Next Article in Journal
Threshold or Limit? Precipitation Dependency of Austrian Landslides, an Ongoing Challenge for Hazard Mapping under Climate Change
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Development and Ecological Deficit in the United Arab Emirates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 15
10.3390/su12156179
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Social Responsibility and University Teacher Training: Keys to Commitment and Social Justice into Schools

by
Estefanía Martínez-Valdivia
1,*,
Mª del Carmen Pegalajar-Palomino
1 and
Antonio Burgos-García
2
1
Department of Pedagogy, University of Jaén, 23071 Jaén, Spain
2
Department of Didactic and School Organization, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(15), 6179; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156179
Submission received: 10 June 2020 / Revised: 28 July 2020 / Accepted: 30 July 2020 / Published: 31 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: International crisis situations (social, economic, health and education) need solutions. These situations need high doses of social responsibility among the population. In the educational field, different studies express that training future teachers in “Social Responsibility”, from ethics and social commitment; provides social justice and welfare in citizens. (2) Methods: This study developed a quantitative methodology; non-experimental and descriptive type. The research sample was university students registered in the Education Sciences degrees of different Spanish universities. The statistical analysis has been carried out with the SPSS software version 25 for Windows. (3) Results: The results express that the competence for social responsibility should be established in the university environment through training (university studies) contributing to the increase in the degree of social responsibility of the university student to face the changes of society (socially committed professional). (4) Conclusion: Social responsibility and university training should be key in the theoretical-practical and professional exercise of future teachers, since the quality and improvement of education will be determined by the real promotion of social responsibility as a basic competence in the curriculum of future teachers.

1. Introduction

Today’s society is immersed in an international health emergency caused by a new coronavirus called Covid-19. The consequences are of various kinds: social, economic, health and educational. This research work was be focused on the educational field, since it has meant a radical change, due to the situation of confinement established by the “state of alarm” declared in different countries. Face-to-face teaching has been transformed by virtual/online teaching. In this process, the concept of the “Social Responsibility of the University” has a greater importance and interest in university training and specifically, in the training of future teachers.
In this sense, university training is conditioned by the socio-economic and educational context. In addition, in this training it allows the university to be aware of and give greater significance to the need to provide a comprehensive and optimal training to university students of education. Taking as a reference the objectives of the “Sustainable Development Plan”, designed by UNESCO [1], the objective “to guarantee an inclusive and equitable quality education and to promote opportunities for lifelong learning for all” recognizes that the Social Responsibility of the University is key curricular content within university training, a consubstantial and necessary part of generating personal and professional ethics. This training content would allow future teachers to practice social responsibility, from the personal to the professional (school) level.

1.1. The Social Responsibility of the University Student

Social responsibility is defined as an ethical dimension, a reflection on the link established between society and the organization [2]. Thus, social responsibility (SR) is:
“A process that integrates intentions, actions and consequences, based on existing knowledge, ethical principles that guide human and social behavior, recognition of equals and society implies that we are all responsible for everyone”.
[3] (p. 98)
This concept (SR) began in the institutional sphere, specifically in companies because they generate economic resources and promote social and environmental well-being [4]. In this context appears the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) [5] (p. 2):
“A process where the active subject (company) provides information to the passive subjects (internal and external). The latter evaluate the present and future efforts of the company to protect society from the possible incidences of productive activities”.
The need to meet the new changes and demands of society is of concern to universities at the international level. This situation implies that facing new scenarios that sustainable human development presents and attributes to universities the transformation of the degrees, teaching plans, curricular approach, methodological strategies or the relations with the educational community. In this way, the university must be committed and responsible because it contributes, along with other agents, to economic growth and social well-being [6].
Within this framework of action, there is a widespread discourse, mainly in Latin American countries, called university social responsibility (USR) [7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. This situation is of international concern because there are multiple studies in this thematic line of research [14,15,16,17].
This “responsibility” is “a way of thinking and organizing the university to give an innovative response to challenges not contemplated in traditional university models” [11] (p. 10). Among the tasks of the RSU, one of them is to train in university student social responsibility (USSR). This training generates a competence that integrates the ability and capacity to relate to other citizens, maintaining a global knowledge of reality, as well as a proactive and tolerant attitude towards social justice [18].
In this sense, there are different experiences from countries that can serve as a reference for developing training in social responsibility in university students. The most interesting experiences are: at Tufts University (Boston, USA) where training in different subjects promotes being active citizens, with values and skills to be a leader in a responsible and sustainable society [19]. Bako and McBride [20] participated in research at the University of Washington (USA) where university students participate in associations that aim to transform the civic and moral learning necessary for today’s society. Finally, the study by Ye [21] was carried out at the University of Beijing (China). The aim of this research was social responsibility, training and helping students to reduce poverty in some cities and promoting collaboration between schools and companies.

1.2. Ethics is the Benchmark for Social Responsibility

Citizens live in a globalized world that allows them to be aware of the major social problems/issues (poverty, hunger, health and social welfare, quality of education, gender equality, responsible production and consumption, peace and justice, etc.). The “United Nations” institution is aware of the situation and integrates these issues in the “Sustainable Development Goals” with all countries are actively working to achieve them by 2030.
Educational institutions are a key tool for fulfilling and promoting sustainable human development. This idea requires the school to be aware of the negative impacts caused by the actions of society and institutions [22]. This statement should be a competence to be acquired by the future citizens because to acquire an ethical attitude is to broaden the moral concern. An ethical attitude has three dimensions [23]: personal, social and global. The first is “Self-Aethics”, the ethics of each person or citizen being morally responsible. The second dimension is “Socioethics”, ethics of society, which is necessary to organize coexistence and a fair cohesion with human rights. Finally, “Anthropoethics”, is the ethics of the human being and consists of taking care of the well-being of future generations.
These three dimensions of ethics are the reference for understanding the basis of the overall objectives defined by UNESCO. The key content is social responsibility as the responsibility of the whole community. Therefore, the different institutions (e.g., the university) must put responsibility into practice, promoting actions such as training in ethics and values for university students (future teachers), as well as practical ethics to be exercised in the teaching profession [24]. In this sense, this situation is very important because the Elementary or Early Childhood Education Degree can provide training for sustainable education and social responsibility. This is the main and basic way of teaching values and professional ethics (key elements of UNESCO’s Sustainable Development Goals) [12].

1.3. Ethics and Social Responsibility of Future Teachers in the Exercise of Their Profession

The university, specifically in the Early Childhood Education and Elementary Education Degree, must respond to social demands and contribute to the integral formation of students. University education cannot be limited to “training teachers” but must adopt a broad perspective where the key is the “transfer” of knowledge from university to professional activity [25]. During the training process, it is important to teach the basic content of the discipline but it is also necessary to train in ethics and social responsibility [26]. This type of training cannot be in one subject or course, but has the property of being a continuously developed and transversal process of construction, for example, participation in social activities or practices, where action is a very important active principle [25].
This situation transmits a social reality that needs university curricula to respond as an objective “to train professionals to legitimize their profession, through justice and social utility” [27]. In this way, it is necessary to think about a transformation of the universities, to rethink the curricular approaches and educational practices, and to make the university the tool that students can use to achieve an integral development whose purpose is to contribute with their actions to an improvement of society [28].
Fostering the training of the student in the university, with values and ethics, can contribute to promote the culture of peace, solidarity and social justice [26]. This situation makes university students committed, empathetic and concerned about individual and social well-being [28].
This subject is important in university training. These university degrees train future teachers whose professional responsibility affects the education of future citizens [29]. In addition, the ethical dimension has a direct relationship with the quality of education and teaching excellence [30,31]. A good teacher should have basic professional skills but contribute to social improvement in their professional practice.
This situation needs to promote a professional profile related to UNESCO’s Sustainable Development Goals. According to Sáenz-Rico [32], teachers who teach the Education Degrees must ensure that their students acquire certain qualities related to the teaching and learning process:
  • Promote learning environments where active methodologies are encouraged to foster the social and personal dimension.
  • Provide a holistic vision of education and the world where the student is prepared for educational change (new paradigm: Education for Sustainable Development).
Therefore, teaching through education for sustainable development pedagogies enables the learning of skills, perspectives and values that are fundamental to maintaining a sustainable society [33].
Students will be more aware of the need to teach with values such as social responsibility and being more active in the educational process. This situation generates in the student to be an example in their life and professional practice.
However, there is a very limited amount of studies on the importance of training future teachers in social responsibility. One important study was carried out by García, De la Calle, Valbuena and De Dios [34]. The conclusion of this study was that there is an impact on the commitment and discovery of student values and on the approach to the profession when students study a subject related to training in social responsibility.
The Mexican experience, described by Guzman et al. [35], develops a tutoring process. This process is a pedagogical strategy that enriches the curriculum in a transversal manner and advises the student to complete his training in social responsibility within the Degree of Education.
The study conducted by Severino-Gonzáles et al. [36] analyzes the students’ knowledge of social responsibility in the Degree of Education. An interesting result is that female students living in urban areas are more socially responsible than those living in rural regions.
Another important research study carried out by Nagwa [16] analyzed the relationship between the university’s social responsibility and the knowledge and performance of education students. The main conclusion is that there was no direct relationship between the education degrees and social responsibility. Therefore, there is no quality training to develop skills in social responsibility (this study supports the importance of our research).
In addition to some research on the implementation of Hellison’s Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Model (TPSR) at various educational levels [37,38], he considers personal and social responsibility to be a moral issue with oneself and with the rest of the community, where values related to effort, autonomy or empathy are developed.

1.4. Purpose and Aims of the Research

The purpose of this research is to know the level of social responsibility that university students (future teachers) have in the different Degrees of Education (Early Childhood Education and Elementary). This study considers the following research questions:
  • How does the university student in Education rate their degree of social responsibility?
  • How does the student in Education consider the capacity of commitment to society?
  • Does the training that the student receives in the university degree of Education contribute to the improvement of the degree of social responsibility?
  • Do university students conceive their future professional activity, as teachers, from a social commitment?
Answering these questions is important and from this research work, we analyzed the assessment that the university student (Degree in Early Childhood Education and Elementary Education) makes with the degree of social responsibility. This concept is focused on ethical and moral issues of the individual because it requires valid attitudes and ways of acting for the improvement of society. In this sense, the aims of the research are:
  • Valuing the capacity that the university student has over the commitment to society;
  • To examine the personal discovery of values in the university student as social responsibility and human dignity;
  • To identify the degree of training with the social responsibility of the university student of Education;
  • Analyze the student’s approach to professional practice from the perspective of social commitment.
If statistically significant differences exist, the degree of social responsibility of the student according to the university studies (Degree in Early Childhood Education or Degree in Elementary Education) should be recognized.

2. Materials and Methods

This research work developed a quantitative, non-experimental and descriptive methodology [39]. This study analyzed the data of the variables under study without establishing any kind of manipulation (natural context) [40]. The aim of a descriptive study was to identify or describe the dominant situation of a phenomenon at the time of the study [41]. In this way, this study sought to “specify the properties, characteristics and profiles of people, groups, communities, processes, objects or any other phenomenon that is subject to analysis” [40] (p. 92). Thus, this work focused on the analysis of the degree of social responsibility of the university student as it occurs in their natural context.

2.1. Sample

The research sample was the university students enrolled in Education Degrees at different Spanish universities. The population was 1376 students enrolled and invited to participate in the research during the 2019/20 academic year in the Degrees of Education (Early Childhood Education and Elementary Education). The sample selection was intentionally non-probabilistic [40]. The sample was made up of students who had agreed to participate in the study by completing the questionnaire (n=572). To determine the sample size and ensure representativeness, the research team used a formula for a known finite population sample with a 95% confidence level and a maximum estimation error of 4%. Furthermore, according to Ramirez’s [42] recommendations, for social research, the percentage of the sample in relation to the population is very favorable, exceeding 30% (Table 1).
The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample show that 81.6% of the students were female and 18.4% were male. Ages ranged around 21–24 years (46.5%), with a similar percentage (45.6%) of students aged 20 or under. On the other hand, 4.4% of the participants were between 25 and 29 years of age and, finally, 3.5% of the sample was over 30 years of age. With regard to the university studies, 59.6% were new students for the Early Childhood Education Degree while 40.4% of the participants were enrolled for the Elementary Education Degree.

2.2. Instruments

The data collection was conducted with the technique of the survey through the “Questionnaire of Social Responsibility of the University” (RSEU) [18]. This instrument evaluates the degree of commitment and social responsibility of the university student and has 21 items distributed according to four dimensions (Likert scale with 5 response options—1=minimum agreement and 5=maximum agreement). Each dimension refers to an aspect of the “student’s social responsibility” construct:
  • Dimension 1. Commitment to others and the environment. This dimension analyses the degree of responsibility of the student towards the problems of society. The student knows different realities and exercises their capacity to serve as a socially committed student and/or teacher.
  • Dimension 2. Personal discovery of values. This dimension examines the values of social responsibility and has as its reference the recognition of and respect for human dignity.
  • Dimension 3. Training of social responsibility. This dimension analyses the student’s perception of the training received at the university (social responsibility) as an opportunity to contribute to social justice.
  • Dimension 4. Approach to professional practice based on social commitment. This dimension is centered on knowing the approach of the university student in future professional exercise (social commitment).
The work of De la Calle, García, Jiménez and Ortega [43] described a first validation of the measurement instrument on the grade of social responsibility of university students. The validity of the content was carried out by “expert judgment” (specialists in evaluation processes and in social responsibility) with extensive experience at the university context. The comments of these professionals were positive because they affirmed changes in some items (writing).
In the analysis of the “criterion validity”, the results confirmed a high grade of the reliability of the instrument (Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency index = 0.923). Furthermore, the work of García, De la Calle, Valbuena and De Dios [18] expressed that this value is very satisfactory and was confirmed by other statistical values such as the Spearman–Brown coefficient (0.856) and Guttman’s “two-halves test” (0.852). The reliability analysis, according to the dimensions, and the results affirmed a Cronbach’s Alpha value between 0.852 and 0.749. The Spearman–Brown coefficient for the reliability analysis between the dimensions was between 0.858 and 0.681, while the two-half Guttman coefficient was between 0.845 and 0.676. The homogeneity indicators for all the items were satisfactory (between 0.20 and 0.40). This situation explains that there are very significant correlations between the dimensions demonstrated by the unidimensionality of the construct “Social Responsibility of the University Student”.
Finally, the “exploratory factor analysis” analyzed the construct validity of the instrument. This analysis showed the existence of three significant factors that explain 56.45% of the variance. These factors are shown to be significantly correlated, which points to the unidimensionality of the construct “Social Responsibility of the University Student” on a three-dimensional basis.
The confirmatory factor analysis, carried out with the maximum likelihood method, developed a validity study of the scale with different structures. Model 1 corresponded to a structure composed of four factors and five items per factor, considering two sub-models: (1) Factors were dependent; (2) Factors were independent. Model 2 corresponded to a structure with three factors correlated to each other and 18 items, extracted from the “exploratory factor analysis”. For this second model there were also two sub-models: (1) the model with all the items obtained in the “exploratory factor analysis” and (2) model with those items whose factor load exceeded 0.6 (improved model with 3 factors and 14 items).
In all the models, the standardized regression coefficients (factor loads) between the items and the dimensions of the construct “Social Responsibility of the University Student” show values between 0 and 1, being positive and significant. This indicates the direct relationship of the dimensions towards the items, confirming the existence of a robust factorial structure.
In addition, the ratio chi-square/degrees of freedom (being in all cases greater than 2) and the ad hoc indices were calculated to evaluate the fit of the models (Tucker–Lewis index, TLI; comparative fit index, CFI and the mean square error of approximation by degree of freedom, RMSEA). These indices showed that while no model had a satisfactory fit (TLI with values below 0.95 in all the models and RMSEA below 0.08), the model with the best fit was Model 2.2.
Therefore, the confirmatory factor analysis showed that there was a reformulation of the initial structure (4 dimensions and one-item criteria) that aimed to obtain a better measurement of the construct “Social Responsibility of the University Student”. However, in this work, the instrument was used in its initial version, since the obtained results were not conclusive. The authors of the instrument propose new lines of work for the further validation of the construct from different samples.

2.3. Procedure

The questionnaire was completed by the sample during the month of October 2019. Initially, the research was presented to the teachers responsible for a compulsory subject in the Education Degrees (Early Childhood Education and Elementary). The students were notified by email to carry out the survey through the Google application (Google Forms). Along with the link to the questionnaire, the students received information about the objective of the research and the procedure for completion. In addition, the research team assured the sample of the confidential and anonymous nature of the data collected.

2.4. Data Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed with SPSS software version 25 for Windows. The type of analysis was descriptive for each of the items that were part of the different dimensions of the questionnaire (frequencies and percentages). Additionally, the research team performed a mean difference analysis with the Student-t test to determine “whether two groups differed significantly from each other with respect to their means” [40] (p. 460) and the dichotomous variable: students in the Education Degree (Early Childhood Education and Elementary). The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The null hypothesis assumed that the groups did not differ significantly, while the research hypothesis proposed that the groups differed significantly from each other. The application of this parametric test confirmed that it meets the established requirements. The K-S normality test affirmed that the sample followed a normal distribution, obtaining higher values p ≤ 0.05. This situation affirmed that the different variables of the scale were included in this distribution. Finally, the research presented a sample size greater than 30, an important requirement for the application of this parametric test.

3. Results

Here, we present the results of the research with reference to the general purpose and aims of the study.

3.1. Commitment to Others and the Environment

The results show that the student claims to be engaged with others and the environment in which they operate (Table 2). In this way, the student shows total agreement when they consider that one of their obligations, as a citizen, is to help others through social commitment. Moreover, the student considers that they are aware of the urgent need for sustainable development in our society, therefore, this situation increases the interest to contribute to the improvement of their environment. The student affirms a reflection on their functions with regard to the problems of others, and thus develops a capacity for service towards the most vulnerable groups.

3.2. Discovery of Personal Values

As for the student’s personal values towards social responsibility, the results confirm very favorable estimates (Table 3). In this way, the student shows a conviction about the social commitment that should be based on the recognition and respect of the dignity of the person, the experience of working for society and the discovery of personal values being positive. At the same time, the student maintains that social change begins with a transformation on a personal level, concretely, the search for the “social well-being” is more important than one’s own interests. Finally, the results demonstrate the student’s conviction towards the particular benefits that service and social solidarity imply when the student experiences this situation.

3.3. Training of Social Responsibility

In this dimension, the results show that the student has a very favorable rating in their dimension (Table 4). This university student shows a total conviction when they express that their competence for social responsibility should be worked on from the university environment. Furthermore, this future teacher maintains that the training received, through their university studies, allows them to contribute to a change in society, increasing the degree of social responsibility. This student claims to reflect on the importance of collaborating with others because being a university student helps to be aware of the importance of social responsibility for the improvement of society.

3.4. Approach to Professional Practice Based on Social Commitment

Asking the student about future professional practice, the results reveal a very favorable perception from social commitment (Table 5). Student proposes the future profession as a teacher through social attitudes based on commitment, teamwork, perseverance, empathy, tolerance, etc., and with a vocation for service and guidance in the search for the “social well-being”. In this way, the student shows the conviction that “good work” into education has an impact on the immediate context and on society. Furthermore, the student considers that the teacher must be a socially committed professional and has personal implications. Finally, the results show agreement towards the possibility of combining professional practice and social commitment.

3.5. Mean Differences: Student-t Test

The Student-t test made it possible to detect the existence or not of significant differences, on a statistical level, among the assessments of the students towards their grade of social responsibility in each dimension (according to the Education Degrees: Early Childhood Education and Elementary). Table 6 presents the results obtained according to the different dimensions.
The results show significant differences at the statistical level for dimension 3, related to the training of the university student for responsibility (t(561) = 4230, p = 0.040). The analysis of the mean scores reveals how the assessment of the grade of social responsibility is favorable for the Early Childhood Education student compared to the Elementary Education student. The data express that there are no statistically significant differences in the student assessment towards dimension 1, related to the analysis of student engagement with others and the environment (t(568) = 0.058, p = 0.809). Dimension 2 is focused on the personal discovery of values in the student (t(566) = 2721, p = 0.100) and dimension 4 raises the possibility of exercising the future professional activity as a teacher based on social commitment (t(567) = 3121, p = 0.145). In general, there are no significant differences between the student’s general assessment and the grade of social responsibility (t(567) = 3121, p = 0.078).

4. Discussion

In this section, our research study analyses and discusses the results obtained with other similar studies and research experiences. In this case, we use the specific aims (1 to 4) to structure and organize this contribution because they analyze and specifically describe the study theme.
Firstly, this study expresses that university students enrolled in the Degrees of Education positively value that an important function of professional practice is commitment to society (Objective 1. Dimension 1). This result is important because, on the one hand, university training provides a global vision of the social situation (social injustice, disability, immigration, indigence, old age, etc.), becoming aware of the need to improve the closest environment, and on the other hand, it coincides with Arango, Clavijo, Puerta and Sánchez [28] when this situation in which university students are people committed to their environment, because this student knows different realities and puts into operation their capacity for social commitment. In addition, according to Hess and Collins [44], students must have the necessary skills to learn from their environment in order to have a realistic view of the professional context. In this sense, Laurie, Nonoyama-Tarumi, McKeown and Hopkins [33] take up all the previous contributions to express that the curriculum must include sustainability content, and the pedagogies of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) to promote a learning of skills, perspectives and values necessary to foster sustainable and committed societies. Therefore, we agree with Ravindranath [45], on the need to integrate ESD into all subjects and teaching contents of university training to provide quality and social commitment into the professional practice of the future teachers.
Another important datum is when the student within the university discovers personal values with great potential to develop as social responsibility and human dignity (Objective 2. Dimension 2). This affirmation manifests the need to examine, within the university student, values such as dignity, solidarity and “social well-being”. These key aspects generate social responsibility and respect for human dignity and heterogeneity, and are the bases for developing quality training in future teachers. In this sense, the training method that would help to find the key personal values in our students (the objective of our research) in their educational and university career, would be the model of Hellison (2011), called teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR). According to Caballero-Blanco [38], TPSR would contribute to deepening the knowledge of key personal values and furthermore, would connect these values with the development of others that would allow positive development to promote personal responsibility (effort and autonomy) and social responsibility (respect for feelings, rights, empathy and social sensitivity). The university must assume this situation because, as expressed by Vallaeys [24], it must generate training spaces and experiences based on social responsibility, in addition to promoting practical actions where they can exercise the teaching profession as ethically responsible.
Thirdly, a key objective in this study was to identify the degree of socially responsible training of university students in Education (objective 3. Dimension 3). The result obtained coincides with Tapia’s research work [26], when this expert affirms that this training should be promoted and developed from the university as an opportunity to contribute to the improvement of social justice, the culture of peace and solidarity. According to Knowles and Clark [46], these key elements more precisely identify the social and educational realities that a model of democratic education can generate as necessary academic content for the training of future teachers. This university training would allow, first, reflection on social change; secondly, to become aware of the importance of creating spaces to know and practice new resources and materials that promote the development of competence in social responsibility (this training would have as its contents to be taught according to García, De la Calle, Valbuena and De Dios [18]’s forms of social relation-cooperation, a holistic vision of social reality and the promotion of a proactive and tolerant attitude), global knowledge and thirdly, to be able to give an innovative response to challenges not contemplated in traditional university models [12].
Fourthly, the results express the level of importance of professional practice from a socially committed viewpoint (Objective 4. Dimension 4). This objective coincides with Hess and Collins [44], Izarra [25] and Díaz-Barriga, Pérez-Rendón and Lara-Gutiérrez [27] when they state that professional practice from the point of view of social commitment is a training line that should be considered broadly because it should transfer knowledge from theory to professional practice (generating a two-way transmission of knowledge of social reality to university curricula). Professional practice should consider training from a perspective of service vocation, teamwork, perseverance, tolerance, honesty, and, as expressed by Arango, Clavijo, Puerta and Sánchez [24], from a commitment to and empathy with social reality. In summary, a socially committed professional practice implies the development of quality schools that, according to Blanchet-Cohen and Reilly [47], should be integrated by teachers whose practice has as a reference an educational and pedagogical model based on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).

5. Conclusions

University social responsibility requires sustainability and a management model that connects initial training at the university and the professional practice of future teachers. This statement is a product of the results obtained in this research and in other studies such as Sheck and Hollister [17] and Baca Neglia [48] because university social responsibility is very important as a content of training in the curriculum for teacher training at university. In this sense, social responsibility should be a pragmatic and structured curricular content in different areas [29]: social commitment, personal discovery of values, ethics and social justice. Another important aspect is about the quality, improvement of education and the excellence in teaching because these key aspects will be driven by social responsibility; key content, according to Crisol and Romero [30] and Vidal and Oliver [31], should be integrated as a basic competence in the curriculum of future teachers. Another important conclusion is related to the limitations and advantages of our study. On the one hand, one limitation is the need to broaden the scope of the results obtained. In this case, the study would have to increase the sample according to the number of students in the international faculties of education in order to have a more enriching comparative vision and to be able to generalize the results with greater precision. Another limitation would be to consider as a study variable the course where the students are enrolled, taking as a reference the descriptive statistical analysis for the continuous quantitative variables in Likert-type scales from numerical values extracted from the qualitative characteristics (variables ordered according to quantitative values). On the other hand, an important advantage of our study is to enrich and update the concept of university social responsibility in Europe. This topic is not much studied in the European context because the greatest contributions come from Latin American countries, the United States of America, Singapore and China. Another advantage is to contribute, with a scientific study, to the analysis and type of key contents in the university training of future teachers in accordance with Objective 4 of the UNESCO Sustainable Development Plan for 2030 [1]. Finally, this work proposes two important lines of research: first, to analyze whether there are significant differences in relation to students’ perceptions of their degree of social responsibility according to the course in which they are enrolled; and second, to study in depth the training plans and teaching guides for the degree of education in relation to the concepts of social responsibility, solidarity and social commitment in order to develop sustainable training plans for future teachers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.-V.; methodology, M.d.C.P.-P.; software, M.d.C.P.-P.; formal analysis, M.d.C.P.-P.; resources, M.d.C.P.-P., E.M.-V., A.B.-G.; investigation, E.M.-V., M.d.C.P.-P., A.B.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M.-V., A.B.-G.; writing—review and editing, E.M.-V., A.B.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. UNESCO. Education 2030. Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. 2016. Available online: http://www.unesco.org/new/es/santiago/education2030/ (accessed on 29 March 2020).
  2. Villegas, D.; Castillo, N. Social responsibility and community service in university education. Rev. Cient. Digit. Centro Investig. Estud. Gerenc. 2011, 7, 22–44. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hernández-Arteaga, R.I.; Alvarado-Pérez, J.C.; Luna, J.A. Social responsibility in the university-industry-state relationship. Educación y Educadores. 2015, 1, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Martín, P. Corporate social responsibility in family SMEs: A comparative study. Eur. J. Fam. Bus. 2016, 6, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bustamante, M.E.; Bustamante, C.A.; Caamaño, M.E. Analysis of corporate social responsibility reports that influence the relationship between stakeholders and the quality of corporate society. UCE Sci. Postgrad. Mag. 2020, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  6. Niebles, W.; Cabarcas, M.; Hernández, H. Social responsibility: An element of training in university students. Rev. Latinoam. Estud. Educ. 2018, 1, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Martí-Noguera, J.J.; Calderón, A.; Fernández-Godenzi, A. La responsabilidad social universitaria en Iberoamérica: Análisis de las legislaciones de Brasil, España y Perú. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. Super. 2019, 9, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Oseda, D.; Sangama, J.L.; Añaños, M.A. Educación ambiental y responsabilidad social en estudiantes universitarios de la región de Ucayali, Perú. Opción 2019, 35, 347–365. [Google Scholar]
  9. Rodríguez, G.; Cano, E.; Vélez, X. Social university responsibility: An approach to the public university’s relationship with the student. Rev. ECA Sinerg. 2018, 9, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Severino, P.; Medina, A.; Pujol, L. Responsabilidad Social en Escuelas de Educación Primaria en Chile: Tensiones y Desafíos. Rev. Encuentros 2018, 16, 11–22. [Google Scholar]
  11. Schwalb, M.M.; Prialé, M.A.; Vallaeys, F. Guide to University Social Responsibility; Universidad del Pacífico: Lima, Peru, 2019; pp. 1–112. ISBN 978-9972-57-420-7. [Google Scholar]
  12. Vallaeys, F.; Álvarez, J. Hacia una definición latinoamericana de responsabilidad social universitaria. Aproximación a las preferencias conceptuales de los universitarios. Educación XX1 2019, 22, 93–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Vásquez, V. La Responsabilidad Social en la Educación Superior: Una revisión de la alineación entre el discurso educativo oficial y el curriculum explícito de las instituciones de educación superior de Oaxaca. Rev. Educ. Super. 2019, 48, 113–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alzyoud, S.A.; Bani-Hani, K. Social responsibility in higher education institutions: Application case from the Middle East. Eur. Sci. J. 2015, 11, 122–129. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen, S.-H.; Nasongkhla, J.; Donaldson, J.A. University social responsibility (USR): Identifying an ethical foundation within higher education institutions. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 14, 165–172. [Google Scholar]
  16. Nagwa, A.Y. Ajman University students’ perspectives on university social responsibility: A field study. Opción 2019, 35, 11–32. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sheck, D.; Hollister, R. (Eds.) University Social Responsability and Quality of Life: A Global Survey of Concepts and Experiences; Springer: Singapore, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  18. García, J.M.; De la Calle, C.; Valbuena, M.C.; de Dios, T. Towards the validation of the construct “Social Responsibility of the University Student” (RSEU). Bordón 2016, 3, 41–48. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hollister, R. A Comprehensive University-Wide Strategy to Educate Students in All Fields for Lifetimes of Active Citizenship. In University Social Responsibility and Quality of Life. A Global Survey of Concepts and Experiences; Shek, D., Hollister, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; Volume 8, pp. 63–80. ISBN 978-981-10-3876-1. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bako, M.; McBride, A.M. University Social Responsibility as Civic Learning: Outcomes Assessment and Community Partnership. In University Social Responsibility and Quality of Life. A Global Survey of Concepts and Experiences; Shek, D., Hollister, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; Volume 8, pp. 81–98. ISBN 978-981-10-3876-1. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ye, J. Reflections on and Practices of Peking University Fulfilling Social Responsibility. In University Social Responsibility and Quality of Life. A Global Survey of Concepts and Experiences; Shek, D., Hollister, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; Volume 8, pp. 205–221. ISBN 978-981-10-3876-1. [Google Scholar]
  22. International Organization for Standardization 26000, Norma Internacional. Guidance on Social Responsibility; Secretaría Central de ISO: Gineva, Switzerland, 2010; pp. 1–109. [Google Scholar]
  23. Morin, E. O Method VI. Ethics; Editora Sulina: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  24. Vallaeys, F. Virtue, justice, sustainability: An ethics in 3 days for the social responsibility of organizations. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Social Responsibility, Buenos Aires, Argentina 16 October 2013; Minnicelli, A., Da Silva, L.I., Sen, A., González, F., Kliksberg, B., Eds.; Fundación Observatorio de Responsabilidad Social: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2013; pp. 704–712. [Google Scholar]
  25. Izarra, D. Ethical training: Commitment to university social responsibility. In Ética Profesional y Responsabilidad Social Universitaria: Universidad, Sociedad y Sujeto; Arango, O.E., Martí, J.J., Montoya, P.A., Puerta, I.C., Eds.; Fundación Universitaria Luis Amigó: Medellín, Colombia, 2016; pp. 22–31. [Google Scholar]
  26. Tapia, G.A. Concepts and criteria of evaluation of university teaching staff belonging to the humanities on the relationship between ethics and teaching excellence. Sociol. Prax. 2019, 24, 201–216. [Google Scholar]
  27. Díaz-Barriga, F.; Pérez-Rendón, M.M.; Lara-Gutiérrez, Y. To teach professional ethics, one subject is not enough: Psychology students report critical incidents in classrooms and real-life scenarios. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. Super. 2016, 7, 42–58. [Google Scholar]
  28. Arango, O.E.; Clavijo, S.J.; Puerta, I.C.; Sanchez, J.W. Academic training, values, empathy and socially responsible behaviour in university students. J. High. Educ. 2014, 43, 89–105. [Google Scholar]
  29. Briones, E.; Lara, L. Ethical education in the University through multicultural dialogue online. Comunicar 2016, 24, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Crisol, E.; Romero, M.A. Práctica docente versus ética docente. Hacia la mejora de la práctica docente a partir de la ética profesional. J. Educ. Teach. Train. 2014, 2, 23–35. [Google Scholar]
  31. Vidal, P.; Óliver, E. Education quality and teaching ethics from the perspective of teachers in training. Edetania 2017, 52, 243–268. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sáenz-Rico, B.; Benitez, L.; Niera, J.M.; Sobrino, M.R.; D’Ángelo, E. Perfiles profesionales de futuros maestros para el desarrollo sostenible desde un modelo formativo centrado en el diseño de ambientes de aprendizaje. Foro Educ. 2015, 13, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Laurie, R.; Nonoyama-Tarumi, Y.; Mckeown, R.; Hopkins, C. Contributions of education for sustainable development (ESD) to quality education: A synthesis of research. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 10, 226–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. García Ramos, J.M.; de la Calle Maldonado, C.; Valbuena Martínez, M.C.; de Dios Alija, T. La formación en Responsabilidad Social y su impacto en diversas carreras universitarias. Rev. Investig. Educ. 2016, 34, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Guzman, C.M.; Fernández, M.; Guerreo, J.; Escalante, L.; Villaseñor, C.; De la Luz, M.C. The social responsibility through tutoring at the university. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2018, 6, 741–750. [Google Scholar]
  36. Severino-Gonzáles, P.; Villalobos, J.V.; Chamaly, N.; Vergara, G.; González, N. Social responsibility of university student and institutional educational policies. Recognizing the commitments to society. Opción 2019, 35, 1171–1197. [Google Scholar]
  37. Caballero-Blanco, P. Diseño, implementación y evaluación de un programa de actividades en la naturaleza para promover la responsabilidad personal y social en alumnos de formación profesional. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2015, 15, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Caballero-Blanco, P. Percepción del alumnado de formación profesional sobre los efectos de un programa de desarrollo positivo (modelo de responsabilidad de Hellison). J. Sport Health Res. 2015, 7, 113–126. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bisquerra, R. Methodology of Educational Research; La Muralla: Madrid, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hernández, R.; Fernández, C.; Baptista, P. Methodology of the Investigation, 6th ed.; McGraw-Hill/Interamericana Editores, S.A: Mexico City, Mexico, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  41. Cardona, M. Introduction to Research Methods in Education; EOS Universitaria: Madrid, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ramirez, T. How to Make a Research Project; Panapo: Caracas, Venezuela, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  43. De la Calle, C.; García, J.M.; Giménez, P.; Ortega, M. Validación y medida de la responsabilidad social en la universidad. Rev. Complut. Educ. 2008, 19, 385–404. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hess, D.J.; Collins, B. Climate Change and Higher Education: Assessing Factors That Affect Curriculum Requirements. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1451–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ravindranath, M.J. Environmental education in teacher education in India: Experiences and challenges in the United Nation’s decade of education for sustainable development. J. Educ. Teach. Int. Res. Pedagog. 2007, 33, 191e206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Knowles, R.; Clark, C.H. How Common is the Common Good? Moving Beyond Idealistic Notions of Deliberative Democracy in Education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2018, 71, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Blanchet-Cohen, N.; Reilly, R.C. Teachers’ perspectives on environmental education in multicultural contexts: Towards culturally-responsive environmental education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2013, 36, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Baca Neglia, H.Z. University Social Responsibility: Conceptual Proposal and Measurement in a Private University in Lima (Peru); University of Seville: Seville, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Population and research sample.
Table 1. Population and research sample.
PopulationInvited SampleAccepting Sample Percentage of Population
1376137657241.56%
Table
Table 2. Descriptive analysis “Commitment to others and the environment”.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis “Commitment to others and the environment”.
Items12345
1. I have a global vision of the current situation in the world and I am aware of the urgent need for sustainable development -5 (0.9%)77 (13.5%)250 (43.7%)240 (42.0%)
2. This awareness increases my interest as a university student in contributing to the improvement of my immediate environment-5 (0.9%)77 (13.5%)250 (43.7%)240 (42.0%)
3. I question my personal position in the face of social injustice, in the face of the pain of others2 (0.3%)4 (0.7%)89 (15.6%)250 (43.7%)227 (39.7%)
4. I put into practice my capacity for service and commitment to immigrants, the disabled, the destitute, underprivileged children, the elderly, etc.7 (1.2%)44 (7.7%)163 (28.5%)200 (35.0%)157 (27.5%)
5. I consider that one of my obligations as a person is to help others from the social commitment-4 (0.7%)39 (6.8%)192 (33.6%)336 (58.8%)
M = 4.21; DT = 0.55.
Table
Table 3. Descriptive analysis “Commitment to others and the environment”.
Table 3. Descriptive analysis “Commitment to others and the environment”.
Items12345
6. I believe that social commitment is based on the recognition and respect for the dignity of every person1 (0.2%)3 (0.5%)40 (7.0%)185 (32.4%)342 (59.9%)
7. I recognize the need to open up to others, to put myself in their place and to seek the common good, above individualistic interests1 (0.2%)3 (0.5%)57 (10%)211 (37.0%)299 (52.4%)
8. I believe that personal change is a previous and necessary step to change the reality around me1 (0.2%)5 (0.9%)50 (8.8%)184 (32.3%)329 (57.8%)
9. I have experienced first-hand the happiness that comes from service and solidarity8 (1.4%)25 (4.4%)76 (13.3%)190 (33.3%)272 (47.6%)
10. I believe that the experience of giving oneself to others is helpful in discovering personal values-2 (0.4%)39 (6.9%)188 (33.0%)340 (59.8%)
M = 4.43; DT = 0.49.
Table
Table 4. Descriptive analysis “Training of social responsibility”.
Table 4. Descriptive analysis “Training of social responsibility”.
Items12345
11. I believe that being a university student helps to raise awareness of the importance of social responsibility17 (3.0%)47 (8.2%)155 (27.1%)195 (34.2%)157 (27.5%)
12. I have reflected on the importance of not remaining indifferent or oblivious to what happens to others5 (0.9%)12 (2.1%)98 (17.2%)245 (43.1%)209 (36.7%)
13. I believe that as I study and prepare thoroughly at university, I will be able to contribute more to social change3 (0.5%)23 (4.0%)93 (16.4%)198 (34.9%)251 (44.2%)
14. The training I will receive at university will contribute in practice to my degree of social responsibility3 (0.5%)27 (4.8%)125 (21.9%)228 (40.0%)187 (32.8%)
15. I believe that social responsibility is a competence that should be worked on in the university7 (1.2%)29 (5.1%)78 (13.7%)161 (28.3%)294 (51.7%)
M = 4.06; DT = 0.64.
Table
Table 5. Descriptive analysis “Approach to professional practice from a social commitment”.
Table 5. Descriptive analysis “Approach to professional practice from a social commitment”.
Items12345
16. I am planning to exercise my future profession with a vocation of service and orientation towards the common good-2 (0.3%)37 (6.5%)138 (24.2%)393 (68.9%)
17. I believe that good professional work implies commitment, teamwork, perseverance, empathy, tolerance, honesty and respect--24 (4.2%)95 (16.7%)451 (79.1%)
18. I believe that my personal fulfillment and happiness come from being a professional committed to improving society as a whole2 (0.4%)5 (0.9%)53 (9.3%)203 (35.7%)306 (53.8%)
19. I believe that the action of a good professional has repercussions in his immediate environment and in others of greater importance-2 (0.4%)50 (8.8%)189 (33.3%)327 (57.6%)
20. I think it is realistic to say that social commitment is possible from professional practice1 (0.2%)3 (0.5%)70 (12.3%)219 (38.4%)277 (48.6%)
M = 4.52; DT = 0.47.
Table
Table 6. Analysis of the differences among the means.
Table 6. Analysis of the differences among the means.
DimensionSig.M.
Early Childhood EducationElementary Education
Dimension 1. Commitment to others and the environment0.8094.264.12
Dimension 2. Personal discovery of values0.1004.464.36
Dimension 3. Training of social responsibility0.040 *4.084.02
Dimension 4. Approach to professional practice based on social commitment0.1454.554.46
Item-criteria0.0784.144.03
* p < 0.05.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Martínez-Valdivia, E.; Pegalajar-Palomino, M.d.C.; Burgos-García, A. Social Responsibility and University Teacher Training: Keys to Commitment and Social Justice into Schools. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6179. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156179

AMA Style

Martínez-Valdivia E, Pegalajar-Palomino MdC, Burgos-García A. Social Responsibility and University Teacher Training: Keys to Commitment and Social Justice into Schools. Sustainability. 2020; 12(15):6179. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156179

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martínez-Valdivia, Estefanía, Mª del Carmen Pegalajar-Palomino, and Antonio Burgos-García. 2020. "Social Responsibility and University Teacher Training: Keys to Commitment and Social Justice into Schools" Sustainability 12, no. 15: 6179. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156179

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop