and “Economy” received less focus, possibly reflecting a less mature understanding of these aspects.

Behavioral aspects were evident through terms like “Recycling” and “Keep”, indicating recognition of individual and collective actions in achieving sustainability. Other behaviors such as “Reuse” and “Reduce” had fewer mentions, suggesting less emphasis on broader lifestyle changes. In the consciousness category, participants emphasized “Responsibility” and “Awareness”, recognizing the cognitive aspects of understanding and being mindful of one’s actions’ impact. This agrees with previous findings [83] that have highlighted the gap between environmental awareness and action, giving emphasis to the importance of recognizing and overcoming barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Finally, the miscellaneous domain included direct references to “Sustainability”, alongside abstract concepts like “Time”, indicating participants’ perception of sustainability as a long-term, overarching goal with practical implications.

Comparing pre-test and post-test results revealed shifts across sustainability domains. While the term “Environment” remained prominent, it showed a notable decrease. This shift aligns with recent findings suggesting that teachers are increasingly adopting a broader conceptualization of sustainability, moving beyond environmental aspects to incorporate social and economic dimensions [84]. Additionally, increases in terms like “Equilibrium” and “Future” suggest a growing understanding of sustainability’s balance and long-term perspective, as discussed by other authors [85], who have claimed the significance of future-oriented thinking in ESD. Conversely, the decrease in terms like “Biodiversity” and “Ecology” might indicate a shift from general ecological concepts to immediate and personal sustainability concerns. This pattern is supported by a previous study [86], which observed a transition from ecological literacy to practical sustainability actions post-intervention.

In terms of social issues, the increase in “Care”, “Respect”, and newly introduced terms like “Evolution” and “Generations” highlights a broader, perhaps more concerned and forward-thinking view of sustainability that incorporates future generations and evolutionary progress in societal norms and practices. Economic references saw interesting changes, with an increase in words such as “Development” and “Needs” against the decrease in “Economy” and “Growth”. This could signify a shift towards understanding sustainability from a needs-based perspective rather than traditional economic growth metrics. Similar results in the social and economic dimensions were found by Kalsoom and Khanam [56]. Their study revealed that although participants’ mean scores on the social dimension were lower on the pre-test compared to the economic dimension, these scores saw the most significant increase on the post-test. This indicates that ESD effectively enhances participants’ understanding and prioritization of social issues alongside economic concerns.

The behavioral category showed a minor increase in words like “Keep” and “Recycling”, showing a steady commitment to sustainable behaviors. The introduction of “Collaboration” and “Habits” reflects an awareness of the need for collective action and habitual change in daily practices. Thus, it is worth noting the role of collective and habitual actions in achieving sustainability goals, as supported by previous studies [87]. The substantial rise in “Responsibility”, “Awareness”, and “Compromise”, in the consciousness category, highlights a deepening of moral and ethical dimensions in participants’ understanding of sustainability. This suggests the course may effectively elevate the sense of personal and collective duty towards sustainable living, as observed by some authors [88], who noted the impact of ESD on enhancing ethical and moral reasoning among participants.

Overall, post-test data indicated an enhanced understanding of sustainability, with a transition from generic terms to more actionable items and personal responsibility, reflecting the intervention’s impact. Post-test results exhibited a broader and more intricate understanding of sustainability, with many new words, suggesting a more complex perspective among participants. New terms, like “Compromise”, “Attitude”, and “Implication” in the consciousness category, “Evolution”, “Generations”, and “Learning” in the social category, and “Benefits” and “Balance” in the economic category, highlighted an enriched comprehension post-intervention. This agrees with a previous work [89] that found that ESD enhances participants’ ability to understand and articulate complex sustainability concepts.

Additionally, terms like “Collaboration”, “Habits”, and “Share” in the behavioral category, and “Change”, “Sacrifice”, and “Pain” in the miscellaneous category, focus on the importance of collective action and sustained practices in achieving sustainability. This understanding is essential for addressing the multifaceted challenges of sustainable development, with the interdependence of environmental, social, and economic factors, as well as individual and societal roles. Overall, the results depict sustainability as an integrated whole with various dimensions rather than a singular issue, supporting the holistic approach promoted by Sterling [87].

4. Conclusions

While education for sustainable development (ESD) has been increasingly integrated into higher education, limited research exists on its effects at the pre-service teacher education level, particularly in primary education [12]. Previous studies have often focused on university-level interventions or broader educational contexts, leaving a gap in understanding how ESD can effectively shape the knowledge, behavior, and willingness of pre-service primary school teachers to act on sustainability. Addressing this gap is crucial, as primary educators play a foundational role in embedding sustainable practices and values in young children [11].

In this study, a contribution is made to bridge this gap by exploring the impact of a sustainability course specifically designed for pre-service primary school teachers. By assessing cognitive, behavioral, and conative dimensions, this research offers new insights into how ESD can influence not only knowledge acquisition but also the willingness and readiness of future educators to implement sustainable practices in the classroom. The aim of this study was to answer the following two research questions: (1) To what extent does participation in a sustainability course lead to statistically significant changes in pre-service primary school teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to sustainability? How do these changes compare before and after the intervention? and (2) Do male and female pre-service teachers exhibit significant differences in their initial sustainability awareness and post-course improvements? If so, which dimensions (knowledge, attitudes, behaviors) show the most variation between genders? Our findings confirmed the first hypothesis; the course significantly enhanced pre-service teachers’ knowledge, willingness, and behaviors related to sustainability. Notable improvements were observed in the cognitive and conative dimensions, reflecting the course’s effectiveness in increasing sustainability awareness and motivation. However, changes in behavior, while positive, were less pronounced, highlighting the challenge of translating knowledge and willingness into concrete actions. The findings also suggest the need for enhanced strategies to support behavior change, contributing to ongoing discussions on how to improve the integration of ESD into teacher training curricula. This suggests that while ESD interventions are effective in raising awareness and positive attitudes, additional strategies are needed to bridge the gap between intention and behavior—a challenge that has been noted in the broader literature [18,22]. Recent studies propose the implementation of active methodologies in teacher training to foster sustainability-related behaviors through experiential learning and problem-solving approaches [90].

Regarding the second hypothesis, in this study, no statistically significant gender differences were found in the cognitive, conative, or behavioral dimensions. These null results suggest that the sustainability course was equally effective for all participants, regardless of gender. This finding is valuable, as it demonstrates the potential inclusivity and universal applicability of the intervention.

The results of this study have important implications for teacher education programs. First, the significant improvements in pre-service teachers’ willingness to engage with sustainability indicate that the teacher training curricula should prioritize not only the cognitive but also the conative aspects. By embedding experiential learning activities that focus on real-world sustainability challenges, teacher education programs can better prepare future educators to inspire sustainable behaviors in their classrooms [40]. Furthermore, as the findings suggest that pre-service teachers struggle to translate knowledge into practice, teacher education programs should incorporate more opportunities for hands-on, practical experiences that help future educators apply their learning in everyday contexts.

This study contributes to the field by focusing on the relatively unexplored area of conative dimensions in ESD. While many studies emphasize knowledge acquisition, this research highlights the importance of promotion of the willingness and readiness to act on sustainability knowledge [10]. By addressing both cognitive and conative dimensions, this study provides valuable insights into how ESD interventions can be designed to promote not only knowledge but also the behavioral changes needed for sustainable development. Additionally, our findings highlight the need for long-term research to evaluate the sustained impact of ESD interventions on pre-service teachers’ professional practice, contributing to ongoing efforts to refine and improve teacher training in promoting sustainable practices [91].

In this study, it was demonstrated that a sustainability course significantly enhanced pre-service primary school teachers’ knowledge and willingness to act sustainably, though behavioral changes were modest, highlighting the need for strategies to bridge the gap between intention and action. No significant gender differences were observed, indicating the intervention’s inclusivity and universal applicability. These findings advance understanding of education for sustainable development (ESD) by emphasizing the importance of integrating cognitive, conative, and experiential learning in teacher training programs to prepare educators as agents of sustainable change.

Therefore, to ensure lasting impact, sustainability education should be embedded across teacher education programs through concrete strategies, such as the following: (1) Curriculum integration: incorporating sustainability modules into existing courses on pedagogy and subject didactics, ensuring it becomes a cross-cutting theme rather than an isolated topic. (2) Active learning approaches: utilizing experiential learning activities, such as real-world sustainability projects, case studies, and problem-based learning, to make sustainability education more engaging and applicable. (3) Institutional support and professional development: universities should provide ongoing training for teacher educators to ensure sustainability concepts are effectively taught and modeled. Interdisciplinary collaboration across education, environmental sciences, and social sciences can further strengthen sustainability education. (4) Long-term engagement strategies: to bridge the gap between knowledge and behavior, teacher education programs should incorporate mentorship, school-based sustainability initiatives, and post-graduation follow-ups to encourage sustained pro-environmental behaviors among future teachers.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the significant findings of this study, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample size was relatively small and consisted of pre-service primary school teachers from a single educational institution. This limits the generalizability of the results to broader populations, including in-service teachers or those in different cultural and institutional contexts. Future research should include larger, more diverse samples to enhance the robustness and applicability of findings.

Second, this study relied on self-reported data to evaluate participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to sustainability. While the instruments demonstrated reliability and validity, self-reported measures are subject to biases, such as social desirability or overestimation of behaviors. Complementing these findings with observational data or longitudinal studies would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the long-term effects of ESD interventions.

Third, the course duration and structure may have influenced the outcomes. The intervention, while effective in enhancing cognitive and conative dimensions, showed more modest changes in the behavioral dimension. This suggests that longer-term or more intensive interventions might be necessary to bridge the gap between intention and action. Future studies should explore the optimal duration, content, and pedagogical strategies for sustainability courses to maximize their impact.

Additionally, this study did not fully explore the interplay of demographic variables, such as socioeconomic background, prior knowledge, or cultural factors, in shaping participants’ responses to the intervention. Future research should investigate these factors to better understand how to tailor sustainability education to different groups. Incorporating qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, could provide a richer understanding of the underlying factors influencing participants’ responses and the contextual dynamics at play. This mixed-methods approach would not only enhance the robustness of future studies but also yield a more comprehensive evaluation of sustainability education interventions.