Citation: Handtke, K.;

Richter-Beuschel, L.; Bögeholz, S.

Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Teaching ESD:

A Theory-Driven Instrument and the

Effectiveness of ESD in German

Teacher Education. Sustainability

2022, 14, 6477. https://doi.org/

10.3390/su14116477

Academic Editors: Werner Rieß,

Christoph Mischo and

Katja Scharenberg

Received: 29 April 2022

Accepted: 23 May 2022

Published: 25 May 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affil-

iations.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license (https://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/

4.0/).

sustainability

Article

Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Teaching ESD: A Theory-DrivenInstrument and the Effectiveness of ESD in GermanTeacher EducationKevin Handtke 1,* , Lisa Richter-Beuschel 1 and Susanne Bögeholz 1,2

1 Department of Biology Education, University of Göttingen, 37073 Göttingen, Germany;lisa.richter@biologie.uni-goettingen.de (L.R.-B.); sboegeh@gwdg.de (S.B.)

2 Centre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use (CBL), University of Göttingen, 37073 Göttingen, Germany* Correspondence: khandtk@gwdg.de

Abstract: Self-efficacy beliefs are important for teachers to conduct Education for Sustainable De-velopment (ESD). Self-efficacy instruments for teaching ESD mainly focus on primary education,and theory-driven instruments are lacking. Thus, we developed an instrument for secondary ed-ucation reflecting eight subcategories of a science teaching pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)model, transferred to teaching ESD. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (n1 = 162) anda confirmatory factor analysis (n2 = 236) with mainly pre-service biology, politics, and geographyteachers for secondary education. We identified seven self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD factors. Sixof these factors showed an expected low or middle correlation with self-rated content knowledgeof SD-relevant issues (divergent validity). Pre-service teachers’ ESD teaching self-efficacy beliefswere rather positive, missing clear differences due to studying biology, politics, and geography.Bachelor students had higher self-efficacy beliefs than Master of Education students regarding fourfactors. Only 32 of 113 Bachelor students completed any ESD course at that time. They could haveoverestimated their own skills or underestimated teaching ESD. Current participation in at leastone ESD course positively influenced three self-efficacy factors. Since barely any pre-service teachercurrently participated in or completed more than three ESD courses at the time of the study, there isroom for a stronger focus on ESD in German teacher education.

Keywords: education for sustainable development; self-efficacy beliefs; teacher education; instrumentdevelopment; secondary education

1. Introduction

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) equips learners with skills, knowledge,attitudes, and values to participate in Sustainable Development (SD) [1]. ESD aims tocreate awareness for SD, convey values associated with sustainability, and promote sus-tainable behavior [2]. SD-focused education might create informed citizens characterizedby critically examining SD issues and the associated complexity, uncertainty, and contra-dictions [2]. Such individuals could become able to bring the necessary transformationtowards a sustainable future by promoting political, social, and economic change [3].

Former approaches like the United Nations (UN) Decade of ESD (2005–2014) andthe Global Action Programme on ESD (GAP) sought to foster the implementation ofESD internationally in all areas and levels of education [4]. Goal 4 of the SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs) highlights the pivotal role of education in terms of SD [5].Education is not just a goal itself but also an important driver to achieving all the otherSDGs [6]. Based on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the current UNESCOprogram “ESD for 2030” (2020–2030) “focuses on strengthening ESD’s contribution to theachievement of all 17 SDGs, focusing on policies, learning environments, teachers andeducators, youth as well as communities” [7] (p. 1). This is even more important since the

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116477 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 2 of 32

Sustainable Development Report of 2021 shows a global decline in SD due to the COVID-19pandemic [8].

Educators can act as change agents by providing sustainability competencies andconcepts to their students [4]. Hence, for an adequate implementation of ESD and thepromotion of ESD-specific competencies, teachers are of central relevance [7]. Successfulimplementation of ESD particularly depends on the skills and commitment of teacherstoward sustainability [9]. However, according to Evans et al. [10], in most countries, ESDis not an integral part of initial teacher training. Courses in SD in pre-service teachertraining can modify students’ beliefs, attitudes, and norms [11]. Referring to Moseleyet al. [12,13], Malandrakis et al. [14] conclude that self-efficacy beliefs are one of the mostpowerful factors in influencing the ability of teachers to initiate ESD. Thus, self-efficacybeliefs in teaching ESD, its identification as learning prerequisites by empirical studies, andits promotion in teacher training are important for implementing ESD.

1.1. Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Self-efficacy beliefs are “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the coursesof action required to produce given attainments” [15] (p. 3). They are a part of motivationalorientations as an aspect of teachers’ professional competence [16]. Furthermore, self-efficacy beliefs are a “key factor of human agency” [15] (p. 3). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefsare positively related to their job satisfaction and negatively related to emotional exhaustionand depersonalization—two symptoms of burnout (e.g., [17]).

Another important aspect in the teaching context is the predictive effect/the positiverelation of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on/to their students’ achievement (e.g., in a generalcontext: [18–20], in the context of science education: [21]). Self-efficacy beliefs vary regard-ing different characteristics such as task levels or the generality of the beliefs [15]. Thus,self-efficacy beliefs must be considered in different contexts [22]. Self-efficacy beliefs focuson new or difficult tasks to execute [15,23,24]. One difficult task in the context of teaching isteaching interdisciplinarily, such as required in ESD teaching. Such teaching is challengingbecause ESD is still not systematically integrated into German teacher education (e.g., [25]).

Further characteristics of self-efficacy beliefs have to be kept in mind when con-structing self-efficacy beliefs items. First, they should contain obstacles or demandingsituations [15,23]. Second, statements should contain (I) can and ask for present, not possi-ble future skills [15]. Third, self-efficacy beliefs are not a global construct, e.g., referringto teaching as a whole (I can teach ESD.), but a multidimensional construct that needsdifferentiated consideration [15].

1.2. Requirements for Teaching ESD

One important aspect of teachers’ professional competence is pedagogical contentknowledge (PCK). Better teachers’ PCK results in more effective teaching (e.g., [26,27]).Thus, having good PCK is a requirement for teaching ESD as well. Defining PCK has along tradition, especially in science teaching [28]. The resulting models are developedfor science teaching but can be adapted for other contexts such as ESD [29]. Consideringthe most recent models for PCK in science teaching (the pentagon model from Park andChen [30], the consensus model from Gess-Newsome [31], and the refined consensus modelfrom Carlson et al. [32]), only the pentagon model focuses on the specific components of PCK.It is the result of a longer empirical developmental process that is built on the model fromMagnusson et al. [33]. The pentagon model in the context of science education comprisesfive categories and corresponding subcategories [30]:

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 3 of 32

• Orientation to Teaching Science:

◦ Beliefs about Purposes of Learning Science, Decision Making in Teaching,Beliefs about the Nature of Science

• Knowledge of Students’ Understanding in Science:

◦ Misconceptions, Learning Difficulties, Need, Motivation & Interest

• Knowledge of Science Curriculum:

◦ Curriculum Materials, Vertical Curriculum, Horizontal Curriculum

• Knowledge of Assessment of Science Learning:

◦ Dimensions of Science Learning to Assess, Methods of Assessing Science Learning

• Knowledge of Instructional Strategies for Teaching Science:

◦ Topic-specific Strategies (Representations, Activities), Subject-specific Strategies

These categories and their subcategories describe components of teaching that areof importance for teaching every subject or teaching task. Handtke and Bögeholz [34]explain the content of these (sub)categories adapted for teaching science. The model hasthe potential to be adapted to ESD as well [29].

1.3. Previous Instruments for Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Teaching ESD

In the following, we analyzed the literature on self-efficacy beliefs instruments con-cerning teaching ESD in order to compile the state of the art and to identify desiderata forfurther research. We have included instruments published in German and English.

In general, many instruments for measuring self-efficacy efficacy beliefs regardingteaching different subjects and teaching tasks exist. One of the most influential instrumentshas been the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI; [35,36]) in the versionsA and B. The STEBI not only had great influence on science teaching self-efficacy beliefsinstruments [34] but also on instruments of self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD (see Table 1).Three of the presented previous instruments are rather strongly derived from the STEBI-Aor STEBI-B [37–40]. This origin is rather less recommended because the STEBI does notinclude current demands for teaching and shows weaknesses regarding its construction(e.g., missing obstacle, future tense) [34,41,42].

In summary, we can conclude a focus of previous research about self-efficacy beliefsof teaching ESD on pre-service primary teachers ([14,37,39,43–45]; see Table 1). Indeed, theEnvironmental and General Science Teacher Efficacy Assessment (EGSTEA) was tested withhigh and middle school science in-service teachers [38], and the Teachers Self-Efficacy Scalefor Education for Sustainable Development (TSESESD) was tested with in-service secondaryteachers [14,46]. However, the instruments were developed for primary education [14,38,45],and no adaptations to the new target groups are reported [14,38,46]. In addition, someinstruments have rather few items (e.g., four items) and, thus, little explanatory power interms of a differentiated investigation of self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD [43]. Noneof the provided instruments explicitly includes obstacles [14,37–40,43,45] as demanded byBandura [15,23].

Another key feature of self-efficacy beliefs instruments is their multidimensionalnature [15]. It can be considered by applying a model of teaching ESD (or adapted to ESD)as the base of the instrument development (i.e., theory-driven; cf. for science [34]). Suchan approach allows for a more detailed view on the learning prerequisites of prospectiveteachers regarding different aspects of their self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD. Onlyone of the identified instruments integrated a model for the instrument development [45].Malandrakis et al. [45] included four domains of ESD competencies for teachers defined bySleurs [47]: ethics and values, emotions, action, and systems thinking.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 4 of 32

Table 1. Instruments measuring self-efficacy beliefs of teaching Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and related contexts (e.g., environmental education).“Author(s), Instrument” presents the author(s) of the instrument, the instrument’s full name, and possible abbreviations. “Based on or modified from STEBI A/B”indicates whether the instrument is derived from the STEBI-A [35] or -B [36]. “Characteristics” indicates the sample size and the number of items, and shows differentpsychometric features of the instruments and their development. None of the instruments integrates an (explicit) obstacle, as recommended by Bandura [15,23].

Author(s), Instrument Target Group Based on or Modified fromSTEBI-A/B Characteristics

Sia [37]Environmental Education

Efficacy Belief Instrument (EEEBI)Pre-service elementary teachers x

Two Samples: n = 21 and n = 19One factor: Personal EE (Environmental Education)

Teaching Efficacy Belief Scale13 Items

Measurement: 5-point Likert scale, positive and negativeitems

Analysis: -α = “yet to be determined” (p. 5)

Taylor [40]; Moseley &Taylor [38]

Environmental and General Science TeacherEfficacy Assessment (EGSTEA)

Sample contains in-service high and middleschool science teachers, but the underlying

instruments focus more on primary education(EEEBI, STEBI)

x

n = 40One factor: PTE (personal teacher efficacy) for

environmental science13 Items

Measurement: 5-point Likert scale, positive and negativeitems

Analysis: ANOVAα = 0.96

Effeney & Davis [43] according to Boon [44] Pre-service primary teachers

n = 266One factor: Self-efficacy for EfS (Education for

Sustainability)4 Items

Measurement: 5-point Likert scale, positive and negativeitems

Analysis: Principal Component Analysis (KMO = 0.67,Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significant, 46% explained

variance by two factors)α = 0.71

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 5 of 32

Table 1. Cont.

Author(s), Instrument Target Group Based on or Modified fromSTEBI-A/B Characteristics

Moseley, Utley, Angle & Mwavita [39]Environmental Education Teaching Efficacy Belief

Instrument (EETEBI)Pre-service elementary teachers x

n = 255One factor: Personal environmental education

teaching efficacy (PEETE)13 Items

Measurement: 6-point Likert scale, positive andnegative items

Analysis: Principal component analysis (KMO =0.88, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significant, 50.5%

explained variance by two factors)α = 0.92

Malandrakis, Papadopoulou, Gavrilakis &Mogias [14,45];

Mogias, Malandrakis, Papadopoulou &Gavrilakis [46]

Teachers Self-Efficacy Scale for Education forSustainable Development (TSESESD)

Pre-service primary (and early childhood)teachers

(Tested with secondary in-service teacherswithout adaptation of the

instrument [14,46])

N (2016) = 305N (2019) = 924 (804 primary school, 120 early

childhood), in addition for validation: 88 in-serviceprimary teachers

N (2021) = 267 in-service secondary teachersFour factors:

(a) Values and ethics,(b) Systems thinking,

(c) Emotions and feelings,(d) Actions

24 ItemsMeasurement: 7-point Likert scale, positive itemsAnalysis: Principal Component Analysis (KMO =0.96, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significant, 72.58%

explained variance by four factors)α (2016) = 0.93–0.95,α (2019) = 0.85–0.94,α (2021) = 0.89–0.96

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 6 of 32

Nearly all items of Malandrakis et al. [14] focus on pre-service teachers’ beliefs ofbeing able to develop different abilities of students. Thus, the instrument focuses on theoutcome of the teachers’ students. If at all, the instrument implicitly integrates what has tobe done by the teacher regarding ESD. The subdomains rather seem to focus on teachers’self-efficacy beliefs to develop students’ general ESD competencies—an important aspect aswell—but not specifically for the teaching of ESD. However, specific instructional strategies,evaluation, or fostering competencies are not integrated into the instrument.

In sum, no instrument for measuring self-efficacy beliefs of ESD seems to exist thatrepresents current demands, focuses on secondary education, includes obstacles in theitems, and is theory-driven (regarding teaching) at the same time. The instrument of Ma-landrakis et al. [14,45] meets some of these requirements. However, the original focus doesnot seem to be on secondary education, the obstacles are missing, and the theory-driveninstrument lacks some central aspects of teaching. In addition, none of the mentionedinstruments contains more than 24 items or four factors, and most contain many feweritems and only one factor (see Table 1). Thus, a broad representation of the requirements ofteaching ESD does not appear to be given and makes a differentiated diagnosis of learningprerequisites difficult.

1.4. Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Self-Rated Content Knowledge, and Teacher Education

Considering the relations of self-efficacy beliefs with other constructs, self-rated con-tent knowledge plays an important role. For example, self-rated content knowledge inscience (subjects) relates to self-efficacy beliefs of teaching interdisciplinary science inprimary and secondary education [48–50]. Researchers uncovered correlations betweenboth constructs [48,50] and differences in self-efficacy beliefs between groups of differentself-rated content knowledge in science (better self-rated content knowledge = higherself-efficacy beliefs) [49].

Focusing on self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD, similar results emerge: For example,Malandrakis et al. [14,45] identified substantial correlations between self-efficacy beliefsof teaching ESD (primary education, pre-service) and self-rated content knowledge ofESD concepts and issues (r = 0.39–0.53, p < 0.01 [45]; r = 0.47–0.59, p < 0.01 [14]). Mogiaset al. [46] found comparable results with in-service secondary school teachers (r = 0.39–0.58,p < 0.01). Effeney and Davis [43] investigated the correlation between self-efficacy beliefsof teaching ESD (primary education, pre-service) and self-rated content knowledge ofsustainability issues. Comparable to Malandrakis et al. [14,45], they identified a significantcorrelation as well, but much smaller: r = 0.22, p < 0.01 [43]. Hansen and Sillasen [51] alsofound a positive relationship between pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs ofteaching ESD and perceived knowledge of sustainability issues, but much stronger (r = 0.69,p < 0.01).

Self-efficacy beliefs can be fostered by direct experiences, indirect experiences, orverbal persuasion [15]. How self-efficacy beliefs develop during teacher education isof interest [52]. For example, more direct experiences with ongoing teacher educationshould result in higher self-efficacy beliefs (cf. for interdisciplinary science teaching: [49]medium to large effects). In addition, ESD seems to be most integrated into Germansecondary schools in biology, politics, and geography [53], possibly affecting teacher ed-ucation. Furthermore, the effect of single courses is of interest. For example, teachereducation courses at university resulted in higher self-efficacy beliefs of teaching science(η = 0.8, [54,55]). One ESD course positively influenced pre-service teachers’ beliefs, at-titudes, and norms related to SD [11], indicating possibly similar effects for ESD. Evanset al. [56] showed in a quasi-experimental design that ESD courses have a positive influ-ence on (early childhood, primary, middle school) pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefsof teaching ESD (main effect for time, partial η2 = 0.42). These results complement theassumption regarding the positive effects of teacher education on self-efficacy beliefs on amore specific level.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 7 of 32

1.5. Research Questions and Hypotheses

The analysis of previous instruments revealed that no instrument for self-efficacybeliefs of teaching ESD integrates current requirements, focuses on secondary education,explicitly considers obstacles in the items, and is based on a model regarding teachingESD at the same time. Among these instruments, one seems to be theory-driven [14,45,46]but does not focus on the act of teaching ESD explicitly. Thus, there was a need for a newinstrument developed close to the requirements of teaching ESD (PCK model [30]). It shouldallow the differentiated diagnosis of prospective teachers’ learning prerequisites regardingthe self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD. One aim of the instrument development was theinvestigation of factorial validity. This aim resulted in the following research question:

Research Question 1. Which self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD factors support the subcategoriesof the PCK model empirically?

In addition to examining the factorial structure of the new instrument, we focused onan often-considered construct in connection with the self-efficacy beliefs: self-rated contentknowledge. Different researchers regarding teaching science (primary and secondaryeducation) revealed a relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and self-rated contentknowledge [48–50]. In the field of teaching ESD in primary and secondary education(pre- and in-service teachers), five studies pointed out positive correlations of differentstrengths between both constructs [14,43,45,46,51]. Since both constructs are different froma theoretical perspective, we expect rather low or middle positive correlations between bothconstructs in the context of secondary education. Thus, the following hypothesis examinesthe divergent validity of the interpretation of the new instruments’ test values [57]:

Hypothesis 1. The self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD are positively correlated with self-ratedcontent knowledge of SD-relevant issues (low or middle effect size).

In addition to the instrument development, the absolute values of the prospectiveteachers’ self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD are of interest. We want to know if theirself-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD are rather positive or negative on the different factorsand how these self-efficacy beliefs differ according to their teacher education so far. Thus,we derive the following research question, additionally specified by the following researchquestion and hypotheses:

Research Question 2. What self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD do prospective teachers have?

First, we want to investigate the self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD differentiated bythe subject studied. We focus on the subjects that seem to contain ESD the most in Germansecondary schools: biology, politics, and geography [53]. With this research question, wewant to gain deeper insight into the development of the self-efficacy beliefs of teachingESD. Thus, we derive the following research question:

Research Question 2a. To what extent do self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD differ among biology,politics, and geography pre-service teachers?

To further investigate the development of self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD, thedifference between pre-service teachers in the Bachelor and Master of Education is ofinterest. With ongoing teacher education, pre-service teachers should make more directexperience in teaching ESD, resulting in higher self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD (cf. forteaching science: [49]). This should be especially valid for pre-service teachers in biology,politics, and geography since ESD seems to be integrated the most in these subjects inGerman secondary schools [53]. Thus, the following hypothesis focuses on the differencebetween Bachelor and Master of Education:

Hypothesis 2. Pre-service teachers in the Master of Education have higher self-efficacy beliefs ofteaching ESD than those in the Bachelor.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 8 of 32

Supplementary to Hypothesis 2, we want to know the influence of participating inat least one ESD course on ESD teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Regarding science teaching,courses in teacher education showed positive effects on the self-efficacy beliefs of scienceteaching [54,55]. Such effects can be expected for ESD as well. For example, ESD courseshave already shown a positive effect on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs of teachingESD for primary, early childhood, and middle school education [56]. Transferring to ESDin secondary education and specifying Hypothesis 2 by focusing on the participation inESD courses, we derive the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3. Pre-service teachers currently participating in at least one ESD course have higherself-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD than those not participating in any ESD course.

2. Materials and Methods2.1. Sample

For instrument development, two samples were used (Table 2). We used the firstsample (n = 162) for exploratory purposes (data collection: July to August 2017). Themajority of the test persons were in the Bachelor (n = 78) and the Master of Education(n = 51). Some test persons finished their studies recently (n = 7), and a few were traineeteachers for secondary education (n =8). The sample contained 90 pre-service teachers and8 trainee teachers intending to teach in secondary education, and 54 pre-service teacherspreparing to teach in other school types (e.g., vocational school or not specified at the time ofthe study). Ten participants were not enrolled in their teaching-specific studies at that time.In German secondary schools, ESD seems to be integrated the most in geography, politics,and biology [53]. Thus, pre-service teachers studying biology, politics, or geography werefocused on in both samples. Due to the exploratory approach of sample 1, pre-serviceteachers studying other subjects of interest for ESD (e.g., religion, philosophy, chemistry,history, physics) were included in the sample as well (n = 39). We used sample 1 toinvestigate Research Questions 1 and 2.

Table 2. Description of the two samples of this study. Differences to 100% of the sample are causedby missing values.

Sample 1 (n = 162) Sample 2 (n = 236)

Variable Absolute Value Relative Value Absolute Value Relative Value

SexFemale 94 58.0% 171 72.5%Male 64 39.5% 61 25.8%

Federal StateLower Saxony 110 67.9% 150 63.6%

Others 52 32.1% 86 36.4%Phase of TeacherEducation

Bachelor 78 48.1% 123 52.1%Master of Education 51 31.5% 112 47.5%State Examination 9 5.6% - -Finished studies 7 4.3% - -

Type of SchoolGrammar &

ComprehensiveSchool

98 60.5% 236 100%

Others 54 33.3% - -Subject

Biology 44 27.2% 131 55.5%Politics 42 25.9% 21 8.9%

Geography 30 18.5% 60 25.4%

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 9 of 32

Table 2. Cont.

Biology & Politics 3 1.9% 2 0.8%Biology &

Geography 3 1.9% 21 8.9%

Politics &Geography - - 1 0.4%

Others 39 24.1% - -

The second sample (n = 236) had a different purpose (October 2018 to May 2019). Thesample compilation followed a confirmatory approach for a specific target group (cf. [58]).Thus, only pre-service teachers in the Bachelor and Master of Education studying to teachat a grammar or comprehensive school were considered. Every participant studied at leastone of the subjects biology, politics, and geography. Thus, we used sample 2 to investigateResearch Questions 1, 2, and 2a as well as Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3.

We asked the test persons in the second sample to indicate how many ESD coursesthey currently participated in and how many ESD courses they had completed in theirstudies. Richter-Beuschel and Bögeholz [58] already presented the means of the number ofcompleted ESD courses at the time of the study differentiated by Bachelor/Master and thestudied subject, e.g., Bachelor: 0.76 and Master of Education: 1.5. In this paper, we presentthe frequencies of the completed ESD courses at the time of the study and the frequenciesof the ESD courses currently participated in. The following Tables 3 and 4 differentiatethese statements by studied subject and pre-service teachers’ phase of teacher education.

Table 3 shows that the majority of pre-service biology and politics teachers did notcomplete any ESD courses at that time. In addition, 100 of 115 pre-service biology teachersparticipated in no ESD course at the time of the study. Only a few pre-service politicsteachers completed such an ESD courses or participated in one at the time of the study.Most ESD courses (as a percentage) were completed and participated in by pre-servicegeography teachers and pre-service geography and biology teachers. However, even thesepre-service teachers barely completed or participated in more than three ESD courses.

Table 4 shows that 81 of 113 Bachelor students never completed an ESD course at thetime of the study. Even 39 of the 109 Master of Education students never completed suchan ESD course at that time. In addition, the majority did not attend such an ESD courseat the time of the study (76 Bachelor, 72 Master of Education). There are Bachelor andMaster of Education students who completed or participated in ESD courses. However,few completed more than three ESD courses in total.

Table 3. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) courses participated in and completeddifferentiated by the studied subject (sample 2). The number of ESD courses (e.g., 1.5) wasgiven by the test persons and taken over like this. par = ESD courses currently participated in,com = completed ESD courses in their studies at that time.

Number of ESD Courses

Biology(n = 115/120)

Politics(n = 21)

Geography(n = 58)

Biology & Geography(n = 20)

par com par com par com par com

0 100 66 18 16 21 29 7 71 9 23 3 2 20 9 8 2

1.5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 02 4 16 0 2 13 7 4 43 2 11 0 0 2 8 0 1

4–6 0 1 0 1 1 5 0 57–10 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1

11–14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 10 of 32

Table 4. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) courses participated in and completeddifferentiated by the phase of teacher education (sample 2). The number of ESD courses (e.g., 1.5)was given by the test persons and taken over thus. par = ESD courses currently participated in, com= completed ESD courses in their studies at that time.

Number of ESD Courses

Bachelor(n = 111/113)

Master of Education(n = 106/109)

par com par com

0 76 81 72 391 17 10 24 26

1.5 0 0 1 02 14 11 7 183 2 4 2 17

4–6 1 5 0 77–10 0 2 0 2

11–14 1 0 0 0

2.2. Instruments2.2.1. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Teaching ESD in Secondary Education

Based on our analysis of previous research, we identified the need for a new instrumentto measure self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD in secondary education. The new instrumentwas designed by Rosenbaum, Handtke, Richter-Beuschel, Grieger, and Bögeholz [29].The instrument development described in this chapter is also documented in detail (butunpublished) by Rosenbaum [29]. Figure 1 shows a flowchart concerning the developmentof the new instrument.

Figure 1. Development of the new instrument regarding self-efficacy beliefs of teaching Educationfor Sustainable Development (ESD; SD = Sustainable Development). Pedagogical content knowledge(PCK) model for teaching science: [30]. Instrument regarding self-rated content knowledge of SD-relevant issues: [59].

Based on the pentagon model of PCK for teaching science [30], we identified corre-sponding contents for teaching ESD. Out of the five categories of the pentagon model [30],four categories were used. Comparable to Handtke and Bögeholz [34], the category Orien-tation to Teaching Science was not applied because this category does not include learn-ablecompetencies. Thus, it does not allow to formulate a demanding situation [34] as de-manded by Bandura [15,23]. One important aspect of ESD has to be explained in thiscontext: Gestaltungskompetenz (shaping competence). De Haan [60] (p. 320) explains thisconstruct as follows:

“Gestaltungskompetenz means the specific capacity to act and solve problems. Thosewho possess this competence can help, through active participation, to modify and shape

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 11 of 32

the future of society, and to guide its social, economic, technological and ecological changesalong the lines of sustainable development.”

The twelve subcategories of the four categories of the PCK model for teaching sci-ence [30] were summarized and transferred to eight subcategories regarding teaching ESDin Table 5.

We used research literature (e.g., [61]) as well as several subject-specific and interdis-ciplinary normative guidelines for students and teachers (e.g., [62–64]) to specify theseeight subcategories of PCK specific for ESD in secondary education. In a second step, theseESD-specific PCK of secondary education was operationalized for self-efficacy beliefs. Forthis purpose, we transformed the ESD-specific PCK into actions when teaching ESD insecondary education. These actions were all introduced with “Even in teaching Educationfor Sustainable Development, I can . . . ”. This approach assured important features ofself-efficacy beliefs: the focus on their present capabilities, the integration of a standardizedobstacle (teaching ESD), and the multidimensionality [15] by the different subcategories.Specific and different obstacles for each item would result in multiple obstacles. TeachingESD is already difficult because this teaching task cannot be studied as a specific subjectin Germany.

Every subcategory contained at least four items, 50 in total. As previously done bydifferent researchers (e.g., [34,65]), the items were rated on the four-point Likert scaleconsisting of “Is not right” (1), “Is a little right” (2), “Is rather right” (3), and “Is exactlyright” (4). We explained possibly unknown technical terms in the items with footnotes.This should ensure that the instrument measures self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD andnot knowledge of technical terms. The 50 items developed in this way were used as thestarting point with sample 1.

Table 5. Transfer of the subcategories of the original pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) modelfor teaching science by Park and Chen [30] to teaching Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).Rosenbaum [29] contributed to this model transfer in German.

Subcategory of PCK (Original) Subcategory of PCK(Transferred to ESD)

Misconception Learning DifficultiesLearning Difficulties

NeedNeed

Motivation & Interest

Curriculum Materials Curriculum Materials

Vertical CurriculumCurricular Demands

Horizontal Curriculum

Dimensions of Science Learning to Assess Dimensions of Gestaltungskompetenz to Assess

Methods of Assessing Science Learning Methods of Assessing ESD Learning

Subject-specific Strategies Subject/ESD-specific Strategiesand ActivitiesActivities

Representations Representations

2.2.2. Additional Instruments

In the context of the second study, we used an additional validation instrument ofRichter-Beuschel and Bögeholz [59] to consider self-rated content knowledge of SD-relevantissues. They defined 13 topics regarding SD-relevant issues to rate [59]. Important aspectsof biodiversity and climate change were focused on (e.g., genetic diversity or sustainableland use) [59]. The rating scale ranged from one to five, comparable with grades in school.One indicated “very good”, two “good”, three “satisfactory”, four “sufficient”, and five“insufficient” (cf. [59]). Thus, the greater values indicate a worse self-rating than smaller

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 12 of 32

values. In addition, we asked the test persons to indicate how many ESD courses theycurrently participate in (without completed examination) and how many ESD courses theyhave completed in their studies (with completed examination; see sample description)(cf. [58,59]).

2.2.3. Procedure

We applied the newly developed instrument in two studies. In both studies, it wasthe last instrument to fill out, besides the instruments of other projects. In the first study,a part of the participants received a payment. In the second study, all participants werepaid equally.

2.3. Analysis

One aim of the paper is to identify the factors that constitute the self-efficacy beliefsof teaching ESD. The theory of the pentagon model [30] originally focused on scienceteaching. Thus, we did not assume a very strong theoretical basis in the context of teachingESD and applied exploratory factor analysis to generate an initial hypothesis about thefactorial structure [66]. The generated model must then be checked with a confirmatoryfactor analysis using a new sample [67,68]. We used IBM SPSS Statistics 24 (Armonk, NY,USA) and RStudio (1.3.1093; Boston, MA, USA) with the packages lavaan (0.6–3) [69], ggplot2(3.3.5) [70], and tidyr (1.2.0) [71].

Regarding the exploratory factor analysis, our sample was sufficient, according toBühner [72]. The prerequisites of the exploratory factor analysis, such as the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value (KMO) and the Bartlett’s Test [73], have to be checked. We applied the principalfactor analysis to extract latent factors [67]. The maximum-likelihood method would need anormal distribution that is not fulfilled in this sample [74]. We applied the Kaiser-Guttmancriterion (i.e., eigenvalues greater than one; [75–77]) to identify the number of factors. Weconsidered the scree plot less helpful due to the subjective interpretation [72]. In addition,the scree plot indicated one strong factor, but this would be against the theory of self-efficacy beliefs as a multidimensional construct [15]. We allowed correlations betweenthe factors with the oblique rotation oblimin direct [68] because the pentagon modelindicates such relations [30]. We applied a pairwise deletion. We assumed loadings ≥ 0.3 asappropriate [73], but we allowed considerations of items with a loading under 0.3 based onthe content of the items [72]. We reran the exploratory factor analysis every time we removedat least one item [73]. The data were handled as metric due to the exploratory approach.

The second and larger sample allowed a confirmatory factor analysis [78] and a morerigorous ordinal data computation. We used a WLSMV estimator for our ordinal, non-normaldata [79]. We used pairwise deletion [69] because very few values were missing (232 of236 persons answered all items). According to Little [78] and Wheaton et al. [80], we used thefollowing values as lower boundary: χ2/df ≤ 5, CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.10.

To investigate Hypothesis 1, we computed one latent factor for self-rated contentknowledge of SD-relevant issues in the confirmatory factor analysis. This factor consistedof all 13 self-rated content knowledge items. By specifying this factor and the self-efficacybeliefs of teaching ESD, lavaan automatically calculated the correlations of the self-ratedcontent knowledge of SD-relevant issues with the factors of self-efficacy beliefs of teachingESD. We used RStudio with the package cocor (1.1–3) [81] to compare correlations.

In the context of Research Question 2, we used an independent t-test. Kubingeret al. [82] recommend using the Welch test (unequal variances) due to its robustnesswithout any normal distribution test for samples from a value of at least 30. To avoid alphaerror accumulation, we used the Bonferroni correction [83] for the Welch test. RegardingHypothesis 2 and 3, we used structural equation modeling in lavaan with one dummy-coded variable each: (i) Bachelor (0) and Master of Education (1), and (ii) currently notparticipating in at least one ESD course (0), and currently participating in such a course (1).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 13 of 32

3. Results3.1. Research Question 1: Factorial Structure of the Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Teaching ESD

The final exploratory factor analysis contained 35 out of the 50 items and eight fac-tors with an eigenvalue greater than one. The final model resulted after 11 runs of theexploratory factor analysis. These 11 runs were necessary due to the removal of items forseveral reasons (loadings < 0.3 and content-related decisions).

A KMO value of 0.88 in the final exploratory factor analysis confirmed the adequacyof our sample. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant, χ2 (595) = 2618.37, p < 0.01 [73].The eight factors explained 51.92% of the variance in combination after extraction. Table 6shows the items of the eight factors after rotation and their loadings in the final exploratoryfactor analysis. Cronbach’s Alphas of the factors are acceptable; they range from 0.68 to0.85 in the first sample. One item (item 34) had the same loading on two factors (Table 6).Due to the item’s content, we assigned it to factor 8. Factor 8 contains Teaching EthicallyRelevant Issues of ESD. In addition, item 34, focusing on horizontal fostering of handlingwith dilemmatic situations, is a counterpart to the vertical fostering of handling withdilemmatic situations (item 32). Thus, both items complement each other in factor 8.

After we identified the eight-factor solution of the self-efficacy beliefs of teachingESD from the results of the exploratory factor analysis, the next task was to test this factorstructure with confirmatory factor analysis. The model with eight factors showed anacceptable fit (n = 236): Ratio = 1.65; CFI = 0.89; TLI = 0.88; RMSEA = 0.05 [90% confidenceinterval: 0.05–0.06]. However, the intercorrelation of factors 1 and 8 was r = 1.14 and, thus,greater than 1. Since this is not possible, at least one of the two factors had to be removed.Table 7 shows the fit of a confirmatory factor analysis without factor 1 and a confirmatoryfactor analysis without factor 8.

Both confirmatory factor analyses show a nearly identical fit. Thus, we made thedecision due to content-related reasons (Lünemann [84] documented and contributed tothis decision). Factor 1, on the one hand, contained items focusing on generic competencies,and on the other hand, items focusing on Gestaltungskompetenz that are also included infactor 4. Factor 8 includes the ESD central competence of socioscientific decision-making.Thus, factor 1, especially with the generic items, was rather dispensable. Consequently, wechose the model without factor 1. This model has a good fit, as shown in Table 7. Table S1(Supplementary Material) shows the loadings of the items on the seven factors.

Therefore, the hypothetical model was confirmed, except for the rather dispensablefactor 1. Table 8 presents the factors identified in the exploratory factor analysis (includingthe factors confirmed in the confirmatory factor analysis), their corresponding subcategoriesof the PCK model [30], and the Cronbach’s Alphas for all factors in both samples (exceptionfor confirmatory factor analysis: Fostering Gestaltungskompetenz and Generic Competence).

All factors at least contained three items. Cronbach’s Alphas ranged from 0.68 to0.85 in the first sample (exploratory factor analysis) and 0.59 to 0.77 in the second sample(confirmatory factor analysis). In the first sample, Cronbach’s Alphas of all factors areabove (or almost above 0.7) and, thus, acceptable [57,73]. In the second sample, Cronbach’sAlphas of all factors are worse than in the first sample.

The confirmatory factor analysis revealed seven self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESDfactors (Table 8). All eight subcategories from Park and Chen [30] summarized and trans-ferred to ESD are represented by the seven factors, albeit to varying degrees. Six of thesefactors can be directly assigned to one or multiple subdimensions of the transferred modelfrom Park and Chen [30]. The seventh factor, Teaching Ethically Relevant Issues of ESD, didnot exist in this form in the model from Park and Chen [30]. It emerged as a new factorconsisting of three different subcategories.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 14 of 32

Table 6. Pattern matrix of the exploratory factor analysis (n = 162). Eight factors emerged from the final exploratory factor analysis. Factor loadings greater than0.25 are displayed. The bold loadings represent the final assignment to the factors. “Item” presents the wordings of all items. All items had the same stem at thebeginning: “Even in teaching Education for Sustainable Development, I can . . . ”. ESD = ESD-specific, G = generic. We explained possibly unknown technical termsin the items with footnotes (in this table directly below the corresponding item with superscript numbers). The formatting of the items (bold, underlined, italics)corresponds to that of the original questionnaire. The table includes contributions by Rosenbaum [29], translated into English.

Item: “Even in teaching Education for Sustainable Development, I can . . . ” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Factor 1: Fostering Gestaltungskompetenz and Generic Competence (ESD/G)

1 . . . foster Gestaltungskompetenz 1 cumulatively 2 and systematically 3

over the course of a single teaching unit.1 Gestaltungskompetenz describes the capability to actively modify and model the society in whichone lives in terms of Sustainable Development—taking into account economic, ecological, cultural,and social aspects. The competence area comprises twelve sub-competencies.2 Being able to connect content over the course of a single and future teaching units.3 Fostering competencies in a research-based manner by using competence models and methods.

0.73

2 . . . foster Gestaltungskompetenz cumulatively 4 and systematicallyover the course of several school years.4 Being able to connect content from past and future school years.

0.63

3 . . . improve students’ generic 5 competencies cumulatively and systematicallyover the course of several school years (e.g., problem-solving competence, presentationcompetence, democracy competence, and social competence).5 Competencies that are not subject-specific and relevant to all subjects.

0.48 −0.25

4 . . . improve students’ generic competencies cumulatively and systematicallyover the course of a single teaching unit (e.g., problem-solving competence, presentationcompetence, democracy competence, and social competence).

0.45 0.26

Factor 2: Including ESD-specific Instructional Strategies under Consideration of Students’ Motivation (ESD)

5 . . . integrate cooperative and activating forms of learning to increase self-organized learning(project works, future workshops 6, planning cells 7, Open Space 8).6 A future workshop is a method in which all participants are experts. The aim is to find solutions tocommonly identified problems. For this purpose, three phases are run through: criticism, fantasy,and realization phase (Preußer, 2007b, pp. 3–6).7 In a planning cell, people representing diverse opinions and interests are brought together atrandom to develop possible solutions to a given problem (Preußer, 2007b, pp. 3–6).8 Open Space is a method that enables a discussion process or a creative exchange on a voluntarybasis (Preußer, 2007b, pp. 3–6).

0.69

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 15 of 32

Table 6. Cont.

6 . . . include planning games (e.g., Water for Ganurbia9, World Climate Conference 9, ClimateChange in Court 9).9 Here, the students take on different roles (representatives from politics, economy, science, andNGOs), deepen unsustainable developments in discussions and develop possible solutions (Preußer,2007a, pp. 9–12).

0.68

7 . . . conceptualize interdisciplinary projects (e.g., biology and art: nature photography exhibitionabout forests; natural sciences, geography, and German: debate club on the topic “sustainableresource use”).

0.66

8 . . . integrate extracurricular partners to include different perspectives in systematic socioscientificdecision-making (e.g., experts from politics, the economy, science, and NGOs 10).10 Non-governmental organizations, such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International.

0.59

9 . . . create participation opportunities for students (e.g., by running a student company 11).11 A student company is a company run by students on their own responsibility. In contrast to asimulation, the students participate in the real market situation (KMK & BMZ, 2016, p. 61).

0.51

10 . . . improve students’ motivation by participating in school and society (e.g., organize a schoolevent with the sale of fair-trade products). 0.47

11 . . . improve students’ motivation by participating in competitions and campaigns on SustainableDevelopment (e.g., Transfer-21-Schule 12, Internationale Agenda-21-Schule 12, Umweltschule Europa 12).12 The “Umweltschule Europa”, “Internationale Agenda-21-Schule”, and “Transfer-21-Schule” awards areconferred to schools for excellent achievements in developing sustainability processes in andoutside the school area (BLK, 2005, pp. 13–14).

0.44

Factor 3: Using ESD-specific Educational Resources for School (ESD)12 . . . use journals and materials for teachers when planning lessons (e.g., Unterricht Biologie,

Praxis Geographie). 0.76

13 . . . consider textbooks’ materials and tasks (e.g., Projekt G Gesellschaftslehre, PrismaNaturwissenschaften) when planning lessons. 0.58

14 . . . integrate current didactical approaches from textbooks of the didactics (e.g., Fachdidaktik Biologie,Geographiedidaktik, Politik-Didaktik). 0.42

Factor 4: Surveying Dimensions of Gestaltungskompetenz (ESD)15 . . . survey students’ ability to show solidarity, to change perspective, and to empathize with

humans and the environment. 0.70

16 . . . survey students’ conceptions about justice and sustainability, which legitimize their social andethical actions. 0.61 −0.27

17 . . . survey students’ willingness to motivate themselves and others for topics ofSustainable Development. 0.58

18 . . . survey students’ private, social, and political participation in realizing SustainableDevelopment Goals. 0.47

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 16 of 32

Table 6. Cont.

19 . . . survey students’ critical reflection on their own or foreign value benchmarks in the solution ofdilemmatic decision-making situations. 0.39 −0.29

20 . . . survey students’ interdisciplinary scientific inquiry of solving tasks of Gestaltungskompetenz. 0.30Factor 5: Applying Methods of Evaluation (ESD/G)

21 . . . appropriately select suitable methodical procedures by weighing the advantages anddisadvantages of formative and summative evaluation procedures. 0.60

22 . . . apply methods for summative evaluation 13 (e.g., exam to review performance).13 Evaluation of effects.

0.58

23 . . . analyze students’ abilities based on competence models (e.g., model for decision-making 14,sustainability triangle/quad 15).14 A model that describes three requirements of ESD in the context of socioscientificdecision-making: ‘Generating and Reflecting on Factual Information’, ‘Evaluation, Choice, andReflection’, and ‘Understanding and Reflecting on Values and Norms’ (Bögeholz, 2013, p. 75).15 Describes the three (social, economic, ecological) or four (plus cultural) dimensions of ESD, whichshould be considered for a solution to socioscientific issues (KMK & BMZ, 2016, p. 41).

0.52 0.27

24 . . . use methods for formative evaluation 16 (e.g., climate change concept map, questionnaire tosurvey everyday concepts on globalization).16 Supporting the learning process.

0.49

25 . . . create tasks relating to the three requirement areas 17 using operators appropriate tothe situation.17 Requirement area I: “Reproduction”; Requirement area II: “Reorganization and Transfer”;Requirement area III: “Reflection, Evaluation, and Problem-Solving”.

0.49

Factor 6: Applying Media (G)26 . . . use the (interactive) whiteboard, beamer, and document camera as a medium to present (e.g., to

visualize teaching materials and teaching subjects in students’ presentations). −0.89

27 . . . incorporate tablets, smartphones, and computers (e.g., apps to execute research 18, take upextracurricular expertises in the form of blogs, simulation games).18 One example is the app “Get-neutral”, which can be used to scan different everyday products fortheir carbon footprint. In that way, students can research and assess whether they live sustainably(Rat für Nachhaltige Entwicklung, 2017).

−0.65

28 . . . use the blackboard and the overhead projector to present charts (e.g., concept maps on climatechange, flowchart on CO2 emissions). −0.45

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 17 of 32

Table 6. Cont.

Factor 7: Using ESD-specific Materials of the Research (ESD)29 . . . consider the guidelines of the Cross-Curricular Framework for Global Development Education

when planning lessons. 0.55

30 . . . integrate materials of subject-specific programs (e. g., BLK 21 19, Transfer-21 20, Eine Welt in derSchule 21) when planning lessons.19 The aim of the program of the Bund-Länder-Kommission (BLK) was to enshrine ESD in regularschool practice as a follow-up to “Agenda 21” (BLK, 2005, p.7).20 Follow-up program of the BLK 21 program.21 Bremen-based lessons development project regarding the learning areas “Global Learning” and“Global Development”.

0.54

31 . . . take into account recent research findings when planning lessons (e. g., from journals such asthe Journal of Geography, International Journal of Environmental and Science Education; fromPISA studies).

0.29

Factor 8: Teaching Ethically Relevant Issues of ESD (ESD)32 . . . foster students’ handling of dilemmatic situations in the context of socioscientific

decision-making competence 22, respectively political judgment competence and capacity forpolitical action 23 cumulatively and systematically over the course of several school years.22 Socioscientific decision-making is an area of competence to be fostered in science subjects.23 Political judgment competence and capacity for political action are areas of competence in thesocial sciences.

0.27 −0.67

33 . . . consider students’ difficulties with judging dilemmatic situations (e. g., not certified fishing andcultivation of cotton, roses, and coffee beans). 0.27 −0.43

34 . . . foster students’ handling of dilemmatic situations in the context of socioscientificdecision-making competence, respectively political judgment competence and capacity for politicalaction cumulatively and systematically over the course of a single teaching unit.

0.40 −0.40

35 . . . survey students’ ability to analyze and anticipate unsustainable developments and theirglobal risks. 0.30 −0.37

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 18 of 32

Table 7. Confirmatory factor analyses of the self-efficacy beliefs of teaching Education for SustainableDevelopment (ESD) without factor 1 and without factor 8 (n = 236). An additional decimal placeincreases the comparability of the fit indices of the confirmatory factor analyses. The table includesunpublished results documented by Lünemann [84] and computed by Handtke.

Factor Removed Ratio CFI TLI RMSEA

1 1.49 0.916 0.906 0.045[0.038–0.053]

8 1.51 0.915 0.904 0.046[0.039–0.054]

Table 8. Factors of the self-efficacy beliefs of teaching Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)instrument sorted by eigenvalues. The first factor was excluded in the confirmatory factor analysis.Thus, there are no values for sample 2. Names of the factors, corresponding subcategories of thepedagogical content knowledge (PCK) model [30], n = number of items, α = Cronbach’s Alpha,1 = sample with n = 162 and exploratory factor analysis, 2 = sample with n = 236 and confirma-tory factor analysis. ESD = ESD-specific, G = generic. The table includes unpublished results byLünemann [84].

Self-Efficacy Factor Subcategory of PCK(Transferred to ESD) n α1 α2

Fostering Gestaltungskompetenz and GenericCompetence (ESD/G) (excluded after

confirmatory factor analysis)Curricular Demands 4 0.84 -

Including ESD-specific Instructional Strategiesunder Consideration of Students’

Motivation (ESD)

Subject/ESD-specificStrategies

and Activities + Need7 0.85 0.77

Using ESD-specific Educational Resources forSchool (ESD) Curriculum Materials 3 0.77 0.69

Surveying Dimensions ofGestaltungskompetenz (ESD)

Dimensions of Gestaltungs-kompetenz to Assess 6 0.79 0.74

Applying Methods of Evaluation (ESD/G) Methods of AssessingESD Learning 5 0.78 0.75

Applying Media (G) Representations 3 0.73 0.64

Using ESD-specific Materialsof the Research (ESD) Curriculum Materials 3 0.68 0.65

Teaching Ethically RelevantIssues of ESD (ESD)

New (=LearningDifficulties,

Curricular Demands,Dimensions of

Gestaltungskompetenz toAssess)

4 0.79 0.59

Some of the factors seemed to be more specific for ESD than others. This is notsurprising since, e.g., evaluation methods are used in every subject. The factors FosteringGestaltungskompetenz and Generic Competence and Applying Methods of Evaluation are partlygeneric and partly ESD-specific. The factor Applying Media is generic since it only containeda few ESD-specific examples but no ESD-specific competence model (factor 5) or ESD-specific Gestaltungskompetenz (factor 1).

3.2. Hypothesis 1: Correlation of the ESD-Teaching Self-Efficacy Beliefs with Self-Rated ContentKnowledge of SD-Relevant Issues

In addition to investigating factorial validity, we analyzed the divergent validity ofthe instruments’ test value interpretation. We examined the correlation between the self-

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 19 of 32

efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD and self-rated content knowledge of SD-relevant issuesas a latent model (Ratio: 1.38; CFI = 0.89; TLI = 0.88; RMSEA = 0.040 [0.035–0.046]). Theitems of the self-rated content knowledge of SD-relevant issues had loadings on the factorranging from 0.34 to 0.73 (mean = 0.62). Table 9 shows the resulting correlations. It revealssignificant but rather low correlations (r = −0.36 to −0.23, p < 0.01; the negative correlationsresult from an inverse coding of self-rated content knowledge) for all factors–except factor6, the only completely generic factor. Using cocor [81], the correlation of Teaching EthicallyRelevant Issues of ESD turned out to be the strongest with self-rated content knowledge ofSD-relevant issues.

Table 9. Intercorrelations of the self-efficacy beliefs of teaching Education for Sustainable Develop-ment (ESD) factors and correlations with the self-rated content knowledge of SD-relevant issues(srCK) factor (n = 236). The srCK is measured in grades, with 1 being the best and 5 being theworst. Factor 2 = Including ESD-specific Instructional Strategies under Consideration of Students’Motivation, Factor 3 = Using ESD-specific Educational Resources for School, Factor 4 = SurveyingDimensions of Gestaltungskompetenz, Factor 5 = Applying Methods of Evaluation, Factor 6 = ApplyingMedia, Factor 7 = Using ESD-specific Materials of the Research, Factor 8 = Teaching Ethically RelevantIssues of ESD.

Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8 srCK

Factor 2 1

Factor 3 0.30 ** 1

Factor 4 0.59 ** 0.31 ** 1

Factor 5 0.59 ** 0.51 ** 0.38 ** 1

Factor 6 0.41 ** 0.06 0.30 * 0.24 1

Factor 7 0.55 ** 0.60 ** 0.39 ** 0.49 ** 0.26 1

Factor 8 0.70 ** 0.39 ** 0.70 ** 0.67 ** 0.31 * 0.59 ** 1

srCK −0.26 ** −0.23 ** −0.28 ** −0.24 ** −0.13 −0.25 ** −0.36 ** 1

* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01.

3.3. Research Question 2: Prospective Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Teaching ESD

The absolute values of the mainly pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs of teachingESD are shown in Figure 2. The means of the factors range from 2.58 (SD = 0.60) to3.45 (SD = 0.57) in the first sample and from 2.97 (SD = 0.55) to 3.70 (SD = 0.42) in thesecond sample. The overall mean in sample 1 is 2.94 (SD = 0.41) and 3.17 (SD = 0.33) insample 2. Thus, all means are greater than 2.5, which is the theoretical mean of the scale.In the second sample, almost all means are even greater than 3. Therefore, pre-serviceteachers’ self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD seem to be rather positive. This especiallyseems to be valid for the second sample with exclusively biology, politics, and geographypre-service teachers. Comparing the means between sample 1 and sample 2, a t-test (Welchtest) confirmed the significant differences for five of the seven factors in Figure 2 (exceptionsdue to Bonferroni correction: factors 3 and 5).

Despite the rather positive values on all factors, there are relative differences betweensome self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD factors. In particular, the (mainly) pre-serviceteachers show the strongest self-efficacy beliefs on the generic factor 6, Applying Media, byfar. In sample 1, the Factor 7, Using ESD-specific Materials of the Research, relatively showsthe smallest mean. In sample 2, Factor 5, Applying Methods of Evaluation, has the lowest andonly mean below 3.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 20 of 32

Figure 2. Violin plots and means (95% confidence interval) of the (mainly) pre-service teachers’self-efficacy beliefs of teaching Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in sample 1 andsample 2. The violins have been scaled to the same maximum width for a better comparison of thedistributions. Scale: “Is not right” (1), “Is a little right” (2), “Is rather right” (3), and “Is exactly right”(4). Factor 1 = Fostering Gestaltungskompetenz and Generic Competence, Factor 2 = Including ESD-specific Instructional Strategies under Consideration of Students’ Motivation, Factor 3 = Using ESD-specific Educational Resources for School, Factor 4 = Surveying Dimensions of Gestaltungskompetenz,Factor 5 = Applying Methods of Evaluation, Factor 6 = Applying Media, Factor 7 = Using ESD-specificMaterials of the Research, Factor 8 = Teaching Ethically Relevant Issues of ESD.

3.4. Research Question 2a: Pre-Service Biology, Politics, and Geography Teachers’ Self-EfficacyBeliefs of Teaching ESD

In addition, we investigated possible differences between ESD teaching self-efficacybeliefs of pre-service teachers in biology, politics, and geography in Figure 3.

The confidence intervals in Figure 3 show hardly any significant differences to expectbetween the pre-service teachers of the three subjects. Besides possible significant differ-ences, in our sample 2, pre-service geography teachers have the strongest ESD teachingself-efficacy beliefs on all factors. The pre-service teachers of all three subjects had similarhigh self-efficacy beliefs on the generic factor 6, Applying Media. It is of further note thatpre-service politics teachers had rather lower self-efficacy beliefs than biology and geogra-phy pre-service teachers concerning factor 3, Using ESD-specific Educational Resources forSchool, factor 5, Applying Methods of Evaluation, and factor 7, Using ESD-specific Materials ofthe Research.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 21 of 32

Figure 3. Violin plots and means (95% confidence interval) of the biology (n = 131), politics (n = 21),and geography (n = 60) pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs of teaching Education for SustainableDevelopment (ESD) in sample 2. The violins have been scaled to the same maximum width fora better comparison of the distributions. Scale: “Is not right” (1), “Is a little right” (2), “Is ratherright” (3), and “Is exactly right” (4). Factor 2 = Including ESD-specific Instructional Strategies underConsideration of Students’ Motivation, Factor 3 = Using ESD-specific Educational Resources forSchool, Factor 4 = Surveying Dimensions of Gestaltungskompetenz, Factor 5 = Applying Methods ofEvaluation, Factor 6 = Applying Media, Factor 7 = Using ESD-specific Materials of the Research,Factor 8 = Teaching Ethically Relevant Issues of ESD.

3.5. Hypothesis 2: Differences between ESD Teaching Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Bachelor and Masterof Education Students

To investigate differences in Bachelor and Master of Education students’ self-efficacybeliefs of teaching ESD, we computed a structural equation model with the phase of teachereducation as the predictor. The model showed a good fit (Ratio: 1.43; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91;RMSEA = 0.043 [0.035–0.050]). Table 10 shows the differences between Bachelor and Masterof Education students’ ESD teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Meaningful differences occurredregarding four of the seven factors, Including ESD-specific Instructional Strategies under Con-sideration of Students’ Motivation (Factor 2), Surveying Dimensions of Gestaltungskompetenz(Factor 4), Applying Media (Factor 6), and Using ESD-specific Materials of the Research (Fac-tor 7). The Bachelor students had higher self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD regardingthese four factors (β = −0.21–−0.18, p < 0.05). For the other three factors, no meaningfuldifference occurred.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 22 of 32

Table 10. Structural equation model with the effect of the phase of teacher education on the self-efficacy beliefs of teaching Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) factors (n = 235). Factor2 = Including ESD-specific Instructional Strategies under Consideration of Students’ Motivation,Factor 3 = Using ESD-specific Educational Resources for School, Factor 4 = Surveying Dimensions ofGestaltungskompetenz, Factor 5 = Applying Methods of Evaluation, Factor 6 = Applying Media, Factor7 = Using ESD-specific Materials of the Research, Factor 8 = Teaching Ethically Relevant Issues ofESD. β = standardized regression coefficient, CI-95% = 95% confidence interval, SE = standard error.Significant standardized regression coefficients are bold.

Phase of TeacherEducation (Predictor) Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8

β −0.18 * 0.09 −0.18 * 0.01 −0.19 * −0.21 ** −0.03

CI-95% −0.32 to−0.04

−0.07 to0.24

−0.32 to−0.04

−0.14 to0.16

−0.36 to−0.01

−0.35 to−0.06

−0.19 to0.13

SE 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.08p-value 0.014 0.268 0.010 0.891 0.038 0.006 0.696

* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01.

3.6. Hypothesis 3: Influence of Currently Participating in at Least One ESD Course on the ESDTeaching Self-Efficacy Beliefs

To investigate the influence of current participation in at least one ESD course, wecomputed an additional structural equation model with the participation in at least oneESD course as the predictor. This model had a good fit (Ratio: 1.55; CFI = 0.90; TLI = 0.89;RMSEA = 0.050 [0.043–0.058]). Table 11 shows the differences between the pre-serviceteachers currently participating in at least one ESD course and participating in no ESDcourse at the time of the study.

Table 11. Structural equation model with the effect of the participation in at least one ESD course onthe self-efficacy beliefs of teaching Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) factors (n = 217). Fac-tor 2 = Including ESD-specific Instructional Strategies under Consideration of Students’ Motivation,Factor 3 = Using ESD-specific Educational Resources for School, Factor 4 = Surveying Dimensionsof Gestaltungskompetenz, Factor 5 = Applying Methods of Evaluation, Factor 6 = Applying Media,Factor 7 = Using ESD-specific Materials of the Research, Factor 8 = Teaching Ethically Relevant Issuesof ESD. β = standardized regression coefficient, CI-95% = 95% confidence interval, SE = standarderror. Significant standardized regression coefficients are bold.

Participation inESD Course(Predictor)

Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8

β 0.21 ** 0.19 * 0.13 0.22 ** 0.15 0.03 0.13CI-95% 0.07 to 0.35 0.04 to 0.35 −0.01 to 0.27 0.08 to 0.36 −0.04 to 0.33 −0.13 to 0.19 −0.04 to 0.30

SE 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.09p-value 0.003 0.015 0.077 0.002 0.119 0.710 0.134

* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01.

Three of the seven factors showed a difference: Including ESD-specific InstructionalStrategies under Consideration of Students’ Motivation (Factor 2), Using ESD-specific EducationalResources for School (Factor 3), and Applying Methods of Evaluation (Factor 5). Pre-serviceteachers currently participating in at least one ESD course had higher self-efficacy beliefsregarding these three factors than the pre-service teachers participating in no ESD course atthe time of the study (β = 0.19–0.22, p < 0.05).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 23 of 32

4. Discussion4.1. Theory-Driven Instrument of Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Teaching ESD

One aspect of this paper is the investigation of the factorial and divergent validityof the interpretation of the test values of our newly developed instrument of self-efficacybeliefs of teaching ESD. The instrument is intended to identify the support needs of prospec-tive teachers regarding their ESD teaching self-efficacy beliefs because self-efficacy beliefsare important for the implementation of ESD [12–14]. We identified a research gap forsuch an instrument, especially for secondary education. Previous instruments did notrepresent current demands, did not include obstacles in the items, and were not developedtheory-driven regarding teaching ESD at the same time. One instrument [14,45,46] oper-ationalized a model [47] and, thus, is theory-driven. However, the instrument’s focus isnot on different aspects of teaching ESD. This instrument is rather focused on fosteringstudents’ general ESD competencies. In sum, previous instruments did not operationalize amodel regarding teaching (e.g., [43,44]), did not integrate obstacles (e.g., [38,40]) or focusedprimary education (e.g., [37,39]). Our new instrument has these characteristics: (i) it istheory-driven due to the model from Park and Chen [30], (ii) it includes the demandedobstacle(s) due to the phrase “Even in teaching Education for Sustainable Development, Ican . . . ” [15,23], and (iii) it focuses secondary education (e.g., due to the used normativeguidelines; [62,63]).

We were able to show factorial validity [85] of seven factors of self-efficacy beliefsof teaching ESD with an exploratory and a confirmatory factor analysis. These sevenfactors integrate (at least parts of) the eight defined subcategories of the transferred PCKmodel [30]. Thus, they represent a wide range of aspects of teaching ESD and allow adifferentiated diagnosis of prospective teachers’ learning prerequisites. In addition, thenew factor Teaching Ethically Relevant Issues of ESD extended the aspects in the model fromPark and Chen [30]. The confirmatory factor analysis of the seven factors showed a goodfit. Therefore, the factors of self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD seem to be appropriate,indicating factorial validity. In addition to the factorial validity, we provide the firstinvestigation of divergent validity.

The correlations of the self-efficacy beliefs factors of teaching ESD with the self-ratedcontent knowledge of SD-relevant issues support the divergent validity of our instruments’test value interpretation. Six self-efficacy factors were significantly correlated with self-rated content knowledge (r = −0.23 to −0.36, p < 0.01; the negative correlations result froman inverse coding of self-rated content knowledge). The factor 6 Applying Media did notcorrelate significantly with the self-rated content knowledge of SD-relevant issues. Weexplain this result with the generic character of Applying Media. The generic items of thisfactor rather relate to every subject and are, despite ESD-specific examples, rather lessspecific for ESD. This characteristic can explain the missing correlation with (self-rated)content knowledge of SD-relevant issues. Besides this one, another correlation stands out.The correlation of factor 8, Teaching Ethically Relevant Issues of ESD, with self-rated contentknowledge of SD-relevant issues was higher than all other correlations. In addition, theethical aspects of teaching are new compared to the original PCK model [30]. Such a newfactor regarding teaching ethically relevant issues emerged in the instrument developmentof self-efficacy beliefs of interdisciplinary science teaching based on the model from Parkand Chen [30] as well [34]. In our study, the factor contains aspects such as dilemmaticsituations, which are more related to self-rated content knowledge of SD-relevant issuesthan other factors. Thus, factor 8, Teaching Ethically Relevant Issues of ESD, probably hadthe strongest correlation of all self-efficacy beliefs factors. According to the literature(e.g., [14,43]), self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD and self-rated content knowledge ofSD-relevant issues were related. Self-efficacy beliefs and self-rated content knowledge aredifferent constructs, but the contexts of ESD and SD-relevant issues show certain overlapsin parts since ESD addresses SD issues. Thus, our result of rather lower correlations arguesfor two related constructs that are different nevertheless, i.e., divergent validity [57]. Thisargument for divergent validity supplements the arguments for factorial validity. Overall,

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 24 of 32

the results in this paper provide the first arguments for the validity of the interpretation ofthe test values of the instrument of self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD.

Focusing on reliability, the two samples in this paper provide a diverse picture. Cron-bach’s Alphas were good in sample 1 with one of eight factors with a value under 0.7 andoverall ranging from 0.68 to 0.85 (Table 8). In sample 2, four of seven factors had a valuebelow 0.7 and ranged from 0.59 to 0.77 (Table 8). Thus, we have to focus on why the valuesof Cronbach’s Alpha decreased in the second but larger sample. The key to explaining thesedifferences lies in the composition of both samples. Considering Table 2, it gets obvious thatsample 1 was much more heterogeneous than sample 2. Sample 1, e.g., took pre-serviceteachers from the Bachelor, Master of Education, State examination, or with finished studiesinto account. Sample 2 focused on Bachelor and Master of Education. In contrast to sample1, all pre-service teachers of sample 2 studied to teach at a grammar or comprehensiveschool (secondary education). Especially regarding the studied subjects, different criteriaexisted in both samples. While sample 2 exclusively focused on biology, politics, andgeography, sample 1 counted additional subjects relevant to ESD (e.g., religion, chemistry,or philosophy). Overall, sample 1 was much more diverse than sample 2. This can beone reason for the lower values of Cronbach’s Alpha in sample 2. Since the homogenoussample tends to cause lower variance and covariance, this can explain the lower Cronbach’sAlphas compared to the more heterogeneous sample 1. Future research should focus onreviewing the reliability of our new instrument with further different samples.

Besides the psychometric characteristics of our new instrument and its advantagescompared to previous instruments, we want to underline the purpose of our instrument inthe context of ESD. As mentioned initially, self-efficacy beliefs are important for teaching(e.g., [18,21]). Referring to Moseley et al. [12,13], Malandrakis et al. [14] also conclude thatself-efficacy is powerful for teachers in the context of ESD. Thus, teacher education shouldfoster these self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers. To do so, an appropriate instrumentof self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD is needed to diagnose the learning prerequisitesof prospective teachers. In this paper, we established a new instrument especially forteaching ESD in secondary education—in contrast to previous instruments, particularly inthe context of primary education (e.g., [37,43,44]).

4.2. First Insights into the Effectiveness of ESD in German Universities

For the implementation of ESD, teachers and their skills and commitment to sustain-ability play a central role [7,9]. Our new self-efficacy instrument allowed the examinationof pre-service teachers’ learning prerequisites. Research Question 2 (Absolute means) and2a (Means differentiated by studied subject) give an impression of (prospective) teach-ers’ actual self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD. The results of Hypothesis 2 (Differencebetween Bachelor and Master of Education students) and Hypothesis 3 (Influence of cur-rent participation in ESD courses) give first insights into the effectiveness of ESD in eightGerman universities.

The results of Research Question 2 (Absolute means) show that ESD teaching self-efficacy beliefs of sample 2 are higher than in sample 1 concerning the most factors. This iscomprehensible since sample 2 focused exclusively on pre-service teachers for grammarand comprehensive schools and on the subjects of biology, politics, and geography, thesubjects that integrate ESD the most in German secondary schools [53]. Thus, the pre-service teachers in sample 2 seem to be better prepared for teaching ESD. Both sampleshave the highest self-efficacy beliefs on factor 6, Applying Media. This is also understandablesince it is a generic factor that is improved by every studied subject. In sample 1, factor 7,Using ESD-specific Materials of the Research, shows the lowest mean. This could be due tothe more heterogeneous sample 1. Pre-service teachers of biology, politics, and geographyprobably know research for ESD better due to their subjects. Thus, the mean of factor 7 israther small in sample 1. In sample 2, factor 5, Applying Methods of Evaluation, relativelyshows the lowest mean. Perhaps, applying evaluation methods is less important in teacher

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 25 of 32

education at university than the other topics, since the application is more addressed in theinternship by trainee teachers [86]. This could result in little lower self-efficacy beliefs.

The results of Research Question 2a complement these results with the differentiationby the studied subject. The confidence intervals of Figure 3 indicate only a few possibilitiesfor significant differences. This could be due to our sample size and composition (e.g., only21 pre-service politics teachers). Thus, more research and greater samples are necessary toinvestigate the subjects’ influence and possible significant differences further. Our samplesuggests that pre-service geography teachers have the strongest self-efficacy beliefs ofteaching ESD concerning all factors. The rather low values, e.g., on factors 3, 5, and 7,of pre-service politics teachers, could hint at a need for more ESD in teacher educationof politics. Compared to the pre-service geography teachers, there seems to be room forimprovement for the pre-service biology teachers as well. However, for generalization,these tendencies of our sample need to be investigated in a larger sample with sufficienttest persons in every subgroup.

The results of Hypothesis 2 (Bachelor vs. Master of Education) show that regardingfour of seven ESD teaching self-efficacy beliefs factors, the Bachelor students had higherself-efficacy beliefs than the Master of Education students. A total of 32 of 113 pre-serviceteachers in the Bachelor and 70 of 109 in the Master of Education completed at least one ESDcourse at some point in their studies. Thus, the Master of Education students had more op-portunities to learn about teaching ESD or to teach ESD at the time of the study and shouldhave higher self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD (cf. for teaching science: [49]). Therefore,our results could argue for a misjudgment of Bachelor students’ skills by themselves.

35 Bachelor students and 34 Master of Education students currently participatedin at least one ESD course. Previous research showed that ESD courses at university(primary, early childhood, and middle school) resulted in pre-service teachers’ higher self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD [56]. The results of hypothesis 3 support this assumptionfor secondary education since three factors were positively influenced by the currentparticipation in at least one ESD course: Including ESD-specific Instructional Strategies underConsideration of Students’ Motivation (Factor 2), Using ESD-specific Educational Resources forSchool (Factor 3), and Applying Methods of Evaluation (Factor 5). This seems plausible becausethese three factors comprise important facets of teaching. Perhaps, recent ESD coursesfocus on these aspects of teaching ESD.

These results of Hypothesis 3 (Influence of current participation) could support theassumption that the pre-service teachers in the Bachelor misjudge their abilities, since asimilar number of students of the Bachelor and Master of Education currently participatedin at least one ESD course. So, there is no strong supposed difference between both groupsin this aspect. Overestimating one’s abilities [87,88] or underestimating the difficulty of atask [89,90] are not uncommon when it comes to self-efficacy beliefs. One problem could bethe lack of expectations of the skills required to teach ESD (cf. for biology: [91]), addressedin ESD courses. However, Bachelor and Master of Education students currently participatedin a comparable number of ESD courses. But, at the time of the study, more than twice asmany Master of Education students have completed at least one ESD course in their studiescompared to the Bachelor students. This could allow the Master of Education students tobetter know the requirements of teaching ESD. Thus, the higher self-efficacy beliefs of theBachelor students rather seem to indicate a misjudgment.

Focusing on the means of the self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD, all factors showrather positive values in both samples (greater than the theoretical mean of 2.5). Especially,the second less heterogeneous sample had even higher self-efficacy beliefs (nearly all factormeans greater than 3). Due to the studied subjects in sample 2 (at least biology, politics,or geography), this seems to be plausible. Nevertheless, looking at the courses currentlyparticipated in, differentiated by the studied subject, misjudgment of one’s own abilitiescould even be an issue for all pre-service teachers. The majority of pre-service biologyand politics teacher did not complete any ESD course, and 100 of 115 pre-service biologyteachers participated in no ESD course at the time of the study. Most ESD courses seem to

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 26 of 32

be completed in geography. This matches the result of Research Questions 2a, indicating thestrongest self-efficacy beliefs for pre-service geography students in our sample 2. However,even the pre-service teachers in geography barely participated in or completed more thanthree ESD courses. Thus, overestimation of their own abilities [87,88] or underestimationof the task [89,90] seems possible for the whole sample since all had completed rather fewESD courses. Although self-efficacy beliefs are one of the most powerful factors in affectinga teacher’s ability to implement ESD [12–14], “overly confident teachers who are largelyineffective” [88] (p. 118) are not aspired. Wheatley [92] emphasizes that doubts aboutone’s self-efficacy beliefs do not have to be negative. Thus, rather high self-efficacy beliefsof teaching ESD without the appropriate competencies should be viewed with caution.Looking at the completed ESD courses of our test persons, the self-efficacy beliefs ofteaching ESD could go too far beyond their competencies acquired in the few ESD courses.

The number of ESD courses differentiated by the studied subjects gave insight intoteacher education regarding ESD. In German secondary schools, ESD seems to be integratedthe most in geography, politics, and biology [53]. At the same time, Evans et al. [10] statedin a literature review that in most countries ESD is not an integral part of initial teachertraining. Our study also shows potential for more ESD in all three subjects since rarely morethan three ESD courses were completed or currently participated in. 146 of 214 pre-serviceteachers answering this question participated in no ESD course at the time of the study. Inaddition, the study shows a lack of ESD in biology, where 100 of 115 pre-service teachersparticipated in no course and 66 of 120 never completed an ESD course at that time. Thelack of ESD is even stronger in politics (under the restriction of the small number of pre-service politics teachers). Since the pre-service teachers came from eight universities in fiveGerman federal states, these insights could be valid hints for multiple German universities.Due to the pivotal role of education in terms of SD (SDG 4) [5] and as a driver to achieve allother SDGs [6], ESD should be more focused on in teacher education. In addition, moreESD courses seem to be necessary for more realistic self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD.Especially the Bachelor and pre-service teachers in biology and politics could need moretraining in ESD in university.

4.3. Limitations

Despite various advantages, new instrument features, and new insights into teachereducation, such as the need for more training in ESD in universities, we want to discusssome limitations of our study. Focusing our samples, especially the second sample con-tained relatively few pre-service teachers studying politics. In both samples, we couldinclude only a few pre-service teachers with at least two of the subjects of biology, politics,and geography. Overall, the second sample used to confirm the factorial model could belarger (including the mentioned subgroups). This could also allow better investigations ofsignificant differences in the self-efficacy beliefs between pre-service teachers of differentsubjects. Further, the second sample consisted of 72.5% women. In German teacher edu-cation, there are more female students studying biology and rather more female studentsin geography (e. g., [93]). More than half of our sample 2 are pre-service biology teachers,and about one quarter are pre-service geography teachers. Thus, the rather less pre-servicepolitics teachers could also influence the gender distribution in our sample. Nevertheless, apossible bias in gender distribution should be considered—even if the higher portion offemales shows the right tendency.

In addition, the monetary reward for study participation could have had an impact inboth samples. We are not able to test the influence in sample 1. In sample 2, all participantswere rewarded. Comparing the self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD with the self-efficacybeliefs of teaching interdisciplinary science, which were constructed similarly, the lattershowed very little effect of the monetary reward on just one factor [50]. Thus, a strongeffect of the participation fee can be rather denied. However, by rewarding all participantsin sample 2, a positive selection of participants (e.g., due to interest) could have occurred.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 27 of 32

In contrast, the monetary reward could have motivated participants with low interest in(teaching) ESD.

The possible overestimation of the test person’s own abilities or the underestimationof the task of teaching ESD cannot be empirically tested in this study. Further investigationswould be needed to gain deeper insights here.

In addition, the difference between pre-service teachers in the Bachelor and Master ofEducation have to be treated with caution due to the cross-sectional design of the study. Itshould also be considered that the survey of participated and completed ESD courses issubjective. It is possible that the pre-service teachers did not remember all ESD courses ordid not perceive a course as an ESD-related course. Moreover, we did not make criteria orminimum standards transparent that define which course could count as an ESD course.Thus, the estimations of the study participants to classify one course as an ESD course ornot could be rather subjective. Further, we examined the effect of the participation in orcompletion of ESD courses with dummy-coded variables. This simplification was necessarydue to the sample size but should be considered in the interpretation.

One challenge of developing an instrument for self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD is-the different perspectives of ESD. ESD is not an independent, interdisciplinary subject suchas science. Thus, ESD is important as a teaching task in several subjects (biology, politics,geography, religion, philosophy, chemistry, . . . ). This condition results in the challengeof integrating multiple perspectives—even more than for science—into the instrument.Besides using different normative guidelines, we tried to develop this instrument withresearchers of different disciplines. For example, we integrated perspectives of biology,politics, geography, and history. Surely, we could have still integrated more perspectivesand other aspects of ESD since ESD is an extremely broad field. We tried to focus concreteon teaching ESD and on corresponding (pre-service) teacher’s competencies, and therebyon PCK in the light of different disciplines. However, one could, of course, integratefurther aspects that are important for teaching at school as well or focus more general ESDoutcomes of students like Malandrakis et al. [14] did.

4.4. Future Research

Regarding the instrument’s reliability, Cronbach’s Alphas were good in sample 1and could be improved in sample 2. To confirm the positive results of the heterogeneoussample 1, more studies are needed to review the reliability of our instrument. At this point,the good results of sample 1 lead us to assume sufficient reliability of our subscales. Inaddition, the confirmatory factor analysis did not confirm all eight factors of the exploratoryfactor analysis. For future research, it could be reasonable to check the confirmed seven-factor model again in another more diverse sample, e.g., with more test persons in everysubject studied. Another research direction could be using the instrument in differenteducational phases (e.g., trainee teachers and in-service teachers), which could also providefurther arguments for validity and reliability.

Moreover, the new instrument allows investigations of learning prerequisites of pre-service teachers in secondary education or pre-post-investigations in the context of teachereducation (e.g., certificate at the University of Göttingen [94]). To examine the effectsof teacher education, longitudinal research designs could be of great interest as well.Longitudinal studies could reveal developments in ESD-teaching self-efficacy beliefs duringteacher education and identify possible influencing factors.

In sum, this theory-driven instrument already sheds light on pre-service teachers’self-efficacy beliefs of teaching ESD and the influences of teacher education, especially forthe rather unnoticed secondary education.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su14116477/s1, Table S1: Loadings of the items of the confirmatoryfactor analysis without factor 1 (n = 236).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 28 of 32

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.H., L.R.-B. and S.B.; Data curation, K.H. and L.R.-B.;Formal analysis, K.H.; Funding acquisition, S.B.; Investigation, K.H., L.R.-B. and S.B.; Methodology,K.H., L.R.-B. and S.B.; Project administration, S.B.; Supervision, S.B.; Visualization, K.H., L.R.-B. andS.B.; Writing—original draft, K.H. and L.R.-B.; Writing—review & editing, S.B. All authors have readand agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This project is part of the “Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung”, a joint initiative of theFe-deral Government and the Länder, which aims to improve the quality of teacher training. Theprogramme is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (reference number SPL firstphase: 01JA1617, SPL second phase: 01JA1917). The authors are responsible for the content of thispublication.

We acknowledge support by the Open Access Publication Funds of the Göttingen University (APCfunding).

Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with all relevantrequirements of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study,since it is voluntary at the University of Göttingen and we identified no critical or problematic ethicalaspects in our study. We explained this in detail in the Cover Letter.

Informed Consent Statement: Since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is valid sinceMay 2018, written informed consent was only demanded and needed in the second sample (October2018–May 2019), not in the first sample (July to August 2017).

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available in an anonymized formon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the GeneralData Protection Regulation and the informed consent given by the participants.

Acknowledgments: We want to thank Marcel Grieger for his work in the instrument developmentand the possibility to survey a subgroup within his project in sample 1. We especially would liketo thank Simon Rosenbaum and Ines Lünemann, who provided valuable contributions with theirunpublished master theses. The contributions of Simon Rosenbaum mainly consist of drafting theitems by operationalizing the applied PCK model and supporting the data collection in sample 1.Those of Ines Lünemann include the support of the data collection in sample 2, a contribution to thedecision regarding the confirmatory factor analysis and a few descriptive data.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the designof the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, orin the decision to publish the results.

References1. Leicht, A.; Heiss, J.; Byun, W.J. Introduction. In Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development: Education on the Move;

Leicht, A., Heiss, J., Byun, W.J., Eds.; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2018; pp. 7–16, ISBN 978-92-3-100244-1.2. Rieckmann, M. Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung im Kontext der Sustainable Development Goals. In Kontroverses Miteinander:

Interdisziplinäre und kontroverse Positionen zur Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung; Kminek, H., Bank, F., Fuchs, L., Eds.; FrankfurterBeiträge zur Erziehungswissenschaft 23; Goethe-Universität Frankfurt: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2020; pp. 57–85, ISBN978-3-9820454-8-1.

3. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Education for Sustainable Development Goals:Learning Objectives. Available online: https://www.unesco.de/sites/default/files/2018-08/unesco_education_for_sustainable_development_goals.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).

4. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Roadmap for Implementing the Global ActionProgramme on Education for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1674unescoroadmap.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).

5. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. Available online:https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed on 27 April 2022).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 29 of 32

6. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2017/thesustainabledevelopmentgoalsreport2017.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).

7. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). SDG 4—Education 2030: Part II, Education forSustainable Development (ESD) beyond 2019. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366797 (accessedon 27 April 2022).

8. Sachs, J.D.; Kroll, C.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Woelm, F. Sustainable Development Report 2021: The Decade of Action for the SustainableDevelopment Goals: Includes the SDG Index and Dashboards; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [CrossRef]

9. Brandt, J.-O.; Bürgener, L.; Barth, M.; Redman, A. Becoming a Competent Teacher in Education for Sustainable Development:Learning Outcomes and Processes in Teacher Education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2019, 20, 630–653. [CrossRef]

10. Evans, N.; Stevenson, R.B.; Lasen, M.; Ferreira, J.-A.; Davis, J. Approaches to Embedding Sustainability in Teacher Education: ASynthesis of the Literature. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2017, 63, 405–417. [CrossRef]

11. Andersson, K.; Jagers, S.C.; Lindskog, A.; Martinsson, J. Learning for the Future? Effects of Education for Sustainable Development(ESD) on Teacher Education Students. Sustainability 2013, 5, 5135–5152. [CrossRef]

12. Moseley, C.; Huss, J.; Utley, J. Assessing K–12 Teachers’ Personal Environmental Education Teaching Efficacy and OutcomeExpectancy. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2010, 9, 5–17. [CrossRef]

13. Moseley, C.; Reinke, K.; Bookout, V. The Effect of Teaching Outdoor Environmental Education on Preservice Teachers’ AttitudesToward Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy. J. Environ. Educ. 2002, 34, 9–15. [CrossRef]

14. Malandrakis, G.; Papadopoulou, P.; Gavrilakis, C.; Mogias, A. An Education for Sustainable Development Self-Efficacy Scale forPrimary Pre-Service Teachers: Construction and Validation. J. Environ. Educ. 2019, 50, 23–36. [CrossRef]

15. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1997; ISBN 978-0716728504.16. Baumert, J.; Kunter, M. The COACTIV Model of Teachers’ Professional Competence. In Cognitive Activation in the Mathematics

Classroom and Professional Competence of Teachers: Results from the COACTIV Project; Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann,U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 25–48. [CrossRef]

17. Skaalvik, E.M.; Skaalvik, S. Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teacher Burnout: A Study of Relations. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26,1059–1069. [CrossRef]

18. Ross, J.A. Teacher Efficacy and the Effects of Coaching on Student Achievement. Can. J. Educ. 1992, 17, 51–65. [CrossRef]19. Caprara, G.V.; Barbaranelli, C.; Steca, P.; Malone, P.S. Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs as Determinants of Job Satisfaction and

Students’ Academic Achievement: A Study at the School Level. J. Sch. Psychol. 2006, 44, 473–490. [CrossRef]20. Allinder, R.M. An Examination of the Relationship between Teacher Efficacy and Curriculum-Based Measurement and Student

Achievement. Remedial Spec. Educ. 1995, 16, 247–254. [CrossRef]21. Lumpe, A.; Czerniak, C.; Haney, J.; Beltyukova, S. Beliefs about Teaching Science: The Relationship between Elementary Teachers’

Participation in Professional Development and Student Achievement. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34, 153–166. [CrossRef]22. Tschannen-Moran, M.; Hoy, A.W.; Hoy, W.K. Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure. Rev. Educ. Res. 1998, 68, 202–248.

[CrossRef]23. Bandura, A. Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents; Pajares, F., Urdan, T., Eds.; Information

Age Publishing: Greenwich, CT, USA, 2006; pp. 307–337. ISBN 978-1-59311-366-7.24. Schwarzer, R.; Jerusalem, M. Das Konzept der Selbstwirksamkeit. In Selbstwirksamkeit und Motivationsprozesse in Bildungsin-

stitutionen; Jerusalem, M., Hopf, D., Eds.; Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 44. Beiheft; Beltz: Weinheim, Germany, 2002; pp. 28–53.[CrossRef]

25. Kultusministerkonferenz. Zur Situation und zu Perspektiven der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung: Bericht der Kultusminis-terkonferenz vom 17. März 2017. Available online: https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2017/2017_03_17-Bericht-BNE-2017.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).

26. Baumert, J.; Kunter, M.; Blum, W.; Brunner, M.; Voss, T.; Jordan, A.; Klusmann, U.; Krauss, S.; Neubrand, M.; Tsai, Y.-M. Teachers’Mathematical Knowledge, Cognitive Activation in the Classroom, and Student Progress. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2010, 47, 133–180.[CrossRef]

27. Sadler, P.M.; Sonnert, G.; Coyle, H.P.; Cook-Smith, N.; Miller, J.L. The Influence of Teachers’ Knowledge on Student Learning inMiddle School Physical Science Classrooms. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2013, 50, 1020–1049. [CrossRef]

28. Neumann, K.; Kind, V.; Harms, U. Probing the Amalgam: The Relationship between Science Teachers’ Content, Pedagogical andPedagogical Content Knowledge. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2019, 41, 847–861. [CrossRef]

29. Rosenbaum, S.A. Entwicklung eines Messinstruments zu Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen angehender Lehrkräfte für dasUnterrichten von Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Master’s Thesis, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen,Germany, 2017.

30. Park, S.; Chen, Y.-C. Mapping Out the Integration of the Components of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): Examples FromHigh School Biology Classrooms. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 922–941. [CrossRef]

31. Gess-Newsome, J. A Model of Teacher Professional Knowledge and Skill Including PCK: Results of the Thinking From the PCKSummit. In Re-Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education, 1st ed.; Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., Loughran, J., Eds.;Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 28–42. [CrossRef]

32. Carlson, J.; Daehler, K.R.; Alonzo, A.C.; Barendsen, E.; Berry, A.; Borowski, A.; Carpendale, J.; Chan, K.K.H.; Cooper, R.;Friedrichsen, P.; et al. The Refined Consensus Model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education. In Repositioning

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 30 of 32

Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science; Hume, A., Cooper, R., Borowski, A., Eds.; Springer:Singapore, 2019; pp. 77–94. [CrossRef]

33. Magnusson, S.; Krajcik, J.; Borko, H. Nature, Sources, and Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching.In Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education, 1st ed.; Gess-Newsome, J.,Lederman, N.G., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 95–132. [CrossRef]

34. Handtke, K.; Bögeholz, S. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Interdisciplinary Science Teaching (SElf-ST) Instrument: Drafting a Theory-BasedMeasurement. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 247. [CrossRef]

35. Riggs, I.M.; Enochs, L.G. Toward the Development of an Elementary Teacher’s Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument. Sci.Ed. 1990, 74, 625–637. [CrossRef]

36. Enochs, L.G.; Riggs, I.M. Further Development of an Elementary Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument: A PreserviceElementary Scale. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta,GA, USA, 8–11 April 1990; Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED319601.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2022).

37. Sia, A.P. Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Perceived Efficacy in Teaching Environmental Education: A Preliminary Study. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the ECO-ED North American Association for Environmental Education, Toronto, ON,Canada, 20 October 1992; Available online: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED362487.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2022).

38. Moseley, C.; Taylor, B. Analysis of Environmental and General Science Teaching Efficacy Among Instructors with ContrastingClass Ethnicity Distributions: A Four-Dimensional Assessment. Sch. Sci. Math. 2011, 111, 199–208. [CrossRef]

39. Moseley, C.; Utley, J.; Angle, J.; Mwavita, M. Development of the Environmental Education Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument.Sch. Sci. Math. 2016, 116, 389–398. [CrossRef]

40. Taylor, B.K. Analysis of Environmental and General Science Efficacy among Instructors with Contrasting Class EthnicityDistributions: A Four Dimensional Assessment. PhD thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA, 2005.

41. Dira Smolleck, L.; Zembal-Saul, C.; Yoder, E.P. The Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Preservice Teachers’Self-Efficacy in regard to the Teaching of Science as Inquiry. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2006, 17, 137–163. [CrossRef]

42. Meinhardt, C. Entwicklung und Validierung eines Testinstruments zu Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen von (angehenden) Physiklehrkräftenin physikdidaktischen Handlungsfeldern; Logos: Berlin, Germany, 2018. [CrossRef]

43. Effeney, G.; Davis, J. Education for Sustainability: A Case Study of Pre-service Primary Teachers’ Knowledge and Efficacy. Aust. J.Teach. Educ. 2013, 38, 32–46. [CrossRef]

44. Boon, H. Beliefs and Education for Sustainability in Rural and Regional Australia. Educ. Rural Aust. 2011, 21, 37–54. Availableonline: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/19339/ (accessed on 24 May 2022).

45. Malandrakis, G.; Papadopoulou, P.; Gavrilakis, C.; Mogias, A. Designing and Testing an Education for Sustainable DevelopmentSelf-Efficacy Scale for Pre-Service Teachers: Preliminary Findings. In Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference: ScienceEducation Research: Engaging Learners for a Sustainable Future Part 9 (co-ed. M. Achiam, & G. Carvalho); Lavonen, J., Juuti, K.,Lampiselkä, J., Uitto, A., Hahl, K., Eds.; University of Helsinki: Helsinki, Finland, 2016; pp. 1280–1288.

46. Mogias, A.; Malandrakis, G.; Papadopoulou, P.; Gavrilakis, C. Self-Efficacy of In-Service Secondary School Teachers in Relation toEducation for Sustainable Development: Preliminary Findings. In Engaging with Contemporary Challenges through Science EducationResearch: Selected Papers from the ESERA 2019 Conference; Levrini, O., Tasquier, G., Amin, T.G., Branchetti, L., Levin, M., Eds.;Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 197–207. [CrossRef]

47. Sleurs, W. (Ed.) Competencies for ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) Teachers: A Framework to Integrate ESD in the Curri-culum of Teacher Training Institutes; CSCT: Brussels, Belgium, 2008; Available online: https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/inf.meeting.docs/EGonInd/8mtg/CSCT%20Handbook_Extract.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2022).

48. Yangin, S.; Sidekli, S. Self-Efficacy for Science Teaching Scale Development: Construct Validation with Elementary School Teachers.J. Educ. Train. Stud. 2016, 4, 54–69. [CrossRef]

49. Velthuis, C.; Fisser, P.; Pieters, J. Teacher Training and Pre-Service Primary Teachers’ Self-Efficacy for Science Teaching. J. Sci.Teach. Educ. 2014, 25, 445–464. [CrossRef]

50. Handtke, K.; Bögeholz, S. Arguments for Construct Validity of the Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Interdisciplinary Science Teaching(SElf-ST) Instrument. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 9, 1435–1453. [CrossRef]

51. Hansen, M.H.H.; Sillasen, M.K. Missing Concordance between Knowledge and Efficacy among Danish Science Teacher Studentsregarding Education for Sustainable Development. Nord. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2020, 16, 215–227. [CrossRef]

52. Blonder, R.; Benny, N.; Jones, M.G. Teaching Self-Efficacy of Science Teachers. In The Role of Science Teachers’ Beliefs in InternationalClassrooms: From Teacher Actions to Student Learning; Evans, R., Luft, J., Czerniak, C., Pea, C., Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam,The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 3–15. [CrossRef]

53. Bagoly-Simó, P.; Hemmer, I. Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung in den Sekundarschulen—Ziele, Einblicke in die Realität,Perspektiven. Available online: http://edoc.ku-eichstaett.de/25373/1/Bagoly-Simo_Hemmer_2017_online_end.pdf (accessedon 27 April 2022).

54. Bautista, N.U. Investigating the Use of Vicarious and Mastery Experiences in Influencing Early Childhood Education Majors’Self-Efficacy Beliefs. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2011, 22, 333–349. [CrossRef]

55. Gunning, A.M.; Mensah, F.M. Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Development of Self-Efficacy and Confidence to Teach Science: ACase Study. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2011, 22, 171–185. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 31 of 32

56. Evans, N.; Tomas, L.; Woods, C. Impact of Sustainability Pedagogies on Pre-service Teachers’ Self-efficacy. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev.2016, 10, 243–261. [CrossRef]

57. Moosbrugger, H.; Kelava, A. Qualitätsanforderungen an einen psychologischen Test (Testgütekriterien). In Testtheorie undFragebogenkonstruktion, 2nd ed.; Moosbrugger, H., Kelava, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 7–26.[CrossRef]

58. Richter-Beuschel, L.; Bögeholz, S. Student Teachers’ Knowledge to Enable Problem-Solving for Sustainable Development.Sustainability 2020, 12, 79. [CrossRef]

59. Richter-Beuschel, L.; Bögeholz, S. Knowledge of Student Teachers on Sustainable Land Use Issues–Knowledge Types Relevant forTeacher Education. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8332. [CrossRef]

60. de Haan, G. The Development of ESD-Related Competencies in Supportive Institutional Frameworks. Int. Rev. Educ. 2010, 56,315–328. [CrossRef]

61. de Haan, G. Gestaltungskompetenz als Kompetenzkonzept der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. In Kompetenzen der Bildungfür nachhaltige Entwicklung: Operationalisierung, Messung, Rahmenbedingungen, Befunde; Bormann, I., de Haan, G., Eds.; VS Verlagfür Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2008; pp. 23–43. [CrossRef]

62. Schreiber, J.-R.; Siege, H. (Eds.) Orientierungsrahmen für den Lernbereich Globale Entwicklung: Im Rahmen einer Bildung für nachhaltigeEntwicklung: Ein Beitrag zum Weltaktionsprogramm „Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung; Cornelsen: Berlin, Germany, 2016; Availableonline: https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2015/2015_06_00-Orientierungsrahmen-Globale-Entwicklung.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2022).

63. Niedersächsisches Kultusministerium (Ed.) Kerncurriculum für das Gymnasium Schuljahrgänge 5–10: Naturwissenschaften; Unidruck:Hannover, Germany, 2015; Available online: https://cuvo.nibis.de/cuvo.php?p=download&upload=18 (accessed on 24 May2022).

64. Kultusministerkonferenz. Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften: Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenzvom 16. Dezember 2004 i. d. F. vom 12. Juni 2014. No longer available online.

65. Schulte, K.; Watermann, R.; Bögeholz, S. Überprüfung der faktoriellen Validität einer multidimensionalen Skala der Lehrer-Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung. Empirische Pädagogik 2011, 25, 232–256.

66. Henson, R.K.; Roberts, J.K. Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Published Research: Common Errors and Some Comment onImproved Practice. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 393–416. [CrossRef]

67. Conway, J.M.; Huffcutt, A.I. A Review and Evaluation of Exploratory Factor Analysis Practices in Organizational Research. Organ.Res. Methods 2003, 6, 147–168. [CrossRef]

68. Fabrigar, L.R.; Wegener, D.T.; MacCallum, R.C.; Strahan, E.J. Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in PsychologicalResearch. Psychol. Methods 1999, 4, 272–299. [CrossRef]

69. Rosseel, Y.; Jorgensen, T.D.; Rockwood, N.; Oberski, D.; Byrnes, J.; Vanbrabant, L.; Savalei, V.; Merkle, E.; Hallquist, M.; Rhemtulla,M.; et al. Lavaan: Latent Variable Analysis. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lavaan/lavaan.pdf(accessed on 29 April 2022).

70. Wickham, H.; Chang, W.; Henry, L.; Pedersen, T.L.; Takahashi, K.; Wilke, C.; Woo, K.; Yutani, H.; Dunnington, D. Ggplot2:Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggplot2/ggplot2.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2022).

71. Wickham, H.; Girlich, M. Tidyr: Tidy Messy Data. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tidyr/tidyr.pdf(accessed on 29 April 2022).

72. Bühner, M. Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion, 3rd ed.; Pearson Studium: München, Germany, 2011; ISBN978-3-8689-4033-6.

73. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: And Sex and Drugs and Rock ‘n’ Roll, 4th ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA,USA, 2013; ISBN 978-9351500827.

74. Pospeschill, M. Testtheorie, Testkonstruktion, Testevaluation: Mit 77 Fragen zur Wiederholung; Ernst Reinhardt: München, Germany,2010; ISBN 978-3825234317.

75. Guttman, L. Some Necessary Conditions for Common Factor Analysis. Psychometrika 1954, 19, 149–161. [CrossRef]76. Kaiser, H.F.; Dickman, K. Analytic Determination of Common Factors. Am. Psychol. 1959, 14, 425–439.77. Bortz, J.; Schuster, C. Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. [CrossRef]78. Little, T.D. Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 9781462510160.79. Brown, T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-1-59385-

275-7.80. Wheaton, B.; Muthén, B.; Alwin, D.F.; Summers, G.F. Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models. Sociol. Methodol. 1977, 8,

84–136. [CrossRef]81. Diedenhofen, B.; Musch, J. Cocor: A Comprehensive Solution for the Statistical Comparison of Correlations. PLoS ONE 2015, 10,

e0121945. [CrossRef] [PubMed]82. Kubinger, K.D.; Rasch, D.; Moder, K. Zur Legende der Voraussetzungen des t-Tests für unabhängige Stichproben. Psychologische

Rundschau 2009, 60, 26–27. [CrossRef]83. Backhaus, K.; Erichson, B.; Plinke, W.; Weiber, R. Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung; Springer

Gabler: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6477 32 of 32

84. Lünemann, I. Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen von Lehramtsstudierenden der Fächer Biologie, Erdkunde und Politik zumUnterrichten von Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Master’s Thesis, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen,Germany, 2020.

85. Hartig, J.; Frey, A.; Jude, N. Validität. In Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion, 2nd ed.; Moosbrugger, H., Kelava, A., Eds.;Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 143–171. [CrossRef]

86. Kultusministerkonferenz. Ländergemeinsame inhaltliche Anforderungen für die Fachwissenschaften und Fachdidaktiken in derLehrerbildung: Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16. Oktober 2008 i.d.F. vom 16. Mai 2019. Available online: https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2008/2008_10_16-Fachprofile-Lehrerbildung.pdf (accessedon 29 April 2022).

87. Kazempour, M. The Interrelationship of Science Experiences, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy: A Case Study of a Pre-ServiceTeacher with Positive Science Attitude and High Science Teaching Self-Efficacy. Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2013, 1, 106–124. [CrossRef]

88. Settlage, J.; Southerland, S.A.; Smith, L.K.; Ceglie, R. Constructing a Doubt-Free Teaching Self: Self-Efficacy, Teacher Identity, andScience Instruction within Diverse Settings. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2009, 46, 102–125. [CrossRef]

89. Hoy, A.W.; Spero, R.B. Changes in Teacher Efficacy during the Early Years of Teaching: A Comparison of Four Measures. Teach.Teach. Educ. 2005, 21, 343–356. [CrossRef]

90. Weinstein, C.S. Preservice Teachers’ Expectations about the First Year of Teaching. Teach. Teach. Educ. 1988, 4, 31–40. [CrossRef]91. Mavrikaki, E.; Athanasiou, K. Development and Application of an Instrument to Measure Greek Primary Education Teachers’

Biology Teaching Self-Efficacy Beliefs. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. 2011, 7, 203–213. [CrossRef]92. Wheatley, K.F. The Potential Benefits of Teacher Efficacy Doubts for Educational Reform. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2002, 18, 5–22.

[CrossRef]93. Statistisches Bundesamt. Bildung und Kultur: Studierende an Hochschulen: Sommersemester. 2019. Available online:

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Hochschulen/Publikationen/Downloads-Hochschulen/studierende-hochschulen-ss-2110410197314.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (accessed on 29 April 2022).

94. Eggert, S.; Bögeholz, S.; Oberle, M.; Sauer, M.; Schneider, S.; Surkamp, C. Herausforderung Interdisziplinäres Unterrichten in derLehrerbildung: Das Göttinger Zertifikatsmodell. J. Lehr. 2018, 18, 51–55.