Rosa Isusi-Fagoaga1
Ester Planells-Aleixandre- 1Universitat de València, UTRANSFER Associated Unit of CSIC at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Valencia, Spain
- 2Institute of Innovation and Knowledge Management, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain
This paper highlights the role of higher education institutions in promoting the competencies required for students to engage with complex societal and professional environments. Embedding social innovation competencies into the educational experience enables universities not only to prepare graduates for the labor market but also to equip them to act as agents of change, contributing to societal transformations. To gain insights into which teaching-learning approaches should be used in higher education study programs to promote the appropriate social innovation competencies, the ‘Spanish Universities Involvement in Social Innovation Activities’ SUISIA data, collected during the academic year 2021/2022, is used. The findings highlight that the most effective development of social innovation competencies associated with organizational, entrepreneurial, collaborative, and resilience-related competencies arises from a balanced pedagogical approach, integrating student-centered methods with the structured guidance provided by teacher-centered instruction. The complementary interaction between methodologies such as design thinking, cooperative learning, gamification, oral presentations, and the teacher as the main source of information reinforces that students benefit from participatory learning without losing the conceptual coherence and experience that instructors provide. By promoting this combined pedagogical model and reducing disciplinary disparities in competency development, higher education institutions can better align their educational mission with the imperatives of sustainable development and social equity.
1 Introduction
During the last decades, higher education (HE) has undergone a paradigm shift from teacher-centered instruction to learner-centered approaches (Trinidad, 2019). Research in learner-centered pedagogy commonly draws on constructivist principles, asserting that learners acquire and refine understanding through active participation in tasks and reflection on experiential interactions with their environment (Mascolo, 2009). The prominence of learner-centered thought has stimulated considerable exploration of active learning methods in formal and informal settings, ranging from collaborative to problem-based learning, it continues to face theoretical tensions and practical limitations (Neumann, 2013; Kerimbayev et al., 2023). In this context, a learner-centered approach is frequently articulated in contrast to a teacher-centered pedagogy, where the latter is often associated with transmissive instruction, positioning the instructor as the primary source of knowledge and authority (Bhardwaj et al., 2025). The flow of information is largely unidirectional—from teacher to student—and the learning process is primarily measured by the student’s ability to reproduce prescribed content. However, in drawing on the constructivist paradigm where students must be active in constructing their understandings of the world, learner-centered pedagogy has emerged as an attempt to stimulate and support the constructive activity of the student. In addressing both pedagogical dimensions—teacher-centered and learner-centered—some literature argues for a dichotomy in educational practices (Serin, 2018). Nevertheless, emphasizing that learners actively construct their knowledge should not be blent with the idea that they must do so independently, without guidance or support (Bhardwaj et al., 2025). Then, conceptions of teachers as mere “facilitators” or “coaches” whose function is to support a student’s active attempts to discover and reconstruct knowledge through their actions suggest the essential role of the teachers in the pedagogical process (Kerimbayev et al., 2023).
Despite various studies arguing for a shift toward more active learning methodologies, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding the effective implementation of teaching-learning approaches in graduates’ academic, professional, and personal competencies (Isusi-Fagoaga et al., 2023; Bhardwaj et al., 2025; Köse, 2025). Teaching for self-thinking, problem-solving, creativity, innovation, ethical conduct, effective communication, and independent learning empowers students with basic competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) vital for success in a rapidly changing world (Woods and Copur-Gencturk, 2024). Some literature proposes five key competencies associated to the sustainable-problem-solving framework, such as the ability to analyze complex systems, to foresee future scenarios, to apply norms and ethics, to design and implement action plans, and collaborate in interdisciplinary teams (Mokski et al., 2023; Isusi-Fagoaga and García-Aracil, 2020). In this understanding, learners must have a strong foundation built on their learning experience by interacting with the environment (Zamora-Polo and Sánchez-Martín, 2019). In this sense, HE study-programs should equip students with those competencies associated with the sustainable framework in line with the 17 UNESCO Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; UNESCO, 2017). Research indicates that active teaching-learning strategies enhance the effectiveness of the learning process while enabling the integration of social, economic, environmental, ethical, and cultural dimensions. Examples include project-oriented learning, problem-based learning, service-learning, flipped classrooms, and game-based learning (Carless, 2022; García-Aracil et al., 2024).
The present study aims to gain insights into which teaching-learning approaches should be used in HE study-programs to promote the appropriate competencies in students to become problem solvers and change agents, both as individuals and as members of societal groups, in line with the SDGs. For that purpose, an online survey was designed to gather HE teachers’ perspectives. The study focuses the analysis on Spain using the ‘Spanish Universities Involvement in Social Innovation Activities’ (SUISIA) data, collected during the academic year 2021/2022, as described below. Results and final discussions ending the manuscript.
2 Social innovation competencies to address societal challenges
Social innovation (SI) refers to the development and implementation of new ideas, strategies, concepts, and organizations that address social needs more effectively than existing solutions, with the ultimate aim of creating social value and enhancing collective well-being (Monteiro et al., 2021). Unlike purely technological or market-driven innovations, SI is driven by the imperative to solve pressing societal problems—such as inequality, environmental degradation, public health crises, and educational disparities—through collaborative, participatory, and often cross-sectoral approaches (Cunha and Benneworth, 2020).
Within the context of sustainable development, SI is crucial because it integrates the social dimension of sustainability with environmental and economic considerations (Agbedahin, 2019; Planells-Aleixandre et al., 2025). Sustainability frameworks, such as the United Nations’ SDGs, emphasize the need for integrated, inclusive, and participatory solutions (UNESCO, 2017). Achieving such solutions requires a specific set of competencies—here referred to as SI competencies, which empower individuals not only to generate novel ideas, but also to design, implement, and scale transformative interventions. In this context, higher education institutions (HEIs) are well-positioned to foster SI competencies as hubs of knowledge creation, critical inquiry, and community engagement (Monteiro et al., 2021). HEIs can promote SI competencies through partnerships with local governments, NGOs, and businesses, enabling students to co-create solutions with community stakeholders. Models such as service-learning, social entrepreneurship incubators, and living labs provide platforms where students engage in iterative problem-solving, develop empathy, and learn to navigate the practical challenges of implementation (Rezaei, 2023; García-Aracil et al., 2024). Therefore, by embedding SI competencies into the educational experience, HEIs prepare graduates not only to enter the workforce but to act as change agents who can lead collaborative initiatives, influence policy, and catalyze societal transformations. In doing so, they align the mission of HE with the urgent demands of sustainable development and social equity (Chankseliani and McCowan, 2021).
3 Methods
3.1 Sample
In 2022, Spain’s HE system was composed of 52 public universities and 30 private institutions, in addition to two unique public universities that exclusively offered their non-official postgraduate programs (MEyFP, Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional, 2022). Of the remaining 82 universities, nine were established as early as the 16th century, and another 10 (six public and four private) were created before 1968. While many countries experienced a significant expansion of HE during the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, Spain underwent this transformation only in the 1970s, shifting from an elite model to one of mass access (García-Aracil et al., 2023).
This study centers on the Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV), founded in 1970. Initially focused solely on technical fields, UPV has since broadened its academic offerings to include both technical and more traditional areas of study. Located in the Valencian Community, UPV serves a student population of approximately 30,000, supported by around 3,500 academic staff and 1,500 administrative personnel. Known for its modern infrastructure and commitment to innovation, the university offers well-structured academic programs designed to prepare graduates to actively contribute to society and pursue impactful research at both national and international levels (Monteiro et al., 2021).
The data analyzed in this research come from a representative online survey conducted in academic year 2021/2022 under the framework of the SUISIA project (Spanish Universities Involvement in Social Innovation Activities; SUISIA – Spanish Universities Involvement in Social Innovation Activities, 2021). The survey targeted a stratified random sample of 425 faculty members at UPV, selected to ensure proportional representation across academic disciplines. A total of 144 completed responses were received, resulting in a participation rate of 34%. Although this rate is moderate, it aligns with typical response rates in faculty surveys within HE contexts, which often range between 20 and 40% (Allen, 2011). The final sample was deemed sufficient for statistical analysis and reflects a diverse cross-section of disciplines, as it is shown below. Throughout the research process, ethical principles and data protection standards were strictly followed, in compliance with national legislation, institutional ethics protocols, and UPV’s internal regulations. The participation rate for the survey was 34%.
3.2 Data collection procedures and measures
The structure of the survey was based on the framework established by the REFLEX project (“The Flexible Professional in the Knowledge Society: New Demands on Higher Education in Europe”). This questionnaire was originally developed to explore HE graduates’ academic experiences, the competencies they gained, and their subsequent transition into the labor market (Allen, 2011). In the context of the SUISIA project, the teacher survey addressed several key areas: (1) socio-demographic details such as gender, age, and academic background; (2) professional background, including teaching discipline, academic rank, and any international experience; and (3) instructors’ perspectives on how effectively the study-program supports the development of SI competencies; and (4) teachers’ opinions about the teaching-learning approaches which promote SI competencies. Descriptive statistics for the variables analyzed in this study are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the variables used.
3.2.1 Teachers’ characteristics
Table 1 presents some teachers’ characteristics, including age as a numerical variable, which ranged from 32 to 70 years, with an average of 51.32 years. We also included an explanatory variable for gender, a dichotomous variable where female was coded 1 and male was coded 0. Given that all teachers in the sample had an HE degree, we also accounted for additional education characteristics, considering the highest academic qualification attained, measured as a binary variable where a value of 1 denoted possession of a doctoral degree, and 0 indicated a non-doctoral degree.
3.2.2 Teachers’ professional category
The academic rank of the university teachers was also considered by including three dummy variables representing assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor, with associate professor serving as the reference category.
3.2.3 Teaching predominant field of study
Five dummy variables were created to represent the predominant teaching fields: Natural Science (including Health and Mathematics), Social Sciences (including Economics, Business, Law, and Education), Humanities (including Arts), Communication (including Computation), and Engineering, which included Architecture and was considered the reference category.
3.2.4 Teaching and learning methods for promoting SI
Fifteen items from the SUISIA questionnaire were related to modes of teaching and learning emphasized in the study program. Teachers were asked to rank on a 1–5 scale, where 1 was not at all and 5 was very high, the importance they assigned to the following teaching-learning approaches: (1) teacher as a main source of information, (2) lectures, (3) written assignments, (4) oral presentations, (5) audiovisuals, (6) cooperative learning, (7) project-based learning (participation in research projects), (8) problem-based learning, (9) design thinking, (10) gamification, (11) thinking-based learning, (12) internships or work placement, (13) flipped classroom, (14) service-learning, (15) life stories. Table 1 reports the mean scores for each item. Overall, pedagogical approaches emphasizing active student engagement—such as project-based learning, group-based cooperative learning, problem-based learning, and internships or work placements—received higher ratings compared to more traditional methods, including lecture-based instruction where the teacher serves as the primary source of information.
3.2.5 Teachers’ perception of the contribution to students’ SI competencies development
SUISA data also provides information on 19 items associated with SI competencies. This set of items was developed drawing upon the theoretical foundations of sustainability and problem-solving research (Mokski et al., 2023; García-Aracil et al., 2024; Dittrich, 2025). Teachers were provided information about SI definition and requested to rate the extent to which their study program contributed to the development of graduates’ SI competencies on a 1 to 5 scale (from 1 not at all to 5 very much). Table 1 presents the 19 items. Teachers tended to value almost all items positively (mean results above 3), except for the ability to perform well under pressure (2.96 points) and the ability to assert authority (2.98 points).
3.2.6 Data analysis
To examine the impact of teaching and learning methods on SI competencies, it is essential to ensure data transparency and account for potential multicollinearity among variables. To mitigate these concerns and reduce dimensionality, a principal component factor analysis was conducted on the 19 identified competencies (Green, 1997). This procedure generated orthogonal (i.e., uncorrelated) factor scores, enabling a more reliable interpretation of the relationships among the different variables. While these scores do not permit causal inference, they facilitate the classification of observations into broader categories. The principal component analysis identified four factors—organizational (F1), entrepreneurial (F2), collaborative (F3), and resilience (F4)—with eigenvalues greater than 1 (respectively, 7.63, 1.99, 1.28, and 1.05). These four factors account for 63.02% of the overall variance (i.e., respectively 23.45, 20.16, 9.98 and 9.43%). For each item, the individual factor loadings were used to create an individual factor score; that is, for each respondent, we reduced the 19-item scores to 4-factor scores (see Table 2). Internal consistency of the scale items was measured using Croanbach’s alpha coefficient; the closer the coefficient to 1.0, the greater the item’s internal consistency. Cronbach alpha levels equaled F1 0.89, F2 0.84, F3 0.71, F4 0.72. It is generally agreed that a Cronbach alpha of 0.70 is acceptable (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2011), which means that since all four factors have alphas above 0.70, factor consistency is good.
Table 2. Rotated factor matrix of teachers’ perception of their contribution to the development of social innovation competencies.
Within our factor groups (see Table 3), Organizational competencies are related to the ability to mobilize others’ abilities, coordination capacity to negotiate and reach agreements, reflective ethical issues, and empathy. Entrepreneurial competencies include the ability to suggest new ideas and solutions, problem-solving, using time efficiently, and rapidly acquiring new knowledge. Collaborative competencies are related to the ability for team working and networking. Resilience competencies are associated with performing well under pressure and the ability to assert authority.
Table 3. Social innovation competency categories.
To analyze the impact of the teaching-learning approach of the study program on the development of SI students’ competencies, we used four dependent variables. The estimation was conducted using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), with organizational, entrepreneurial, collaborative, and resilience competencies serving as the outcome variables (Green, 1997). To assess the total, indirect, and direct effects on competency development of teaching-learning modes, we estimated four separate modes for each competency category. The first model estimates the indirect effect of the teaching-learning mode and includes teacher characteristics and the program study field. The effect is measured based on the influence of observable individual and study program characteristics (Model I). The second specification estimates the total effects of teaching-learning methods on the development of competencies independent of individual and study program characteristics (Model II). The third specification estimated the direct effects of the teaching-learning approach on competencies development and includes all the explanatory variables (Model III).
4 Results
Estimations for organizational, entrepreneurial, collaborative, and resilience competencies are provided in Tables 4–7, respectively.
Table 4. OLS estimates concerning the fostering of organizational competencies as perceived by teachers.
Table 5. OLS estimates concerning the fostering of entrepreneurial competencies as perceived by teachers.
Table 6. OLS estimates concerning the fostering of collaborative competencies as perceived by teachers.
Table 7. OLS estimates concerning the fostering of resilience competencies as perceived by teachers.
4.1 Fostering organizational competencies
Model I examines the influence of teachers’ characteristics and job-related factors on the promotion of organizational competencies, regardless of the teaching-learning methods employed. As shown in Table 4, around 20% of the variation of the promotion of organizational competencies can be attributed to these personal and job characteristics. While this percentage may appear modest, it is important to note that the sample is fairly homogeneous with respect to fundamental human capital attributes. Nonetheless, some differences are evident among the variables considered. For instance, the results indicate that the likelihood of promoting organizational-related competencies increases with teachers’ age, feasibly correlated with teaching experience. This trend suggests that with accumulated experience, teachers may develop stronger capabilities in managing and organizing resources, which this result is also found in the literature (Graham et al., 2020; Gore et al., 2024). However, neither holding a doctoral degree nor occupying a higher academic rank (such as full professor) has a significant impact on the promotion of organizational competencies among students. This finding may indicate that formal qualifications and hierarchical position do not necessarily translate into greater promotion of organizational competencies such as coordinating group work, mobilizing others’ capacities, or facilitating ethical negotiation. One possible explanation is that the ability to promote organizational competencies relies more on pedagogical approaches and teaching practices than on academic credentials or status (Liu, 2021; Mpiti et al., 2025). Regarding the teaching predominant field of study, Table 4 shows that teachers in Natural Science and Communication (including Computation) tend to focus less on organizational competencies compared to teachers in the Social Science (reference group). This result can be understood in light of the different pedagogical orientations that characterize each disciplinary domain. For instance, in the Natural Sciences, teaching is often centered on the transmission of conceptual and procedural knowledge, emphasizing accuracy, experimentation, and problem-solving within well-defined parameters (Neumann, 2001). Such an approach may inherently limit opportunities to develop competencies related to organizing collaborative efforts or mobilizing social resources. In the case of the Communication (including Computation), the relatively lower promotion of organizational competencies may be linked to the technical and production-oriented nature of these disciplines, where the focus often lies in mastering specialized tools and processes rather than fostering broad organizational competencies (Milutinovic et al., 2024). The results also show no significant differences between male and female teachers in the promotion of organizational competencies. One possible explanation could be that gender is not a determining factor in the adoption of teaching practices once the disciplinary are considered (Khokhlova et al., 2023).
Model II provides information on the total effect of teaching-learning approaches on the promotion of organizational competencies. As we expected, we find that design thinking is the most prevalent method for fostering organizational competencies, as it requires students to empathize with users, identify needs, negotiate ideas, and coordinate roles within a team (García-Aracil and Isusi-Fagoaga, 2025). Table 4 also shows that the gamification approach creates opportunities for students to collaborate, communicate, negotiate, and coordinate actions, thereby reinforcing organizational competencies. Even when gamified activities have a strong motivational component, they depend on teamwork, rules, and feedback loops that mirror the organizational processes (Latorre-Cosculluela et al., 2025). The finding that a teacher-centered approach (the teacher as the main source of information) also promotes organizational competencies suggests that in the lecture-based settings, teachers model organizational behavior, demonstrating planning, ethical reasoning, coordination of classroom activities, and the management of group dynamics. In this context, students may internalize these organizational items even when the learning experience is less interactive compared to design-thinking or gamified approaches (Gonzalez-Marcos et al., 2021). Then, according to our results, the combination of these three approaches (experiential, motivational, and conceptual) could support the development of students’ organizational competencies.
Model III examines the direct effect of the teaching-learning approaches on the development of organizational competencies. When all variables are incorporated into the competency model, the findings are reinforced as the ones observed in Models I and II, although some variations emerge. For instance, the analysis of academic rank reveals that, relative to associate professors (the reference category), assistant professors show a positive influence on the promotion of organizational competencies. It could be stated that assistant professors are comparatively more likely to employ active-learning and student-centered teaching strategies than their more senior counterparts (Fedeli and Taylor, 2023). In terms of teaching-learning approaches, it is observed that the use of oral presentations also contributes to the development of organizational competencies. It could be stated that the process of constructing a coherent argument or addressing social or ethical issues within a presentation encourages reflection on social needs and responsible decision-making (Melguizo-Garín et al., 2022).
4.2 Fostering entrepreneurial competencies
Table 5 shows the three analytical models that assess the indirect, total, and direct effects of the teaching-learning methods on the development of entrepreneurial competencies. Model I examines the influence of teachers’ personal and professional attributes independently of the teaching-learning methods employed. The results indicate that female instructors tend to encourage the development of entrepreneurial competencies more than their male counterparts. This result is also corroborated by other studies such as Alkaabi and Senghore (2024), and Isusi-Fagoaga et al. (2023). In contrast, neither holding a doctoral degree nor academic rank status appears to shape the extent to which these competencies are promoted within the study programs. These results raise concerns for HE governance due to the promotion of entrepreneurial competencies, widely recognized as essential for students’ success in the dynamic professional and personal environments (García-Aracil et al., 2024), should be a shared pedagogical responsibility across all faculty members, irrespective of gender, seniority, or academic status. Regarding the teaching field of study, it is observed a negative association between Communication (including Computation) and the promotion of entrepreneurial competencies compared to Social Sciences. This negative association may stem from the highly technical, production-oriented nature of the Communication programs, where teaching focuses on tool proficiency, digital production, or coding tasks (Liang et al., 2025).
Model II examines the overall influence of teaching-learning approaches on the development of entrepreneurial competencies. The results are similar to those found in Table 4 with the exception of the gamification approach. That is, design thinking and the teacher as the main source of information are the instructional approaches that positively support the enhancement of entrepreneurial competencies. Design thinking encourages creative problem-solving, iterative learning, and the ability to identify and act upon opportunities, all core competencies of entrepreneurship education (García-Aracil and Isusi-Fagoaga, 2025). Meanwhile, having the teachers as the primary source of information may provide structured guidance and clarity in complex entrepreneurial concepts, facilitating students’ understanding and skill acquisition, especially in foundational stages (Gonzalez-Marcos et al., 2021). The lack of a significant effect for gamification in this context, compared to the results found in the promotion of organizational competencies (see Table 4), may reflect that gamification strategies, while often engaging, do not necessarily translate into deeper entrepreneurial competency unless it was carefully integrated into its design and alignment with learning objectives (Lampropoulos and Kinshuk, 2024).
Model III estimates the direct impact of teaching-learning methods on the promotion of entrepreneurial competencies. When incorporating all variables into the model, the findings corroborate the primary results observed in Models I and II, additionally highlighting the positive influence of teachers’ experience as reflected by the age variable (Gore et al., 2024).
4.3 Fostering collaborative competencies
Table 6 presents the three analytical models used to evaluate the indirect, total, and direct effects of teaching–learning approaches on the development of collaborative competencies. Model I analyses the role of teachers’ personal and professional characteristics, considering them separately from the instructional methods applied. It is observed that female teachers promote more collaborative competencies than their male counterparts. One possible interpretation could be that female teachers are more inclined to adopt relational, student-centered, and participatory teaching approaches, which facilitate the development of collaborative competencies (Isusi-Fagoaga et al., 2023). Some studies have shown that women tend to emphasize communication, cooperation, and the creation of supportive learning environments more strongly than men (Muñoz-Troncoso et al., 2025; Mora-Ruano et al., 2018). These pedagogical orientations often translate into classroom practices that encourage teamwork, peer learning, and networking activities (Alkaabi and Senghore, 2024). Regarding the teaching predominant field of study, it is observed that those teachers in Natural Sciences or Communication (including Computation) provide fewer opportunities to foster collaboration, as teaching traditions are more technical and individual-performance-oriented environments (Milutinovic et al., 2024), than those in Social Sciences (the reference group).
Model II shows the positive and statistically significant effects of cooperative learning, design thinking, teacher-centered instructions, oral presentations and gamification on the promotion of collaborative competencies. It has long been recognized that cooperative learning is one of the most effective pedagogical approaches for fostering teamwork and interpersonal coordination, as it promotes positive interdependence, shared responsibility and interaction among students (Gillies, 2016). Design thinking facilitates collaboration through its emphasis on co-creation, iterative group problem-solving, and empathic engagement with user or stakeholders (García-Aracil and Isusi-Fagoaga, 2025). The significant effect of teacher-centered instruction may be explained by the role of structured guidance and conceptual scaffolding, which can enhance group coherence and coordination in complex tasks by providing students with clear frameworks and common reference points (Gonzalez-Marcos et al., 2021). Oral presentations also contribute to the development of collaborative competencies, particularly when they require group preparation and delivery. Prior studies have shown that group-based oral presentations foster constructive communication, shared knowledge building, and strengthen teamwork and collective responsibility (Melguizo-Garín et al., 2022; Ortiz Navarrete and Benoit, 2022). Finally, gamification has been found to stimulate collaborative behaviors through game elements that promote teamwork, collective goals, and social engagement, thereby increasing students’ willingness to interact and solve problems cooperatively (Lampropoulos and Kinshuk, 2024). Thus, the results indicate that the combination of these approaches (i.e., structured interdependence, co-creative problem-solving, guided coordination, and motivational engagement) can support the development of collaborative competencies.
Model III shows that when all variables are included in the full competency model, the main results of Models I and II remain stable regarding the teaching-learning approaches: cooperative learning, design thinking, teacher-centered instructions, and oral presentations continue statistically significant in promoting collaborative competencies. Additionally, age shows a positive effect, indicating that more experienced instructors may facilitate collaboration more effectively (Gore et al., 2024). Moreover, assistant professors also display a higher tendency than associate professors (the reference group) to foster these competences, likely reflecting early-career academics’ greater use of active and innovative teaching practices (García-Aracil and Isusi-Fagoaga, 2025).
4.4 Fostering resilience competencies
Table 7 shows the three separate analytical estimations of the indirect, direct, and total effects of teaching-learning methods on the promotion of resilience-related competencies. Whether examining how teaching methods operate through teachers’ characteristics, their direct contribution, or their overall combined influence, the patterns are similar. This convergence suggests that, regardless of model specification (Model I, II, and III), the teaching approaches used by instructors play a stable role in fostering resilience-oriented competencies associated with performing effectively under pressure or asserting one’s authority. That is, the capacity to manage demanding situations, enforce academic standards, or guide students through pressure-intensive tasks is closely related to pedagogical approaches and accumulated teaching experience (measured by age in our models), conditions that are broadly similar for male and female teachers, disciplinary knowledge areas (measured by teaching predominant field of study) and teachers’ formal qualification and academic rank. This finding aligns with research indicating that resilience in teaching is primarily shaped by teachers’ experience and contextual factors, rather than by gender and formal qualifications (Turner and Garvis, 2023; Leahy et al., 2025).
5 Discussion
Social innovation (SI), grounded in sustainability principles, offers a pathway to address the pressing societal challenges of our time (Planells-Aleixandre et al., 2025). Cultivating SI competencies within HE equips future leaders with the skills, mindsets, and ethical orientation needed to design and implement transformative solutions. Through curriculum integration, experiential learning, and institutional commitment, HEIs can become catalysts for social change, preparing graduates to contribute meaningfully to a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable world.
Overall, the results of this paper highlight the importance of instructional approaches that combine active teaching methods, structured guidance, and real-world application for successfully promoting organizational, entrepreneurial, collaborative and resilience competencies.
The positive effect of age on the promotion of organizational and collaborative competencies likely reflects the accumulation of teaching experience and the development of more organizational, relational, and ethical skills over time (Gore et al., 2024). However, the finding that junior faculty (assistant professors) promote these competencies more intensively than their counterparts (associate and full professors) could be due to the high use of active-learning and student-centered instructional methods by the formers (Fedeli and Taylor, 2023). That is, age contributes through experience-based mechanisms to the development of organizational and collaborative competencies, whereas academic rank operated through pedagogical innovation.
The findings also suggest that the teachers’ formal qualifications do not necessarily translate into better promotion of competencies among students. Instead, it may be mediated by other instructional, organizational or interpersonal practices (Mpiti et al., 2025). At the institutional governance level, these findings highlight the need for HEIs to move beyond traditional hierarchies and credential-based evaluations when aiming to strengthen teachers’ capacity to foster organizational, entrepreneurial, collaborative, and resilience competencies.
Disciplinary differences have been observed. Social Sciences teachers report significantly higher promotion of organizational, entrepreneurial and collaborative competencies, whereas instructors in Natural Sciences, Humanities, Engineering and Communication related fields (including Computation) tend to score lower, reflecting more content-driven and less interaction-oriented teaching cultures (García-Aracil and Isusi-Fagoaga, 2025). Fostering interdisciplinary teaching teams through tailored workshops, discipline-specific teaching labs, and peer-mentoring schemes that support lecturers in adapting active learning methods could be initiatives to address these disciplinary disparities. In this framework, HEIs should promote pedagogical programs that enhance teachers’ abilities in teamwork facilitation, coordination, ethical decision-making, social engagement, problem solving and the ability to perform well under pressure. Moreover, HEIs should incentivize teaching innovation by incorporating indicators of classroom collaborations (i.e., co-design and co-teach courses fostering mutual learning and dissemination of effective teaching practices), student engagement, and community-oriented learning into promotion and evaluation systems, ensuring valued pedagogical excellence, not only research prestige.
6 Conclusion
The findings of this study underscore the role of HEIs in cultivating the competencies that enable students to engage with societal challenges. By embedding SI competencies throughout teaching and learning activities, HEIs move beyond preparing graduates for traditional labor market entry and instead equip them to act as proactive change agents. Such graduates could be better positioned to lead collaborative initiatives, influence decision-making processes, and contribute to transformative solutions within their communities and professional fields. Therefore, the evidence found in this paper calls for a shift from credential-based governance (academic ranks or teachers’ formal qualifications) toward a combination of credentials with competency-oriented university leadership. Fostering institutional environments that reward pedagogical innovation, collaboration, and ethical engagement may have a greater impact on the promotion of SI competencies associated with organizational, entrepreneurial, collaborative, and resilience. The implementation of active pedagogical approaches such as design-thinking, cooperative learning, gamification, and oral presentations, can enhance students’ SI competencies combined with teacher-centered delivery, suggesting that structured guidance can complement active learning in competency development.
In the context of the UPV, the teaching-learning approaches examined are not merely abstract pedagogical constructs but are embedded in concrete instructional practices that help explain their observed effects on competency development. For example, design thinking is frequently integrated into courses in which students co-create prototypes and develop solutions to real-world challenges proposed by external partners. Cooperative learning takes the form of structured group projects and multidisciplinary teamwork, fostering shared responsibility and collective problem-solving. Likewise, gamification is implemented through challenge-based activities, point systems, and peer feedback mechanisms designed to stimulate engagement and collaborative behavior. Oral presentations, often carried out in pairs or small groups, require students to coordinate tasks, articulate joint arguments, and negotiate meaning, thereby reinforcing collaborative competencies. Finally, even in more traditional formats in which the teacher acts as the main source of information, instructors commonly incorporate guided discussions, collective problem-solving and peer clarification moments that facilitate interaction among students. These examples illustrate how institutional practices operationalize the teaching methodologies analyzed and help contextualize the positive association found between active approaches and the promotion of organizational, entrepreneurial, collaborative and resilience competencies, which are central to advancing SI within and beyond the university. These competencies directly align with the SDGs, particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). By engaging students in methodologies that encourage critical analysis, co-creation, and collective action, HEIs contribute to forming graduates capable of designing and implementing socially innovative solutions responsive to global shifts. Thus, the pedagogical practices identified in this study not only enhance individual learning outcomes but also support universities’ strategic commitment to sustainability and societal impact.
6.1 Study limitations
This study focuses on a single, young university with a strong science and technology orientation and a commitment to societal engagement and sustainable development. As a result, the findings may not fully apply to older, more traditional institutions, which might face greater challenges adapting teaching methods to foster SI competencies. However, these older universities may have stronger Humanities and Social Sciences faculties, potentially supporting active teaching approaches that promote organizational, entrepreneurial, collaborative, and resilience competencies linked to SI. Further research should investigate the factors influencing the adoption of active teaching methods and the promotion of SI competencies across diverse institutional contexts.
6.2 Directions for future research
Future research should explore how HEIs can effectively incentivize teaching innovation by integrating indicators of collaborative classroom practices into their promotion and evaluation frameworks. Specifically, studies could examine the impact of co-designing and co-teaching courses that foster mutual learning among faculty members and promote the dissemination of effective teaching strategies. Additionally, further investigation is needed into how student engagement and community-oriented learning can be systematically recognized and rewarded, ensuring that pedagogical excellence is valued alongside research achievements. Understanding these dynamics will provide valuable insights for designing institutional policies that support the development of innovative and socially responsive teaching practices.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Universitat Politècnica de València. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
RI-F: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. EP-A: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. AG-A: Formal analysis, Project administration, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was funded in part by the Valencian Department of Education, Universities and Employment (Conselleria de Educación, Universidades y Empleo-Generalitat Valenciana), grant number CIAICO/2023/174 How do Spanish Universities deal with Sustainable Innovation? (HSUSI). This work also received support from the UTRANSFER project, reference PID2023-153304OB-I00.
Acknowledgments
We are very grateful for the research institute INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), which provides administrative and technical support. We also thank to INGENIO for giving access to the SUISIA database.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Author disclaimer
The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily the views of that organization.
References
Agbedahin, A. V. (2019). Sustainable development, education for sustainable development, and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: emergence, efficacy, eminence, and future. Sustain. Dev. 27, 669–680. doi: 10.1002/sd.1931
Alkaabi, K., and Senghore, S. (2024). Stundent entrepreneurship competency and mindset: examining the influence of education, role models, and gender. J. Innov. Entrep. 13:36. doi: 10.1186/s13731-024-00393-5
Allen, J. R. Veldenvan der (2011) The flexible professional in the knowledge society: General results of the REFLEX project The Netherlands Maastricht University
Bhardwaj, V., Zhang, S., Tan, Y. Q., and Pandey, V. (2025). Redefining learning: student-centered strategies for academic and personal growth. Front. Educ. 10:1518602. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1518602
Carless, D. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: activating the learner role in feedback processes. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 23, 143–153. doi: 10.1177/1469787420945845
Chankseliani, M., and McCowan, T. (2021). Higher education and the sustainable development goals. High. Educ. 81, 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00652-w,
Cunha, J., and Benneworth, P. (2020). How to measure the impact of social innovation initiatives? Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 17, 59–75. doi: 10.1007/s12208-019-00240-4
Dittrich, A. K. (2025). An international reconstruction of teachers’ and teacher educators’ perspectives on the challenges of education for sustainable development in teacher education. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 18, 122–141. doi: 10.1177/09734082241309704,
Fedeli, M., and Taylor, E. W. (2023). The impact of an active-learning designed faculty development program: a students’ perspective of an Italian university. Tuning J. High. Educ. 11, 151–174. doi: 10.18543/tjhe.2513
García-Aracil, A., and Isusi-Fagoaga, R. (2025). “Motivating teachers in active methodologies using design thinking: learning analytics” in Motivation in learning. eds. J. H. Ye, L. Nong, L. Wang, and W. Nong (London: IntechOpen), 55–107.
García-Aracil, A., Isusi-Fagoaga, R., Monteiro, S., and Almeida, L. (2023). Social commitment at higher education institutions: analysis of their strategic plans. Educ. Sci. 13:1185. doi: 10.3390/educsci13121185
García-Aracil, A., Isusi-Fagoaga, R., and Planells-Aleixandre, E. (2024). Students’ perspectives of alignment between teaching-learning methods and the promotion of social innovation competencies. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 43, 1479–1494. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2024.2354278
Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: review of research and practice. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 41, 39–54. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3
Gonzalez-Marcos, A., Navaridas-Nalda, F., Jiménez-Trens, M. A., Alba-Elias, F., and Ordieres-Mere, J. (2021). Academic effects of a mixed teaching methodology versus a teacher-centered methodology and approaches to learning. Rev. Educ. 392, 115–144. doi: 10.44338/1988-592X-RE-2021-392-481
Gore, J., Rosser, B., Jaremus, F., Miller, A., and Harris, J. (2024). Fresh evidence on the relationship between years of experience and teaching quality. Aust. Educ. Res. 51, 547–570. doi: 10.1007/s13384-023-00612-0
Graham, L. J., White, S. L., Cologon, K., and Planta, R. C. (2020). Do teachers’ years of experience make a difference in the quality of teaching? Teach. Teach. Educ. 96:103190. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103190
Isusi-Fagoaga, R., and García-Aracil, A. (2020). Assessing master students’ competencies using rubrics: lessons learned from future secondary education teachers. Sustainability 12:9826. doi: 10.3390/su12239826
Isusi-Fagoaga, R., García-Aracil, A., and Navarro-Milla, I. (2023). Impact of teaching-learning approaches on graduates’ learning outcomes. Evidence in Belarus. High. Educ. Skills Work-Based Learn. 13, 1234–1249. doi: 10.1108/HESWBL-03-2023-0056
Kerimbayev, N., Umirzakova, Z., Shadiev, R., and Jotsov, V. (2023). A student-centered approach using modern technologies in distance learning: a systematic review of the literature. Smart Learn. Environ. 10, 1–28. doi: 10.1186/s40561-023-00280-8
Khokhlova, O., Lamba, N., and Kishore, S. (2023). Evaluating student evaluations: evidence of gender bias against women in higher education based on perceived learning and instructor personality. Front. Educ. 8:1158132. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1158132
Köse, E. (2025). Improving learning outcomes in engineering education with a close-loop control system method. Eur. Mech. Sci. 9, 277–290. doi: 10.26701/ems.1733766
Lampropoulos, G., and Kinshuk, K. (2024). Virtual reality and gamification in education: a systematic review. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 72, 1691–1785. doi: 10.1007/s11423-024-10351-3
Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Sierra-Sánchez, V., and Vázquez-Toledo, S. (2025). Gamification, collaborative learning and transversal competences: analysis of academic performance and students’ perceptions. Smart Learn. Environ. 12:2. doi: 10.1186/s40561-024-00361-2
Leahy, K., Calderón, A., O’Meara, N., MacPhail, A., and O’Flaherty, J. (2025). Navigating times of change through communities of practice: a focus on teacher educators’ realities and professional learning. Teach. Teach. Educ. 156:104925. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2025.104925
Liang, Y., Chen, R., Hong, H., Li, S., and Han, L. (2025). Shaping digital entrepreneurial intention in higher education: the role of entrepreneurship education, creativity, and digital literacy among Chinese university students. J. Innov. Knowl. 10:100788. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2025.100788
Liu, J. (2021). Evaluating educational credentials of teachers as predictor of effective teaching: a pupil fixed-effect modeling approach. Front. Psychol. 12:729360. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.729360,
Mascolo, M. F. (2009). Beyond student-centered and teacher-centered pedagogy: teaching and learning as guided participation. Pedagogy Hum. Sci. 1, 3–27.
Melguizo-Garín, A., Ruiz-Rodríguez, I., Peláez-Fernández, M. A., Salas-Rodríguez, J., and Serrano-Ibáñez, E. R. (2022). Relationship between group work competencies and satisfaction with project-based learning among university students. Front. Psychol. 13:881864. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.811864,
MEyFP, Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional (2022). Series históricas de estudiantes universitarios desde el curso 1985-1986. Total Sistema Universitario Español. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional.
Milutinovic, J., Lungulov, B., and Lazic, M. (2024). University teachers’ perspectives on teaching: the differences among academic disciplines. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 26, 425–440. doi: 10.1177/14697874241262010,
Mokski, E., Leal Filho, W., Sehnem, S., and Andrade Guerra, J. B. S. O. (2023). Education for sustainable development in higher education institutions: an approach for effective interdisciplinarity. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 24, 96–117. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-07-2021-0306
Monteiro, S., Isusi-Fagoaga, R., Almeida, L., and García-Aracil, A. (2021). Contribution of higher education institutions to social innovation: practices in two southern European universities. Sustainability 13:3594. doi: 10.3390/su13073594
Mora-Ruano, J. G., Gebhardt, M., and Wittmann, E. (2018). Teacher collaboration in German schools: do gender and school type influence the frequency of collaboration among teachers? Front. Educ. 3:5. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2018.00055,
Mpiti, V. S., Ncanywa, T., and Asaleye, A. J. (2025). Do educators’ demographic characteristics drive learner academic performance? Examining the role of gender, qualifications, and experience. Educ. Sci. 15:487. doi: 10.3390/educsci15040487
Muñoz-Troncoso, F., Riquelme-Mella, E., Montero, I., and Muñoz-Troncoso, G. (2025). Gender and professional role differences in Chilean educational personnel’s perceptions of school climate and well-being. Behav. Sci. 15:1447. doi: 10.3390/bs15111447,
Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Stud. High. Educ. 26, 135–146. doi: 10.1080/03075070120052071
Neumann, J. W. (2013). Developing a new framework for conceptualizing “student-centered learning”. Educ. Forum 77, 161–175. doi: 10.1080/00131725.2012.761313
Ortiz Navarrete, M. A., and Benoit, C. (2022). Uso de técnicas de trabajo colaborativo en una presentación oral. Rev. Educ. 46, 280–293. doi: 10.15517/revedu.v46i2.49634
Planells-Aleixandre, E., García-Aracil, A., and Isusi-Fagoaga, R. (2025). University’s contribution to society: benchmarking of social innovation. Sustainability 17:3427. doi: 10.3390/su17083427
Raykov, T., and Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory : Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.
Rezaei, A. R. (2023). Comparing strategies for active participation of students in group discussions. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 24, 337–351. doi: 10.1177/14697874221075719
Serin, H. (2018). A comparison of teacher-centered and student-centered approaches in educational settings. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. Stud. 5, 164–167. doi: 10.23918//ijsses.v5i1p164
SUISIA – Spanish Universities Involvement in Social Innovation Activities (2021). Promoting social innovation in higher education institutions. Final report. National R&D Program of the Spanish Ministry of Science, innovation and universities – SUISIA project. Ref. RTI2018-101722-B-I00
Trinidad, J. E. (2019). Understanding student-centred learning in higher education: students’ and teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps. J. Further High. Educ. 44, 1013–1023. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2019.1636214
Turner, K., and Garvis, S. (2023). Teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout: a scoping review. Educ. Sci. 13:351. doi: 10.3390/educsci13040351
Woods, P. J., and Copur-Gencturk, Y. (2024). Examining the role of student-centered versus teacher-centered pedagogical approaches to self-directed learning through teaching. Teach. Teach. Educ. 138:104415. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104415
Keywords: competencies, higher education, social innovation, sustainability, teaching-learning methods
Citation: Isusi-Fagoaga R, Planells-Aleixandre E and García-Aracil A (2026) Exploring teachers’ views on how educational methodologies foster social innovation competencies. Front. Educ. 10:1750880. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1750880
Edited by:
Rolando Salazar Hernandez, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, MexicoReviewed by:
Grace Villanueva Paredes, Universidad Catolica de Santa Maria, PeruEric Tortochot, Aix-Marseille Université, France
Copyright © 2026 Isusi-Fagoaga, Planells-Aleixandre and García-Aracil. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ester Planells-Aleixandre, ZXNwbGFhbEBpbmdlbmlvLnVwdi5lcw==