It is becoming increasingly clear that education is a strategic tool of promoting democratic participation and sustainable development within the Asia-Pacific region. The Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Framework is anchored on the Social Learning Theory (SLT), Civic Engagement Theory (CET), and established the connection between the practices of college teachers and their influence on the civic engagement and orientations of students towards sustainable social development (SSD). Based on the data of 300 undergraduates, who were studied using descriptive statistics, multiple regression and structural-equation modelling, the research hypotheses were as follows: (H1) teacher democratic practices-civic participation; (H2) civic participation-sustainable social development; and (H3) civic participation mediates the teacher-practice/SSD relationship. Results showed that democratic and reflective teaching practices were a strong predictors of civic participation (β = 0.63, p < 0.001) and that civic participation was a very strong predictor of SSD (β = 0.52, p < 0.001). The partial mediation (indirect β = 0.33, p < 0.001) was established using bootstrapped mediation analysis, which shows that civic experiences of students are some of the major channels through which pedagogical practices foster sustainability orientations. The integrated SLT-CET-ESD model has a high fit (CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.056) and explained 47% and 40% of the variance in civic participation and SSD respectively. The findings make teacher practices central micro-level processes that bring macro-level sociocultural change. This research builds upon the existing theory by empirically connecting educational behavior modelling, participatory efficacy, and sustainability competency in the same structural framework, which addresses the research gap of civic education in Asia-Pacific higher education. The policy implications are focused on the professional development of democratic pedagogy, the curriculum that includes civic-service learning, and institutional measures that relate the instructional practice to the UN SDG 4.7 goals.

1.         Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K, et al. A Guide to Teaching Practice. Routledge; 2010.

2.         Thoonen EEJ, Sleegers PJC, Oort FJ, et al. How to improve teaching practices. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2011; 47(3): 496–536. doi: 10.1177/0013161x11400185

3.         Grossman P, Compton C, Igra D, et al. Teaching practice: A cross‑professional perspective. Teachers College Record. 2009; 111(9): 2055–2100. doi: 10.1177/016146810911100905

4.         Buehl MM, Beck JS. The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ practices. In: International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs. Routledge; 2014. pp. 66–84.

5.         Allen KP. Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices. Professional Educator, 2010, 34(1): n1.

6.         Westbrook J. Pedagogy, curriculum, teaching practices and teacher education in developing countries. Education Rigorous Literature Review; 2013.

7.         Sert O. Transforming CA findings into future L2 teaching practices: Challenges and prospects for teacher education. Classroom-based Conversation Analytic Research: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Pedagogy. 2021; 46: 259–279.

8.         Killen R, O’Toole M. Effective teaching strategies 8e. Cengage AU; 2023.

9.         Orlich DC, Harder RJ, Callahan RC, et al. Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; 2010.

10.      Schuitema J, Dam GT, Veugelers W. Teaching strategies for moral education: A review. Journal of curriculum studies, 2008, 40(1): 69–89. doi: 10.1080/00220270701294210

11.      Friedman AJ, Cosby R, Boyko S, et al. Effective teaching strategies and methods of delivery for patient education: A systematic review and practice guideline recommendations. Journal of Cancer Education. 2011; 26(1): 12–21. doi: 10.1007/s13187-010-0183-x

12.      Jeffries PR. A framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating: Simulations used as teaching strategies in nursing. Nursing Education Perspectives. 2005; 26(2): 96–103.

13.      Singh RP, Rana G. Teaching strategies. New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation; 2004.

14.      Senthamarai S. Interactive teaching strategies. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research. 2018; 3(1): S36–38.

15.      Grossman P. Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In: Studying Teacher Education. Routledge; 2009. pp. 437–488.

16.      Lozano R, Merrill MY, Sammalisto K, et al. Connecting competences and pedagogical approaches for sustainable development in higher education: A literature review and framework proposal. Sustainability. 2017; 9(10): 1889. doi: 10.3390/su9101889

17.      Weisser CR, Dobrin S. Ecocomposition: Theoretical and Pedagogical Approaches. State University of New York Press; 2012.

18.      Rocchesso D, Serafin S, Rinott M. Pedagogical approaches and methods. Sonic interaction design; 2013. pp. 125–150.

19.      Smith GD. General music: Dimensions of practice. Oxford University Press; 2022.

20.      Ramya Krishna V, Murali Krishna B, Gopi Raghunadh PVS. An innovative teaching-learning technique using WIT & WIL approach. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations. 2025; 38(2): 1–15. doi: 10.16920/jeet/2025/v38is2/25058

21.      Falkner K, Sheard J. 15 Pedagogic Approaches. In: Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research. Cambridge University Press; 2019. pp. 445–480.

22.      Hennessy S, Wishart J, Whitelock D, et al. Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Computers Education. 2007; 48(1): 137–152. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.02.004

23.      Wood E. Developing integrated pedagogical approaches to play and learning. In: Play and Learning in the Early Years; 2010. pp. 9–26.

24.      Berragan L. Simulation: An effective pedagogical approach for nursing? Nurse Education Today. 2011; 31(7): 660–663. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.01.019

25.      Kim DH, Herrmann J, Nah S. Social media and social capital revisited: Social trust and community satisfaction as catalysts of civic participation. International Journal of Mobile Communications. 2026; 27(1): 52–72. doi: 10.1504/IJMC.2026.150470

26.      Younis B, Makhamra K, Abu Harb M. Fostering civic engagement in the digital age: Evidence from a multi-predictor study of university students in Palestine. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 2026: 1–22. doi: 10.1108/JICES-07-2025-0161

27.      Vienna C, Janinna D, Oliva PB, et al. Political awareness and civic behaviors of youth organizations during the Covid‑19 pandemic. Humanities Social Sciences Communications. 2026: 20–43. doi: 10.46223/HCMCOUJS.soci.en.16.1.3902.2026

28.      Viramontes RC. Critical thinking as civic engagement and the university in the 21st century. DIDAC. 2026; (87): 119–126. doi: 10.48102/didac.2026.87_ENE-JUN.301

29.      Lin CW. Influence of positive perception on civic virtue among college students: Full mediation effect of personal deliberative belief. Educational Research and Reviews. 2025; 20(3): 46–50.

30.      Ou SR, Yoo S, Reynolds AJ. Civic participation in early adulthood and midlife well‑being in an inner‑city cohort. Journal of Adult Development. 2025; 32(4): 365–379. doi: 10.1007/s10804-024-09499-2

31.      Agbonlahor O. The impact of student loan debt on civic engagement: Evidence from the College and Beyond II Dataset. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(6): 764. doi: 10.3390/educsci15060764

32.      Slantcheva Durst S. Graduate students’ civic orientation: Applying and testing an instrument. Discover Education. 2025; 4(1): 109. doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00514-6

33.      Al Shahma A. Re‑Imagining ESOL Policies and Practices for Fostering L2 Motivation and Civic Participation. Doctoral dissertation, Manchester Metropolitan University; 2025.

34.      Yu H, Wang F. Understanding the dynamics of ideological and political education: Influences on student political awareness and civic involvement. Current Psychology. 2025; 44(7): 5695–5712. doi: 10.1007/s12144-025-07588-3

35.      Mendelberg T, Willeck C. How colleges can increase civic engagement. Political Behavior. 2025; 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s11109-025-10048-0

36.      Teshera Levye J, Alam I, Corwin L, et al. Developing a conceptual model for students’ scientific civic engagement self‑concept. International Journal of Science Education. 2025; 1–22. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2024.2449220

37.      Marino C, Christens BD, Lenzi M, et al. Perceived influences of mentoring on mentors’ social well‑being: Social self‑efficacy and civic engagement as mediators. Journal of Community Applied Social Psychology. 2025; 35(1): e70050. doi: 10.1002/casp.70050

38.      Lin S, Ngai G, Kwan KP, et al. The impact of mandatory academic service‑learning on university graduates’ continual civic engagement. Higher Education Research Development. 2025; 1–5. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2025.2467901

39.      Gillespie S, Morency MM, Fajemirokun E, et al. Promoting identity development, multicultural attitudes, and civic engagement through ethnic studies. Child Development. 2025; 96(3): 966–979. doi: 10.1111/cdev.14219

40.      Sharaf Eldin N, Ibrahim NF, Farrag NS, et al. The effect of civic engagement on mental health and behaviours among adolescents. Medicine Updates. 2025; 21(21): 76–92.

41.      Bushati AS. Rethinking youth participation for social development and community strengthening. Gençlik Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2017; 5(12): 33–46.

42.      Tsouparopoulou E, Symeonaki M, Parsanoglou D, et al. European youth and digital engagement: attitudes, skills, and civic participation. Journal of Applied Youth Studies. 2025; 8(2): 219–247. doi: 10.1007/s43151-025-00168-z

43.      Irum S, Khan SA, Abbas S, et al Exploring the relationship between social media usage and civic engagement in the digital era. Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies. 2025; 3(1): 1272–1286. doi: 10.59075/tk68kt45

44.      Sieber R, Brandusescu A, Sangiambut S, et al. What is civic participation in artificial intelligence? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. 2025; 52(6): 1388–1406. doi: 10.1177/23998083241296200

45.      Alvinca MF. Systematic literature review: Civic engagement in the context of digital citizenship. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Dan Teknologi Informasi (JIPTI). 2025; 6(1): 1–11. doi: 10.52060/jipti.v6i1.2587

46.      Luna Nemecio J, Tobón S, Juárez Hernández LG. Sustainability based on socioformation and complex thought or sustainable social development. Resources, Environment and Sustainability. 2020; 2: 100007. doi: 10.1016/j.resenv.2020.100007

47.      Tobón S, Luna Nemecio J. Complex thinking and sustainable social development: Validity and reliability of the Complex 21 Scale. Sustainability. 2021; 13(12): 6591. doi: 10.3390/su13126591

48.      Misiūnas PA, Balsytė I. The essence of sustainable social development and possibilities for measuring it. Intelektinė Ekonomika. 2009; 1(5): 61–71.

49.      Lombard A. Global agenda for social work and social development: A path toward sustainable social work. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk. 2015; 51(4): 482–499. doi: 51-3-462

50.      Tobón S, Vélez Ramos J. Sustainable social development: The need for talent training in education, technology and food production. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development. 2020; 16(4): 275–280.

51.      Bandura A, Hall P. Albert Bandura and Social Learning Theory. In: Learning Theories for Early Years. 2018; 78: 35–36.

52.      Grusec JE. Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of Robert R. Sears and Albert Bandura. 1994. doi: 10.1037/10155-016

53.      Rumjaun A, Narod F. Social learning theory-Albert Bandura. In: Science Education in Theory and Practice: An Introductory Guide to Learning Theory. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2025. pp. 65–82.

54.      Hoefer R. Applications of theory to social policy: Civic engagement theory. Journal of Policy Practice and Research. 2021; 2(2): 67–70. doi: 10.1007/s42972-021-00033-2

55.      Oe H, Yamaoka Y, Ochiai H. A qualitative assessment of community learning initiatives for environmental awareness and behaviour change: Applying UNESCO ESD framework. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(6): 3528. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19063528

56.      Leicht A, Byun WJ. UNESCO’s Framework ESD for 2030. IBE on Curriculum, Learning, and Assessment. 2021; 89.

57.      Keryan T, Mitrofanenko T, Muhar A, et al. UNESCO’s education for sustainable development framework and the reality of university–community cooperation in the caucasus mountain region. Mountain Research and Development. 2020; 40(4): D1. doi: 10.1659/mrd-journal-d-20-00023.1

58.      Shulla K, Leal Filho W, Lardjane S, et al. Sustainable development education in the context of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2020; 27(5): 458–468. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2020.1721378

59.      Bryman A. Social research methods. Oxford University Press; 2016.

60.      Wang S, Sun Z. Roles of artificial intelligence experience, information redundancy, and familiarity in shaping active learning: Insights from intelligent personal assistants. Education and Information Technologies. 2025; 30(2): 2525–2546. doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12895-6

61.      Wang S, Gao M, Zhang H. Enhancing creativity and sustainable competitive advantage through data‐driven decision‐making and digital leadership. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 2025; 72: 1361–1375. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2025.3551331