Measuring What Students and Staff Know, Believe and Do: the SWU Sustainability Literacy Assessment 2025

Srinakharinwirot University (SWU) measures the sustainability literacy of its students every year, and from 2025 it extends the same measurement to academic and support staff. The SWU Sustainability Literacy Assessment is run by the Social Service Office, Office of the President, and follows a fixed annual cycle, so that results can be compared from year to year and fed back into teaching, student activities and campus services. In 2025 the assessment:

• collected responses from 1,560 members of the University, 1,248 students and 312 staff and other personnel, in April–May 2025, the last two months of the second semester;

• scored a 15-item knowledge test covering the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability, with a mean score of 11.1 out of 15;

• measured self-reported knowledge, attitudes and everyday practices, and the barriers that keep people from acting sustainably; and

• identified four priority areas for improvement, which are put forward for the University’s consideration in 2025–2026.

Overview of the Assessment

• Annual assessment: SWU assesses the sustainability literacy of its students every year, at the end of the second semester, using the same instrument so that results can be compared over time.

• Assessment system: SWU uses its own instrument, the SWU Sustainability Literacy Assessment, rather than Sulitest TASK. It combines a scored 15-item knowledge test covering the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability with a knowledge–attitude–practice (KAP) scale, so it measures what students actually know as well as what they believe and do.

• Students assessed: In 2025, 1,248 undergraduate, master’s and doctoral students took part.

Assessment Design and Annual Schedule

The assessment is based on a knowledge–attitude–practice (KAP) framework. Unlike a self-report survey alone, it includes a scored knowledge test, so it measures students’ understanding of key sustainability concepts directly. It is available as an online form and as a paper questionnaire with the same questions and skip instructions, so that students and staff without easy online access can also take part. Before answering, respondents are asked for their consent under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019). They are told that results are reported only in aggregate and have no effect on students’ grades or on staff performance appraisal. The questionnaire takes about 10–15 minutes to complete. It has four parts:

• Part 1 – General information. Respondents choose their status (undergraduate, master’s or doctoral student, academic staff, support staff or other). Students then answer questions on their year, faculty and whether they have taken an SDG-related course such as SWU 196 or SWU 291–293, and whether they have taken part in a community, environmental or sustainability activity in the past year; staff answer questions on their faculty or unit, length of service, SDG-related training, teaching or work, and participation in such activities in the past year.

• Part 2 – Knowledge, attitudes and practices: 16 statements rated on a five-point scale: five on self-rated knowledge (from “very much” to “very little”), five on attitudes (from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”) and six on everyday practices (from “always” to “never”).

• Part 3 – Sustainability knowledge test: 15 true/false statements, five for each dimension. Each correct answer scores one point; a wrong answer or "don’t know" scores zero. The test mixes nine true and six false statements, so it checks whether respondents can reject common misconceptions as well as recognise correct facts. Items cover both the global SDG framework and issues close to Thai students’ lives, such as PM2.5 air pollution, community-based tourism and the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy. The organisers keep an answer key, which is not shared with respondents, that explains each answer and links it to the relevant SDG.

• Part 4 – Barriers to sustainable action (multiple answers from seven listed barriers, with space to add others) and an optional open question for suggestions to the University.

Each year the Social Service Office opens the survey in April and closes it at the end of May, before the long semester break. Results are analysed over the summer and released in October, in time for SWU’s SDG reporting and for planning activities in the new academic year. The summary results are published in the SWU SDGs Report and on the SWU SDGs website (https://rankings.swu.ac.th/swu-sdgs).

Table 1. Scoring criteria for the knowledge test (Part 3)

Profile of Participants

A total of 1,560 people completed the 2025 assessment: 1,248 students (80.0%), 128 academic staff, 162 support staff and 22 people in other roles, such as project staff and researchers. Among students, 782 had already taken an SDG-related course, 214 were taking one during the semester and 252 had not yet taken one.

Figure 1. Key figures of the SWU Sustainability Literacy Assessment 2025: respondents by status and distribution of knowledge levels.

Sustainability Knowledge Results

The mean score on the 15-item test was 11.1 out of 15 (73.9%). Overall, 41% of respondents reached the “Very good” level and 37% the “Good” level, while 22% scored “Fair” or “Needs improvement”. Staff scored higher than students (12.2 against 10.8 out of 15). Students, the main focus of this indicator, reached a mean of 10.8 out of 15 (72.0%), within the “Good” level.

Taking an SDG course makes a clear difference. Students who had already completed an SDG-related course scored 11.4 out of 15, those taking one during the semester scored 10.6, and those who had not yet taken one scored 9.1. This supports the University’s decision to make SWU 196 a compulsory General Education course.

The results also show whether students retain what they have learned. Because the assessment is held at the end of the second semester, students who completed an SDG-related course in an earlier semester or year are tested some time after the course has ended. Their higher score (11.4, against 9.1 for students who had not yet taken a course) shows that the key concepts stay with them after the course, and are not learned only for the course examination. Repeating the assessment each year will allow SWU to follow this retention over time.

Figure 2. Mean knowledge score by dimension (out of 5), students and staff.

By dimension, respondents did best in the economic dimension (3.78 out of 5) and the social dimension (3.74), and least well in the environmental dimension (3.57). Results by item show where understanding is weaker. More than 85% answered correctly on basic statements, such as that green space absorbs carbon dioxide (90%), that SDG 4 aims at quality education for all (89%) and that Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy rests on three principles (88%). Five statements fell below 65%:

• used cooking oil poured into drains is harmless to water quality (52% answered correctly);

• carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas that humans emit most (55%; many respondents chose “don’t know”);

• the circular economy means using and discarding products quickly (59%);

• SDG 3 covers hospital treatment only, not mental health or prevention (60%); and

• making buildings accessible to wheelchair users is unrelated to sustainable development (64%).

Figure 3. Percentage of respondents answering each knowledge-test item correctly. (T) = true statement, (F) = false statement.

Table 2. Knowledge-test items, answer key, related SDGs and percentage answering correctly (items below 65% in bold)

Table 2 shows a clear pattern. Respondents were much better at recognising correct statements than at rejecting false ones: on average 81% answered the nine true statements correctly, against 64% for the six false statements. Four of the five items below 65% are false statements that describe a common misconception, for example that the circular economy means fast consumption or that SDG 3 is only about hospitals. Because “don’t know” scores zero, these low scores reflect uncertainty as well as wrong beliefs. Teaching is therefore likely to be most effective if it addresses these misconceptions directly, rather than only presenting correct facts. The weaker items also point to specific Goals: SDG 6 (wastewater), SDG 13 (greenhouse gases), SDG 12 (circular economy), SDG 3 (health and well-being) and SDG 10 and 11 (accessibility).

Attitudes and Everyday Practice

Attitudes towards sustainability are very positive (mean 4.15 out of 5). Most respondents agree that individual action matters (4.41) and that sustainability issues are relevant to their own lives (4.32). Self-rated knowledge (3.30) and everyday practice (3.38) are lower, which shows a gap between what people believe and what they do.

The lowest knowledge item is awareness of SWU’s own sustainability policies, projects and activities (2.84). Among practices, saving water and electricity is common (4.05), but following sustainability news (2.88), volunteering in community projects (2.97) and separating waste (3.12) are much less so.

Comparing self-ratings with test results shows why both are needed. Respondents rated their knowledge of how to cut greenhouse gas emissions in daily life highest of all knowledge items (3.62), yet only 55% correctly identified carbon dioxide as the main greenhouse gas emitted by humans. The same gap appears between intention and action: the wish to join community or environmental projects (3.87) is almost one point higher than actual participation in volunteer or community projects (2.97). Respondents also strongly support integrating the SDGs into every programme (4.18), which supports further embedding SDG content across the curriculum.

Figure 4. Mean scores for self-rated knowledge, attitudes and practices (1 = lowest, 5 = highest). Items below 3.00 are highlighted.

Barriers to Sustainable Practice

The barriers most often reported are practical rather than motivational. Nearly half of respondents (48%) said there are not enough waste-sorting points or other facilities on campus, 44% said they receive little information about sustainability activities, and 39% said they lack time because of study or work. Only 9% felt that one person’s action would make no difference, which matches the strongly positive attitudes reported in Part 2. Other barriers show where knowledge and support are still needed: 31% did not know where to start, 28% said green options cost more, and 17% said people around them do not think it matters. The first of these links directly to the knowledge gaps above. Clear, practical guidance on what students can do on campus could therefore help both literacy and practice.

Figure 5. Barriers to sustainable action (multiple answers allowed).

Areas for Improvement, 2025–2026

The results point to four priority areas. For each area, the report sets out recommended directions, which will be submitted to the relevant units for consideration in planning for the 2025–2026 academic year and used as a basis for making SDG education and campus initiatives more effective. The next assessment in April–May 2026 will provide evidence of progress in each area.

• Communicate SWU’s sustainability work. Awareness of University policies and activities is the weakest knowledge item. Possible directions include publicising sustainability projects more widely through student channels and staff newsletters, and considering a short SDG orientation as part of first-year and new-staff induction.

• Strengthen environmental literacy. Items on greenhouse gases and wastewater had the lowest scores. These results could be taken into account when environmental content in SWU 196 and SWU 292 is next reviewed, and short campus campaigns on climate and wastewater with student clubs could also be considered.

• Turn positive attitudes into practice. Facilities are the main barrier. Options to consider include more clearly labelled waste-sorting stations in buildings with high student use, and closer links between volunteer projects and activity-hour requirements.

• Reach students before SWU 196, and staff. Students who have not yet taken an SDG course score lowest. Faculties may wish to consider introducing SDG content earlier in the first year, and short SDG training for staff could be explored within existing professional development programmes.

Figure 6. Priority areas for improvement, 2025–2026.

Summary and Next Steps

The SWU Sustainability Literacy Assessment gives the University a regular, evidence-based view of how well its students and staff understand sustainability and act on it. In 2025, 1,560 students and staff took part, the mean knowledge score was 11.1 out of 15 and 78% reached a good or very good level. Attitudes are strongly positive, students who have taken an SDG course score clearly higher, and the main gaps lie in environmental knowledge, awareness of SWU’s own sustainability work and turning attitudes into everyday practice. These findings will inform the University’s planning for 2025–2026, and the next assessment in April–May 2026 will help track progress. Because the questionnaire also records year of study, faculty, SDG course completion and participation in community or environmental activities, future reports can compare results across year groups and faculties and show how literacy develops as students move through their studies. By measuring sustainability literacy every year and using the results to improve teaching, student activities and campus services, SWU supports SDG Target 4.7, which calls for all learners to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, and strengthens the education side of its partnership commitment under SDG 17.