education

sciences
Article
Training in Mathematics Education from a Sustainability
Perspective: A Case Study of University Teachers’ Views
Francisco Manuel Moreno-Pino * , Rocío Jiménez-Fontana , José María Cardeñoso Domingo
and Pilar Azcárate Goded

Faculty of Education, Universidad de Cádiz, Puerto Real, 11519 Cádiz, Spain; [email protected] (R.J.-F.);
[email protected] (J.M.C.D.); [email protected] (P.A.G.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Humankind is faced with major global challenges to ensure the future of our planet.
Target 4.7 of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (quality education) of the 2030 Agenda establishes the
importance of ensuring that all learners acquire the theoretical and practical knowledge needed to
promote sustainable development through education for sustainable development, human rights,
gender equality, and global citizenship, amongst others. The research presented in this article is
based on an exploratory study on the views of a group of university teachers from the area of
Didactics of Mathematics in the Faculty of Education Sciences at Universidad de Cádiz with regard to
Education for Sustainability and its integration in the field of training future teachers in mathematics
education. It aims to analyse the perceptions teachers have regarding the subject of study, the work



methodologies they use, etc. in greater depth. The authors of the research later interviewed three


teachers in the area of Didactics of Mathematics who teach in different education degrees: bachelor’s
Citation: Moreno-Pino, F.M.;
degree in early childhood education, bachelor’s degree in primary education, and master’s degree in
Jiménez-Fontana, R.; Domingo,
teacher training for compulsory secondary education and baccalaureate. Three instruments were used
J.M.C.; Goded, P.A. Training in
to collect data: the syllabi of the subjects for which the teachers were responsible, an initial exploratory
Mathematics Education from a
Sustainability Perspective: A Case
questionnaire, and a semi-structured personal interview. The instrument employed to analyse the
Study of University Teachers’ Views. information was the Tool for Methodological Analysis through Sustainability (Herramienta de
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199. https:// Análisis Metodológico desde la Sostenibilidad, HAMS in Spanish). The results show the different
doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030199 views and positions the university teachers in the area of Didactics of Mathematics at Universidad de
Cádiz have with respect to integrating sustainability into future teachers’ training in mathematics
Academic Editors:
education. It is concluded that the effective integration of sustainability into mathematics education
Athanasios Mogias,
George Malandrakis and
requires university teachers to change and to work together from the same perspective—the one they
Panayota Koulouri intend to promote.

Received: 13 February 2022 Keywords: higher education; curriculum for sustainability; critical mathematics education; teacher
Accepted: 8 March 2022
training; EDINSOST project; HAMS
Published: 11 March 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- 1. Introduction
iations.
Education should aim to be a reflection of the social needs of a country, including the
needs of the students who participate in it as learners if what is desired is to guide them
and provide them with an opportunity for personal fulfilment to live in the 21st century [1].
However, the current educational system, conceived in the intellectual culture of the
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Enlightenment, and strongly promoted thanks to the improved economic circumstances
This article is an open access article
of the Industrial Revolution [2], does not satisfy the needs demanded by many of today’s
distributed under the terms and societies, some of which are highly technological. In this context, the National Council
conditions of the Creative Commons of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) maintains that mathematics education should be
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// reviewed in depth and claims that the new social objectives of education require the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ following: teachers with more mathematical culture, continuous learning, opportunities
4.0/). for all, and an informed electorate [1].

Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030199 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 2 of 34

However, we live in an increasingly complex and globalised world [3], “a multi-

dimensional social system in which there is a permanent phenomenal multi-causality” [4]
(p. 34). The review that mathematics education should undergo must be in-depth if we
want to equip it in its complex nature. The changes we refer to cannot be reduced to a set
of objectives that enumerate social needs.
Generally speaking, a curriculum plans educational proposals, implements them,
and assesses them within a specific social context. It is the social context that demands
answers to at least three key questions: How is knowledge understood? How is learning
interpreted? How is teaching being addressed? The answers to these questions are neither
unique nor closed. However, any curriculum must offer specific answers that guide these
questions. The choice of response to each of these questions will shape one curriculum
structure or another.
The ecological, economic, educational, values, and thinking crises are the ones that
question our knowledge of the world [5]. This leads us to the first question: How is
knowledge understood? It is essential to reflect on this question because the conception of
(mathematical or other) knowledge derives, to a large extent, from how its understanding
is conceived.
Currently, the dominant neo-liberal economy in which we are immersed continues
to produce individualistic models of thought in education. Knowledge is conceived as
a (subjective) psychological entity [6–10]. However, the current planetary crisis [11] re-
quires training critical, supportive, responsible, ethical human beings who are able to
transform their reality [4]. Education cannot be limited to spreading knowledge; it must be
an all-encompassing project [6–10]. Mathematics and mathematics education should be
configured around the development of solutions to problems created by human beings and
their way of life, which occur at a given time and in a given context [6–10].
Within the range of socio-cultural theories that seek to approach teaching and learning
in terms of critical mathematics education, the theory of objectification (TO) can be found.
The work carried out in this study is framed within the non-mentalist conception of thought
assumed by this educational theory, which is distanced from those educational theories of
an individualistic nature. In the TO, mathematical knowledge is not a psychological entity
but is conceived as a historical–cultural entity [9]. The TO defines mathematics education as
“a political, social, historical and cultural effort the purpose of which is the creation of ethical
and reflective individuals who position themselves critically in historically and culturally
constituted mathematical practices” [9] (p. 135). According to the TO, the learning of
mathematics is defined based on two axes: the axis of “mathematical knowledge” and
the axis of “mathematical being” that run through what this educational theory defines as
“collective work”. Sustainability in education emerges as an option for the construction of
possible answers that should respond to some basic principles [5]. Numerous researchers
have analysed the integration of sustainability principles into university curricula, and they
agree that future graduates need to be equipped with competency-based training [12–14].
Integrating sustainability competencies into teacher training in mathematics education
would allow creating an awareness of the conflicts and critical structures of society. It
would also encourage the development of a reflective competency as an inherent part of
mathematics literacy within the framework of a critical mathematics education [15].
In the international framework, a basic reference for incorporating sustainability into
the curriculum is the ACES Network’s Green Curriculum Network in Higher Education,
which was created in 2000 within the Alfa programme of the European Union. One of
the important results of this project was the definition of a series of criteria that allows
identifying the suitability of a sustainable curriculum. Subsequent research [16] established
an educational competency framework for sustainability in the training of future teachers
based on these criteria.
In Spain, the Sectoral Commission of the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities,
CRUE-Sustainability, approved the Guidelines for the Introduction of Sustainability in the
Curriculum document [17] in 2005 and updated it in 2012. CRUE-Sustainability asked
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 3 of 34

the university community for a comprehensive review of university curricula, ensuring

the inclusion of the basic cross-curricular content in sustainability in all the degrees of the
Spanish university system in agreement with the four cross-curricular competencies in
sustainability (SUST) defined by the CRUE as follows:
• SUST1: Competency in the critical contextualisation of knowledge through interrelat-
ing social, economic, and environmental issues at a local and/or global level.
• SUST2: Competency in the sustainable use of resources and in the prevention of
negative impacts on the natural and social environment.
• SUST3: Competency to participate in community processes that promote sustainability.
• SUST4: Competency to apply ethical principles related to sustainability values in
personal and professional behaviour.
Integrating sustainability into university curricula means, on the one hand, that stu-
dents develop competency in the critical contextualisation of knowledge. It thus concerns
teaching in which the ways of producing knowledge and the circulation of ideas occur in a
critical, reflective, and democratic manner. On the other hand, integrating sustainability
into university curricula also means that students develop competency in applying ethical
principles related to the values of sustainability. It thus regards teaching in which the
forms of social cooperation are those in which the relationship to others is one of respect,
responsibility, and solidarity—values that strengthen the principle of global perception.
From this perspective, it is important to note how education for sustainability is a type of
education in line with the postulates of the TO.
Incorporating sustainability into mathematics education requires an in-depth study of
what elements would make it possible. The research presented in this article is based on
an exploratory study regarding the view of a group of university teachers from the area
of Didactics of Mathematics at Universidad de Cádiz (Spain) with respect to education
for sustainability and its possible integration in the field of training future teachers in
mathematics education. First of all, we wanted to know to what extent sustainability is
part of the view this group of teachers has of the teaching and learning process they are in
charge of planning themselves. Secondly, we intended to identify the elements necessary
for teacher training in mathematics education when it is approached from the perspective
of sustainability. This study is limited to the Professional Development of the Teacher
Research Group-HUM462 of Universidad de Cádiz (Spain) within the framework of the
EDINSOST [18] project in which the authors of this research participate.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper presents the partial results of a more general research study [19] within the
EDINSOST research project: “Education and social innovation for sustainability. Training
of professionals as agents of change in Spanish universities to address the challenges facing
society”- (Reference: EDU2015-65574-R).
One of the limitations the authors found in a previous research study related to the
documentary and curricular analysis of the presence of sustainability competencies in the
syllabi in the area of Didactics of Mathematics was that the teachers could make a subjective
interpretation of the syllabus they are responsible for [20]. It was therefore considered
appropriate to carry out an exploratory study on the view university teachers in the area of
Didactics of Mathematics have regarding education for sustainability and its integration
into the teaching planning of their respective subjects. The survey technique was used to
conduct the exploratory study.
The study here presented is not based on previous hypotheses but seeks to bring to
light and explore the viewpoints of the teachers from the area of Didactics of Mathemat-
ics [21] in order to establish relationships and their possible motivations regarding the
research topic. It is therefore a research study situated within the interpretive paradigm
specified in an exploratory case study, which occurs at a specific moment in time and spatial
location [22].
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 4 of 34

2.1. Sampling Method

Assuming that knowledge is a social construction made by humans and for hu-
mans [23], and considering that this research does not seek to generalise results but rather
to approach the object of study to better understand it, and, in accordance with our research
paradigm, we opted for a small and deliberate sample.
We started from the idea that any training proposal introduced in the field of mathe-
matics education training seeking to integrate sustainability into the syllabi of the subjects
of the area of Didactics of Mathematics should consider the views of the teachers entrusted
with providing its training. Three teachers from the area of Didactics of Mathematics in
the Faculty of Education Sciences at Universidad de Cádiz who voluntarily agreed to be
recorded during the interviews were the main source of information.
The design of this research is therefore considered a multiple case study insofar as it
encompasses different individual views. Our work is thus framed within the paradigm of
interpretive research with a qualitative approach since it is a study that is oriented towards
the understanding of socio-educational phenomena. As said earlier, the chosen sample
was deliberate and small and was linked to the interest [24] in analysing the views of these
three teachers regarding education for sustainability and its possible integration into the
initial training of future teachers in mathematics education.
The three teachers participating in this study, who we will refer to as T1, T2, and T3,
teach in three different education degrees: bachelor’s degree in early childhood education
(degree of a global character), master’s degree in teacher training for compulsory secondary
education and baccalaureate (degree in which a more professional focus is adopted, con-
sidering the students already have a bachelor’s degree), and bachelor’s degree in primary
education (degree of a segmented nature, divided into different disciplines), respectively.

2.2. Research Objective and Questions

The general objective of this research was to study the views a group of teachers from
the area of Didactics of Mathematics in the Faculty of Education Sciences at Universidad de
Cádiz has regarding education for sustainability and its integration in the field of training
future teachers in mathematics education.
To this aim, four specific goals formulated as four research questions were established
in the study. The national and international review of the different theoretical frameworks
related to mathematics education, education for sustainability and its possible integration
into the initial training of future teachers in mathematics education, and in establishing the
Tool for Methodological Analysis through Sustainability (HAMS), used as an analytical
tool in this study (see Section 2.3.2), justifies the choice of these research questions.
• (Q1): What is the degree of integration of sustainability in the teaching planning of the
subject in the area of Didactics of Mathematics for which teacher T1 is responsible?
• (Q2): What is the degree of integration of sustainability in the teaching planning of the
subject in the area of Didactics of Mathematics for which teacher T2 is responsible?
• (Q3): What is the degree of integration of sustainability in the teaching planning of the
subject in the area of Didactics of Mathematics for which teacher T3 is responsible?
• (Q4): Are there any notable differences between the three teachers from the area
of Didactics of Mathematics regarding the degree of integration of sustainability
in the teaching planning of the subject they each teach? If so, what information,
through contrasting the three case studies, is relevant to advance towards integrating
sustainability into teacher training in mathematics education?

2.3. Instruments
2.3.1. Data Collection Instruments
As mentioned earlier, in order to approach the object of study, this research mainly
used the survey technique. The data collection instruments employed were an initial
exploratory questionnaire and a semi-structured personal interview.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 5 of 34

• Instrument 1 (I1). Initial exploratory questionnaire:

The questionnaire is the basic instrument for obtaining data in research using the
survey technique [25]. Izard [26] points out that a questionnaire should be created
around the research objectives. Three scopes were therefore intentionally taken as
references for the analysis. They complete and complement each other, and are in line
with the general and specific objectives formulated in this study (see Section 2.2):
1 Scope 1: The role of the university in general and of mathematics in particular
regarding education for sustainability and its possible integration into higher
education, especially with regard to integrating sustainability into the initial
training of teachers in mathematics education.
2 Scope 2: The learning model based on general sustainability competencies
defined by the CRUE [17] within the framework of the European Higher Edu-
cation Area. It refers to the opportunity this approach represents for teachers
in the area of Didactics of Mathematics to integrate these sustainability compe-
tencies into the teaching planning of their respective subjects.
3 Scope 3: The obstacles that, according to the teachers in the area, hinder incor-
porating sustainability into the syllabi of the area of Didactics of Mathematics
in the Faculty of Education Sciences at Universidad de Cádiz.
Once these three scopes of analysis were established a priori, a questionnaire combin-
ing open questions (scope 1), multiple-choice questions (scope 2), and five-point Likert
scale questions [27] (scope 3) was designed.
The questionnaire can be consulted in Appendix A. It was employed in a previous
study [28] in which a group of seven teachers from the area of Didactics of Mathematics
in the Faculty of Education Sciences at Universidad de Cádiz took part. Three of them
participated in the present study.
One of the limitations encountered in the study mentioned above was the reduced
number of answers provided by the seven teachers because the questionnaire was the only
instrument used. The authors of this research therefore considered it relevant to include
semi-structured personal interviews with teachers in order to analyse their views regarding
the research topic in greater depth.
The objective of the questionnaire was twofold. On the one hand, its application
allowed us to become familiar with the views of several teachers in the area of Didactics of
Mathematics regarding education for sustainability and its possible integration into the
initial training of teachers in mathematics education. On the other hand, the question-
naire was used as an additional criterion for choosing the three cases employed in the
present study—teachers T1, T2, and T3—and to hold semi-structured personal interviews
with them.
• Instrument 2 (I2). Semi-structured personal interview:
A flexible script of open questions around which the interview would revolve was
developed in order to broaden and deepen the most relevant questions in the questionnaire.
The questions of the personal interview were derived from the research questions [29] and
the very design of the Tool for Methodological Analysis through Sustainability (HAMS).
Likewise, the interview was designed based on a preliminary analysis of the questionnaires.
The different questions of the semi-structured personal interview address aspects that turn
around five different axes: the five dialogic axes around which the HAMS tool is set up.
The script for the personal interview can be found in Appendix B.
Both the questions formulated for each of the three scopes of analysis that constitute
the initial exploratory questionnaire and those that served as a guide for the semi-structured
personal interview were directly selected from or inspired by important works in the field of
mathematics education, education for sustainability, and its possible integration [17,30–34].
The items around which the questions formulated revolved were mainly from the
teachers’ perspective: What degree of participation does the teacher attribute to the stu-
dents in the teaching–learning process, how does the teacher conceive the formulation of
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 6 of 34

competencies, to what extent is the socio-environmental reality considered in their subjects,

and what is the role of assessment in the teaching and learning process planned by the
teacher?
• Instrument 3 (I3). Syllabi of the subjects:
As a complementary source of information, the syllabi of the subjects of each of the
three teachers participating in this study were also considered. The syllabus is the official
document prepared by university teachers in which the different elements of a subject are
summarised: competencies, content, training activities, assessment system, etc. In this case,
documentary analysis was used as the technique to study them.

2.3.2. Data Analysis Instrument

The data analysis instrument used was the Tool for Methodological Analysis through
Sustainability (HAMS) by García-González et al. [33].
HAMS is a tool designed to analyse teaching praxis regarding education for sustain-
ability from the teacher’s perspective. The HAMS tool allows examining the role of the
teacher within the teaching and learning process, the role assigned to the student, and
the one assigned to the content, both in the “planning” of the subject put forward by the
teacher, and in the “intervention” implemented by the teacher [32,33].
For each of the three agents that constitute the didactic system—the lecturer, the
student, and the content—and for the two dimensions of “planning” and “intervention”,
HAMS is built around five dialogic axes. Each dialogic axis represents the dialectics
between the two extremes of a binomial (methodological element), each of which is linked
to the different parts that make up any teaching–learning process, namely:
• The relationship between the lecturer and the student (vertical vs. horizontal);
• The nature of the competencies (specific vs. cross-curricular);
• The socio-environmental reality (non-integrated vs. integrated);
• The nature of the resources (internal vs. external);
• The role of evaluation (summative vs. formative).
A series of indicators are defined for each of the five dialogic axes. The indicators
express the degree of integration of sustainability in the study context in increasing order.
Appendix C show how the HAMS tool was created for the “planning” dimension and for
the three agents under analysis: the lecturer, the student, and the content. A complete
version of the HAMS tool that includes the “intervention” dimension related to the three
agents under analysis can be consulted in García-González [32].

2.4. Data Analysis

In qualitative research, the credibility of a study is used for its internal validity [35].
In this research, the phenomenon under study was described mainly by means of texts
(the documents that make up the syllabi of the different subjects and the teachers’ answers
to the initial exploratory questionnaire and/or semi-structured personal interview). To
ensure the credibility of our work, data triangulation through a plurality of techniques
for data collection and analysis (described in Section 2.3) was considered appropriate.
Researcher triangulation during the development and validation of the different data
collection instruments, and during their analysis, was also considered relevant.
The documentary review of the syllabi of the different subjects was carried out by
members of the EDINSOST project and by the Professional Development of the Teacher
Research Group-HUM462, whose members are all familiar with the study context. The
analysis system for the set of open questions in the initial exploratory questionnaire was
based on the use of the content analysis technique [36]. The interviews (once recorded and
transcribed) were also the subject of a first analysis that focused on their content [36].
The data analysis was planned in three different phases:
• In the first phase, once the data from the different sources were reduced to units of
information, they were classified into different categories, each with its own mean-
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 7 of 34

ing [37]. The categories were established deductively and correspond to the five
methodological elements (dialogic axes) that constitute the analysis instrument de-
scribed in Section 2.3.2 (HAMS). The flexibility of the HAMS tool enabled categorising
the same unit of information in different dialogic axes.
• Once the units of information were categorised, assigning an indicator to each one
of them made it possible, in the second phase of the work, to evaluate the degree of
integration of sustainability into the teaching planning of the subjects. To this aim, the
Transition towards Sustainability tool [32] was used. It classifies the indicators into
five stages of transition towards sustainability—from basic to more complex stages
(Table 1). Following García-González [32], three types of gradients were generated
depending on whether the transition towards sustainability of a methodological
element was described by three, four, or five indicators (see Appendix C).
• Due to the fact that the variables in this study were mostly qualitative, the relative
frequencies for each of the HAMS indicators in the third phase of the study were
calculated to facilitate the representation of the results. In other words, the relationship
between the number of units of information that an indicator contained with respect
to the total number of units of information contained in the dialogic axis to which said
indicator belongs, was calculated. A map called the Transition to Sustainability Map
could thus be defined in the teaching planning of the subjects that teachers T1, T2, and
T3 are responsible for (see Table 2 in Section 3).

Table 1. Transition towards sustainability [32,33]. Reproduced with permission from Esther García-
González, HAMS: A Tool for the Analyses of Methodological Activity of University Professors from
the Principles of Sustainability and Complexity; published by Espacios, 2018.

Stages
Transition Towards
Sustainability Basic Elementary Intermediate Advanced Complex
(Stage 1) (Stage 2) (Stage 3) (Stage 4) (Stage 5)
Gradient 1
1 - 2 - 3
(3 indicators)
Gradient 2
1 2 - 3 4
(4 indicators)
Gradient 3
1 2 3 4 5
(5 indicators)

2.5. Coding of Units of Information

An example of the coding used for the different units of information would be the
following: T1_I2_L_RIE_1. This code returns a unit of information associated with teacher
1 (T1) and has been extracted from his personal interview (I2). It refers to the nature of
the resources, internal vs. external (RIE), that the lecturer (L) considers. In the example,
the stage of transition towards sustainability is one (1), which means that the unit of
information is related to the “exclusive” use of internal context resources (see Appendix C).

3. Results and Discussion

Table 2 shows, expressed in percentages, the Map of Transition towards Sustainability
resulting in the teaching planning of the subjects of the three teachers of the area of Didactics
of Mathematics interviewed in agreement with the methodology described in Section 2.
Said information is organised in accordance with the different dialogic axes for each of
the three agents analysed: the lecturer (L), the student (S), and the content (C), as well as
for each of the three teachers interviewed: T1, T2, T3 (rows), depending on the stage of
transition towards sustainability in which each dialogic axis is situated: basic, elementary,
intermediate, advanced, and complex (columns).
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 8 of 34

Table 2. Map of transition towards sustainability in the teaching planning of the subjects that teachers
T1, T2, and T3 are responsible for.

Stage
Axis Agent-T 1
Basic Elementary Intermediate Advanced Complex
L-T1 - - 1.00 - -

Relationship: Lecturer–Student
L-T2 - - 1.00 - -

Vertical vs. Horizontal

L-T3 - - 0.71 - 0.29
S-T1 - - 1.00 - -
S-T2 - - 1.00 - -
S-T3 - - 0.58 - 0.42
C-T1 0.67 0.33 - - -
C-T2 0.25 0.50 0.25 - -
C-T3 - - 0.33 - 0.67
L-T1 0.37 - 0.63 - -
Specific vs. Cross-curricular

L-T2 0.30 - 0.22 - 0.48

L-T3 - - 0.12 - 0.88
Competencies

S-T1 1.00 - - - -
S-T2 0.33 - 0.43 - 0.24
S-T3 - - 0.10 - 0.90
C-T1 0.29 - 0.71 - -
C-T2 0.39 - 0.28 - 0.33
C-T3 - - 0.12 - 0.88
L-T1 - 0.83 - 0.17 -
Non-integrated vs. Integrated
Socio-environmental reality

L-T2 - 0.67 - 0.33 -

L-T3 - 0.60 - - 0.40
S-T1 0.50 - 0.50 - -
S-T2 - - 0.60 - 0.40
S-T3 - - 0.25 - 0.75
C-T1 0.33 0.67 - - -
C-T2 0.62 0.19 - 0.19 -
C-T3 0.54 0.08 - 0.15 0.23

Resources L-T1 1.00 - - - -

Internal vs. L-T2 0.83 - 0.17 - -
External L-T3 1.00 - - - -
L-T1 0.20 0.60 - 0.20 -
L-T2 0.20 0.40 - 0.20 0.20
Evaluation L-T3 0.20 0.80 - - -
Summative vs.
Formative C-T1 0.20 - 0.80 - -
C-T2 0.17 - 0.66 - 0.17
C-T3 0.25 - 0.75 - -
1 L: Lecturer; S: student; C: content; Ti: teacher i, i = 1 (green), 2 (yellow), 3 (blue).

To answer the first three research questions (Q1, Q2, and Q3) in Sections 3.1–3.3,
several figures are shown that represent the transition towards sustainability, expressed in
percentages, in the teaching planning of each of the three teachers interviewed from the
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 9 of 35
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 9 of 34

from the area of Didactics of Mathematics. The different figures represent the stage of
area of Didactics of Mathematics. The different figures represent the stage of transition
transition towards sustainability in the teaching planning of their subject, analysed for
towards sustainability in the teaching planning of their subject, analysed for each agent
each agent (lecturer, student, content) and in each of the dialogic axes in which they are
(lecturer, student, content) and in each of the dialogic axes in which they are organised.
organised. Their characterisation is justified through units of information that explain
Their characterisation is justified through units of information that explain their meaning.
their meaning. The different figures illustrate the results summarised in Table 2.
The different figures illustrate the results summarised in Table 2.
Toanswer
To answerthe thefourth
fourth research
researchquestion
question (Q4),
(Q4), Section
Section 3.4
3.4 shows
shows three
three graphs
graphs (spider
(spider
charts) that allow us to obtain an image of the relationships between the different
charts) that allow us to obtain an image of the relationships between the different ways of ways of
workingofofthe
working thethree
threeteachers
teachers depending
depending on on
howhow
eacheach of them
of them understands
understands the educa-
the educational
tional fact regarding sustainability and its possible integration into the training
fact regarding sustainability and its possible integration into the training of teachers of teachers
in
in mathematics education.
mathematics education.

3.1. Integration
3.1. Integration of
of Sustainability
Sustainability into
into the
the Teaching
TeachingPlanning
Planningofofthe
theSubject
SubjectofofTeacher
TeacherT1 T1
Figures 1–3
Figures 1–3 allow
allow answering
answering the the first
first research
research question
question (Q1):
(Q1): What
What is is the
the degree
degree of
of
integration of sustainability in the teaching planning of the subject in the area
integration of sustainability in the teaching planning of the subject in the area of Didactics of Didactics
of Mathematics
of Mathematics for for which
which teacher
teacher T1T1 isisresponsible?
responsible?

3.1.1.
3.1.1. Lecturer
Lecturer Agent
Agent
Figure
Figure 1 shows the
1 shows the different
different stages
stages of
of transition
transition towards
towards sustainability,
sustainability, expressed
expressed in
in
percentages, in the teaching planning of the subject of the area of Didactics of Mathematics
percentages, in the teaching planning of the subject of the area of Didactics of Mathematics
for
for which
which teacher
teacher T1
T1 isis responsible.
responsible. The
The stages
stages are
are shown
shown for
for each
each of
of the
the five
five dialogic
dialogic axes
axes
that
that constitute
constitute the
the lecturer
lectureragent
agent(L).
(L).

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Stages
Stages of
of transition
transition towards
towardssustainability.
sustainability.Lecturer
Lectureragent.
agent.Case
CaseT1.
T1.

As
As shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 1,1, most
most ofof the
the dialogic
dialogic axes
axes are
are represented
represented by by more
more than
than one
one
indicator
indicator(stage).
(stage).This
Thisexplains
explainsthat there
that areare
there usually no unique
usually or exclusive
no unique stagesstages
or exclusive for each
for
methodological
each methodologicalelement analysed.
element These
analysed. results
These are in
results agreement
are withwith
in agreement the study carried
the study car-
out
riedby García-González
out by García-González [32]. [32].
The dialogic axes axes
The dialogic of theoflecturer–student relationship
the lecturer–student and
relationship
the resources are the only ones that have a single indicator identified in the
and the resources are the only ones that have a single indicator identified in the interme- intermediate
and
diatebasic
andstages of transition
basic stages towardstowards
of transition sustainability. In his planning,
sustainability. T1 gives the
In his planning, students
T1 gives the
astudents
certain role, but role,
a certain it is the
butteacher
it is thewho leads
teacher whotheleads
process. T1 stated
the process. T1that he that
stated usesheactive
uses
participatory methodologies
active participatory in his classes
methodologies when he
in his classes says:he says:
when
T1_I1_L_RVH_3: “Debate and dialogue
T1_I1_L_RVH_3: “Debate and dialogue between peersbetween peers and
and with
with the
the teacher.
teacher. Team-
Team-
work. These are methodologies used in the different subjects for the construction
work. These are methodologies used in the different subjects for the construction of math- of
mathematical knowledge”.
ematical knowledge.”
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 10 of 34

Likewise, in his planning, T1 referred only to internal contextual resources, although

both in the initial questionnaire and in the personal interview he specified that they have
been created with recycled material:
T1_I1_L_RIE_1: “One of the aspects used is the design of educational materials for
the development of mathematical knowledge using recycled materials. Apart from giving
them a new use, we work on mathematical knowledge”.
With regard to the competencies, they appear explicitly in the syllabus of the subject.
Some of them are formulated in specific terms linked to the subject, while others are of
a more cross-curricular nature. This explains the different stages of transition towards
sustainability for this methodological element: basic (37.5%) and intermediate (62.5%).
Examples of these cases are:
T1_I3_L_CSC_1: “Know the scientific, mathematical and technological fundamentals
of the curriculum of the early childhood education stage, as well as the theories on the
acquisition and development of the corresponding learning”.
T1_I3_L_CSC_3: “Promote interest and respect for the natural, social, and cultural
environment through appropriate educational projects”.
During the interview, T1 mentioned the difficulty of formulating the competencies of
his subject in more global terms in order to consider sustainability in the syllabus when
he said:
T1_I2_L_CSC_1: “It would mean to change everything stated in the curricula. It would
indeed be possible, but with the necessary work of thinking about how to adapt them, how
to include them in the planning of the subjects without causing a major upheaval among
all the subjects that constitute a curriculum”.
As far as the socio-environmental reality is concerned, 83.3% of the units of information,
coming from the different sources of data collection and analysis (syllabus, questionnaire,
and interview), is related only to determining some references to said reality in the teaching
planning (elementary stage). To a lesser extent (16.7%), clearer statements were made
regarding the socio-environmental reality (advanced stage). For instance, in the question-
naire, T1 considered mathematics as a discipline that should be structured around the
development of solutions to problems related to reality and daily life:
T1_I1_L_RNI_4: “Mathematics education cannot turn its back on reality. In fact, if
we look at the curricula for early childhood or primary education, they state mathematics
should be oriented towards or aimed at activities related to the pupils’ daily lives”.
Finally, the evaluation provided by T1 was aimed mainly at the students. However,
the variability in stages for this methodological element (basic → elementary → advanced)
is attributed to the fact that the evaluation appears in the planning at different times and
that different instruments and sources of information are used.
In addition to proposing the traditional written exam at the end of the process (the
most basic stage), T1 also considers other aspects in the evaluation, such as participation
and active engagement of the students in the classroom and in the group, the level of
preparation of different theoretical reports, proper use of recycled material in resource
design, and peer evaluation or co-evaluation (a more advanced stage).
T1_I1_L_ESF_2: “We assess different aspects, including the use of recycled material in
the design of teaching material for future early childhood education teachers”.

3.1.2. Student Agent

Figure 2 shows the different stages of transition towards sustainability, expressed in
percentages, in the teaching planning of the subject of the area of Didactics of Mathematics
for which teacher T1 is responsible. The stages are shown for each of the three dialogic axes
that constitute the student agent (S).
The socio-environmental reality is, in this case, the only methodological element
represented by more than one indicator. This methodological element is characterised in
two stages: basic (50%) and intermediate (50%). On the one hand, although the syllabus
of the subject refers to certain socio-environmental issues, their relationship with the
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 11 of 34

professional role of the students in the future (basic stage) is not explicitly expressed. On
the other hand, in the personal interview, T1 did refer to certain aspects related to the
socio-environmental reality and to the fact that the students should learn or become aware
as future education professionals (intermediate stage) when he stated:
T1_I2_S_RNI_3: “Take advantage of this quality education by connecting it not only
to logical mathematical knowledge, but also to other aspects, such as the use of (recycled)
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 11 of 35
materials that would otherwise end up in the trash, this is the education our students have
to learn and take into account”.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Stages
Stages of
of transition
transition towards
towards sustainability.
sustainability.Student
Studentagent.
agent.Case
CaseT1.
T1.

However, as observed in his

The socio-environmental statement,
reality is, in thisT1’s view
case, the on
onlysustainability
methodological is clearly
elementbiased
rep-
since he puts
resented special
by more emphasis
than on the more
one indicator. environmental aspects
This methodological element(reducing, reusing,
is characterised in and
two
recycling) to the
stages: basic (50%)detriment of other aspects
and intermediate (50%). of Oninterest
the onesuchhand,as although
those of athe
social, economic,
syllabus of the
or cultural
subject nature.
refers to certain socio-environmental issues, their relationship with the profes-
For
sional thisofagent,
role the dialogic
the students in the axes of the
future lecturer–student
(basic stage) is not relationship and the compe-
explicitly expressed. On the
tencies are represented by a single indicator (100%) in the intermediate
other hand, in the personal interview, T1 did refer to certain aspects related to the socio-and basic stages of
transition, respectively. Regarding the first dialogic axis, the students
environmental reality and to the fact that the students should learn or become aware as and their interests
appear as an element
future education to be taken
professionals into account,
(intermediate butwhen
stage) they hearestated:
not the key players in the
teaching and learning process,
T1_I2_S_RNI_3: which is led
“Take advantage by the
of this teacher.
quality T1 stresses
education carrying outitactivities
by connecting not only
related to the
to logical students’ daily
mathematical lives since
knowledge, buthe knows
also thataspects,
to other the students
such show
as the the
usemost interest
of (recycled)
when relating the theory of the subject to the practical aspects:
materials that would otherwise end up in the trash, this is the education our students have
T1_I1_S_RVH_3:
to learn and take into “The main criterion to follow is to carry out activities related to the
account.”
daily However,
lives of both primary and
as observed in his early childhood
statement, T1’seducation
view onpupils”.
sustainability is clearly biased
T1_I2_S_RVH_3: “When I design my
since he puts special emphasis on the more environmental subjects, I consider content,
aspects how reusing,
(reducing, to put themand
into
recycling) to the detriment of other aspects of interest such as those of a social, their
practice, especially from a practical point of view, so that they are useful in daily
economic,
lives. The relationship
or cultural nature. between life and content always occupies that practical part, what
interests me is a practical part theaxes
For this agent, the dialogic students
of theconsider useful, that
lecturer–student give meaning
relationship andtothe
what they
compe-
are working on, that they do not see as something abstract that is useless”.
tencies are represented by a single indicator (100%) in the intermediate and basic stages
With respect to the competencies, the basic stage of transition towards sustainability
of transition, respectively. Regarding the first dialogic axis, the students and their interests
is attributed to not finding any references to the professional role of students in any of
appear as an element to be taken into account, but they are not the key players in the
the units of information. From the different sources of information and the data analysis,
teaching and learning process, which is led by the teacher. T1 stresses carrying out activ-
competencies are merely perceived as the development of skills specific to the subject in
ities related to the students’ daily lives since he knows that the students show the most
the official curriculum of the degree.
interest when relating the theory of the subject to the practical aspects:
T1_I1_S_RVH_3: “The main criterion to follow is to carry out activities related to the
daily lives of both primary and early childhood education pupils.”
T1_I2_S_RVH_3: “When I design my subjects, I consider content, how to put them
into practice, especially from a practical point of view, so that they are useful in their daily
lives. The relationship between life and content always occupies that practical part, what
interests me is a practical part the students consider useful, that give meaning to what
they are working on, that they do not see as something abstract that is useless.”
Educ.
Educ.Sci. 2022,12,
Sci.2022, 12,199
199 12 of
12 of 34
35

3.1.3.
3.1.3. Content
Content Agent
Agent
Figure
Figure 33 shows
shows the
the different
different stages
stages of
of transition
transition towards
towards sustainability,
sustainability, expressed
expressed in
in
percentages,
percentages,in inthe
theteaching
teachingplanning
planningofofthe
thesubject
subjectof
of the
the area
area of
of Didactics
Didactics of
of Mathematics
Mathematics
for
forwhich
whichteacher
teacherT1 T1isisresponsible.
responsible.TheThestages
stagesareareshown
shownfor foreach
eachof
ofthe
the four
four dialogic
dialogicaxes
axes
that constitute the content agent (C).
that constitute the content agent (C).

Figure3.3. Stages
Figure Stagesof
of transition
transition towards
towardssustainability.
sustainability.Content
Contentagent.
agent.Case
CaseT1.
T1.

As
As shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 3, 3, each
each of
of the
the four
four dialogic
dialogic axes
axes isis represented
represented by by two
two indicators
indicators
in
in different
differentstages
stagesof ofintegration
integrationof ofsustainability.
sustainability.
AAtotal
total of
of 66.7%
66.7% of of the
the units
units of
of information
information refers
refers toto aa basic
basic stage
stage of transition
transition towards
towards
sustainability
sustainabilityin inthe the dialogic
dialogic axis
axis of
of the
the lecturer–student
lecturer–studentrelationship
relationshipfor forthe
thecontent
contentagent
agent
(C).
(C). This is because the content generally appears in a closed manner and is organised by
This is because the content generally appears in a closed manner and is organised by
topic.
topic. Likewise,
Likewise, it is is inferred
inferred fromfrom thethe answers
answers to to the
the questionnaire
questionnaire that that due
due toto aa lack
lack of
of
time,
time, T1T1 finds
finds itit difficult
difficult to toaddress
address content
content that
that does
does not
notcorrespond
correspond to to the
thedisciplinary
disciplinary
organisation:
organisation:
T1_I1_C_RVH_1:
T1_I1_C_RVH_1:“I “Ido
donotnothave
haveenough
enoughtime
timeto tocover
coverall allthe
thetopics
topicsof ofmymysubjects”.
subjects.”
In
In the interview, T1 admitted that he has only made small changes in his teaching
the interview, T1 admitted that he has only made small changes in his teaching
planning,
planning,with withmathematical
mathematicalknowledgeknowledgebeing beingthe
themain
mainobjective
objectiveof ofthe
theprocess:
process:
T1_I2_C_RVH_2:
T1_I2_C_RVH_2: “I “I try
try to
to make
make small
small changes,
changes, adjustments,
adjustments, whichwhich II think
think areare good
good
for the students to be able to work, in this case, on logical mathematical
for the students to be able to work, in this case, on logical mathematical knowledge.” knowledge”.
While
Whilesome someofofthethe specific
specificcompetencies
competencies of the
of syllabus
the syllabusonly refer
only to the use
refer to theof knowl-
use of
edge and content specific to the subject, others interrelate different
knowledge and content specific to the subject, others interrelate different types of types of knowledge.
This enables This
knowledge. the dialogic
enables axis of the competencies
the dialogic to move from
axis of the competencies a basicfrom
to move stage (28.6%)
a basic to
stage
an intermediate stage (71.4%). In the questionnaire, T1 considered
(28.6%) to an intermediate stage (71.4%). In the questionnaire, T1 considered the possibil- the possibility of inter-
relating different types of knowledge to develop certain competencies. He thus referred
ity of interrelating different types of knowledge to develop certain competencies. He thus
to researching through ethnomathematics as a discipline that studies the relationships
referred to researching through ethnomathematics as a discipline that studies the relation-
between mathematics and culture.
ships between mathematics and culture.
Ethnomathematics can indeed promote the development of cultural sustainability in
Ethnomathematics can indeed promote the development of cultural sustainability in
teacher training in mathematics education—learning from what exists and recognising the
teacher training in mathematics education—learning from what exists and recognising
cultural and identity values of each society:
the cultural and identity values of each society:
T1_I1_C_CSC_3: “Conducting research through ethnomathematics, analysing what
T1_I1_C_CSC_3: “Conducting research through ethnomathematics, analysing what
students from other cultures, or even our ancestors know about mathematics and its effect
students from other cultures, or even our ancestors know about mathematics and its effect
on society”.
on society.”
The stage of transition towards sustainability for the socio-environmental reality axis
The stage of transition towards sustainability for the socio-environmental reality axis
is incipient. A total of 33.3% of the information units was categorised in a basic stage,
is incipient. A total of 33.3% of the information units was categorised in a basic stage,
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 13 of 35
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 13 of 34

while the rest (66.7%) was grouped in an elementary stage. The main reason that explains
while the restof(66.7%)
these stages wastowards
transition groupedsustainability
in an elementary stage.
is that thereThe
is nomain reason
constant that explains
presence of the
these stages of transition towards sustainability is that there is no constant
socio-environmental reality in the content of the subject. However, in the interview, presence of the
T1
socio-environmental
was open to modifying reality
thein the content
content of hisofsubject
the subject. However,
to achieve in the
the same interview,This
objectives. T1 was
ap-
open
proach to seems
modifying the content
appropriate of since
to us his subject to achieve
the content of athe same objectives.
syllabus This approach
must be understood as a
seems appropriate to us since the content of a syllabus must be
means for the development of certain competencies and not as an end in itself:understood as a means for
the development
T1_I2_C_RNI_2: of certain competencies
“A situation to workandonnot as an end in with
sustainability itself:the students could be
T1_I2_C_RNI_2: “A situation to work on sustainability with the students could be
used simply by changing the paradigm. In this situation, and using this example, the same
used simply by changing the paradigm. In this situation, and using this example, the same
contents could be worked on. In fact, I think it is convenient to constantly change situa-
contents could be worked on. In fact, I think it is convenient to constantly change situations
tions and examples.”
and examples”.
Finally, the evaluation provided by T1 was only aimed at the students (intermediate
Finally, the evaluation provided by T1 was only aimed at the students (intermediate
stage). In addition to focusing on conceptual knowledge by means of a written exam (basic
stage). In addition to focusing on conceptual knowledge by means of a written exam (basic
stage), he also considers other aspects of the teaching and learning process. The following
stage), he also considers other aspects of the teaching and learning process. The following
is stated in the syllabus:
is stated in the syllabus:
T1_I3_C_ESF_3: “The evaluation will also take into account clarity when presenting,
T1_I3_C_ESF_3: “The evaluation will also take into account clarity when presenting,
the quality of reasoning, and the complexity of the relationships the student establishes.”
the quality of reasoning, and the complexity of the relationships the student establishes”.
3.2. Integration
3.2. Integration of
of Sustainability
Sustainability into
into the
the Teaching
TeachingPlanning
Planningofofthe
theSubject
SubjectofofTeacher
TeacherT2T2
Figures 4–6
Figures 4–6allow
allowanswering
answeringthe thesecond
secondresearch
research question
question (Q2):
(Q2): What
What is the
is the degree
degree of
of integration
integration of sustainability
of sustainability in the
in the teaching
teaching planning
planning of the
of the subject
subject in the
in the area
area of Didac-
of Didactics
tics
of of Mathematics
Mathematics for which
for which teacher
teacher T2 isT2 is responsible?
responsible?

3.2.1.
3.2.1. Lecturer
Lecturer Agent
Agent
Figure
Figure 44 shows
shows thethe different
different stages
stages of transition
transition towards sustainability,
sustainability, expressed
expressed in
in
percentages,
percentages,in inthe
the teaching
teachingplanning
planningofof the
the subject
subject of
of the
the area
area of
of Didactics
Didactics of Mathematics
Mathematics
for
for which
which teacher
teacher T2T2 is
is responsible.
responsible. The
The stages
stages are
are shown
shown forfor each
each of
of the
the five
five dialogic
dialogic axes
axes
that constitute the lecturer agent (L).
that constitute the lecturer agent (L).

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Stages
Stages of
of transition
transition towards
towards sustainability.
sustainability.Lecturer
Lectureragent.
agent.Case
CaseT2.
T2.

Figure
Figure 44 shows,
shows, with
with the
the exception
exception of of the
the axis
axis of
of the
the lecturer–student
lecturer–student relationship,
relationship,
how
how all the methodological elements are represented by more than
all the methodological elements are represented by more than one
one indicator
indicator or
or stage.
stage.
The
The stage of transition towards sustainability for the axis that reports on the kind
stage of transition towards sustainability for the axis that reports on the kind of
of
lecturer–student
lecturer–student relationship
relationship is
is intermediate.
intermediate. This
This means
means that,
that, although
although the
the students
students are
are
given a certain leading role, teacher T2 leads the process. T2 points out the following in the
questionnaire:
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 14 of 34

T2_I1_L_RVH_3: “Methodologies that stimulate critical analysis based on everyday

situations, as well as developing work together”.
As far as the competencies are concerned, the teaching programme groups them into
three types: specific, general, and cross-curricular. This allows a transition from more basic
stages (30.4%) to more complex stages (47.8%) in this methodological element. In the ques-
tionnaire, T2 commented that he integrates the four sustainability competencies defined by
the CRUE [17] into his teaching planning. In the personal interview, he mentioned that he
is in favour of a more global formulation of competencies in order to promote mathematics
education in agreement with education for sustainability. T2 stated:
T2_I2_L_CSC_5: “Everything that is related to sustainability is established in a cross-
curricular manner, which means it is up to the teacher ( . . . ) If we change that cross-
curricular nature and include it in the hard core of the competencies that must be developed,
I believe it would help considerably to implement it in a more effective manner”.
Regarding the socio-environmental reality, 66.7% of the units of information, coming
from the different sources of data collection and analysis, is related to determining some
references made to said reality in the teaching planning (elementary stage). T2 stated in the
questionnaire:
T2_I1_L_RNI_2: “In the planning there are elements related to sustainability, but it
does not appear as a section defined in it”.
He then added certain difficulties found when planning his subject, as can be inferred
from his answer to the questionnaire expressed using a Likert scale. He considers it to be a
barrier that hinders incorporating sustainability into his subject:
T2_I1_L_RNI_2: “I do not know any methodologies that I could use to integrate
sustainability into mathematics education”.
However, after deepening the analysis, T2 offered a clear statement regarding the
socio-environmental reality in the personal interview. This allows progressing towards a
more advanced stage of transition towards sustainability (33.3%):
T2_I2_L_RNI_4: “Of course, right? When it comes to learning, for example, topics that
I believe are very easy (to deal with) in mathematics, such as education for consumption
( . . . ), and, of course, equality, which is something that we address in the master’s degree.
We talk about consumption, about gender equality”.
With respect to the nature of the resources, they are mainly internal (83.3%). In
the planning, the activities considered are practicums, seminars, problems, tutoring, and
evaluation. In the questionnaire, T2 stated:
T2_I1_L_RIE_1: “I find it difficult to find suitable materials to introduce these topics”.
However, the syllabus does include visits to other centres, which allows us to move,
though in an incipient way, towards an intermediate stage of transition towards sustain-
ability for this methodological element (16.7%):
T2_I3_L_RIE_3: “Visit to specific contexts related to education”.
Finally, regarding the evaluation, four different stages of transition towards sustain-
ability were identified in the teaching planning of T2. The variability in indicators is due
to the fact that for the evaluation, in addition to the final written exam, other follow-up
instruments, such as an individual and group portfolio, are considered. They ensure an
evaluation system that is more formative than summative. In the questionnaire, T2 claimed
that he uses individualised evaluation instruments:
T2_I1_L_ESF_5: “I use individualised instruments that seek to reduce inequalities, in
line with some of the objectives of the 2030 Agenda”.

3.2.2. Student Agent

Figure 5 shows the different stages of transition towards sustainability, expressed in
percentages, in the teaching planning of the subject of the area of Didactics of Mathematics
for which teacher T2 is responsible. The different stages are shown for each of the three
dialogic axes that constitute the student agent (S).
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 15 of 35

Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 15 of 34

for which teacher T2 is responsible. The different stages are shown for each of the three
dialogic axes that constitute the student agent (S).

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Stages
Stages of
of transition
transition towards
towards sustainability.
sustainability.Student
Studentagent.
agent.Case
CaseT2.
T2.

The
The lecturer–student
lecturer–student relationship
relationship is is the
the only
only methodological
methodological elementelement represented
represented by by
an
an indicator
indicator in in an
an intermediate
intermediate stage stage ofof transition
transition towards
towards sustainability
sustainability in in the
the teaching
teaching
planning.
planning. Both
Both inin the
the questionnaire
questionnaire and and inin the
the personal
personal interview,
interview, T2 T2 commented
commented that that he
he
takes the students and their interests into account, as well as the expressions
takes the students and their interests into account, as well as the expressions the students the students
use.
use. However,
However, he he leads
leads thethe process:
process:
T2_I2_S_RVH_3:
T2_I2_S_RVH_3:“When “WhenI Idesign
designmy my subjects,
subjects, even
evenbefore
beforeI consider
I considerthe thecontents, the
contents,
first thing
the first I think
thing about
I think is the
about human
is the human material
material I am
I amgoing
going totowork
workwith,with,ititisisthe
thestarting
starting
point.
point. Once
Once II know
know that that human
human material,
material, II think
think about
about the
the contents
contents established
established by by law
law II
will
will teach, and later, I think about how to make those contents match the human materialI
teach, and later, I think about how to make those contents match the human material
have
I have inin
front
frontofofme”.
me.”
T2_I2_S_RVH_3:
T2_I2_S_RVH_3:“I “Ibelieve
believethat
thatthe
thelanguage
languagewe weuseusein
inthe
the classroom
classroomhas hasto tobe
be in
in line
line
with what the students are already using. In that regard, using videos,
with what the students are already using. In that regard, using videos, digital experiences, digital experiences,
any
any kind
kind ofof communication
communication in in the
the media
media they they use
use will
will benefit
benefit that
that what
what we we want
want to to
achieve”.
achieve.”
The
The reason
reason why why thethe dialogic
dialogicaxisaxisofofthethecompetencies
competencies goes
goes fromfrom basic
basic (33.3%)
(33.3%) to
to in-
intermediate (42.9%) to complex (23.8%) is due to the fact that they
termediate (42.9%) to complex (23.8%) is due to the fact that they do not only focus on the do not only focus on
the development
development of skills
of skills specific
specific to to the
the subject(basic
subject (basicstage)
stage)butbutalso
alsoinclude
include thethe training
training of of
professionals committed to improving their environment and that of critical autonomous
professionals committed to improving their environment and that of critical autonomous
citizens (complex stage). For example, in the interview, T2 referred to mathematical literacy
citizens (complex stage). For example, in the interview, T2 referred to mathematical liter-
and linked it to the professional role of the students in the same way as the National Council
acy and linked it to the professional role of the students in the same way as the National
of Teachers of Mathematics [1]:
Council of Teachers of Mathematics [1]:
T2_I2_S_CSC_3: “Mathematics is a very useful tool from a professional point of view.
T2_I2_S_CSC_3: “Mathematics is a very useful tool from a professional point of view.
I believe that it helps students progress, enter the job market, and overcome inequalities.
I believe that it helps students progress, enter the job market, and overcome inequalities.
Encouraging both boys and girls to pursue their calling facilitates equality”.
Encouraging both boys and girls to pursue their calling facilitates equality.”
The syllabus of the subject T2 teaches also considers the development of these kinds
The syllabus of the subject T2 teaches also considers the development of these kinds
of cross-curricular competencies:
of cross-curricular competencies:
T2_I3_S_CSC_5: “Promote and ensure respect for human rights and the principles of
T2_I3_S_CSC_5: “Promote and ensure respect for human rights and the principles of
universal accessibility, equality, non-discrimination, democratic values, and the values of
universal
the cultureaccessibility,
of peace”. equality, non-discrimination, democratic values, and the values of
the culture
Finally,ofthe
peace.”
socio-environmental reality is defined by two indicators in intermediate
Finally,
(60%) and complex the socio-environmental
(40%) stages of transitionreality towards
is defined by two indicators in intermediate
sustainability.
(60%) and complex (40%) stages of transition towards sustainability.
In the syllabus of the subject, some relationships are indeed established between the
socio-environmental reality and the future professional role of the students. This occurs in
an implicit manner in the learning outcomes and explicitly in the training activities planned
in the subject. For example:
 In the syllabus of the subject, some relationships are indeed established between the
socio-environmental reality and the future professional role of the students. This occurs
in an implicit manner in the learning outcomes and explicitly in the training activities
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 planned in the subject. For example: 16 of 34
T2_I3_S_RNI_3: “Incorporate the science-mathematics and mathematics-society di-
mension into the teaching profession.”
T2 commented in“Incorporate
T2_I3_S_RNI_3: the questionnaire how the socio-environmental
the science-mathematics reality should be
and mathematics-society di-a
pillar in the training of students
mension into the teaching profession”. when he said that mathematics must face interdiscipli-
narity. The fact thatininterdisciplinarity
T2 commented the questionnaire how encourages the integration and
the socio-environmental relationship
reality should beof a
mathematics
pillar with other
in the training disciplines
of students when in he order to solve
said that real problems
mathematics should
must face not be over-
interdisciplinarity.
looked.
The fact that interdisciplinarity encourages the integration and relationship of mathematics
T2_I1_S_RNI_5:
with other disciplines “I
in believe
order tothat mathematics
solve should
real problems be strongly
should globalised and inter-
not be overlooked.
disciplinary. The main reason is that this is the society in which our
T2_I1_S_RNI_5: “I believe that mathematics should be strongly globalised students live,
andand in
inter-
which they will work and grow as citizens. The school cannot be oblivious to
disciplinary. The main reason is that this is the society in which our students live, and in this situa-
tion.” they will work and grow as citizens. The school cannot be oblivious to this situation”.
which

3.2.3.
3.2.3. Content
Content Agent
Agent
Figure
Figure 6 shows the
6 shows the different
different stages
stages of
of transition
transition towards
towards sustainability,
sustainability, expressed
expressed in
in
percentages, in the teaching planning of the subject of the area of Didactics of Mathematics
percentages, in the teaching planning of the subject of the area of Didactics of Mathematics
for
for which
which teacher
teacher T2T2 is
is responsible.
responsible. The
The different
different stages
stages are
are shown
shown for
for each
each of
of the
the four
four
dialogic
dialogic axes
axes that
that constitute
constitute thethe content
content agent
agent(C).
(C).

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Stages
Stages of
of transition
transition towards
towards sustainability.
sustainability.Content
Contentagent.
agent.Case
CaseT2.
T2.

As
As shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 6, 6, each
each of
of the
the four
four dialogic
dialogic axes
axes is represented
represented by by three
three indicators
indicators
in different stages of transition towards sustainability.
in different stages of transition towards sustainability.
Regarding
Regarding the the lecturer–student
lecturer–student relationship,
relationship, the the syllabus
syllabus ofof the
the subject
subject T2T2 teaches
teaches isis
grouped
grouped by by content
content blocks
blocks (not
(not by
by topics),
topics), and,
and, although
although thethe content
content is is the
the main
main objective
objective
of
of the
theprocess,
process,the theblocks
blocksarearesufficiently
sufficientlyflexible
flexible totoallow
allowroom
room to to
address
address other
othercontent of
content
interest.
of interest.In the interview,
In the interview,T2 mentioned
T2 mentioned thatthat
he works
he works on his subject:
on his subject:
T2_I2_C_RVH_2:
T2_I2_C_RVH_2: “The “The analysis,
analysis,from
froma amathematical
mathematical point
point of of view,
view, of news
of news thatthat
ap-
appears in the media, related to many topics: related to the environment,
pears in the media, related to many topics: related to the environment, the use and misuse the use and
misuse of statistics
of statistics to manipulate
to manipulate peoplepeople
(…) of( .how
. . ) ofmathematical
how mathematical languagelanguage is sometimes
is sometimes used
used as a barrier to hide reality,
as a barrier to hide reality, etc.” etc”.
In
In the
theinterview,
interview,whenwhenT2T2was was asked
askedwhat
what hehewould
wouldlikelike
to change
to change or introduce
or introducein the
in
teaching planning of his subject, he answered:
the teaching planning of his subject, he answered:
T2_I2_C_RVH_3: “I would like us to not be so slaves to contents ( . . . ) I would change
the fact that each subject is a sealed world that is not related to the other subjects because, I
believe, you cannot look at the world critically when you are wearing glasses that only let
you see a part: the glasses of mathematics, the glasses of language, the glasses of physics. I
would change that, perhaps by areas, grouping subjects, and considering learning through
different perspectives. We would contribute to training critical citizen, and that, right now,
is essential”.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 17 of 34

As far as the competencies are concerned, the variability in stages of transition towards
sustainability for this methodological element is explained, mainly, by the inclusion of
specific (basic stage), general (intermediate stage), and cross-curricular (complex stage)
competencies in the syllabus. In addition, the distribution of units of information that
account for these three stages for this dialogic axis is practically homogeneous in percentage
terms: 38.9% (basic stage), 27.8% (intermediate stage), and 33.3% (complex stage).
With regard to the socio-environmental reality, in the questionnaire, T2 showed how
the mathematics content promoted the analysis of aspects related to said reality. He
pointed out:
T2_I1_C_RNI_2: “Mathematics allows giving opinions based on data, not intuitions,
it enables detecting fallacious reasoning, and develops the ability to make inferences that
allow one to act knowingly”.
It is inferred from the interview that the way T2 addresses the content is in agreement
with the principles of sustainability, and it is beyond the purely disciplinary. We consider
that the socio-environmental reality has a constant presence in the content of the subject T2
teaches when he commented:
T2_I2_C_RNI_4: “I think about the knowledge I transmit to my students. I want it
to be a sustainable mathematics education in the sense that it generates equality, in the
sense that the inequality that may exist among my students is reduced through educational
action”.
T2 clearly moves away from reductionist approaches in mathematics education and
incorporates the mathematics-reality dimension when he says:
T2_I2_C_RNI_4: “Sometimes, we focus a lot on (mathematical) concepts and it seems
that there are concepts that are alien to reality, but I think the opposite is true; there are
few subjects in which we cannot give examples that come from reality. And if we bring
the reality that we want to bring, the one that seems very important to us, it will be the
starting point so that later on mathematical learning contributes to the student looking at
that reality in a different way”.
T2’s evaluation focuses on conceptual knowledge through a written exam. However,
he not only includes other elements of the teaching and learning process but also makes
proposals for their improvement when, in the questionnaire, T2 states:
T2_I1_C_ESF_3: “I think the evaluation could be improved by including, as part of
the evaluation process, projects that improve the way we consume in order to consume
more responsibly”.

3.3. Integration of Sustainability into the Teaching Planning of the Subject of Teacher T3
Figures 7–9 allow us to answer the third research question (Q3): What is the degree of
integration of sustainability in the teaching planning of the subject in the area of Didactics
of Mathematics for which teacher T3 is responsible?

3.3.1. Lecturer Agent

Figure 7 shows the different stages of transition towards sustainability, expressed in
percentages, in the teaching planning of the subject of the area of Didactics of Mathematics
for which teacher T3 is responsible. The stages are shown for each of the five dialogic axes
that constitute the lecturer agent (L).
Educ.
Educ.Sci. 2022,12,
Sci.2022, 12,199
199 18 of
18 of 34
35

Figure7.7.Stages
Figure Stagesof
oftransition
transitiontowards
towardssustainability.
sustainability.Lecturer
Lectureragent.
agent.Case
CaseT3.
T3.

InIn Figure
Figure 7, 7, itit isisobserved
observed how how thethe resources
resources are arethe
theonlyonlymethodological
methodological elementelement
represented
represented by by aasingle
single indicator
indicator in inaabasic
basicstage
stageof oftransition
transitiontowards
towardssustainability.
sustainability. In In
other
other words,
words, in in the
the teaching
teaching planning,
planning, only internal context resources are referred to. to.
However,
However,ininthe thepersonal
personalinterview,
interview, T3T3diddidconsider
consider thatthat
it isitkey to address
is key aspects
to address related
aspects re-
to the environment through different types of materials in the
lated to the environment through different types of materials in the teaching and learningteaching and learning process.
Unfortunately,
process. Unfortunately,the current thesituation of the COVID-19
current situation pandemic,
of the COVID-19 togethertogether
pandemic, with a lack withofa
time
lack (subjects that havethat
of time (subjects a low number
have a lowofnumber
credits),ofmakes it difficult
credits), makestoit move towards
difficult to movestages
to-
of greater
wards transition
stages of greater towards sustainability
transition towards in this methodological
sustainability element.
in this methodological element.
T3_I2_L_RIE_1:
T3_I2_L_RIE_1: “There “There areare aa lot
lot of
of resources
resources thatthat can
can be beused.
used. The
The problem
problem isis thatthat
there is not enough
there is not enough time.” time”.
T3_I2_L_RIE_1:
T3_I2_L_RIE_1: “I “I work
work aa lotlot with
with materials,
materials, group
group work,
work, trying
trying to
to solve
solveproblems
problems
((…)
. . . )including
includingenvironmental
environmental and and social
social criteria in the purchasing criteria .(…)
criteria in the purchasing criteria ( . . ) The
The main
main
problem
problemisisthat thatthere
thereisisvery verylittle
littletime”.
time.”
Regarding
Regardingthe thelecturer–student
lecturer–student relationship,
relationship, thethe
methodology
methodology provided
provided by T3 byreflects
T3 re-
the participation of all agents in the teaching and learning process,
flects the participation of all agents in the teaching and learning process, which makes it which makes it possible
to progress
possible to towards
progress more towards complex
more stages
complex of stages
transition towards sustainability
of transition (28.6%).
towards sustainability
T3 does not only give the students a certain role but also
(28.6%). T3 does not only give the students a certain role but also includes them in hisincludes them in his teaching
planning, where they assume the role of apprentices. Excerpts related to these aspects are:
teaching planning, where they assume the role of apprentices. Excerpts related to these
T3_I2_L_RVH_5: “A teaching–learning process means continuous listening of the
aspects are:
students, continuous feedback they give you, which will help you learn as a teacher ( . . . )
T3_I2_L_RVH_5: “A teaching–learning process means continuous listening of the
All the inputs that you give have to be based on this continuous feedback”.
students, continuous feedback they give you, which will help you learn as a teacher (…)
T3_I3_L_RVH_5: “The percentages of the tests will be agreed upon with the students
All the inputs that you give have to be based on this continuous feedback.”
at the beginning of the course”.
T3_I3_L_RVH_5: “The percentages of the tests will be agreed upon with the students
Regarding the competencies, it is worth pointing out that the very nature of the subject
at the beginning of the course.”
T3 teaches, framed in the specialisation of the integrated primary education curriculum,
Regarding the competencies, it is worth pointing out that the very nature of the sub-
facilitates the achievement of more complex stages regarding the transition towards sustain-
ject T3 teaches, framed in the specialisation of the integrated primary education curricu-
ability in the teaching planning (87.5%). In the syllabus, the competencies are formulated in
lum, facilitates the achievement of more complex stages regarding the transition towards
global terms, and specific and cross-curricular competencies converge. In the personal inter-
sustainability
view, T3 commentedin the teaching planning
that he works (87.5%). In the syllabus,
on cross-curricular competencies the competencies are for-
related to education
mulated
for in global terms, and specific and cross-curricular competencies converge. In the
sustainability:
personal interview, T3
T3_I2_L_CSC_5: “Icommented
always consider that he works oncompetencies
developing cross-curricular suchcompetencies
as systemic view, relateda
to education for sustainability:
forward-looking approach, empathy, collaboration, problem- solving, because I think they
are very important, I consider this to be essential”.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 19 of 34

However, T3 stated that the convergence of specific and cross-curricular competencies

can help integrate sustainability into mathematics education but that it is not the main thing.
He stated that the fundamental thing is for the teachers to acquire those competencies:
T3_I2_L_CSC_3: “The way competencies are formulated can help. I am more con-
cerned about the fact that the person who has to help the students develop them has those
competencies. They need to know what they are talking about and what methodologies
they are using. That worries me more than how they are written although, obviously, the
way they are written can help understand them. A person who knows what specific math
skills and sustainability skills are, even if they are written down separately, has a very good
chance of teaching them properly”.
Addressing mathematics from a more integrated perspective, such as the one offered in
the subject T3 teaches, allows the socio-environmental reality to become the axis from which
the syllabus is built, thus advancing towards more complex stages of transition towards
sustainability (40%). In the interview, T3 mentioned how the same socio-environmental
reality allowed him to deal with scientific aspects. However, T3 does not so much focus on
scientific knowledge, which he does consider, but on the training of competent professionals
in its management:
T3_I2_L_RNI_5: “We started by addressing the management of the school structure,
taking as a starting point the management of a house, a home: the consumption of water,
energy, food, and addressing some scientific aspects of all this, but in a very basic way,
because without having solid knowledge of science it is very difficult to get a good un-
derstanding of climate change, energy and all the relationships at stake. However, the
students do understand that by getting information and researching, a lot can be done
from the management of an organisation to reduce many impacts on climate change, water
pollution”.
Finally, the evaluation was represented by only two indicators in the basic (20%) and
elementary (80%) stages, respectively. T3 plans more than one evaluation instrument and
applies those instruments during or at the end of the process. They are only aimed at the
students. Apart from a written exam, T3 provides other evaluation instruments, such as
direct observation of the students in their involvement in the classroom, individual and
group work through the analysis of experiences, problem-solving, reading articles, etc.

3.3.2. Student Agent

Figure 8 shows the different stages of transition towards sustainability, expressed in
percentages, in the teaching planning of the subject of the area of Didactics of Mathematics
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 for which teacher T3 is responsible. The stages are shown for each of the three dialogic
20 of 35 axes
that constitute the student agent (S).

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Stage
Stageofoftransition towards
transition sustainability.
towards Student
sustainability. agent. agent.
Student Case T3.Case T3.

As shown in Figure 8, each of the three dialogic axes is represented by two indicators
in intermediate and complex stages of transition towards sustainability.
Regarding the lecturer–student relationship, the teaching planning refers to the in-
volvement and active participation of the students in the teaching–learning process, in-
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 20 of 34

As shown in Figure 8, each of the three dialogic axes is represented by two indicators
in intermediate and complex stages of transition towards sustainability.
Regarding the lecturer–student relationship, the teaching planning refers to the in-
volvement and active participation of the students in the teaching–learning process, includ-
ing the possibility of making decisions:
T3_I3_S_RVH_5: “Being able to manage a primary school classroom integrating
different kinds of knowledge”.
In the interview, T3 showed how the teaching–learning process is co-managed, takes
the students into account, and involves them to an extent that goes beyond the mere
discussion and debate of ideas among peers. The teaching and learning process is oriented
in accordance with the concerns of the students, and is not led exclusively by the teacher:
T3_I2_S_RVH_5: “We performed an analysis with the students, not so much about
preconceptions, but about their interests, their motivations in life, their socio-economic and
environmental concerns. It was to get an idea of what direction to take, and I noticed that
there was a lot of interest in sustainability issues. It was a quite fertile ground”.
Likewise, T3 stated that he follows methodologies with characteristics of otherness.
This is an inevitable aspect of a conception of education based on the “other”. Implicitly,
T3 shows how the actions and decisions that students make in their lives will be influenced
by the level of development of skills such as empathy, a forward-looking approach, etc.
throughout their training.
T3_I2_S_RVH_5: “I try to put myself in the position of others. I especially use exercises
to develop empathy and help (the students) to imagine envisioning themselves in the role
of other more unfortunate or more fortunate people. And help the students to feel their
emotions. Emotions help because, if the students understand that it is something important
to them, they will appreciate mathematics, physics, chemistry, and also sustainability,
education for sustainability, more”.
With respect to the competencies, 90.0% of the units of information, coming from the
different sources of data collection and analysis, was related to training critical autonomous
citizens committed to improving their environment (complex stage). In the interview, T3
stated that education should:
T3_I2_S_CSC_5: “Help people be motivated and empower them so that they can act
in their day-to-day life, whether at work or in their family, in order to reduce their social
and environmental impacts from shopping habits, energy consumption to food, as much as
possible”.
T3 also expressed the need to develop an appropriate mathematical competency to
avoid expert-cracy, which is similar to what Skovsmose pointed out [15].
T3_I2_S_CSC_5: “For an expert society, I don’t know how to put it, for a society with
a modern level of awareness, everyone should have basic knowledge of mathematics to
understand the world around them”.
Likewise, T3 gave an account of his commitment to integrating sustainability into the
syllabus of his subject. His reasons were related to training critical, literate, autonomous
professionals in an integrating manner:
T3_I2_S_CSC_5: “I have always considered integrating sustainability into the curricu-
lum of my subjects for many reasons. Since the idea of the mission of the Universidad de
Ortega y Gasset, who said that the person had to be trained in an integrating talent. And
this is now lost because the world has become more and more specialised”.
Finally, 75% of the units of information referred to the socio-environmental reality as
an essential pillar in student training. For example, from the reflection made by T3, it can be
inferred how proper training in mathematics and sustainability would enable students to
become aware of the human influence on trend changes from the analysis of real problems:
T3_I2_S_RNI_5: “Sustainability and mathematics are key to understand these things.
The sustainability of the world cannot be understood without mathematics. And above all,
we need to understand that we can change it, adopt a forward-looking approach. If you
do not have the concepts of mathematics, you will not understand, you will not connect
 an essential pillar in student training. For example, from the reflection made by T3, it can
be inferred how proper training in mathematics and sustainability would enable students
to become aware of the human influence on trend changes from the analysis of real prob-
lems:
T3_I2_S_RNI_5: “Sustainability and mathematics are key to understand these things.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 The sustainability of the world cannot be understood without mathematics. And 21 of 34
above
all, we need to understand that we can change it, adopt a forward-looking approach. If
you do not have the concepts of mathematics, you will not understand, you will not con-
itnect it to actions,
to your your actions, younot
you will willunderstand
not understand
what what is important,
is important, younot
you will will not change
change your
your behaviour
behaviour with respect
with respect to theto the
use ofuse of energy,
energy, water,water, food,everything
food, and and everything
that isthat is use-
useful for
ful for
your yourand
health health
thatand thatplanet”.
of the of the planet.”

3.3.3.
3.3.3. Content
Content Agent
Agent
Figure
Figure 9 shows the
9 shows the different
different stages
stages of
of transition
transition towards
towards sustainability,
sustainability, expressed
expressed in
in
percentages,
percentages,in inthe
theteaching
teachingplanning
planningofofthe
thesubject
subjectof
of the
the area
area of
of Didactics
Didactics of
of Mathematics
Mathematics
for
forwhich
whichteacher
teacherT3 T3isisresponsible.
responsible.The
Thestages
stagesareareshown
shownfor foreach
eachof
ofthe
the four
four dialogic
dialogic axes
axes
that constitute the agent content (C).
that constitute the agent content (C).

Figure9.9. Stages
Figure Stagesof
of transition
transitiontowards
towardssustainability.
sustainability.Content
Contentagent.
agent.Case
CaseT3.
T3.

Figure 9 shows how the socio-environmental reality is the only methodological el-
ement defined by the four indicators that make up this dialogic axis. The rest of the
methodological elements are represented by two indicators in different stages of transition
towards sustainability.
The very nature of T3’s syllabus, which is of a more integrated nature, enables the
horizontality of his subject in an intermediate stage of transition towards sustainability
(33.3%). However, 66.7% of the units of information refers to a complex stage in this dialogic
axis because of T3’s understanding of the content, which is based on problem-solving. In
the interview, T3 stated:
T3_I2_C_RVH_5: “In the subject, we use the excuse of an umbrella fund for a project
on the SDGs, because under this umbrella fund, each student that pretended to be a teacher
developing an integrated project could implement their project on a topic, any topic they
wanted. The SDGs were a great umbrella to fake financing adaptable to the needs of
addressing the contents in different educational centres”.
As regards the competencies, 87.5% of the units of information is grouped in a complex
stage of transition towards sustainability. The same reasons as those stated above justify
this fact. The syllabus includes the development of cross-curricular competencies as part of
the knowledge:
T3_I3_C_CSC_5: “Analyse and critically incorporate the most relevant issues of to-
day’s society that affect family and school education: social and educational impact of
audio-visual languages, screens, changes in gender and intergenerational relations, multi-
culturalism and interculturality, discrimination and social inclusion, and sustainable devel-
opment”.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 22 of 34

In the interview, T3 commented on how knowledge alone does not enable students
to become knowledgeable. He believes it is essential to work on the development of
cross-curricular competencies as part of knowledge:
T3_I2_C_CSC_5: “I consider above all the aspect of developing competencies and
working with emotions. As a competency, above all, the systemic view of observing the
relationship between social, economic, environmental, and daily behaviour, as well as
emotions, the interests of each one. I have always worked like this. Contents in themselves
do not do much to improve the world, for people to act positively. I always keep this
in mind”.
Different indicators were assigned to the set of units of information that were cat-
egorised in the socio-environmental reality axis, which justifies the different stages of
transition towards sustainability for this methodological element.
In the syllabus, both content specific to the subject (basic stage) and other content
related to issues of the socio-environmental reality (elementary stage) were identified.
However, it can be inferred that the socio-environmental reality has a constant presence
in the content of the subject (advanced stage) when, in the questionnaire, T3 explicitly
stated that he prioritises the NCTM [1] content standard “data analysis and probability” in
his teaching planning. T3 considers it essential to develop a proper stochastic literacy in
mathematics education to understand the problems of the world.
T3_I1_C_RNI_4: “The ability to read and compare numbers, data, data sets, probabili-
ties, to understand graphs and trends, with a systemic view and a critical spirit is key to
understand the condition of the world and how to act more responsibly as an individual or
collective/organisation. Analysing data is essential to understand data on the pandemic,
climate change, loss of biodiversity, poverty, or inequalities”.
Furthermore, the integrative nature of his subject allows him to affirm how the socio-
environmental reality can act as the axis from which to design it (complex stage).
T3_I1_C_RNI_5: “My subject allows me to integrate sustainability in a fairly cross-
curricular manner. The subject has been planned to integrate, in addition to mathematics,
the areas of language, social and environmental education”.
T3_I2_C_RNI_5: “Using the excuse of the SDGs, we integrate it very well”.
Concerning the evaluation, the units of information coming from the different sources
of information and analysis are concentrated in indicators whose stage of transition towards
sustainability is lower-intermediate. This was observed previously when we analysed this
same methodological element regarding the role T3 assumes in his teaching planning (see
Figure 7). As Jiménez-Fontana et al. [5] point out, evaluation is one of the methodological
elements that has remained engraved in the ideas and actions of many teachers, and this
seems to be the case for T3.

3.4. Contrasting Analysis

Figures 10–12 allow us to answer the fourth research question (Q4): Are there any
notable differences between the three teachers from the area of Didactics of Mathematics
regarding the degree of integration of sustainability in the teaching planning of the subject
they each teach? If so, what information, through contrasting the three case studies, is
relevant to advance towards integrating sustainability into teacher training in mathematics
education?
In Figures 10–12, three spider charts represent the current stage of transition towards
sustainability in the teaching planning of the subject of each of the three teachers. It is in
accordance with the analysis carried out for each of the three agent-objects of this study:
lecturer (Figure 10), student (Figure 11), and content (Figure 12).
In the spider charts, each of the (green, yellow, and blue) lines represents a different
teacher, and each of the vertices of the different graphs represents a methodological element
(dialogic axis), in accordance with the model by García-González et al. [33] described in
Section 2 of this article.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 23 of 34

The most central lines close to value “1” (basic stage) refer to stages of less integration
of sustainability, while those farthest from the centre and close to value “5” (complex stage)
suggest moving towards stages of greater integration of sustainability into the teaching
planning of the subjects of the area of Didactics of Mathematics.
Figures 10–12 contain the same information as Table 2. However, the purpose of the
spider charts is to complement that information in order to facilitate a contrast analysis.
To perform this analysis, the methodology assumes that the “degree of global integration
of sustainability” (GIGS in Spanish) in which a methodological element is found (dialogic
axis) is given by:
 
1

 2 

GIGS = ( a b c d e)·
 3  = a + 2b + 3c + 4d + 5e
 (1)
 4 
5

In which values ( a b c d e) represent, for each methodological element (dialogic

axis), the relative frequencies corresponding to the basic, elementary, intermediate, ad-
vanced, and complex stages, respectively (this information can easily be found in the differ-
ent rows of Table 2). Values (1 2 3 4 5) T represent the five values in accordance with
the scale proposed in the Transition towards Sustainability tool by García-González [32]. It
is evident that 1 ≤ GIGS ≤ 5 in all cases.
Figures 1–9 allowed us to characterise the integration of sustainability into the teaching
planning of the subject of each of the three teachers interviewed from the area of Didactics
of Mathematics in a series of methodological elements (dialogic axes) and for each of the
three agents that make up the didactic system: lecturer, student, and content. We agree with
García-González [32] when she maintains that the model of the lecturer directly influences
the role it grants to the students and the content of their subject. A careful examination of
the charts in Figures 10–12 corroborates this idea, and, except for a few cases, it is generally
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 true that GIGS( T1) ≤ GIGS( T2) ≤ GIGS( T3) in each of the methodological elements 24 of(or
35
dialogic axes) analysed.

Figure10.
Figure 10. Contrast
Contrast analysis.
analysis. Lecturer
Lecturer agent.
agent.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 24 of 34

Figure 10. Contrast analysis. Lecturer agent.

Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 25 of 35

Figure11.
Figure 11. Contrast
Contrast analysis.
analysis. Student
Student agent.
agent.

Figure12.
Figure 12.Contrast
Contrastanalysis.
analysis. Content
Content agent.
agent.

Withrespect
With respect to lecturer–student
to the the lecturer–student GIGS( T3)𝐺𝐼𝐺𝑆(𝑇3)
relationship,
relationship, > GIGS(>T1𝐺𝐼𝐺𝑆(𝑇1)
) = GIGS=
(𝐺𝐼𝐺𝑆(𝑇2)
T2) = 3 in=the3 inlecturer and student
the lecturer agents
and student (Figures
agents 10 and
(Figures 11). 11).
10 and Assuming
Assuming thatthat
learning
learn-
mathematics
ing mathematics is a relational and affective
is a relational process
and affective [10] between
process students
[10] between and teachers,
students this
and teachers,
result explains how, in cases T1 and T2, the ethics provided in their
this result explains how, in cases T1 and T2, the ethics provided in their classrooms in classrooms in which
the relationship
which to otherness
the relationship is, to a certain
to otherness is, to extent,
a certainalienating. However, the
extent, alienating. responses
However, thethat
re-
include
sponsescharacteristics of otherness provided
that include characteristics by T3
of otherness in the interview
provided by T3 in guided our task.
the interview The
guided
Brundtland
our task. The report [38], a founding
Brundtland report [38], reference
a founding of education
reference of foreducation
sustainability, defines sus-
for sustainability,
tainable
defines development as that whichasmeets
sustainable development that the
whichneeds of the
meets thepresent
needs without compromising
of the present without
the needs of future generations. Along these lines, we identify future
compromising the needs of future generations. Along these lines, we identify future generations as “the
gen-
others” who challenge us and force us to take responsibility for future
erations as “the others” who challenge us and force us to take responsibility for future generations. We
consider that training in mathematics education seeking to integrate sustainability
generations. We consider that training in mathematics education seeking to integrate sus- into the
syllabi of itsinto
tainability subjects should
the syllabi of look for mechanisms
its subjects should look thatforenable developing
mechanisms ethics in
that enable which
develop-
ing ethics in which the relationship with intergenerational otherness is one of respect and
solidarity. T3 is committed to the cross-curricular development of competencies, such as
envisioning alternative future scenarios, clarifying values, and/or managing emotions,
which is consistent with the competency framework proposed by Cebrián and Junyent
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 25 of 34

the relationship with intergenerational otherness is one of respect and solidarity. T3 is com-
mitted to the cross-curricular development of competencies, such as envisioning alternative
future scenarios, clarifying values, and/or managing emotions, which is consistent with the
competency framework proposed by Cebrián and Junyent [16] for integrating sustainability
into higher education curricula. In mathematics education, a powerful option may also be
to promote shared work in the classroom based on the study of different sources, such as
those referring to scientific publications on mathematics education and sustainability [39]
that allow students to become aware of the human influence on trend changes through
analysing real problems.
For the content agent, GIGS( T3) > GIGS( T2) > GIGS( T1) (Figure 12), there is, on
the one hand, the more integrated view of T3 on content planning and, on the other hand,
T2’s commitment not to present content in a closed manner. This explains the greater
degree of global integration of sustainability for this methodological element in this agent
with respect to T1 (Figure 12). This means there is a tendency towards the training of a
teacher profile in mathematics connected to the contextual environment [39]—in other
words, a profile trained to understand the interwoven relationships that take place between
the natural, social, economic, and cultural environments both locally and globally [20].
However, we consider that reorganising the curriculum established for training in math-
ematics education using holistic criteria is not enough. As García-González [32] points
out, it is about promoting a change in the way of understanding knowledge in which
mathematical knowledge is contextualised historically and culturally in order to provide
it with meaning [6–10]. It is therefore necessary to rescue, within mathematics education,
other relational concerns of a social, cultural, economic, political, philosophical, axiological,
and democratic nature, in addition to those purely related to mathematical knowledge.
As to competencies, GIGS( T3) > GIGS( T2) > GIGS( T1) in the three agents: lecturer,
student, and content (Figures 10–12). The commitment T3 displays with regard to training
a teaching profile that is “knowledgeable” in mathematics as a critical autonomous citizen
explains the greater degree of global integration of sustainability for this methodological
element, compared with T1 and T2. If good teachers are those who have an integrating
talent, it is urgent to adopt a complex view of mathematics itself as an object of teaching and
learning. Mathematics education cannot take the form of a disjointed and decontextualised
delivery of information—even less so if the aim is to integrate sustainability competencies
into the training of future teachers in mathematics education. “In the teaching and learning
of mathematics, both the knowledge at stake and the training of the student as a human
subject must be studied” [9] (p. 135). Mathematical literacy should be in keeping with
this. It should be a competency that integrates not only mathematical knowledge but also
reflective knowledge [15]. It would allow student teachers to critically encounter systems
of ideas and actions that are culturally and historically constituted [6–10]. T3’s statements
go along these lines and are in tune with Giroux’s formulations [40] that education should
be defended as a public service that educates students to “be critical citizens who can
think, challenge, take risks and believe that their actions will make a difference in society
in general” [40] (p. 214). At the heart of critical thinking is the belief in possibilities and in
the need to build alternative and better futures [41].
Regarding the socio-environmental reality, the fact that T1 does not consider it a pillar
in the training of students for their professional development, together with T2’s statements
about his lack of knowledge of appropriate methodologies he could use to incorporate sus-
tainability into the syllabus of his subject explains that GIGS( T3) > GIGS( T2) > GIGS( T1)
for this dialogic axis (Figures 10–12). However, in the three cases (T1, T2, and T3), there
is a consensus regarding the need to incorporate the mathematics-reality dimension into
mathematics education. T1 mentioned how mathematics education cannot turn its back on
reality. T2 commented that mathematics should face interdisciplinarity. T3 even spoke of
the need to develop a proper stochastic literacy in initial teacher training in mathematics
education in order for future teachers to acquire a better understanding of the indetermin-
istic reality that underlies the problems of sustainability. Quintanilla and Gallardo [42]
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 26 of 34

point out that “mathematical formalisms make sense in real life situations” and add that
“mathematical knowledge is built in processes of exchange and shared reflection mediated
by language” [42] (p. 35).
Sales de Aguiar and Paterson [43] consider dialogic education that is linked to real-
world experiences to be an optimal approach to teaching and learning about sustainability
issues. Promoting dialogic mathematics in initial teacher training in mathematics education
seems appropriate to us since it allows the construction of mathematical knowledge and
at the same time encourages the development of people’s identity in an ethical way [42].
Problem-based learning, project-based learning, or problem-solving are manifestations
for a critical education [15] consistent with this approach that goes beyond the traditional
approach of standard problems—closed (one-answer) problems. Mathematical modelling
of problems is also a powerful tool for integrating sustainability principles into mathematics
education training, especially when we involve the student teachers in the construction of
normative systems that generate value judgments about a phenomenon or a fact of interest.
From this perspective, incorporating the mathematical modelling of problems in mathe-
matics education would facilitate coherence between ethical action and its mathematisation
in a conscious (reflexive) manner. It would thus be possible for normative models built
with the help of mathematics to be open to criticism, debate, and improvement [44]. The
sustainable development goals of the 2030 Agenda are also a good resource for working
with real situations in the subject of mathematics [45,46]. The methodologies here referred
to break with the traditional pattern of the passive student in support of more interactive
mathematical learning that is linked to the participation of the students in the training in a
mathematics education based on dialogue directly connected to real-world problems.
The resources element is constituted as the methodological element whose transition
towards sustainability is the lowest: 1 = GIGS( T1) = GIGS( T3) ≈ GIGS( T2) = 1.34
(Figure 10), in the only agent for which it is defined (lecturer). This explains why, in the
teaching planning, the three teachers interviewed mainly referred to the use of internal
context resources.
In a previous study [28], the answers provided to the questionnaire (Appendix A) by
a group of teachers from the area of Didactics of Mathematics at our university allowed us
to anticipate that the teachers do not disagree on the philosophy of sustainability, consider
that they are important issues, and are not afraid of giving too negative a view of the future.
However, they also commented that they find it difficult to integrate sustainability into
mathematics education and do not know any appropriate materials they could use for
including sustainability in the syllabus of their subject. In other words, the obstacles identi-
fied that hinder integrating sustainability into the syllabi in our area of knowledge are more
related to teachers’ aptitudes than to their attitudes. This result is in line with other similar
studies [47]. However, it is clear that in order to improve the sustainability competencies
of student teachers, it is first necessary to improve the sustainability competencies and
aptitudes of the teachers who train them [48], as T3 commented in the interview.
Several studies [49,50] reveal that a significant proportion of university teaching staff
does not feel capable of redesigning their subjects towards sustainability. We consider it
necessary to plan training courses for all those university teachers interested in including
sustainability in the syllabi of their subjects. They would be provided with training in the
necessary content, which they could use to renew their syllabi. In any event, this is an
aspect that requires further study. One of the objectives of the EDINSOST2-SDGs project,
in which the first author of this study takes part, is the creation of a multidisciplinary
free-access learning resource bank (Open Educational Resources, OERs) that helps teachers
with the task of introducing education for sustainable development in their subjects.
Finally, the degree of global integration of sustainability identified for the evalu-
ation, in the two agents in which it is defined (lecturer and content) follows a differ-
ent pattern with respect to the rest of the methodological elements previously analysed:
GIGS( T2) > GIGS( T1) > GIGS( T3).
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 27 of 34

Traditionally, evaluation is limited to specific moments in time, usually at the end of

a course. It focuses on the student, and its function is more summative than formative.
Paradoxically, this is what seems to happen in the case of T3. However, if, as we said earlier,
our aim is to promote dialogic mathematics in mathematics education training, evaluation
then takes on a key role since it fulfils the function of regulating that dialogue, which is a
determining factor in configuring the ethical dimension of sustainability in the students,
who are future mathematics teachers [5]. The use T2 makes of individualised evaluation
instruments that aim to reduce inequalities, or the proposal of including projects consistent
with the principles of sustainability in said process, explains the greater degree of global
integration of sustainability for this methodological element, in comparison with T1 and T3.

3.5. Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations that should be taken into account when evaluating
the results.
• In the first place, the analytical tool used in this study (HAMS) allows analysing the
teaching praxis regarding sustainability and examining the role of the teacher within
the teaching–learning process and the role the teacher assigns to the student and to
the content, both in terms of the “planning” of their subject and the “intervention”
implemented in their classroom. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
teachers interviewed did not have access to the classroom. For this reason, only one of
the two dimensions of analysis was addressed in this study: the teachers’ “planning”,
but not their “intervention” in the classroom.
• Secondly, in this study we evaluated the degree of integration of sustainability in five
variables (methodological elements or dialogic axes) using the Transition towards
Sustainability tool described in Section 2.4. However, the configuration of this tool,
which is based on the design of three different types of gradients (see Table 1), may
slightly distort reality.
• This study is framed within the paradigm of interpretive research using a qualitative
approach since it is a study that is oriented towards understanding socio-educational
phenomena. One of the forms that qualitative research adopts is the case study [24].
Following Stake [24], the design of our research is hence considered to be multiple
case study insofar as it encompasses different individual views (of three university
teachers who train students in mathematics education). Since it is a qualitative study,
specified in an exploratory case study, which occurs at a specific moment in time
and in a specific spatial location, we are not concerned with the generalisation of the
results, although the findings could be transferred to similar contexts [51].

4. Conclusions
This research analysed the degree of integration of sustainability in the teaching
planning of the subject of three teachers from the area of Didactics of Mathematics in the
Faculty of Education Sciences at Universidad de Cádiz (Spain) with a twofold objective:
In the first place, we wanted to know to what extent sustainability is part of the view
the three teachers have of the teaching and learning process they plan.
Secondly, we set out to advance the identification of elements necessary for teacher
training in mathematics education that consider education for sustainability as an advisable
reference.
On the one hand, the analysis carried out gives rise to three different teaching profiles
that contribute, in different ways, to integrating sustainability into the teaching planning of the
subject. The degree of global integration of sustainability (GIGS) in each of the methodological
elements or dialogic axes analysed was generally GIGS( T3) ≥ GIGS( T2) ≥ GIGS( T1).
This result is in line with the profile of each of the three teachers interviewed. T3
has 20 years of experience working in sustainability and education for sustainability. On
the contrary, T1 and T2 do not have any training in sustainability aspects. However, the
professionalising nature of the degree in which T2 teaches (master’s degree) may enable, in
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 28 of 34

a certain manner, considering education for sustainability in the training of his students
who already have a degree.
On the other hand, the analysis and contrast of the data inferred the identification of
elements necessary to guide training in mathematics education when focused from the
perspective of sustainability. They can be summarised as follows:
• Integral training. Encourage sustainable values and behaviour, which allow students
to develop ethics in which the relationship with intergenerational otherness is based
on respect and solidarity.
• Interdisciplinarity. Work in mathematics education from a global and interdisciplinary
perspective in such a way that the (knowledgeable) teacher of mathematics, in addi-
tion to having proper training in mathematics didactics, establishes links with other
disciplines such as history, philosophy, semiotics, ethnomathematics, sociology, or
psychology.
• Critical and creative thinking. Teach future teachers to question what is being taught,
promoting the critical encounter with systems of ideas and actions that are culturally
and historically constituted.
• Reflective thinking. Training in reflective, dialogic methodologies as a strategy that
involves student teachers in the construction of normative systems that generate value
judgments about a phenomenon or fact of interest (project-based learning, problem-
solving, mathematical modelling, etc.).
• Incorporating sustainability into the curriculum. Train current and future teachers in
the selection, modification, and/or design of curricular elements (objectives, content,
evaluation, etc.) using sustainability criteria, together with mathematics, to promote
an education aimed at training critical, reflective, active, responsible, and democratic
citizens.
The reader should not expect the elements cited here to close the discussion. Making
mathematics education in higher education more sustainable requires an in-depth study
that ensures explaining principles that guide educational practice in the initial training of
mathematics teachers in accordance with the principles of sustainability. We consider that
education for sustainable development plays a crucial role in higher education degrees,
since it enables training professionals as agents of change and of social transformation.
The vertiginous technologisation and excessive growth in developed countries, which
are the origin of unsustainable lifestyles, should not justify the abandonment or arithmeti-
sation of mathematical knowledge that is difficult to turn into economic terms [9]. It is
not a question of denying progress or arguing about abandoning the formal character of
mathematics, but rather, as Radford proposes, of inviting the imagining of mathematics
and “mathematics education as something that is more than a task centred on knowl-
edge” [9] (p. 135). Mathematics education concerns training ethical and reflective citizens
who position themselves critically and creatively in the face of world problems.

Author Contributions: F.M.M.-P.: Conceptualization; Data curation; Investigation; Formal analy-

sis; Methodology; Software; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Roles/Writing—original draft;
review and editing. R.J.-F.: Conceptualization; Investigation; Methodology; Validation; Visual-
ization; Roles/Writing—original draft. J.M.C.D.: Conceptualization; Investigation; Methodology;
Validation; Visualization; Roles/Writing—original draft. P.A.G.: Conceptualization; Data curation;
Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Resources; Supervision; Validation; Visualization;
Roles/Writing—original draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad under
grant number EDU2015-65574-R.
Institutional Review Board Statement: All the results presented in this work satisfy the “Ley
Orgánica 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos Personales y garantía de los derechos
digitales” (LOPD) of Spain.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 29 of 34

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for the support of the members of the EDINSOST project
and the Research Group “Professional Development of the Teacher-HUM462” of the Universidad de
Cádiz, in which this study is framed. We also acknowledge all the teachers who have voluntarily
participated in this study. We would also like to thank Ann Swinnen for her useful feedback
and comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
The initial exploratory questionnaire answered by the teachers from the area of Didac-
tics of Mathematics is shown below.
• Scope 1: The role of the university in general and of mathematics education in particu-
lar in higher education regarding education for sustainability.
1. Do you think it is necessary for the university to train and educate for sustain-
ability? Why? Why not?
2. Give three reasons why knowing mathematics can help have an informed opinion
and act knowingly.
3. What methodologies do you consider the most appropriate to include sustain-
ability in your subject? Do you normally use them?
4. How do you think the socio-environmental reality can be used in the classroom
in favour of mathematics education? Do you consider this aspect in the teaching
planning of your subject?
5. Do you think the way you evaluate is consistent with the inclusion of sustainabil-
ity in your subject? Why? What could you change?
6. The NCTM establishes five content standards that all children should have the
opportunity to learn: Number and Operations, Algebra, Geometry, Measurement,
and Data Analysis and Probability. Order from most important (1) to least
important (5) the content that, in your opinion, should be covered to include
sustainability in mathematics education. Why does the order you indicate seem
to be the most appropriate?
7. The NCTM establishes five process standards that all children should have the
opportunity to acquire: Problem Solving, Reasoning and proof, Communication,
Connections, and Representation. Order from most important (1) to least im-
portant (5) the processes that, in your opinion, should be addressed to include
sustainability in mathematics education. Why does the order you indicate seem
to be the most appropriate?
8. Do you think mathematics education should be globalised and interdisciplinary
at school? Why? Why not?
9. What criteria do you have in mind when defining the content of your subject?
• Scope 2: The competency approach defined by CRUE-Sustainability [17]. CRUE-
Sustainability requests a comprehensive review of the curricula to ensure the inclusion
of sustainability in all the degrees of the Spanish university system in agreement with
the following four competencies:
SUST1: Competency in the critical contextualisation of knowledge through interrelat-
ing social, economic and environmental issues at a local and/or global level.
SUST2: Competency in the sustainable use of resources and in the prevention of
negative impacts on the natural and social environment.
SUST3: Competency to participate in community processes that promote sustainability.
SUST4: Competency to apply ethical principles related to sustainability values in
personal and professional behaviour.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 30 of 34

Indicate whether, in your teaching planning, you integrate some of the above compe-
tencies in some of the training activities of the subject you teach. If so, briefly say in
which activity and how the competency is integrated.
• Scope 3: Obstacles that hinder incorporating sustainability into higher education.
Rate the obstacles or barriers that, in your opinion, hinder the integration of sustain-
ability in the curriculum of teacher training in Mathematics education on a scale of 1
to 5, with 1 being the most important indicator and 5 the least important indicator.
1. I do not have enough time to cover all the topics of my subject.
2. I find it difficult to integrate sustainability into the topics of my subject.
3. I think those topics are not suitable for university teaching.
4. I do not know the methodologies that I could use to include them.
5. I think those topics are not important.
6. I disagree on the philosophy of sustainability.
7. I lack the sufficient knowledge about the environment.
8. I find it difficult to find suitable materials to introduce these topics.
9. Lack of commitment on behalf of the institution where I teach.
10. I doubt they will be of use to my students in their professional future.
11. I am afraid of giving too negative a view of the future.

Appendix B
Below is the script for the semi-structured personal interview.
1 What aspects, apart from the content, do you consider when you design your subjects?
2 What do you understand by education for sustainable development?
3 Have you ever considered integrating sustainability into your subjects? Why? Why not?
4 Do you feel ready to integrate education for sustainable development into your
classes?
5 Do you consider that mathematics education is a discipline that can help incorporate
education for sustainable development into the school classroom?
6 From what you already do in class, what do you think has a direct impact on the
training of your students? How do you perceive it?
7 Do you consider that the competencies related to the subject should be reformulated
in order to integrate sustainability into the syllabus of the subject, or would you leave
them as they are?
8 How do you think you, as a teacher, could influence your students in your classes
to become aware of socio-environmental issues; adopt a critical, creative, reflective
stance; and assume the responsibilities they will have as future professionals?
9 What types of resources or materials do you think are the most appropriate for
integrating sustainability into mathematics education training? Do you normally
use them?
10 In order to promote the training of more critical, responsible citizens committed to the
problems of the world in which we live, what would you like to change or introduce
in the teaching planning of your subject and in your teaching?

Appendix C
Reproduced with permission from Esther García-González, HAMS: A Tool for the
Analyses of Methodological Activity of University Professors from the Principles of Sus-
tainability and Complexity; published by Espacios, 2018 [33].
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 31 of 34

Table A1. HAMS—Planning dimension—Lecturer agent (L) [32,33].

Dialogic Axis Indicators

1. In the planned work methodology, the teacher is the main agent in the process.

Relationship: Lecturer–Student 2. Students are given a certain role in the planning, but it is the teacher who has the
Vertical vs. Horizontal upper hand.
(RVH)
3. The planned methodology reflects the participation of all agents in the
teaching–learning process.
1. All competencies are formulated in specific terms linked to the subject.

Competencies 2. The specific competencies linked to the subject are maintained and some
Specific vs. Cross-curricular additional ones of a cross-curricular nature are formulated.
(CSC)
3. The competencies are formulated in global terms, and specific and cross-curricular
competencies converge.
1. The socio-environmental reality does not appear in the planning of the subject.
2. Some references are made to the socio-environmental reality.
Socio-environmental reality
Non-integrated vs. Integrated 3. Clear indications to the socio-environmental reality are observed, although in
(RNI) parallel with the syllabus.
4. The socio-environmental reality is the axis from which the subject is planned and
designed.
1. In the planning, internal context resources: seminars, laboratories, ICTs, the library,
etc. are referred to.
Resources
Internal vs. External 2. In addition to the usual internal context resources, references are made to the use
(RIE) of other resources linked to the environment.
3. The environment is considered a key resource in the teaching–learning process.
1. The planned evaluation focuses only on the student and uses tests or exams at the
end of the process.
2. More than one evaluation instrument is planned. They are implemented during or
Evaluation at the end of the process, but they are only aimed at the students.
Summative vs. Formative
3. Evaluation appears in the planning at different times, uses different instruments
(ESF)
and sources of information.
4. The planning of the evaluation is reflected at different times, uses different
instruments and sources of information, and regulates all the elements of
the process.

Table A2. HAMS—Planning dimension—Student agent (S) [32,33].

Dialogic Axis Indicators

1. No room is provided for the students’ contributions in the planning of the subject.
2. The students and their interests appear as an element to be taken into account, but
Relationship: Lecturer–Student
they are not considered key players in the teaching–learning process, which is led
Vertical vs. Horizontal
by the teacher.
(RVH)
3. The planning refers to the involvement and active participation of the students in
the teaching–learning process, including the possibility of making decisions.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 32 of 34

Table A2. Cont.

Dialogic Axis Indicators

1. The competencies of the subject are focused on the development of competencies
specific to the subject in the official curriculum of the degree.

Competencies 2. Some references are made to their role as professionals in the competencies of the
Specific vs. Cross-curricular subject, but without a clear link to the learning outcomes.
(CSC)
3. In addition to the competencies specific to the subject, the competencies include
the training of professionals committed to improving their environment and the
training of critical autonomous citizens.
1. The socio-environmental reality is not linked to the professional role of the
students in the planning.
Socio-environmental reality
2. Some relations are established between the socio-environmental reality and the
Non-integrated vs. Integrated
future professional role of the students.
(RNI)
3. The socio-environmental reality is considered a pillar in the training of the
students for their professional development.

Table A3. HAMS—Planning dimension—Content agent (C) [32,33].

Dialogic Axis Indicators

1. The content is presented in a closed manner and is organised by themes that
respond to the disciplinary organisation.
2. The content is grouped by thematic units and is the main objective of the process,
but there is some room to address other content of interest.

Relationship: Lecturer–Student 3. The content has a central theme, it are not closed, and it is receptive to
Vertical vs. Horizontal incorporating new themes that arise in the teaching and learning process.
(RVH) 4. The content has a central theme that responds to solving the problems posed, not
being an end in itself, and it is open to incorporating new themes.
5. The content, in addition to not being an end in itself, having a central theme,
responding to problem solving, and being open to including new topics,
incorporates as such the strategies developed in the teaching and learning process.
1. The competencies only refer to the use of knowledge and content specific to the
subject.
Competencies
Specific vs. Cross-curricular 2. The competencies interrelate different types of knowledge.
(CSC)
3. The development of cross-curricular competencies is introduced in the planning as
part of the knowledge.
1. The content is limited to that which is specific to the subject and appears in the
official curriculum of the degree.
Socio-environmental reality 2. The content of the subject includes some topics or aspects related to the
Non-integrated vs. Integrated socio-environmental reality.
(RNI)
3. The socio-environmental reality is present at all times in the content of the subject.
4. The socio-environmental reality acts as the axis from which the subject is designed.
1. The planned evaluation focuses on conceptual knowledge and on the student.
Evaluation 2. The planned evaluation considers some aspects of the teaching–learning process,
Summative vs. Formative apart from knowledge, but it is only aimed at the students.
(ESF)
3. The planned evaluation addresses all the elements of the teaching–learning
process. Furthermore, the evaluation criteria are specified in the planning.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 33 of 34

References
1. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics; NCTM: Reston, VA,
USA, 1989.
2. Fajardo, O.N.; Ciordia, J.V. Historia de la Educación: De la Grecia Clásica a la Educación Contemporánea; Librería Dykinson: Madrid,
Spain, 2014.
3. Novo, M.; Murga, M.A. Educación Ambiental y Ciudadanía Planetaria. Rev. Eureka 2010, 7, 179–186. [CrossRef]
4. Rodríguez, M.E. La Función Social de la Enseñanza de la Matemática desde la Matemática-Cotidianidad-y Pedagogía Integral.
Rev. Eleuthera 2016, 15, 34–45. [CrossRef]
5. Jiménez-Fontana, R.; García-González, E.; Azcárate, P.; Navarrete, A. Dimensión Ética de la Sostenibilidad Curricular en el
Sistema de Evaluación de las Aulas Universitarias. El Caso de la Enseñanza Aprendizaje de las Ciencias. Rev. Eureka 2015, 12,
536–549. [CrossRef]
6. Radford, L. The Ethics of Being and Knowing: Towards a Cultural Theory of Learning. In Semiotics in Mathematics Education:
Epistemology, History, Classroom, and Culture; Radford, L., Schubring, G., Seeger, F., Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 2008; pp. 215–234.
7. Radford, L. Sujeto, Objeto, Cultura y la Formación del Conocimiento. Rev. Educ. Mat. 2000, 12, 51–69.
8. Radford, L. Sumisión, Alienación y (un poco de) Esperanza: Hacia una Visión Cultural, Histórica, Ética y Política de la Enseñanza
de las Matemáticas. In Proceedings of the I Congreso de Educación Matemática de América Central y el Caribe, Santo Domingo,
República Dominicana, 6–8 November 2013.
9. Radford, L. De la Teoría de la Objetivación. Rev. Latinoam. Etnomat. Perspect. Sociocult. Educ. Mat. 2014, 7, 132–150.
10. Radford, L.; Lasprilla, A. La Ética en la Enseñanza-Aprendizaje de las Matemáticas. Rev. Investig. Y Desarro. En Educ. Mat. 2022;
in press.
11. Bybee, R. Planet Earth in Crisis: How Should Science Educators Respond? Am. Biol. Teach. 1991, 53, 146–153. [CrossRef]
12. Ryan, A.; Tilbury, D. Flexible Pedagogies: New Pedagogical Ideas; The Higher Education Academy: London, UK, 2013. Available
online: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/npi_report.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2022).
13. Aznar, P.; Ull, M.Á.; Martínez, M.P.; Piñero, A. Competencias Básicas para la Sostenibilidad: Un Análisis desde el Diálogo
Disciplinar. Bordón. Rev. Pedag. 2014, 66, 13–27.
14. Wiek, A.; Withycombe, L.; Redman, C.L. Key Competencies in Sustainability: A Reference Framework for Academic Program
Development. Sustain. Sci. 2011, 6, 203–218. [CrossRef]
15. Skovsmose, O. Towards a Philosophy of Critical Mathematics Education; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1994.
16. Cebrián, G.; Junyent, M. Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development: Exploring the Student Teachers’ Views.
Sustainability 2015, 7, 2768–2787. [CrossRef]
17. CRUE. Directrices Para la Introducción de la Sostenibilidad en el Currículum. Available online: https://www.crue.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/Directrices_Sosteniblidad_Crue2012.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2022).
18. Sègalas, J.; Sánchez-Carracedo, F. The EDINSOST Project: Improving Sustainability Education in Spanish Higher Education.
Available online: https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/176645/ERSCP_2019_published.pdf?sequence=1&
isAllowed=y (accessed on 31 January 2022).
19. Sánchez-Carracedo, F.; Sureda, B.; Moreno-Pino, F.M. Analysis of Sustainability Presence in Spanish Higher Education. Int. J.
Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 393–412. [CrossRef]
20. Moreno-Pino, F.M.; Jiménez-Fontana, R.; Cardeñoso Domingo, J.M.; Azcárate Goded, P. Study of the Presence of Sustainability
Competencies in Teacher Training in Mathematics Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5629. [CrossRef]
21. Varga, A.; Breiting, S.; Mayer, M.; Morgersen, F. Educació per al Desenvolupament Sostenible: Tendències, Divergències i Criteris de
Qualitat; Graó: Barcelona, Spain, 2007.
22. Santana, A. Fundamentos para la Investigación Social. Reis 2014, 147, 133–144.
23. Fourez, G. Cómo se elabora el Conocimiento; Narcea: Madrid, Spain, 2008.
24. Stake, R.E. Qualitative Case Studies. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed.; Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., Eds.; Sage:
London, UK, 2005; pp. 273–285.
25. Igartua, J.J. Métodos Cuantitativos de Investigación en Comunicación; Bosch: Barcelona, Spain, 2007.
26. Izard, J.F.M. Técnicas de Encuesta: Cuestionario y Entrevista. In Principios, Métodos y Técnicas Para la Investigación Educativa;
Dykinson: Madrid, Spain, 2010; pp. 145–168.
27. Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 1932, 140, 1–55.
28. Moreno-Pino, F.M.; Jiménez-Fontana, R. Estudio Exploratorio de la Visión del Profesorado Universitario en relación a la Educación
para la Sostenibilidad: La Formación en Educación Matemática. In Metodologías Activas con Tic en la Educación del Siglo XXI;
Dykinson: Madrid, Spain, 2021.
29. Vallés-Martínez, M.S. Las Entrevistas Cualitativas en Perspectiva Histórica. In Cuadernos Metodológicos; Centro de Investigaciones
Sociológicas: Madrid, Spain, 2014.
30. Arias, G. La Ambientalización Curricular en las Humanidades: El caso de la Universidad Madrileña. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad
Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2015.
31. Calabuig, T. Connexions Entre Educació Matemàtica i Educació per a la Sostenibilitat: Definició d´un Perfil de Mestre de
Matemàtiques. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain, 2016.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 199 34 of 34

32. García-González, E. Análisis de la Presencia de los Principios de Sostenibilidad en Propuestas Metodológicas Universitarias.
Estudio de Propuestas Concretas en la Universidad de Cádiz. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain, 2016.
33. García-González, E.; Jiménez-Fontana, R.; Azcárate, P. HAMS: Una Herramienta para el Análisis de la Actividad Metodológica
del Profesorado Universitario desde los Principios de Sostenibilidad y Complejidad. Rev. Espac. 2018, 39, 28–43.
34. Mora, W.M. La Inclusión de la Dimensión Ambiental en la Educación Superior: Un Estudio de Caso en la Facultad de Medio
Ambiente de la Universidad Distrital en Bogotá. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain, 2011.
35. Lizarzaburu, A.; Mora, A.; Sánchez, A. Validez Interna y Externa de la Investigación Cualitativa. Rev. Contrib. A Las Cienc. Soc.
2015, 12, 1–6.
36. Bardin, L. Análisis de Contenido; Akal: Madrid, Spain, 1996; pp. 20–35.
37. Rodríguez, G.; Gómez, M.A. Análisis de Contenido y Textual de Datos Cualitativos. In Principios, Métodos y Técnicas Esenciales
para la Investigación Educativa; Martín, S.N., Ed.; Dykinson: Madrid, Spain, 2010; pp. 447–469.
38. Brundtland, G.H. World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. 1987. Available online:
http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2022).
39. Alsina, Á.; Calabuig, M.T. Vinculando Educación Matemática y Sostenibilidad: Implicaciones para la Formación Inicial de
Maestros como Herramienta de Transformación Social. REAyS 2019, 1, 1203. [CrossRef]
40. Giroux, H.A. Schooling for Democracy: Critical Pedagogy in the Modern Age; Routledge: London, UK, 1989.
41. Cebotarev, E.A. El Enfoque Crítico: Una Revisión de su Historia, Naturaleza y algunas Aplicaciones. Rev. Latinoam. Cienc. Soc.
Niñez Juv. 2003, 1, 17–56.
42. Quintanilla, V.; Gallardo, J. Interpretación Ética a través del Diálogo en Matemáticas. UNO-Rev. Didact. Mat. 2021, 94, 34–40.
43. Sales de Aguiar, T.R.; Paterson, A.S. Sustainability on Campus: Knowledge Creation through Social and Environmental Reporting.
Stud. High. Educ. 2018, 43, 1882–1894. [CrossRef]
44. Moreno-Pino, F.M.; Jiménez-Fontana, R.; Cardeñoso, J.M. La Modelización Matemática de Problemas en la Práctica Educativa:
Una Oportunidad para la Formación en Sostenibilidad. UNO-Rev. Didact. Mat. 2022, 95, 49–55.
45. Lafuente-Lechuga, M.; Cifuentes-Faura, J.; Faura-Martínez, Ú. Mathematics Applied to the Economy and Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals: A Necessary Relationship of Dependence. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 339. [CrossRef]
46. Zamora-Polo, F.; Sánchez-Martín, J. Teaching for a Better World. Sustainability and Sustainable Development Goals in the
Construction of a change-maker University. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4224. [CrossRef]
47. Vásquez, C.; Seckel, M.J.; Alsina, Á. Sistema de Creencias de los Futuros Maestros sobre Educación para el Desarrollo Sostenible
en la clase de Matemática. Rev. Uniciencia 2020, 34, 16–30.
48. Sánchez-Carracedo, F.; Romero-Portillo, D.; Sureda, B.; Moreno-Pino, F.M. Education for Sustainable Development in Spanish
Higher Education: An Assessment of Sustainability Competencies in Engineering and Education Degrees. Int. J. Sustain. High.
Educ. 2021; in press. [CrossRef]
49. Solís-Espallargas, C.; Ruiz-Morales, J.; Limón-Domínguez, D.; Valderrama-Hernández, R. Sustainability in the University: A
Study of Its Presence in Curricula, Teachers and Students of Education. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6620. [CrossRef]
50. Olaskoaga-Larrauri, J.; Guerenabarrena-Cortazar, L.; Cilleruelo-Carrasco, E. Academic Staff Attitudes and Barriers to Integrating
Sustainability in the Curriculum at Spanish Universities. Cult. Educ. 2021, 33, 1–24. [CrossRef]
51. Ergene, Ö.; Özdemir, A. A Study on the pre-service Elementary Mathematics Teachers´ Knowledge on the Convergence and
Divergence of Series in the Context of Theory and Application. RELIME 2020, 23, 203–232. [CrossRef]