Sport, Education and Society

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cses20

Exploring physical education teachers’ perceptions

of sustainable development goals and education
for sustainable development

Salvador Baena-Morales, Alejandro Prieto-Ayuso, Gladys Merma-Molina &

Sixto González-Víllora

To cite this article: Salvador Baena-Morales, Alejandro Prieto-Ayuso, Gladys Merma-Molina &
Sixto González-Víllora (2024) Exploring physical education teachers’ perceptions of sustainable
development goals and education for sustainable development, Sport, Education and Society,
29:2, 162-179, DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2022.2121275

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2022.2121275

Published online: 29 Sep 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 844

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cses20
SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY
2024, VOL. 29, NO. 2, 162–179
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2022.2121275

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Exploring physical education teachers’ perceptions of sustainable

development goals and education for sustainable development
a,b c a
Salvador Baena-Morales , Alejandro Prieto-Ayuso , Gladys Merma-Molina and
Sixto González-Víllora c
a
Department of General and Specific Didactics, Faculty of Education, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain; bFaculty
of Education, Valencia International University - VIU, Valencia, Spain; cDepartment of Physical Education, Arts
Education, and Music, Faculty of Education, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The world, society and education are constantly evolving, and to respond Received 26 April 2022
to these changes, the main governmental institutions have been Accepted 1 September 2022
proposing different global strategies to focus efforts in the same
KEYWORDS
direction. Currently, the United Nations and its 17 Sustainable Sustainability; sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) have presented a series of indicators that development goals;
could help to minimise the environmental, economic and social ecological thinking;
instability we are experiencing. In this sense, Education for Sustainable environmental; teacher
Development (ESD) has been described as a fundamental factor. training; physical education
Specifically, in previous work, we argued that physical education (PE) teacher (PET)
could be a good tool to contribute to SDGs. Based on this, no research
analysing the voices of Physical Education Teachers (PET) on how this
contribution could be made has been identified in previous literature.
Therefore, the objectives of this research are: (1) to analyse the voices
and opinions of active PETs in terms of the knowledge they have about
Sustainable Development (SD); (2) to determine their opinions about
the contribution that PE could make to SDGs; and finally, (3) to identify
the challenges and limitations of pedagogical action of SD in PE. For
this purpose, a qualitative analysis through a semi-structured interview
with 41 active PETs was carried out. The main findings will be
presented and discussed around four themes: (a) agreement on the
concept of sustainability; (b) PE can contribute to the achievement of
SDGs; (c) ambiguity in applying SDGs to PE lessons; and (d) teachers’
constraints on how to implement SDGs in PE. It seems to indicate that
PETs do not have a multidimensional vision of sustainable
development. While they recognise the potential of PE to contribute to
SDGs through awareness raising and student learning, they point to its
pedagogical and formative constraints as the main barriers to being
able to contribute. They pointed to a lack of knowledge on how to do
so, guidelines on how to integrate ESD, lack of involvement, shortage of
time or resources in school physical education.

Introduction
We live in a frenetic world, in a constant evolution that brings us into a delicate balance with our
natural environments. Environmental issues are conditioned by our social reality and are character-
ised by deepening social and economic instability (UNESCO, 2017). Climate change, immigration,
wars, geopolitical instability, socio-economic inequalities or poverty are still present in this decade

CONTACT Gladys Merma-Molina gladys.merma@ua.es

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 163

and, although they are significant problems, small actions could help to build a more sustainable
future (UNESCO, 2017). In order to solve or mitigate these problems as much as possible, in 2015
the United Nations established a series of objectives and indicators to promote these changes.
For this purpose, the so-called 2030 Agenda was created, and 17 sustainable development goals
(SDGs) and 169 targets were specified (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). This coincides
with the end of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a programme for development that
was approved by 189 UN member states and was in force between the years 2002 and 2015. Its
central objective was to stop extreme poverty and improve health and primary education (UN,
2015b). Based on this, eight development goals were put forward: Goal 1. eradicate extreme
poverty and hunger, Goal 2. achieve universal primary education, Goal 3. promote gender equality
and empower women, Goal 4. reduce child mortality, Goal 5. improve maternal health, Goal
6. combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, Goal 7. ensure environmental sustainability and
Goal 8. develop the global partnership for development.
Unlike the MDGs, the 2030 Agenda is a cross-cutting strategy that should affect all public policies
that are designed, the lifestyles of citizens and also business behaviour because its achievement
depends, to a large extent, on integrating the SDGs in both the public and private spheres (Ruiz-
Mallén & Heras, 2020). Likewise, the 2030 Agenda attempts to break the prevailing North–South
duality (Baumann, 2018). Thus, the transformative effort of the 2030 Agenda depends on all inter-
national actors regardless of their geographic location or economic power. In this global policy
for development, education has a fundamental role in achieving the SDGs; therefore, SDG
4. Quality education has been proposed (UNESCO, 2017).
However, the SDG 4 targets are far from being achieved and this was recently confirmed by the
Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on SDG 4, organised by the United Nations Organisation for Science
and Culture (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2022). The EGM notes that while
prior to the pandemic the world was not on track to meet the SDG 4 targets by 2030, with significant
regional differences, the global education crisis caused by Covid-19 has now increased. In this
regard, the EGM stresses that there is an urgent need to ‘reimagine education that is adapted to
the modern world with new platforms for cooperation, new partnerships and shared values
(p. 2)’. To this end, it recommends: (1) changing education systems through technologies, so that
they contribute to achieving equitable and quality education, empowering women and youth; (2)
making education work for equity and sustainability. This requires reforming education for resilience,
for sustainable development, promoting skills and making learning consistent with human rights;
and (3) leveraging mechanisms and partnerships to accelerate progress through solidarity, engaging
local partners and increasing financing for education.
To frame the 2030 Agenda in the educational context, the concept of Education for Sustainable
Development (ESD) was developed. In the context of this global policy, it is necessary to look for
appropriate implementation frameworks that allow for tangible educational practice. This means
that the contribution that can be made from the political spheres are different from what a
private company or an individual can do. This is why all levels of society, and every citizen must
reflect and look a set of common practice how they can contribute to SDGs. Within this specificity,
the role of education has been highlighted as an essential instrument to be able to train future gen-
erations on how to acquire behaviour that is conducive to sustainability. Perhaps as an example of
the importance that ESD has been recognised is that in less than a decade there has been a consider-
able shift in the search for procedures to include ESD within the educational paradigm (Kopnina,
2020). Consequently, research aimed at ESD has increased dramatically in recent years, especially
from a theoretical perspective (O’Flaherty & Liddy, 2018), with the contribution of educational
research addressing SDGs being particularly generous since 2015 (Alonso-Sainz, 2021). These limit-
ations and problems are therefore some of the main problems in anchoring SD work in educational
contexts (Kopnina, 2020). In addition to these limitations, in the case of PE, a lack of specificity in the
actions to be taken by teachers and a simplistic interpretation of how to contribute to SDGs have
been suggested, as some educational interventions only consider the title of the SDG and not the
164 S. BAENA-MORALES ET AL.

specific goals that compose it (Baena-Morales & González Villora, 2022). It is therefore a priority to
seek and investigate ways of integrating sustainability into PE, it is a priority to seek and investigate
ways of integrating sustainability into PE, as the potential of this subject cannot be wasted, especially
in promoting the health and well-being of individuals (SDG 3) and society. The current situation
requires all possible ways to improve ongoing and emerging health problems, and sport can be
an ideal instrument for this.

Diffuse conceptions of sustainability among teachers

Perhaps in order to explain this problem when implementing ESD in schools, we must start from the
PET’ own conception of SDGs (the United Nations strategy), sustainability (the purpose) and sustain-
able development (the way forward). This problem is not new, as Walshe (2008) already pointed out
the difficulties teachers had in helping their students acquire a correct understanding of the SD
concept, mainly due to lack of time or lack of concreteness. More recently, Birdsall (2015) noted
that teachers’ understanding of sustainability was very limited and superficial, and Kang (2019)
stated that the term was not clearly understood.
As a consequence of the context outlined above and to make it easier for students to understand,
teachers have simplified the issues involved in sustainability (Sund, 2015), limiting its scope to an
environmental perspective (Sinakou et al., 2019). It should not be forgotten that both SDGs and
ESD have, as their main objective, not only to contribute to the improvement of the planet at the
environmental level, but also in the social and economic dimensions (Koskela & Kärkkäinen, 2021).
Therefore, the fact that both teachers (Birdsall, 2015; Borg et al., 2014; Kilinc & Aydin, 2013) and stu-
dents (Birdsall, 2014; Walshe, 2008) conceive sustainability and SD solely from an environmental per-
spective is one of the major problems of ESD. However, this lack of a holistic view of SD from both
groups is mainly related to the economic dimension (Berglund & Gericke, 2015; Sinakou et al., 2019;
Walshe, 2017). It seems to indicate that most teachers do not consider economic sustainability as one
of the three dimensions that make up SD. They do recognise the other two dimensions to a greater
extent, both the social dimension and above all they perceive SD as an environmental necessity.
Therefore, the fact that teachers conceive sustainability and SD solely from an environmental per-
spective (Birdsall, 2015; Borg et al., 2014; Kilinc & Aydin, 2013) limits educational action in PE
classes. This may be due, among other factors, to the fact that the effective and real implementation
of specific policies and measures to integrate the SDGs into future teacher education is still in its
infancy (Lozano et al., 2013). Although teachers are aware of the need to renew educational para-
digms, i.e. to guide educational processes so that PE students acquire the necessary skills to act effec-
tively in the face of social challenges, insufficient progress has been made (García-Rico et al., 2021).
Consequently, the following question arises Have PE teachers received sufficient training on the
SDGs and ESD? The answer to this question is not encouraging, as the initial training of PE teachers
on the SDGs and how to take on an educational model that is underpinned by ESD is scarce, isolated
and diffuse. In this regard, Barber (2016) and Fitzpatrick & Russel (2013)) argue that PET training
should be based on personal autonomy, decision-making skills, the development of critical thinking
and values such as empathy, solidarity and altruism. From a more holistic perspective, García-Rico
et al. (2021) make explicit that a pedagogical renovation is needed in the initial training of PETs
oriented to the following areas: (1) cognitive development, which facilitates the application of PET
knowledge in real situations and in a contextualised way; (2) PE for coexistence, to reduce behav-
ioural problems and to promote the formation of critical citizenship (Chiva-Bartoll et al., 2020); (3)
the acquisition of competences related to their future professional performance, such as teamwork,
effective communication, management and organisational skills, (4) ethical and moral training,
which fosters the acquisition of values such as equality, equity and cooperation (Whitley et al.,
2017); (5) personal development by strengthening students’ identity, self-esteem, motivation and
personal expectations Meyer et al. (2014) and (6) social development, which strengthens their com-
munity membership and empowerment to face social challenges Capella-Peris et al. (2020).
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 165

Education for sustainable development – yet another teaching task?

In addition to teachers’ poor conceptual knowledge (Sinakou et al., 2019), there is another factor
related to the barriers they seem to appear when dealing with sustainability. Teachers have
shown little concern regarding their training in ESD, a situation that could be related to different
factors such as: excessive tasks stemming from their professional and managerial work (e.g. bureauc-
racy), the search for job stability (sometimes meritocratic), a structural obstacle and the overloaded
curriculum (Kang, 2019; Sagdic & Sahin, 2016).
In this regard, Walshe (2008) had already highlighted the low support at institutional and training
level that teachers perceived to be able to integrate sustainability transversally into their teaching.
Perhaps this perception of mainstreaming translates into the fact that it is not located in any particu-
lar subject and is therefore not perceived as a pedagogical responsibility. All this suggests that
teacher education for ESD can be, or should be, further developed (Borg et al., 2014; Rieckmann
et al., 2017). This may be one of the main problems, as teachers are too busy and focused on teaching
their own content to their students to be burdened with the responsibility of integrating SDGs into
their teaching (Okubo et al., 2021). Perhaps we should ask ourselves whether education is really the
best tool to achieve SDGs, or whether we are truly turning to it, as on so many occasions, as the latest
social demand (Alonso-Sainz, 2021).
At this point, it is necessary to remember that teaching demands are high and that edu-
cating is not only about teaching a class, but also involves a relationship with educational
management, which today is either too great or too bureaucratic. It is a process of continuous
training with limitations such as lack of time and/or scarce resources. All this means that tea-
chers have little or no time to develop teaching within the framework of ESD (Uitto & Salor-
anta, 2017). As Alonso-Sainz (2021) points out, it is necessary to reflect on whether pedagogy
is at the service of SDGs, or if SDGs are at the service of pedagogy. In this sense, the author
highlights that the main function at the educational level of SDGs is not really their achieve-
ment, but rather that they provide a context of practice within educational settings that
enable the development of learners. Given the broad and complex scope of SDGs, such as
eradicating poverty (SDG1), hunger (SDG2) or improving children’s nutrition (SDG3), it
seems difficult that ESD alone can mitigate such serious problems. In previous works, we
have argued that some methodologies such as service learning or the Personal and Social
Responsibility Model could be related to these SDGs (Baena-Morales, Jerez-Mayorga, et al.,
2021). This idea is in line with that proposed by Alonso-Sainz (2021), who argues that SDGs
in the educational field should perhaps only be the context for learning, and not really a
goal to be achieved. This approach would help to reduce the enormous responsibility on tea-
chers to meet the requirements of the 2030 Agenda. The educational and social reality seems
to face a constant dichotomy between the educational and the political in this attempt to
respond and move towards sustainability (O’Flaherty & Liddy, 2018). Nonetheless, seeking
and investigating ways to implement and address SD issues in education can be worth the
effort. In this regard, Timm and Barth (2021) accept the additional teacher burden that ESD
currently places on teachers, but suggest that over time, this responsibility can become an
integral part of initial and continuing education. The authors emphasise the idea that teach-
ing it is a necessity and that it will gradually become standard practice and will no longer be
perceived as an additional burden on teachers. And perhaps one of the keys lies here, the
search for how to integrate ESD into the teaching function, but without substantially increas-
ing the already overburdened tasks of teachers. To achieve this, some authors defend the idea
that SD can fulfil the function of didactic content, but it is ESD that marks the process that
allows mobilising competences in students (Olsson et al., 2016), competences that are
always action-oriented and oriented towards real social change (Rieckmann et al., 2017).
166 S. BAENA-MORALES ET AL.

Physical education’s contribution to sustainable development

Academia has shown the connection of PE with SDG 3. Health and well-being, SDG 4. Quality edu-
cation, SDG 5. Gender equality, SDG 12. Responsible consumption and production and SDG 17. Sus-
tainable cities and communities and SDG 10. Reducing inequalities. Corbin (2021) is emphatic when
he points out that there is a strong scientific basis for evidence that regular physical activity pro-
motes health and well-being. Specifically, physical activity not only improves fitness and perform-
ance, but also reduces the risk of chronic diseases, e.g. heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis and
obesity, and even improves cognitive function and mental health. He also argues that PE promotes
emotional development, social justice, as well as quick decision-making and self-management skills,
e.g. self-assessment, goal setting, self-control, self-planning. The latter are necessary competences
for SD.
In a previous research we pointed out that sustainable development in PE is still in an ‘embryo-
nic stage’ on a practical level; but theoretical assumptions seem to confirm that PE can improve
environmental, social and economic aspects. Thus, concerning the environmental dimension, PE
facilitates the creation of an ideal context to promote environmental care (Olive & Enright,
2021; Thorpe et al., 2021; Welch et al., 2021) through actions such as working on sport contents
in natural environments like climbing, complemented with cross-cutting environmental protection
activities. Secondly, PE has been considered a fundamental element for the promotion of social
justice (Fernández-Balboa, 1993), recognised as capable of creating egalitarian educational con-
texts that favour cooperation (Anderson-Butcher, 2019; Linnér et al., 2022). And, with regard to
its contribution to the economic dimension, it is evident that a student population that is more
assiduous in the practice of daily physical exercise is related to savings for the public health
system, both in terms of visits to doctors and the use of medicines, which in turn contributes to
a more significant expulsion of greenhouse gases by the pharmaceutical industry (Henriksson et
al., 2020).
Likewise, it has long been argued that participation in sport, physical exercise and HPE can gen-
erate valuable benefits for young people (Bailey et al., 2009). Indeed, the subject seems to have
evolved from the conception of educating the physical, to educating through the physical and
movement. There is sufficient evidence to confirm the benefits of PE in four broad domains: physical,
social, affective and cognitive (Kwauk, 2016; Lawson, 2009; Singh et al., 2019; Thorburn et al., 2019).
This fact has led some authors to invite the subject to be conceived of as HPE (Lynch, 2019). At the
same time, this holistic perspective of PE has entailed the search for its relationship with SDGs and SD
(Baena-Morales & González Villora, 2022; Lundvall & Fröberg, 2022). This previous work justified how
the virtues and characteristics of HPE could contribute to SDGs and the three dimensions of SD. For
example, the vision of caring for the planet through physical activity is not new. We can look to Indi-
genous and First Nations peoples to see how physical activity in the natural environment was
embedded in cultural practices and beliefs (Welch et al., 2021). Despite the potential possibilities
that PE must mobilise SD competences in students and contribute to the acquisition of SDGs
(Baena-Morales, Ferriz-Valero, et al., 2021), previous work has detected a series of problems that
make this task difficult for teachers. Along these lines, (Baena-Morales, Merma-Molina et al., 2021)
confirmed the lack of knowledge that active PETs in Spain have about DS and SDGs. However,
and paradoxically, PETs recognised the importance of working on SD-related content and the possi-
bility of being educated and promoted from PE, although they did not consider doing so due to lack
of time (only one or two classes per week) and competence (level of mastery of SD). And it is on this
issue that the importance of this study lies and is justified. While there seems to be a tendency to
recognise the potential relationship offered by PE to contribute to SDGs from a theoretical point
of view (Baena-Morales & González Villora, 2022; Dudfield & Dingwall-Smith, 2015; Iberoamerican
Sports Council, 2019; Lynch, 2016; MINEPS VI, 2017), it is essential to know the practical reality, in
the form of the opinions of in-service PETs on the potential link between PE, SDGs and SD.
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 167

Teaching constraints in education for sustainable development

For teachers, ESD represents a considerable professional challenge, as it is related to complex edu-
cational principles such as holism, pluralism and action orientation (Sinakou et al., 2019). Bertschy
et al. (2013) and Dawe et al. (2005) highlight several key constraints to implementing ESD, including:
the overly disciplinary structuring of subjects which makes implementation difficult, as it involves
interdisciplinary working environments, as well as the fact that the importance of ESD has not
always been recognised by teachers, students and even institutions as a whole. However, shortcom-
ings in teacher training in ESD subjects seem to be indicated as the most well-founded limitation
(Bürgener & Barth, 2018; Evans et al., 2017; Mogensen & Schnack, 2010).
In this regard, the analysis of teaching competences for ESD by Timm and Barth (2021) shows that
there has been a noticeable growth in research aimed at specifying and working on these teaching
skills for ESD in recent years. However, while there are notable works proposing curricular change for
ESD in educational institutions (Bertschy et al., 2013; Sleurs, 2008; Vare, 2018), there are only two
publications that present empirical evidence on how these competences contribute to both the
teaching and successful implementation of ESD (Brandt et al., 2019; Bürgener & Barth, 2018).
Additionally, ESD, and consequently SDGs, with their different dimensions (environmental, econ-
omic, and social), and the importance of perceiving the interconnectivity between these dimensions
make SD a difficult subject area to understand, and therefore, to learn.
Some of the barriers to the implementation of ESD in educational practice are related to a lack of
environmental awareness (Verhulst & Lambrechts, 2015), knowledge and self-perceived pedagogical
competences of practising teachers (Kang, 2019). Other extrinsic factors such as lack of funding and
resources are also highlighted (Australian Education for Sustainability Alliance, 2014). On their part,
Dahl (2019) points to structural barriers and stresses that university curricula do not integrate ESD
and, where it is present in basic education, it is generally included as an add-on or as a stand-
alone subject. (Nousheen et al., 2020) also emphasise ESD training in continuing professional devel-
opment and stress that it is a great opportunity for teachers to transfer these competences directly to
students. Andić (2020) critically examines the relationship between teachers’ ESD competence and
concludes that there is an inadequate application of ESD in teachers’ professional development, as
ESD training often consists of isolated, decontextualised, theoretical learning tasks or sessions and
individual and small group teacher sessions.
In relation to physical education teachers (PETs) in the previous exploratory study, it was esti-
mated that the main limitations they found to work on SDGs were a lack of time and an already over-
loaded teaching timetable (Baena-Morales, Merma-Molina et al., 2021c). However, in some previous
work we have tried to convey to PETs that perhaps this lack of time can be bridged by reorienting the
contents of a Holistic view of Physical Education (HPE) (Baena-Morales & González Villora, 2022;
Lynch, 2019), or by being aware of the relationships that can be established between practice-
based models (e.g. Personal and Social Responsibility Model) and the goals of SDGs (Baena-
Morales, Jerez-Mayorga, et al., 2021). In PETs, a peculiarity was also found that women seem to
have a higher awareness of sustainability than men (Baena-Morales, Ferriz-Valero, et al., 2021). There-
fore, the role of PETs in contributing to SDGs is perhaps worth further study (Baena-Morales & Gon-
zález Villora, 2022; Dudfield & Dingwall-Smith, 2015; Iberoamerican Sports Council, 2019; Lynch,
2016; Lundvall & Fröberg, 2022; MINEPS VI, 2017; Welch et al., 2021).
Recognising the existence of multiple constraints to developing an HPE, a specific education
policy for the integration of the SDGs is necessary, otherwise the integration of the SDGs will be a
matter only for the most aware teachers. Such policies should, as a matter of priority, propose: (1)
the compulsory inclusion of a specific competence on sustainability in university curricula in Sport
Sciences, (2) adding SDG indicators in the competences of the different subjects of these studies,
(3) reviewing general competences and integrating general/basic competences such as systems
thinking, normative anticipation, strategic, collaboration, critical thinking, self-awareness and
problem solving and (4) Provide students with skills needed to act towards the achievement of
168 S. BAENA-MORALES ET AL.

the SDGs, offer them new ways of addressing the SDGs in the classroom and collaborate with the
community on projects that improve, for example, the practice of sport and the quality of life of
the population (Setó-Pamies & Papaoikonomou, 2020).
Therefore, having such a latent presence in the discourse and the questions generated by SD in
general, and the relationship of SDGs and HPE in particular, the aims of this research were: (1) to
understand PET’ perspectives on the PE and the SD’; (2) To understand the ways PETs believe HPE
could contribute to the SDGs; and finally, (3) to report on what PE teachers consider to be the
limits to their pedagogical action to contribute to the sustainability of the planet.

Materials and methods

Research design
The study of HPE in the field of ESD and how it can contribute to SDGs needs to be addressed partly
through qualitative and mixed studies (Baena-Morales & González Villora, 2022; Lynch, 2016). Pre-
vious literature has mainly focused on quasi-experimental approaches, based on questionnaires
and surveys and, to a lesser extent, on determining teachers’ views at a qualitative level (O’Flaherty
& Liddy, 2018). In addition, due to the wide variety of teaching disciplines, it is necessary to design
these studies through the needs of each discipline rather than in a general way. To this end, and
because there is little previous research in the literature that gathers the voices of PETs in ESD,
we found only one previous research focusing on the environmental dimension by Taylor et al.
(2019), this work is approached through an interpretative approach in order to understand PETs’ per-
ceptions of their values, attitudes and strategies in relation to SDGs and ESD (Dornan & Kelly, 2017).

Participants
Participants were purposively selected (Patton, 2015) from among 230 PE specialists who completed
the initial quantitative questionnaire. Of the total number of participants, 41 teachers expressed
interest in participating in the qualitative study. Of the 41 respondents, all were from the secondary
education stage (12–16 years old) and had a mean age of 38.86 ± 9.80 years. All participants were
working professionally in Spain. A total of 50% were male and 50% female. In terms of years of teach-
ing experience, 42.85% had between 1–5 years of teaching experience, 21.42% had between 6–10
years of experience, 21.42% had between 11–20 years of teaching experience and 14.28% had
more than 20 years of teaching experience.

Materials
A semi-structured online interview was used to obtain the data. Pre-determined, open-ended ques-
tions were asked (Ayres, 2008). This allowed an interpretive approach to be followed by uncovering
existing knowledge in a way that could be expressed in the form of responses, allowing for interpret-
ation in the analysis of the data (Flick, 2018). Given the uncertainty in the responses, due to the
research gap in this field of knowledge, a flexible structure in the formulation of questions was

Table 1. Bibliographical basis for the objects of analysis in PET.

Relevant aspects
Sustainability concept
HPE contribution to SDGs
Implementation of SDGs in PE classes
Teachers’ constraints on how to
implement SDGs in PE
Bibliographical background
Birdsall, 2015; Sinakou et al., 2019; Walshe, 2008
Baena-Morales & González Villora, 2022; Dudfield & Dingwall-Smith, 2015;
Iberoamerican Sports Council, 2019; Lundvall & Fröberg (2022); MINEPS VI, 2017
Baena-Morales, Jerez-Mayorga et al., 2021; Baena-Morales, Ferriz-Valero et al., 2021;
García-Rico et al., 2021; Santos-Pastor et al., 2022
Baena-Morales, Merma-Molina et al., 2021; Okubo et al., 2021
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 169

decided as being the most appropriate (Bryman, 2016). The interview questions were designed
based on expert literature (Baena-Morales, Ferriz-Valero, et al., 2021; O’Flaherty & Liddy, 2018).
The aim of these questions was to ask participants about key aspects linked to ESD (Table 1).

Procedure
The study was approved by the ethics committee of UA- UA-2022-03-17. The voluntary completion
of the study by the participant entailed the participant’s consent after being informed of the purpose
of the study. Based on the existing literature in this field of knowledge, a semi-structured interview of
six questions was created (Table 2). The interview responses were transcribed and read in depth.
From this, a map of themes and subthemes was designed, which formed the basis of the analysis.
The interviews lasted approximately 30 min and were conducted online via Microsoft Teams’ soft-
ware. The duration of the interview was agreed in advance. Data collection took place between 1
October 2021 and 15 December 2021.

Qualitative analysis
Participants’ responses were transcribed into Atlas.ti 8.4.15 software for coding. A thematic analysis
was conducted following the recommendations of Braun and Clarke (2006). This approach was
selected for its theoretical flexibility, as it allowed the interpretation and summarising of the manifest
content of the responses and the creation themes and subthemes (Vaismoradi et al., 2013).
First, the responses were read individually by the first and second authors, in order to take notes
on the initial ideas, and to gain an initial understanding of the data. A number of initial codes were
generated and grouped into potential themes and subthemes. Secondly, a thematic map was
created, and meetings were held where all authors of the study took part in order to resolve discre-
pancies, thus shaping the final thematic map. All themes were reviewed and named, along with the
thematic descriptor, which provided clarity for adjusting the verbatim quotes from the participants
in each theme and subtheme. Finally, this preliminary categorisation was reviewed by the rest of the
study authors. After the themes and subthemes were established, the second author analysed the
responses and integrated the associated text segments (Table 3).

Results and discussion

The main findings will be presented and discussed below. Based on the PETs’ responses, the follow-
ing four themes were generated: (a) agreement on the concept of sustainability; (b) PE can contrib-
ute to the achievement of SDGs; (c) ambiguity in applying SDGs to PE lessons; and (d) teachers’
constraints on how to implement SDGs in PE. These themes were used to structure the findings pre-
sented below. The results are shown through textual descriptions that generate transparency and
honesty as a hallmark of qualitative research (Tracy, 2010). This section clarifies the data obtained
and invites readers to construct their own knowledge and explore the extent to which the data
identify with their initial thinking (Smith, 2017).

Table 2. Semi-structured interview guide.

Questions
1. What do you understand by sustainability?
2. What words would you relate sustainability to?
3. Which of the 17 sustainable development goals do you think are most relevant to physical education?
4. How can physical education contribute to the achievement of sustainable development goals?
5. Do you think it is possible to include sustainable development goals in physical education programmes?
Please briefly explain your arguments.
6. What limitations do you have to promote sustainable development in physical education teaching?
170 S. BAENA-MORALES ET AL.

Table 3. Description and citations of themes and subthemes emerging from the qualitative data.
Themes Subthemes
1. Knowledge of 1.1. Environmental protection
sustainability 1.2. Reduction in the use of natural resources
1.3. Sustainability of resources
1.4. Actions that are carried out without harming
future generations
1.5. Balance with the resources of the environment
1.6. Optimisation of resources
2. PE can contribute to 2.1. Awareness raising among students
achieving SDGs 2.2. Teaching–learning process
3. Ambiguity on the 3.1. The teacher is a key player in the
integration of SDGs in implementation of SDGs
PE education 3.2. Impossibility of implementing them due to
curricular hermeticism
3.3. Use of different didactic strategies
3.4. Lack of capacity to implement SDGs
4. Teacher constraints to 4.1. Lack of knowledge of how to do it and lack of
implementing SDGs in involvement
PE 4.2. Shortage of time in PE and
resources
4.3. Schools do not have guidelines for
action 4.4. Lack of support from families
4.5.There are no limitations when it
comes to implementing SDGs in PE
Quotations
‘Protecting the environment’. ‘Not using more
resources than you naturally generate’. ‘Any
process that maintains itself by ensuring a
balance between the present and the
future’. ‘All actions or omissions that allow
us to satisfy our needs without
compromising those of future generations’.
‘Maintaining a balance with the resources of
the environment’. ‘Set of actions that
contribute to optimise available resources
(natural and non-natural) maximising their
efficiency and effectiveness’.
‘Through awareness-raising practice’. ‘By
changing the perspective/focus of teaching
methods’.
‘The teachers themselves have to be the ones
who really want to carry out a sustainable
development plan in the school’. ‘Due to the
hermeticism and temporalisation of the
curriculum, it is complicated’. ‘Through
transversal activities it is possible to work in
a way that is linked to PE contents’. ‘Right
now I wouldn’t know how’.
‘I think I should know more about it. I don’t
know the SDGs well’. ‘We have little time for
sessions’. ‘More direct instructions should be
given from the schools to educate on
sustainability’. ‘Lack of support from
parents’. ‘Limitations? I don’t think there are
any’.

Fragmented understanding of sustainable development

Six subthemes were identified for the understanding of sustainable development: (1) protection of the
environment; (2) reduction in the use of natural resources; (3) sustainability of resources; (4) actions we
take without harming future generations; (5) balance with environmental resources; and (6) optimis-
ation of resources. The vast majority of PETs had a similar view of the concept of SD, although there
were differences in the specificity of the definition among some of them. It should be noted that this
dispersion of the concept of sustainability may explain the breadth of the subthemes found. Pre-
viously, Jickling and Wals (2008), had already recognised the dynamic nature of SD as a problem
that made it difficult to find a tangible definition. This problem is compounded by the fact that SD
is a multidimensional (environmental, social and economic), yet integrated idea (Sinakou et al.,
2019). This has meant that the different dimensions have been nurtured by different discourses
over time and have been treated and understood independently rather than as a unitary concept (Gio-
vannoni & Fabietti, 2013). Consequently, the concept of DS is difficult to specify. In addition, it is not a
static but a dynamic idea that has changed over time (Berglund et al., 2014).
Within the field of education, sustainability has been concretised under the concept of ESD. This
idea raises the importance of seeking educational strategies that empower learners with knowledge,
skills, values, and attitudes, and thus making informed decisions, encompassing economic, environ-
mental, and social integrity (United Nations, 2015a). As can be seen at the institutional level, the need
to integrate SD within its three dimensions is noted. However, everything seems to indicate that the
PETs do not conceive of SD from this three-dimensional vision. The narratives analysed highlighted
these characteristics separately and not in an integrated way. In this sense, Paula, for example,
defined sustainability as the ‘guidelines for action that allow us to prolong the useful life of what
we are interested in while respecting the environment in which it is located’ (interview #32).
Along the same lines, Martín pointed out that sustainability is ‘living in harmony with the planet’
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 171

(interview #26). As can be seen in both narratives, a one-dimensional view of the concept of sustain-
ability is maintained, mainly environmental, without a multidimensional conception of the concept.
This predominant view of understanding sustainability from an environmental perspective has also
been found in other narratives of secondary school teachers (Agirreazkuenaga, 2019; Borg et al.,
2014). Janhonen-Abruquah et al. (2018) further highlight that sustainability is generally understood
simply in terms of recycling or responsible consumption, which is a very narrow view of environ-
mental care, again neglecting other types of sustainability such as cultural sustainability (e.g. SDG
target 11.4). This one-dimensional perception of SD is not only a problem for PETs (Baena-
Morales, Merma-Molina et al., 2021) or educators in general (Borg et al., 2014; Sinakou et al., 2019;
Summers et al., 2004), but also for the vast majority of society (Washington, 2015). In the words
of Drexhage and Murphy (2010) ‘sustainable development must be taken out of the environmental
‘box’ and consider broader social, economic and geopolitical agendas’ (p. 20).
Another recurring idea from interviewees was a conception of sustainability as balance. Carmen,
for example, argued that sustainability is the ‘set of actions that contribute to optimising available
resources (natural and non-natural)’ (interview #15). Similarly, Fernando stated that sustainability
is ‘any process that maintains itself by guaranteeing a balance between the present and the
future’ (interview #17). These two narratives show a vision of sustainability that is more focused
on moderate development, a perspective shared with research carried out in other teaching special-
ities (Agirreazkuenaga, 2019). Another perception of PETs, but to a lesser extent, is the relationship of
SD with the reduction in the use of resources. Carlos, for example, shared that sustainability consists
of ‘not using more resources than you generate naturally’ (interview #2). This idea is certainly close to
the classic view of SD proposed by The Bruntdland Commission (1987).
Therefore, in this study, the voices of the PETs have not registered the multidimensionality of the
SD vision, mainly highlighting the environmental perspective and to a lesser extent relating to the
social and economic relationship. There seems to be more agreement in pointing to a balanced use
of resources, highlighting sustainability and the reduction of natural resource use. The continuous
slippage between the concept of sustainability and sustainable development has been palpable
in the narratives. This is a common occurrence, but as Gough and Scott (2003) point out, sustainable
development should be seen as a process and sustainability as a goal. On this basis, future strategies
should seek to train teachers so that SD is not perceived as a purely environmental issue.

HPE as an instrument for progress towards SDGs

Under this theme, two subthemes were identified: the potential of PE to contribute to SDGs through
student awareness raising and through the teaching and learning process. In relation to the first of
these, numerous examples are highlighted in the responses obtained, for example, ‘through raising
awareness of the importance of caring for the environment and for oneself as a means of achieving
individual and collective well-being’ (Samuel, interview #11), ‘creating healthy lifestyle habits in
terms of physical activity, food and activities in the natural environment, for example’ (Ana, interview
#08). This role of the teacher with the ability to raise awareness of SD is one of the keys to ESD
(Olsson et al., 2016; Rieckmann et al., 2017). Furthermore, within the competences described by
UNESCO to foster SD, self-awareness has been identified as one of them, inviting students to ques-
tion their place within the community to which they belong (UNESCO, 2015). Under these indi-
cations, it may be interesting to delve into appropriate strategies to raise awareness for students’
SD through the teaching action of PETs.
However, caution should be exercised when interpreting what PETs aim to achieve through
raising students’ awareness. As Sánchez and Lafuente (2010) point out, the concept of sustainability
awareness tends to be confused with environmental awareness. Sustainability awareness should
reach all three dimensions of SD, but analysing the narratives of the PETs, we observe that mainly
an analysis is made of environmental awareness and vaguely of social awareness through health
improvement (e.g. goal 3.4 of the SDGs). We do not recognise any narratives on improving
172 S. BAENA-MORALES ET AL.

awareness in the economic dimension. However, this dimension has been described as a potential
area for work in PE, for example through SDG targets 8.3 ‘entrepreneurship, creativity and inno-
vation, and promoting the formalisation and growth of enterprises’ and 12.1 ‘sustainable consump-
tion and production’ (Baena-Morales, Jerez-Mayorga, et al., 2021). Economic issues are easier to
include within the other two SD dimensions (Manni et al., 2013), as different explanations can be
found for how the economy relates to the improvement of the social and environmental dimensions
(Olsson et al., 2016). For example, some narratives generally raise awareness of a balanced use of
resources, which can be seen from both the economic and environmental dimensions, such as,
for example,
‘[…] making students see that the resources we have at our disposal do not have to be used up if we do not need
them in a real way and not on a whim’ (Luis, interview #40).

With regard to raising student awareness through the teaching and learning process, there are
several elements of the teaching and learning process that teachers claim can be used to contribute
to SDGs through PE. For example, some narratives show the inclusion of values in programming,
such as ‘through a teaching–learning process based on the inclusion of values, such as equal oppor-
tunities or responsible consumption’ (Marcos, interview #10), related to target 12.1 (sustainable con-
sumption and production); with cooperative activities: ‘through cooperative activities, which involve
the children and help them see the importance of the environment in our daily lives’ (Alberto, inter-
view #23); contributing to SDGs through the inclusion of values, such as ‘the importance of the
environment in our daily lives’ (Alberto, interview #23); contributing to SDGs through the inclusion
of values, such as equal opportunities or responsible consumption (Marcos, interview #10), related to
target 12.1 (sustainable consumption and production) (Alberto, interview #23); contributing to target
4.4 (improving skills for access to employment, decent work, and entrepreneurship) or 10.3 (ensuring
equal opportunities and reducing inequality of outcomes) or ‘recycling materials for the games’
(Rafael, interview #36), e.g. target 12.5 (significantly reduce waste generation). All these statements
coincide with the proposal made in previous research where, through pedagogical models based on
the practice of PE, they were related to the specific targets of SDGs. And it is that, as Lynch (2019) has
highlighted, the phenomenological and methodological perspective from which we approach our
teaching, is fundamental to be able to contribute to SDGs and SD. In relation to this statement,
there have also been voices that have picked up on this idea of pointing to the teaching
methods applied in the classroom as key to raising awareness of SD: ‘changing the perspective/
approach to teaching methods’ (Aurora, interview #10). The importance of curricular elements has
also been pointed out, such as ‘working on competences, situations, contents, activities … that
allow achieving some of these objectives, i.e. educating on these objectives’ (Abel, interview #38).
This last idea underlines the importance of working on PE from a holistic perspective and not focus-
ing exclusively on the development of the body (Baena-Morales & González Villora, 2022; Lynch,
2019). In that sense, Lundvall and Fröberg (2022) suggest three key steps to strengthen our
actions in relation to sustainable development: the revision of curricula, the reorientation of learning
perspectives and a rethinking of health and well-being perspectives.
Although these papers are approached from a theoretical perspective, we also find research
that justifies the use of how methodologies, for example service learning (García-Rico et al.,
2021) or specific training programmes (Santos-Pastor et al., 2022), could contribute to the improve-
ment of this SD self-awareness from PE. However, beyond the use of a particular methodology,
perhaps they should be considered by PETs from what teaching perspective we approach our
PE sessions, or if we really want to improve awareness (Baena-Morales & González Villora, 2022).
In this sense, Lynch (2019) raised this reflection, encouraging the use of a constructivist teaching
perspective in order to develop specific skills, as this teaching approach could be more suitable for
mobilising students’ critical awareness than if we provoke learning based on behaviourist
approaches.
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 173

Ambiguity in the integration of SDGs in the physical education classroom

The previous accounts have shown that some PETs make concrete proposals on how to contribute to
SDGs and seem to agree that PE could contribute to the acquisition of SDGs. However, the results
also showed that there is ambiguity and no agreement on whether or not it is feasible to contribute
to SDGs from PE sessions. Those PETs who were convinced of its application, affirmed that the
teacher is a key player in this process, as, for example, Alberto states that:
[…] I think that the teacher himself has to be the one who really wants to implement a sustainable development
plan in the school so that the pupils, not only in physical education, but in all subjects, are able to carry it out as
well (interview #23).

In addition, other teachers stated that this implementation can be done through the use of different
strategies. In this sense, Fernando’s response can serve as an example to summarise teachers’ per-
ceptions, stating that these strategies can be specified as follows:
[…] Physical activity, active travel, healthy nutrition, natural foods, water care, elimination of harmful habits and
a long etc. of related concepts that together form a non-consumerist lifestyle, which optimises and prioritises
natural resources and whose main focus is health (interview #17).

This last narrative coincides with findings established in previous research, where a conception of SD
integration in teachers focused on curriculum planning and teaching is observed (Birdsall, 2015; Ste-
venson, 2006). However, some of the teachers participating in our study expressed a lack of capacity
to implement SDGs in their PE classes. In this regard, Mario, for example, stated that ‘if I had to
implement them, I wouldn’t know how right now’ (interview #5). In addition to this limitation,
other teachers stated the impossibility of implementing them due to the curricular hermeticism
existing in the current legislation. This is the case of Antonio, who stated that ‘due to the hermeticism
and temporalisation of the curriculum, it is complicated’ (interview #29). Again, these accounts could
indicate that any action that favours SD will depend mainly on the prism from which ESD is
approached. Sinakou et al. (2019) stresses the importance of teacher training to address these pro-
blems. Such training should aim to provide an interdisciplinary approach to ESD, as perceiving ESD in
a more holistic way is the only way to address the problems associated with SD and SDGs with
greater certainty.

Teachers’ perceived limitations in how to implement SDGs through PE

In relation to teachers’ limitations in implementing SDGs in PE, four subthemes were found that
highlight that there are a number of different types of obstacles, as pointed out by Bertschy et al.
(2013) and Dawe et al. (2005). In the case of our study, these were lack of knowledge of how to
do it, lack of time and excessive workload, lack of guidelines for action, as well as lack of support
from families.
The lack of teacher training in ESD argued by Bürgener and Barth (2018), Evans et al. (2017) and
Mogensen and Schnack (2010) agrees with Raquel’s thinking who acknowledges that the first limit-
ation is personal and that, therefore, this study was serving to awaken her curiosity, as this topic
unknown to her so far:
[…] My first limitation is myself. I would have to get more information and training on how I could do it. This
interview is helping me to awaken my interest in sustainability and its relation to PE (to be honest, it is some-
thing I had never considered for my classes, thank you for making it possible) (interview #7).

On the other hand, the shortage of time for teaching PE and the resources available were also
pointed out by the participants. In this sense, Carlos states that ‘the time we spend with them
(the students) is scarce. It would be easier to work on this type of objective with daily sessions
(tutor), as it would allow habits to be internalised better’ (interview #2). This position is in line
with a previous exploratory study in which it was estimated that the main limitations they found
174 S. BAENA-MORALES ET AL.

to working on SDGs were the lack of time and the already overloaded teaching timetable (Baena-
Morales, Merma-Molina et al., 2021). However, some previous research has tried to convey to PETs
that perhaps this lack of time can be bridged by reorienting the contents of HPE (Baena-Morales
& González Villora, 2022) or by being aware of the relationships that can be established between
practice-based models and SDGs (Baena-Morales, Jerez-Mayorga, et al., 2021).
Thirdly, it seems to be indicated that the scarcity of guidelines for action in educational centres to
implement SDGs in the classroom is one of the problems that is most directly related to the scarcity
and/or lack of specific teacher training (Bürgener & Barth, 2018; Evans et al., 2017; Mogensen &
Schnack, 2010). In this regard, Carlos points out that ‘more direct instructions should be given
from the centres to educate in sustainability’ (interview #2). And, finally, the participants report a
lack of support from families. This is undoubtedly an issue that has not been addressed in previous
studies linked to education and SDGs and/or ESD. Specifically, Ana stated that one of the constraints
is precisely the ‘lack of parental support’ (interview #8). However, contrary to these arguments, some
teachers stated that ‘there are no constraints to implementing the SDGs in the classroom’ (Alberto,
interview #23), as the implementation of ESD will depend, among other things, on competent and
committed teachers who are motivated to act as agents of change, as advocated by Bürgener and
Barth (2018).
Finally, some limitations must be acknowledged in the conduct of this study. The results obtained
may not be extrapolable to other populations as the participants belong to a single country. In
addition, we cannot guarantee the existence or not of bias since the PETs interviewed decided to
participate freely. This context might determine the study’s own prospective. For example, it
might be timely to analyse whether the curriculum of the different countries might influence
some of the perceptions and work of the PETs in SD. Therefore, in future studies, it might be inter-
esting to delve deeper into how PE curricula are currently framed and whether there are links with
the SDG and SD.

Conclusions
The main conclusions of the study are based on the PET’s opinions on the knowledge they have
about SD, in which the multidimensional view of SD was not recorded, mainly highlighting the
environmental perspective, and relating to a lesser extent the social and economic relationship.
The teachers identified that there should be a balanced use of resources, highlighting sustainabil-
ity and the reduction in the use of natural resources. The potential of PE to contribute to SDGs
through awareness raising and student learning is also noted. However, teachers assume that
they have pedagogical limitations and suggest that they require more and better initial training
on SDGs and ESD, as they perceive this training to be insufficient and incomplete. In addition,
this initial curriculum should be complemented by quality in-service training, including practice-
based courses for the great diversity of today’s students, and enabling the education community
to interrelate the three dimensions of SD: environmental, social, and economic. It could also be
interesting that when integrating SD, each teacher should make it as meaningful as possible for
his or her students. To do so, it could be interesting to integrate the issues closest to the needs
of the region where they live. Prioritising one SD dimension or another according to the reality
of their population. Finally, it should not be forgotten that teachers already live really busy lives
with their daily chores. It is therefore essential that they are not burdened with the responsibility
of obtaining these SDGs, but that they could be treated as an integrated complement to their
didactic content or methodologies.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 175

Funding
This work has been financed by the University of Alicante through the “ODSEF PROJECT. Design and implementation of
the Sustainable Development Goals for Physical Education (REDES ICE-2021-5489)”.

ORCID
Salvador Baena-Morales http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6722-3714
Alejandro Prieto-Ayuso http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6228-5473
Gladys Merma-Molina http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9856-6314
Sixto González-Víllora http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2473-5223

References
Agirreazkuenaga, L. (2019). Embedding sustainable development goals in education. Teachers’ perspective about edu-
cation for sustainability in the Basque autonomous community. Sustainability, 11(5), 1496. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11051496
Alonso-Sainz, T. (2021). Educación para el desarrollo sostenible: una visión crítica desde la Pedagogía. Revista
Complutense de Educación, 32(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.68338
Anderson-Butcher, D. (2019). Youth sport as a vehicle for social development. Kinesiology Review, 8(3), 180–187. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1123/kr.2019-0029
Anđić, D. (2020). Continuing professional development of teachers in Education for Sustainable Development – case
study of the Republic of Croatia. Teacher Development, 24(2), 143–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2020.
1719877
Australian Education for Sustainability Alliance. (2014). Education for sustainability and the Australian curriculum project:
Final report for research phases 1 to 3. http://www.educationforsustainability.com.au/efs-in-the-curriculum/aesa-final-
report-now-available
Ayres, L. (2008). Semi-structured interview. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp.
811–813). Sage Publications.
Baena-Morales, S., Ferriz-Valero, A., Campillo-Sánchez, J., & González-Víllora, S. (2021). Sustainability awareness of in-
service physical education teachers. Education Sciences, 11(12), 798. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120798
Baena-Morales, S., & González-Víllora, S. (2022). Physical education for sustainable development goals: reflections and
comments for contribution in the educational framework. Sport, Education and Society, 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/13573322.2022.2045483
Baena-Morales, S., Jerez-Mayorga, D., Delgado-Floody, P., & Martínez-Martínez, J. (2021). Sustainable development goals
and physical education. A proposal for practice-based models. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 18(4), 2129. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042129
Baena-Morales, S., Merma-Molina, G., & Gavilán-Martín, D. (2021). ¿Qué conocen los profesores de Educación Física
sobre los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible? Un estudio cualitativo-exploratorio (What do Physical Education tea-
chers know about the Sustainable Development Goals? A qualitative-exploratory study). Retos, 42, 452–463. http://
dx.doi.org/10.47197/retos.v42i0.87724
Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., Jess, M., Pickup, I., & Sandford, R. (2009). The educational benefits claimed for physical
education and school sport: An academic review. Research Papers in Education, 24(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02671520701809817
Barber, W. (2016). Inclusive and accessible physical education: rethinking ability and disability in pre-service teacher
education. Sport, Education and Society, 23(6), 520–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1269004
Baumann, M. O. (2018). Forever north–south? The political challenges of reforming the UN development system. Third
World Quarterly, 39(4), 626–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1408405
Berglund, T., & Gericke, N. (2015). Separated and integrated perspectives on environmental, economic, and social
dimensions – an investigation of student views on sustainable development. Environmental Education Research,
22(8), 1115–1138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1063589
Berglund, T., Gericke, N., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2014). The implementation of education for sustainable development
in Sweden: Investigating the sustainability consciousness among upper secondary students. Research in Science and
Technological Education, 32(3), 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2014.944493
Bertschy, F., Künzli, C., & Lehmann, M. (2013). Teachers’ competencies for the implementation of educational offers in
the field of education for sustainable development. Sustainability (Switzerland), 5(12), 5067–5080. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su5125067
Birdsall, S. (2014). Measuring student teachers’ understandings and self-awareness of sustainability. Environmental
Education Research, 20(6), 814–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833594
Birdsall, S. (2015). Analysing teachers’ translation of sustainability using a PCK framework. Environmental Education
Research, 21(5), 753–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.933776
176 S. BAENA-MORALES ET AL.

Borg, C., Gericke, N., Höglund, H. O., & Bergman, E. (2014). Subject- and experience-bound differences in teachers’ con-
ceptual understanding of sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 20(4), 526–551. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833584
Brandt, J. O., Bürgener, L., Barth, M., & Redman, A. (2019). Becoming a competent teacher in education for sustainable
development: Learning outcomes and processes in teacher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 20(4), 630–653. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2018-0183
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Bürgener, L., & Barth, M. (2018). Sustainability competencies in teacher education: Making teacher education count in
everyday school practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 821–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.263
Capella-Peris, C., Gil-Gómez, J., & Chiva-Bartoll, O. (2020). Innovative analysis of service-learning effects in Physical
Education: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 39(1), 102–110. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1123/jtpe.2019-0030
Chiva-Bartoll, O., Montero, P. J. R., Capella-Peris, C., & Salvador-García, C. (2020). Effects of service learning on physical
education teacher education students’ subjective happiness, prosocial behavior, and professional learning. Frontiers
in Psychology, 11, 46. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00331
Corbin, C. B. (2021). Conceptual physical education: A course for the future. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 10(3),
308–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2020.10.004
Dahl, T. (2019). Prepared to teach for sustainable development? Student teachers’ beliefs in their ability to teach for
sustainable development. Sustainability, 11(7), 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11071993
Dawe, G., Jucker, R., & Martin, S. (2005). Sustainable development in higher education: Current practice and future devel-
opments. A report to the Higher Education Academy. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/
ourwork/tla/sustainability/sustdevinHEfinalreport.pdf
Dornan, T., & Kelly, M. (2017). What use is qualitative research? Medical Education, 51(1), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/
medu.13229
Drexhage, J., & Murphy, D. (2010). Sustainable development: from Brundtland to Rio 2012, Background paper for the
high level panel on global sustainability, United Nations, New York.
Dudfield, O., & Dingwall-Smith, M. (2015). Sport for Development and Peace and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. https://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/inline/CW_SDP_2030%2BAgenda.pdf
Evans, N. S., Stevenson, R. B., Lasen, M., Ferreira, J. A., & Davis, J. (2017). Approaches to embedding sustainability in
teacher education: A synthesis of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 405–417. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tate.2017.01.013
Fernández-Balboa, J. M. (1993). Sociocultural characteristics of the hidden curriculum in Physical Education. Quest, 45(2),
230–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1993.10484086
Fitzpatrick, K., & Russell, D. (2013). On being critical in health and physical education. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 20(2), 159–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2013.837436
Flick, U. (2018). Designing qualitative research. SAGE.
García-Rico, L., Martínez-Muñoz, L. F., Santos-Pastor, M. L., & Chiva- Bartoll, O. (2021). Service-learning in physical edu-
cation teacher education: A pedagogical model towards sustainable development goals. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(4), 747–765. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2020-0325
Giovannoni, E., & Fabietti, G. (2013). What is sustainability? A review of the concept and its applications. In C. Busco, M.
Frigo, A. Riccaboni, & P. Quattrone (Eds.), Integrated reporting: Concepts and cases that redefine corporate accountabil-
ity (pp. 21–40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02168-3_2
Gough, S., & Scott, W. (2003). Sustainable development and learning: Framing the issues (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203464625
Henriksson, H., Henriksson, P., Tynelius, P., Ekstedt, M., Berglind, D., Labayen, I., Ruiz, J. R., Lavie, C. J., & Ortega, F. B.
(2020). Cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength, and obesity in adolescence and later chronic disability due to
cardiovascular disease: A cohort study of 1 million men. European Heart Journal, 41(15), 1503–1510. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz774
Iberoamerican Sports Council. (2019). Sports as a tool for sustainable development. Iberoamerican and 2030 Agenda.
Iberoamerican Sports Council. https://www.segib.org/wp-content/uploads/SEGIB-CID-Deporte-y-ODS-Librillo-1.pdf
Janhonen-Abruquah, H., Topp, J., & Posti-Ahokas, H. (2018). Educating professionals for sustainable futures.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(3), 592. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030592
Jickling, B., & Wals, A. E. J. (2008). Globalization and environmental education: Looking beyond sustainable develop-
ment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270701684667
Kang, W. (2019). Perceived barriers to implementing education for sustainable development among Korean teachers.
Sustainability, 11(9), 2532. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11092532
Kilinc, A., & Aydin, A. (2013). Turkish student science teachers’ conceptions of sustainable development: A phenomen-
ography. International Journal of Science Education, 35(5), 731–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.574822
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 177

Kopnina, H. (2020). Education for the future? Critical evaluation of education for sustainable development goals. Journal
of Environmental Education, 51(4), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2019.1710444
Koskela, T., & Kärkkäinen, S. (2021). Student teachers’ change agency in education for sustainable development. Journal
of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 23(1), 84–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2021-0007
Kwauk, C. T. (2016). Let them see a different path’: Social attitudes towards sport, education and development in Sāmoa.
Sport, Education and Society, 21(4), 644–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1071250
Lawson, H. A. (2009). Paradigms, exemplars and social change. Sport, Education and Society, 14(1), 97–119. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13573320802615247
Linnér, S., Larsson, L., Gerdin, G., Philpot, R., Schenker, K., Westlie, K., Mordal, K., & Smith, W. (2022). The enactment of
social justice in HPE practice: How context(s) comes to matter. Sport, Education and Society, 27(3), 228–243. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1853092
Lozano, R., Lozano, F. J., Mulder, K., Huisingh, D., & Waas, T. (2013). Advancing Higher Education for sustainable devel-
opment: international insights and critical reflections. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 3–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.034
Lundvall, S., & Fröberg, A. (2022). From individual to lifelong environmental processes: Reframing health in physical edu-
cation with the sustainable development goals. Sport, Education and Society, 26(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/
13573322.2022.2062320
Lynch, T. (2016). United nations sustainable development goals: Promoting health and well-being through physical
education partnerships. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1188469. 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1188469
Lynch, T. (2019). Physical education and wellbeing: Global and holistic approaches to child health. Palgrave Macmillan.
Manni, A., Sporre, K., & Ottander, C. (2013). Mapping what young students understand and value regarding the issue of
sustainable development. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 3(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.
18497/iejee-green.35921
Meyers, C., Lemons, L., & Hock, C. (2014). Implementing service-learning: best practices from agricultural leadership edu-
cation. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18(3), 159–161. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/
jheoe/article/view/1146/1145
MINEPS VI. (2017). Sixth International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education
and Sport. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/events/mineps-vi-sixth-international-conference-ministers-and-senior-
officials-responsible-physical
Mogensen, F., & Schnack, K. (2010). The action competence approach and the “new” discourses of education for sustain-
able development, competence and quality criteria. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13504620903504032
Nousheen, A., Yousuf, S. A., Waseem, M., & Khan, S. A. (2020). Education for sustainable development (ESD): Effects of
sustainability education on pre-service teachers’ attitude towards sustainable development (SD). Journal of Cleaner
Production, 250, 119537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119537
O’Flaherty, J., & Liddy, M. (2018). The impact of development education and education for sustainable development
interventions: A synthesis of the research. Environmental Education Research, 24(7), 1031–1049. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13504622.2017.1392484
Okubo, K., Yu, J., Osanai, S., & Serrona, K. R. (2021). Present issues and efforts to integrate sustainable development goals
in a local senior high school in Japan: A case study. Journal of Urban Management, 10(1), 57–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jum.2021.02.002.
Olive, R., & Enright, E. (2021). Sustainability in the Australian health and physical education curriculum: An ecofeminist
analysis. Sport, Education and Society, 26(4), 389–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1888709.
Olsson, D., Gericke, N., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2016). The effect of implementation of education for sustainable devel-
opment in Swedish compulsory schools – assessing pupils’ sustainability consciousness. Environmental Education
Research, 22(2), 176–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1005057
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
Rieckmann, M., Mindt, L., & Gardiner, S. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals learning objectives. Unesco
Publishing.
Ruiz-Mallén, I., & Heras, M. (2020). What sustainability? Higher education institutions’ pathways to reach the Agenda
2030 goals. Sustainability, 12(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041290
Sagdic, A., & Sahin, E. (2016). An assessment of Turkish elementary teachers in the context of education for sustainable
development. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 6(2), 141–155. https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/EJ1104837.pdf
Sánchez, M. J., & Lafuente, R. (2010). Defining and measuring environmental consciousness. Revista Internacional de
Sociologia, 68(3), 731–755. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2008.11.03
Santos-Pastor, M. L., Ruiz-Montero, P. J., Chiva-Bartoll, O., Baena-Extremera, A., & Martínez-Muñoz, L. F. (2022).
Environmental education in initial training: Effects of a physical activities and sports in the natural environment
program for sustainable development. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 867899. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.
867899
178 S. BAENA-MORALES ET AL.

Setó-Pamies, D., & Papaoikonomou, E. (2020). Sustainable development goals: A powerful framework for embedding
ethics, CSR, and sustainability in management education. Sustainability, 12(5), 1762. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
su12051762.
Sinakou, E., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Exploring the concept of sustainable development within edu-
cation for sustainable development: Implications for ESD research and practice. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 21(1), 1–10https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0032-8.
Singh, A. S., Saliasi, E., van den Berg, V., Uijtdewilligen, L., de Groot, R. H. M., Jolles, J., Andersen, L. B., Bailey, R., Chang, Y.-
K., Diamond, A., Ericsson, I., Etnier, J. L., Fedewa, A. L., Hillman, C. H., McMorris, T., Pesce, C., Pühse, U., Tomporowski, P.
D., & Chinapaw, M. J. M. (2019). Effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive and academic performance in
children and adolescents: A novel combination of a systematic review and recommendations from an expert panel.
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(10), 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098136
Sleurs, W. (2008). Competencies for ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) teachers: A framework to integrate ESD in
the curriculum of teacher training institutes. Comenius 2.1 project 118277-CP-1-2004-BE-Comenius-C2.1
Smith, B. (2017). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for
the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 10(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/
10.1080/2159676X.2017.1393221
Stevenson, R. B. (2006). Tensions and transitions in policy discourse: Recontextualizing a decontextualized EE/ESD
debate. Environmental and Sustainability Education Policy, 12(3-4), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203732359-7
Summers, M., Corney, G., & Childs, A. (2004). Student teachers’ conceptions of sustainable development: The starting-
points of geographers and scientists. Educational Research, 46(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0013188042000222449
Sund, P. (2015). Experienced ESD-schoolteachers’ teaching – an issue of complexity. Environmental Education Research,
21(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.862614
Taylor, N., Wright, J., & O’Flynn, G. (2019). An absence of ‘the environment’ in HPE teachers’ meanings of health.
Curriculum Perspectives, 39(1), 97–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41297-019-00072-6.
The Bruntdland Commission. (1987). Our common future. https://www.are.admin.ch/are/en/home/media/publications/
sustainable-development/brundtland-report.html
Thorburn, M., Gray, S., & O’Connor, J. (2019). Creating thriving and sustainable futures in physical education, health and
sport. Sport, Education and Society, 24(6), 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2019.1610375
Thorpe, H., Brice, J., & Clark, M. (2021). New materialisms, sport and the environment: imagining new lines of flight. Sport,
Education and Society, 26(4), 363–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1837097.
Timm, J. M., & Barth, M. (2021). Making education for sustainable development happen in elementary schools: The role
of teachers. Environmental Education Research, 27(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1813256
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16
(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Uitto, A., & Saloranta, S. (2017). Subject teachers as educators for sustainability: A survey study. Education Sciences, 7(1),
1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010008
UNESCO. (2015). Unesco and sustainable development. Sustainable Development. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/
0013/001393/139369e.pdf
UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals. Learning objectives. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/
48223/pf0000247444.
United Nations. (2015a). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A New Era in Global
Health, 529–567. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826190123.ap02.
United Nations. (2015b). We can Endpoverty. Milennnium development goals and beyond 2015. http://www.un.org/
millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2022). Meeting summary. Sustainable development Goal 4
and interlinkages with other SDGs. High-level Political Forum Sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/
default/files/2022-06/HLPF%20EGM%20SDG%204_Summary.pdf
United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development.
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. A/RES/70/1. United Nations. https://doi.org/
10.1891/9780826190123.ap02
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a
qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
Vare, P. (2018). A rounder sense of purpose: Developing and assessing competences for educators of sustainable devel-
opment. Paginazione/ Form@re - Open Journal for Network Training, 18(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.13128/
formare-23712
Verhulst, E., & Lambrechts, W. (2015). Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education.
Lessons learned from a change management perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 189–204. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.049
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 179

Walshe, N. (2008). Understanding students’ conceptions of sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 14(5), 537–
558. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802345958
Walshe, M. (2017). Exploring and developing student understandings of sustainable development. In R. Firth, & M. Smith
(Eds.), Education for sustainable development (1st ed., pp. 56–81). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315299235-4.
Washington, H. (2015). Demystifying sustainability: Towards real solutions. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315748641
Welch, R., Taylor, N., & Gard, M. (2021). Environmental attunement in health, sport and physical education. Sport,
Education and Society, 26(4), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1890009
Whitley, M. A., Gould, D., Wright, E. M., & Hayden, L. A. (2017). Barriers to holistic coaching for positive youth develop-
ment in South Africa. Sports Coaching Review, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2017.1361169