SDG 17.4.4 Sustainability Literacy of Students

Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia

Reporting period: 1 January–31 December 2025 UIII’s 2025 evidence presents sustainability literacy as a student learning pathway supported by curriculum, programme-level quality assurance, and student voice. The 2025 course inventory shows that sustainability content is present across a substantial share of mapped courses. The Internal Quality Audit (AMI) covers the Master of Finance programme, where sustainability is addressed through the course “Sustainability in Islamic Banking and Finance.” UIII’s Service Satisfaction Survey (SKL) supplies additional evidence that students participate in a university-wide feedback process about academic and non-academic services.

Together, these sources show that sustainability learning is not only an institutional aspiration: it has curricular presence and sits within a quality-assurance environment that gathers student feedback. The relationship to student literacy is persuasive as an account of enabling conditions and learning opportunities. The evidence does not directly test students’ sustainability knowledge, ability to apply concepts, or retention. The course evaluation provides course-specific context after the reporting year and is clearly distinguished from the 2025 evidence.

Table 1. 2025 evidence base.

1. Interpretation and detailed analysis

1.1. Curriculum creates repeated opportunities to encounter sustainability

The inventory identifies 110 sustainability-related course entries among 292 mapped entries, or 37.7%. The composition matters: 90 entries (30.8% of the total) are classified as dedicated sustainability education, while 20 (6.8%) contain substantial SDG content within courses whose primary focus may be broader. This pattern indicates both concentrated learning opportunities and integration of sustainability into other subject areas. For students, repeated exposure across settings can help connect environmental, social, economic, ethical, and institutional questions instead of treating sustainability as a single isolated topic.

The Master of Finance course “Sustainability in Islamic Banking and Finance” gives this institutional pattern a concrete disciplinary example. It places sustainability within financial concepts and Islamic banking, creating a setting where students can consider how financial decisions relate to social responsibility, environmental risks, long-term value, and ethical principles. This kind of disciplinary integration is relevant to sustainability literacy because students need to interpret sustainability issues within the professional fields in which they may later make decisions.

Course counts, however, represent curriculum entries, not individual students or learning outcomes. A mapped entry does not tell us how many students took a course, how many class hours addressed sustainability, whether students were assessed on these concepts, or whether understanding persisted. Accordingly, the inventory is strong evidence for availability and curricular reach, but only indirect evidence for student literacy. It establishes the opportunity to learn, which is a necessary foundation for literacy, rather than proof that each learner attained it.

1.2. Student feedback documents the conditions in which learning takes place

The 2025 SKL collected 149 responses from UIII stakeholders, with students forming the largest respondent group. CQA has clarified that students taking the sustainability-related course are among the student respondents. The published report aggregates service results at university level, however, and does not identify respondents by programme or course. Its findings therefore represent the institutional student experience and feedback mechanism; they cannot be presented as the measured views of the course cohort specifically.

The detailed results tables report a mean of 3.33 on a four-point scale and an overall service index of 83.15%, categorized as “Baik.” The report’s conclusion states 3.39 and 84.72%; this internal difference is noted here, and the detailed tables are used for analysis because they provide the disaggregated service values. In the areas most relevant to students’ learning environment, the reported mean values are 3.47 for student affairs, 3.41 for research and community service, 3.36 for facilities and infrastructure, and 3.49 for management. These results portray an environment that is generally rated good, with variation across service areas.

This evidence matters to sustainability literacy through the learning conditions it describes. Sustainability topics are often interdisciplinary and require students to work with complex information, engage with more than one perspective, and connect concepts to real situations. Access to academic resources, supportive student services, reliable facilities, and clear institutional processes can make sustained engagement more feasible. When students report barriers or areas for improvement, those signals can help UIII understand whether institutional conditions are helping students participate fully in learning.

The SKL does not ask students to define sustainability, analyze a sustainability case, or demonstrate a change in knowledge. Satisfaction should not be equated with literacy, and a good service rating cannot be interpreted as proof of learning. Its contribution is different: the survey documents a channel through which student experience is heard and can be considered in quality improvement. In an indicator concerned with students’ learning and retention, that channel is relevant because it gives the institution a means to examine the educational conditions around learning, while direct assessment is needed to establish the learning outcome itself.

1.3. AMI links programme-level quality assurance with student voice

The AMI report places the Master of Finance inside UIII’s formal internal quality-assurance system. It records compliance with 17 of 22 audited sub-standards and an overall score of 3.89 (“Unggul”). At the same time, under the learning-process sub-standard, it states that the programme needs to conduct student satisfaction surveys periodically. The combination is analytically useful: it shows a programme with a strong overall audit result while identifying student feedback as a specific area requiring regular attention.

The 2025 SKL demonstrates that a university-wide satisfaction survey was conducted during the relevant reporting year. Read alongside the AMI, it shows both an existing institutional feedback mechanism and a programme-level expectation for more systematic feedback. For sustainability literacy, this matters because course learning is shaped by the way programmes organize instruction, communicate expectations, provide support, and review student experience. The AMI does not itself show that the sustainability course was evaluated in 2025, and the SKL report does not disaggregate its results for Master of Finance. Therefore, the sources support the existence of quality-assurance structures and student voice, but not a claim that course-specific feedback was systematically reviewed in 2025.

The distinction also clarifies institutional maturity. Curriculum mapping tells UIII where sustainability appears; programme audit examines whether learning processes meet quality standards; student feedback adds the learner perspective. These are complementary views of the educational system. Taken together, they create a credible basis for describing how UIII monitors the context for learning, without suggesting that an audit score or satisfaction index measures sustainability competence.

1.4. Breakdown against core dimensions of sustainability literacy

For analytical clarity, sustainability literacy can be considered through five connected dimensions: conceptual understanding; systems and critical thinking; values and ethical reflection; application and agency; and retention and transfer. The evidence has different strengths for each dimension, as summarized below.

Table 2. Evidence against core dimensions of sustainability literacy.

This breakdown shows why the combined evidence is more convincing than any single source. The inventory establishes the structural presence of learning opportunities. The course title and programme context show that sustainability is addressed in a field with direct links to finance and professional judgment. The AMI demonstrates that the programme is reviewed through internal quality assurance, while the SKL places student voice within the university’s service-monitoring process. The course evaluation then offers a later, more focused indication that students perceived the course as useful for understanding concepts and critical thinking. Each source contributes a different piece; none is asked to carry a claim beyond its design.

1.5. Later course evaluation as contextual corroboration

The course and lecturer evaluation collected 16 responses for “Sustainability in Islamic Banking and Finance.” Across 10 course-evaluation items, the mean was 4.37/5. The item on understanding underlying concepts averaged 4.44/5, while the item on critical thinking averaged 4.38/5 and course relevance averaged 4.38/5. These results help show how students experienced the course in a later semester and are consistent with the idea that the course offers meaningful engagement with sustainability concepts.

These results are contextual corroboration, not evidence from the 2025 reporting period. They are also perceptions captured through course evaluation, rather than a test scored against a sustainability literacy framework. Their appropriate role in this report is to illustrate later course-level feedback and continuity of sustainability teaching, while the 2025 case rests on the inventory, AMI, and SKL. Keeping this temporal and methodological distinction explicit protects the credibility of the submission.

1.6. Overall interpretation for student sustainability literacy

The most defensible interpretation is that UIII’s 2025 evidence describes a learning ecosystem that supports the development of sustainability literacy. Sustainability is present in the mapped curriculum; the Master of Finance offers a course that applies sustainability to a relevant disciplinary field; the programme is reviewed through AMI; and students take part in a university-wide mechanism for expressing their experience of academic and non-academic services. This combination supports a substantive institutional narrative about exposure, governance, and responsiveness to learners.

The link from these processes to literacy is plausible and educationally meaningful, but it remains an indirect inference. Curriculum presence makes learning possible; supportive conditions can enable engagement; internal review can help programmes attend to quality; and student feedback can identify experiences that matter for participation. Yet literacy is ultimately about what students know, how they interpret interconnected sustainability challenges, how they reason about values and trade-offs, whether they can apply ideas, and what they retain. The available 2025 documents do not directly measure those outcomes. The report therefore presents the evidence as showing institutional support and opportunities for sustainability learning, while this evaluation provides later perceived-learning context.

2. Evidence boundaries

The SKL is a university-wide service satisfaction survey. Although students taking sustainability-related coursework are included in the respondent pool as clarified by CQA, the published report does not identify which respondents took the course or disaggregate their answers. The 2025 SKL therefore cannot be treated as a course evaluation. The AMI records a programme-level need for periodic student satisfaction surveys, but does not report direct testing of sustainability concepts. The course evaluation is course-specific but falls after the 2025 reporting window and measures perceived experience. Finally, the overall SKL values differ between the detailed results tables (3.33/4; 83.15%) and the conclusion (3.39; 84.72%).

3. Conclusion

The 2025 evidence makes a credible case that sustainability-related learning is embedded in UIII’s curriculum and supported by programme-level quality assurance and university-wide student feedback. The SKL includes students taking sustainability-related coursework, as clarified by CQA, and documents student voice during the reporting year. This evidence supports the interpretation that UIII monitors conditions that can enable sustainability literacy development. The evidence does not directly establish students’ demonstrated sustainability knowledge, application, or retention; the course evaluation provides subsequent perceived-learning context rather than a outcome measure.

References