Next Article in Journal
Carbon Reduction Impact of the Digital Economy: Infrastructure Thresholds, Dual Objectives Constraint, and Mechanism Optimization Pathways
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Government Subsidies on the Environmental Performance of Agricultural Enterprises
Previous Article in Special Issue
Leveraging Generative AI for Sustainable Academic Advising: Enhancing Educational Practices through AI-Driven Recommendations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 16
10.3390/su17167276
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Integrated Teaching in Geography and Mathematics Education: A Systematic Review

by
Anna Kellinghusen
1,*,
Anna Orschulik
1,
Katrin Vorhölter
2 and
Sandra Sprenger
1
1
Faculty of Education, University of Hamburg, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
2
Faculty of Humanities and Education, TU Braunschweig, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(16), 7276; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167276
Submission received: 4 June 2025 / Revised: 9 July 2025 / Accepted: 23 July 2025 / Published: 12 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Education and Innovative Teaching Methods)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Integrated teaching encourages students to think across disciplines and view key human issues from various perspectives. Although mathematics and geography are taught as separate subjects in schools, they frequently intersect in real-world issues, with scientific problems often analyzed using mathematical methods. The purpose of this article is to systematically review the understanding of study characteristics, teaching content, and forms of integration between geography and mathematics. A systematic review of 26 studies was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, involving searches of four databases from 2000 to 2023. Screening and selection were performed independently by two researchers. Data were analyzed via structured qualitative content analysis. This systematic review demonstrates that integrated teaching can improve knowledge and skills of students compared to segregated teaching. The findings reveal that contents such as Education for Sustainable Development, cartography, and astronomy and space travel are the main topics covered in subject-integrated mathematics and geography lessons. The study also highlights gaps, especially in long-term effects and teacher involvement in quantitative research.

1. Introduction

Integrated approaches to the teaching of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) enhance student learning [1] and foster 21st-century skills [2,3]. Addressing global challenges like climate change and freshwater scarcity necessitates delivering sustainable solutions, which are part of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). By connecting specialized knowledge across disciplines, these problems can be tackled [4]. Mathematics and sciences, particularly, lend themselves well to integration due to their natural overlaps [5]. Geography, often categorized as a natural science due to its methodological and content alignment with physical geography [6,7], is particularly suited for STEM integration. As an inherently interdisciplinary subject, geography examines interactions between physical and human factors [8]. Mathematics, considered foundational for addressing modern challenges [9,10], is also instrumental in analyzing geographical issues [11]. Integrating disciplines promotes skills and knowledge necessary to solve real-world-problems in the context of ESD [12] and thus to encourage the interest of students [13].
Research on the potential and implementation of integrated teaching within STEM education has existed for several decades, including a systematic review [14] and narrative review [15] on the integration of mathematics in STEM education and a systematic review on teaching approaches for the integration of STEM subjects in elementary school [16]. However, systematic reviews combining geography with STEM remain unexplored. This study addresses this gap by presenting a systematic review of integrated teaching in geography, mathematics, and other subjects at secondary education levels, mapping current research, and identifying future directions. The following section reviews the literature on geography and mathematics integration, with a focus on English-language studies.

2. Integration of Geography and Mathematics

2.1. Relationship Between Geography and Mathematics

This review focuses on articles addressing teaching that integrates geography and mathematics, either alone or alongside other subjects. Geography holds a unique position as a scientific discipline and school subject due to its synthesis of knowledge about the environment, space, and time [17]. As an inherently integrated field [8], geography adopts a holistic perspective on issues like climate change [18], bridging human and physical geography [19,20]. In integrated teaching, mathematics serves as a foundation and universal language, facilitating the interpretation and application of complex results across contexts [14].
While mathematics and geography are distinct disciplines, they often intersect in addressing complex global challenges. Scientific problems and questions in geography can often be dealt with and analyzed using mathematical concepts and methods [7,21]. For example, mathematical models can be used to predict population growth or the environmental impact of geographical phenomena [22], which is also part of data literacy and ESD. Notably, ESD is explicitly recognized in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of Target 4.7, which emphasizes the importance of quality education [23].
The integrated nature of geography enables meaningful connections with various subjects [11,24], making the combination of mathematics and geography particularly effective for linking content [5]. Leveraging synergies between disciplines enhances students’ understanding of integrated concepts and supports the transfer of knowledge from a disciplinary to an integrated context (Bell, 2016) [25].
Gersmehl [11] identifies various lesson content suitable for integrating geography and mathematics at the secondary level. In this context, content encompasses the topics, methods, and tools employed in lessons. Key examples include the following:
  • Cartography, which also includes Geographic Information System (GIS), coordinates, scale, direction, and distance measurement.
  • Correlation analysis and identifying exceptions, such as using migration and demographic diagrams to calculate densities, percentages, per capita amounts, and other indices.
  • Estimating probabilities, such as predicting natural hazards or civil wars by analyzing historical data and applying probabilistic models.
These examples highlight the frequent use of data in integrated geography and mathematics lessons, aligning with the concept of data literacy, defined as “the ability to collect, manage, evaluate, and apply data, in a critical manner” [26].
Tytler et al. [27] further demonstrate the feasibility of integrating scientific and mathematical content in a study focused on primary education (grades 1–6) in Australia. Their lesson topics include astronomy, ecology, motion, chemistry, fast plant growth, force and motion: helicopters, and water use, showcasing the potential for integrated teaching across varied contexts.

2.2. Types of Integration Between Geography and Mathematics

The literature presents varying perspectives on the nature and extent of integration among disciplines, as well as which STEM subjects should be integrated [28]. In general, integration in the curriculum refers to the merging of two distinct areas of content or skills [29]. The term “integrated teaching” [30,31,32] broadly describes this approach to combining subjects within the curriculum. To describe the degree of integration and collaboration between subjects, the terms disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary are used [32,33]. These levels range from non-integrated (disciplinary) to highly integrated (transdisciplinary), as shown in Table 1. The disciplinary level has no integration [28]. Multidisciplinary describes how concepts and skills are learned separately from each other, based on a common theme. The term interdisciplinary means that the concepts and skills from several subjects are closely linked [32]. Thus, in a multidisciplinary approach, learners can identify the individual subjects more easily, and in an interdisciplinary approach, the boundaries between the subjects become blurred [34]. Transdisciplinary means that several subjects and skills are closely linked to develop solutions to real problems, needs, or opportunities [32] and go beyond the school context, for example, through collaboration with external experts. Choi & Pak [35] use a metaphor to illustrate these levels: “multidisciplinary is like a salad bowl, interdisciplinary is like a melting pot, and transdisciplinary is like a cake, in which the ingredients are no longer distinguishable, and the final product is of a different kind from the initial ingredients.”
The overarching aim of this study is to classify and characterize existing studies in light of integrated teaching in geography and mathematics secondary education in order to identify existing research focuses (and potential blind spots) in publications. In addition, different lesson content and forms of integration in the subject combination of geography and mathematics are described. Thus, the present study was guided by the following research questions:
RQ1: How are the studies characterized in terms of research focus, intervention studies, empirical methods, study participants, country of origin, and year of publication?
RQ2: What teaching content is investigated in the subject combination of mathematics and geography?
RQ3: Which forms of integration are investigated in the subject combination of mathematics and geography?

3. Methods

To answer the research questions of this study, a systematic review of the English-language literature on subject-integrated teaching in mathematics and geography was conducted according to the procedures of the PRISMA guidelines [37] (see Supplementary Materials). Systematic literature reviews aim to achieve the quality criteria of transparency, objectivity, and replicability by basing the process on a clearly defined research question, a well-structured and documented search protocol (Figure 1), and clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria that determine which studies are included in the review [38,39]. The data were then analyzed using structured qualitative content analysis [40].

3.1. Bibliographic Database Search

After several exploratory searches, a suitable search syntax was created for the search engines ERIC, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science.
Abstract: GEOGRAPH* OR “EARTH SCIENCE” OR “SOCIAL SCIENCE” AND Abstract: TEACH* OR EDUCATION* OR SCHOOL* AND Abstract: INTERDISCIPLIN* OR INTEGRAT* AND Abstract: MATH*
To conduct a comprehensive search, both “geography” and “earth science” [41] or “social science” [11,17] were included in the search terms. Quotation marks were added to ensure that complete terms were included during the search process. In the context of search formulation, synonyms that evolved after the preliminary searches were completed were added. In addition, truncations (*) were applied to ensure that the different word endings of the terms were included. Commonly used generic terms of interdisciplinary learning in the literature related to integrated education are “integration”, “integrated”, “integrated STEM”, and “interdisciplinary” [28]. Accordingly, the terms “interdisciplin*” and “integrat*” were used in the search syntax.
The literature search is limited to the period from 2000 to 2023 to provide an overview of the current state of research in this field. The year 2000 as the starting point because it marks the emergence of STEM as a focal area in education [16].

3.2. Literature Analysis

All searches were conducted on 8 September 2023. The bibliographic database searches yielded a total of 733 publications (ERIC, 248; Web of Science, 142; Scopus, 319; ProQuest, 24). Subsequently, 124 duplicates were removed.
To identify potential publications that relate to our research questions, the title and abstract were screened with regard to the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:
  • The grade level corresponds to lower or upper secondary school or a comparable classification in other countries according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED).
  • Following Moore et al. [28], the generic terms interdisciplinary* or integrat* were used in English. This is because only publications that clearly deal with integrated school teaching are relevant.
  • The terms “geograph*” or “earth science” or “social science” and “math*” are included in the article as school subjects. The publication does not have to be limited to the subject combination but can also offer the possibility to include other school subjects.
  • It must be an empirical contribution to identify study characteristics (RQ1).
  • The publication must be written in English to ensure a transparent and reproducible approach.
The review process in this study was conducted independently by two people to ensure the reliability of the article review. The inter-rater agreement coefficient reached κ = 0.81 between the two individuals, indicating good reliability [42]. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. The full text of one article was not available. Accordingly, this article was not included in the data analysis. An overview of the detailed procedure can be found in the PRISMA statement in Figure 1.
The first research question was summarized through data extraction. This is the process by which relevant data are taken from the studies and extracted into a data table. The data evaluation of the second and third research questions was analyzed using the structured qualitative content analysis method, according to Kuckartz & Rädiker [40]. In order to depict the variety of lesson content, categories were first developed deductively based on Gersmehl [11] for the analysis of the second research question and then supplemented with inductive categories. The formation and selection of categories are developed in the interrelation of theory (the research question) and concrete material, defined by construction and assignment rules, and revised and reviewed in the course of the analysis. The categories of the third research question were deductively developed on the basis of the forms of integration, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary, based on Vasquez et al. [32]. The disciplinary form of integration does not form a category, as only subjects with an integration were searched for (see the inclusion and exclusion criterion, R3). The 26 publications were fully coded using the developed coding scheme. The coding procedure was carried out independently by two researchers, whereby good and very good agreement was achieved between them for the second research question (κ = 0.88) and the third research question (κ = 0.92) [42].

4. Results

The results are divided into three subchapters according to the research questions.

4.1. Study Characteristics (RQ1)

4.1.1. Analyzed Research Focus

In the 26 empirical studies, various research focuses were identified. As shown in Figure 2, an analysis of the main areas of research shows that knowledge (12 studies) and reflection (11 studies) were the most frequently investigated. This is followed by the constructs of competence/skills (9 studies), motivation, attitude, and self-confidence (7 studies), implementation (6 studies), interest (2 studies), and group interaction (1 study).
The students relate the construct of knowledge, for example, to a significant increase in knowledge within an integrated teaching unit employing a pre-and post-design on the topic ESD [24] or concerning food quality [43]. In reflection on integrated teaching, the positive expectations of the teachers participating in the integrated GIS workshop were explored, which were consistently positive [44], as well as the positive reflections of the students on the integrated teaching unit related to space exploration and the universe [45]. Another category involves the implementation of integrated teaching methodologies, exemplified by the successful use of GIS technologies in the classroom [46]. In order for integrated teaching to be effectively realized, it is essential to consider the current curriculum, the context of the course, and the experiences of the educators [47]. The term competence is defined in conjunction with the term skills, because skills are included in the definition of competence. Competence refers to the abilities and skills that individuals possess or can learn in connection with knowledge acquired through practical engagement with subject-specific content [48]. Studies count toward this term if they specifically mention the term competence in the text or can be clearly assigned to the above definition. These include, for example, the improvement of students’ map skills [49] or the improvement of the competence of students’ spatial orientation [50]. The construct motivation, attitude, and self-confidence, for example, refers to an improvement in short-term attitudes and motivation in relation to STEM [51] or strengthening girls’ self-confidence in mathematics in integrated lessons [52]. In addition, it includes a significant increase in students’ interest in the areas of computer technology, engineering, and writing as a result of integrated teaching [53]. The final construct identified is group interaction, which has been analyzed between teachers in subject-integrated teaching. Results show that teachers with higher social status (based on gender, degrees, experience, etc.) act as peer mentors [22]. Overall, when analyzing all the data, it can be concluded that the results of integrated teaching in geography and mathematics have been positive and highlight which analyzed research focuses are currently in the foreground and which receive less consideration.

4.1.2. Intervention Studies

Of the 26 studies analyzed, three intervention studies were identified that dealt with the development of knowledge and skills in the context of subject-integrated teaching (Table A1). In the study by Niklanovik et al. [54], integrated teaching is analyzed in comparison to subject-separated teaching in terms of knowledge transfer, understanding, and reasoning skills. The integration of knowledge from different subjects in ESD shows that the integrated lessons achieved better results than the control group, which received traditional lessons, both in the post-test and in the follow-up test (60 days later). The intervention study by Oldakowski & Johnson [7] also confirms that integrated teaching leads to better learning outcomes for students in geography, mathematics, and science as well as in spatial thinking in the short term compared to a subject-separated curriculum. The study by Groessler et al. [50] deals with the use of digital media compared to analog media in integrated lessons. Students who used digital geomedia showed improved spatial orientation and a deeper understanding compared to those who used analog geomedia.
The three intervention studies presented short-term studies in which the students received a maximum of 14 subject-integrated lessons. It is also noteworthy that only students were included in the studies, while teachers have not yet been included, and the intervention studies are only quantitative (Table A1).

4.1.3. Empirical Method

The majority of these studies used mixed methods (11), while ten used quantitative methods and three only qualitative. The qualitative research approaches were only conducted with a sample of teachers. The mixed methods, in which teachers were analyzed, also predominantly involved a qualitative evaluation of the teachers’ results, for example, they were asked for feedback on subject-integrated teaching [24]. Group interactions on STEM lessons with teachers were surveyed qualitatively [22] and through reflections on STEM lessons, for example, on interdisciplinary lesson design [47]. Quantitative research approaches have been used to evaluate larger samples of students, such as significant gains in knowledge in mathematics, electricity, and environmental science and increases in interest in science and technology careers in the pre- and post-tests [55].

4.1.4. Study Participants

Of the 26 publications, 65.4% of the studies focused on student samples (17 studies), 23.1% on teachers (6 studies), and 11.5% on both students and teachers (3 studies).

4.1.5. Countries of the Studies

The geographical distribution shows that the studies were conducted in different countries and continents (see Figure 3). Most of the studies (11 studies) were conducted in North America. The second largest group of studies came from Europe (12 studies), with Spain contributing 2 studies and Denmark, Germany, Poland, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, Ukraine, and Turkey each contributing 1 study. Additionally, there were 2 studies from Asia, specifically from Hong Kong (1 study) and Brunei Darussalam (1 study). One study was located in the Middle East and North Africa region but could not be assigned to a specific country and, therefore, is not included on the map.

4.1.6. Year of Publication

An analysis of the available studies revealed that 92% of the studies (24 studies) were only published from 2010 onward. The year with the most published studies (4 studies) was 2022 (see Figure 4). No studies were published in 2023, despite the data being extracted in mid-2023 (8 September 2023).

4.2. Results on Lesson Content (RQ2)

One of the main categories is ESD, which is mentioned most frequently (9 studies). Teaching content in the area of ESD is addressed in these papers. Content focus was inclusive of the areas of environment, society, and economy, such as an endangered bird population, environmental sensors in connection with water quality, an environmental disaster at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, the impact of waste production on the climate, and the internet of things, i.e., technologies for connecting physical devices and objects via the internet. The inclusion of ESD in integrated teaching in geography and mathematics began in 2014 and has been steadily increasing since then (see Table A1).
The main category, cartography (8 studies), deals with the topic of creating and working with maps printed on paper as well as in digital form, for example, in GIS.
Another major category is astronomy and space travel (4 studies). These studies deal, among other things, with the everyday life of an astronaut or a pilot, a web-based spreadsheet with astronomy data sets, or investigations of samples in the field, which are compared using the analogy of the exploration of Mars.
The category scientific work includes the topic of scientific work, in which the students learn about the working methods of a scientist. No specific discipline or context for scientific work is mentioned. In the study [52], students go to a university and learn more about the work of a scientist. Four studies did not describe the content of the lesson in their study design and therefore could not be analyzed. It is noteworthy that all the content covered is characterized by authenticity, realism, and scientific relevance. Table 2 shows the results on the teaching content of the various studies.

4.3. Results on the Form of Integration (RQ3)

The 26 studies can be categorized as one of three types of integration: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary (see Table 1). Most of the publications analyzed can be assigned to the interdisciplinary category (12 studies). This is the case when the subjects are integrated through their methods, concepts, and perspectives within lessons focused on specific content; for example, in the study by Oldakowski & Johnson [7], the subject’s geography, mathematics, and science are integrated so that students use knowledge and methods to solve a real-world problem. Specifically, students calculated and analyzed the sea level rise using maps, relating the effects on people and nature, and then developed appropriate actions on their findings.
The second most common form is the category transdisciplinary (8 studies). Teaching often takes place outside the classroom or in collaboration with external stakeholders or experts. This approach offers authentic and realistic learning situations, with subject boundaries no longer clearly recognizable, and new insights are generated; e.g., as part of a simulated mission to the Moon or Mars, students learn about the realistic day-to-day work of an astronaut [45]. The students had to apply their knowledge of mathematics, physics, chemistry, geography, and biology to carry out scientific experiments or map simulated lunar landscapes.
This is followed by the multidisciplinary category (2 studies). Studies were assigned to this category when several subjects worked on a specific topic, but there was no integration between the subjects [43,49], as in the case of creating and using maps in different subjects in Norway in year 7. For example, in mathematics, distances are calculated using scales, and maps are created, while in geography, maps are read and the geographical features of Norway are discussed [49]. These activities involve working on related content but lack the interaction and synthesis typical of integrated approaches.
This classification highlights the different approaches to integration and the different effects on teaching and learning. The results of the classification are shown in Table A1. As four studies do not describe any lessons, the lessons cannot be assigned to any form of integration. In addition, it is not possible to identify any links between the content and the forms of integration.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to gain a better understanding of the empirical research on integrated education in geography and mathematics. In conducting the search, screening, and coding processes, three key findings emerged. First the following constructs were identified in the 26 articles: knowledge, competence/skills, motivation, attitude, and self-confidence, and interest of students and teachers in integrated lessons. Notably, there are only three intervention studies with the subject combination geography and mathematics, and only two of these studies examine whether subject-integrated teaching has more effect than subject-separated teaching, which is a relatively small number. This leads to the conclusion that there should be more intervention studies in the future in order to provide subject-integrated lessons in the STEM education timetable in the long term (RQ1). Second, the topics of cartography, ESD, and astronomy and space travel are particularly suitable for combining geography and mathematics in the classroom (RQ2). Third, the forms of integration in the subject combination of mathematics and geography are predominantly interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary (RQ3).
The focus of the studies reviewed was on students (17 studies), with significantly fewer addressing teachers (6 studies) and 3 studies examining both groups. This imbalance suggests that teachers’ perspectives on integrated teaching in geography and mathematics have not yet been sufficiently examined. Although some qualitative studies on teachers already exist, there is a lack of quantitative research. Quantitative studies could provide valuable insights into the prevalence of integrated teaching practices, the specific training needs of teachers, and potential barriers to implementation in integrated teaching. By systematically capturing patterns across larger and more diverse teacher samples, they would allow for more generalizable conclusions and support evidence-based improvements in teacher education, for example, how to plan, practice, and evaluate integrated teaching in geography and mathematics.
This review confirmed that research on subject-integrated teaching in mathematics and geography has increased in the last decade, particularly in America (11 studies) and Europe (12 studies). The present findings affirm the work of Falloon et al. [63], who stated that the concept of STEM education has been present in education since the early 1990s and has gained importance in the last 20 years [63]. These efforts have led to a series of reforms and policy papers in the United States and Europe, for example [64,65], which aim to make STEM achievement through STEM learning more relevant and engaging for students, ensuring that America and Europe remain competitive in an increasingly globalized economy [34,64], as there is concern that the emerging workforce does not appear to be prepared for the challenges of the future [36]. The results of the review show that there has been stagnation in recent years and that the number of publications has remained the same, without the ESD content. ESD content in lessons in geography and mathematics began in 2014 and has been steadily increasing since then. This trend may be attributed to the growing awareness of global challenges in the 21st century—such as climate change—which demand integrated responses and increased educational engagement [4]. Notably, 2014 also marked the launch of the UNESCO Global Action Programme (GAP) on ESD, officially introduced at the UNESCO World Conference on ESD.
In addition to ESD, other curriculum content includes cartography and astronomy and space travel (RQ2). The results of the teaching content can be aligned with the previous literature according to Tytler et al. [27], although their study focused on primary school content and did not specifically address geography, but rather science. The topics of Tytler et al. [27], astronomy and force and motion: helicopters, have content overlaps with the astronomy and space travel category in this study. The category ecology and water use according to Tytler et al. [27] has overlaps with the category ESD in this study. The subject areas of motion, chemistry, and rapid plant growth, according to Tytler et al. [27], cannot be assigned in this study. The comparison with Tytler et al. [27] illustrates that, although the categories in this study were constructed differently, there are notable thematic overlaps. This suggests that despite variations in categorization approaches, similar content areas—such as astronomy and space travel and ESD—emerged across studies.
Looking at the studies, it becomes apparent that the degree of integration multidisciplinary was coded in only two studies, which may be partly because teachers chose this integration form less in the classroom, as it can be challenging for students to see the connections between different subjects to an overarching theme and to grasp the complexity of the problem in its entirety [32]. However, this form of integration is relatively uncomplicated within a subject-specific framework, since teachers can concentrate on particular disciplines without having to actively establish links to other subjects in their lessons. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary forms were coded more frequently, possibly because both forms promote integrated education that aims to increase students’ understanding of real-life professional STEM activities and break down boundaries between subjects [66]. There remains an ongoing debate in the literature regarding the extent of STEM education that should be included in school curricula [63]. Holmlund et al. [67] mention that confusion is the result of reforms that promote the transition from subject teaching to integrated teaching, as “no clear consensus exists on the nature of the content and pedagogic interplay among the STEM fields.” Vasquez et al. [32] stated that none of the forms of integration are wrong, and there is no one way to teach. The literature suggests that all forms of integration challenge subject-based learning in the school system.
This study has at least two potential limitations. First, the research on integrated teaching in mathematics and geography is primarily represented in Europe and America, which may be due to the focus on English-language articles in this review. A second limitation is that the search syntax only includes articles that have the generic terms “*integra*” and “interdisciplin*”. The term “interdisciplinary” is used in the literature both as a generic term and as a degree of integration. To prevent the term “interdisciplinary” from being used in both senses, it was decided in this review to use the term exclusively as a generic term. Consequently, the terms of the degree of integration “multidisciplinary” and “transdisciplinary” are not included in this review, which means that some relevant publications may not be included in this review.
Despite these limitations, the results suggest several theoretical and practical implications. The selection of lesson content, and forms of integration in the subject combination mathematics and geography can inform both research studies and teaching practices, how to teach these subjects together. In addition, the 26 studies reviewed indicate, which research constructs have already been investigated. As the number of intervention studies is very small and teachers have only been studied to a limited extent, we argue that integrated teaching in geography and mathematics should be further investigated. To ensure a shift from subject-based learning to integrated learning, there is a need to rethink policies and school traditions in terms of subject-based disciplinary timetabling, space allocation, and teacher training [31].

6. Conclusions

This study contributes to a deeper and broader understanding of the characteristics, teaching content, and forms of integration in the subject combination of geography and mathematics. The analysis of research constructs indicates that integrated teaching can enhance knowledge, competencies/skills, motivation, attitude, and self-confidence, and interest among both students and teachers. The reviewed intervention studies examined show that integrated teaching in geography and mathematics achieves better results in terms of students’ skills and knowledge compared to traditional, subject-separated teaching.
However, the limited number of intervention studies, absence of teacher participation, lack of quantitative analyses, and the absence of long-term intervention studies highlight areas for future research. Moving forward, researchers and curriculum developers should create opportunities to further investigate and promote integrated teaching. This includes emphasizing quantitative research to better understand teachers’ perspectives, identify barriers to implementation, and compare the impact on students and teachers of integrated versus traditional, subject-specific teaching through intervention studies. Furthermore, policymakers should facilitate conditions that support research on and the practice of integrated instruction by encouraging collaboration among various stakeholders and institutions. This is especially important for transdisciplinary integration, which often involves learning processes outside the classroom with external stakeholders or experts that offer authentic learning experiences, but are challenging to implement in standard classroom settings.
To facilitate practical implementation, specific teaching content, such as cartography, ESD, and astronomy and space travel, could be identified for integrated teaching in geography and mathematics, and other subjects. These topics illustrate how geography can be linked to mathematics and other subjects, and where these intersections occur. They also provide an example of how these topics can be taught in an interesting way in an integrated lesson.
Future research could further explore the role of geography in STEM education, particularly regarding its integration with physical or human geography in the context of secondary education, or include other STEM subjects other than mathematics, such as computer science or physics, in combination with geography, in the search. This would include, for example, the fields of geoinformatics and geophysics.
As the study shows, the number of relevant studies has increased since 2011, reflecting the growing relevance of this subject combination in recent years. Further growth in this field can be encouraged through the promotion of research projects and the development of educational programs and curricula. It is hoped that this research will inspire further investigation into this important area.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17167276/s1, PRISMA Checklist. Reference [37] is cited in Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.K. and S.S.; methodology, A.K., A.O. and S.S.; data curation, A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K.; writing—review and editing, A.K., A.O., K.V. and S.S.; supervision, S.S. and K.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, grant number 16MF1017.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article. The data supporting the findings of this systematic literature review were obtained from four databases: ERIC, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science. The methodology section details the search strings and eligibility criteria applied, ensuring transparency and reproducibility. The PRISMA framework guided the selection and screening process, as illustrated in Figure 1. For further details regarding the search strategy or screening methodology, please contact the corresponding author. Sources identified in our systematic review: [3,7,21,22,24,43,44,45,46,47,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,68,69].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Description of selected studies.
Table A1. Description of selected studies.
StudiesYearStudy ParticipantsAnalyzed Research FocusEmpirical MethodIntervention StudyContentTypes of Integration
1Lewis & Jeanpierre [68]2010TeachersImplementation, reflectionMixed methods No descriptionNo description
2Reid & Roberts [52]2006StudentsCompetence/skills, motivation/attitude/self-confidenceMixed methods Scientific workTransdisciplinary
3Benimmas et al. [44]2011TeachersCompetence/skills, knowledge, reflectionMixed methods CartographyInterdisciplinary
4Wijers et al. [56]2008StudentsCompetence/skills, implementation, reflectionMixed methods CartographyTransdisciplinary
5Cyvin [49]2013StudentsCompetence/skills, reflectionMixed methods CartographyMultidisciplinary
6Adamchuk et al. [51]2012StudentsKnowledge, motivation/attitude/
self-confidence		Quantitative CartographyTransdisciplinary
7Arino de La Rubia [53]2012BothInterest, knowledge, competence/skillsMixed methods Astronomy and space travelInterdisciplinary
8Groessler et al. [50]2013StudentsCompetence/skills, knowledgeNo descriptionxCartographyInterdisciplinary
9Niklanovic et al. [54]2014StudentsKnowledgeQuantitativexESDInterdisciplinary
10Xie & Reider [57]2013StudentsMotivation/attitude/
self-confidence		Mixed methods CartographyTransdisciplinary
11Hotaling & Stolkin [55]2015StudentsKnowledge, motivation/attitude/
self-confidence, reflection		Quantitative ESDInterdisciplinary
12Guzey et al. [59]2016StudentsMotivation/attitude/
self-confidence, competence/skills, knowledge		Mixed methods ESDInterdisciplinary
13Mahanin et al. [43]2017StudentsKnowledgeQuantitative CartographyMultidisciplinary
14Oldakowski & Johnson [7]2017StudentsCompetence/skills, knowledgeQuantitativexESDInterdisciplinary
15Kolodziejczyky et al. [45]2018StudentsReflectionNo description Astronomy and space travelTransdisciplinary
16Mitchell et al. [46]2018TeachersImplementationMixed methods CartographyInterdisciplinary
17Gürkan [47]2018TeachersImplementation, reflectionQualitative No descriptionNo description
18Lipan et al. [60]2019StudentsKnowledgeMixed methods ESDTransdisciplinary
19Stacchiotti et al. [24]2019BothKnowledge, reflectionMixed methods ESDInterdisciplinary
20Grunwald et al. [69]2020TeachersImplementation, reflectionQualitative No descriptionNo description
21Moreira et al. [61]2021StudentsMotivation/attitude/
self-confidence, reflection		Quantitative ESDInterdisciplinary
22Ng & Chu [62]2021StudentsMotivation/attitude/
self-confidence		Quantitative Astronomy and space travelTransdisciplinary
23Dare et al. [3]2022StudentsImplementationQuantitative No descriptionNo description
24Fernández-Morante et al. [58]2022StudentsCompetence/skillsQuantitative ESDInterdisciplinary
25Hrynevych et al. [21]2022BothInterest, knowledge, reflectionQuantitative ESDInterdisciplinary
26Schwortz & Burrows [22]2022TeachersGroup interactionQualitative Astronomy and space travelTransdisciplinary

References

  1. Jong, C.; Priddie, C.; Roberts, T.; Museus, S.D. Race-related factors in STEM: A review of research on educational experiences and outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities. In Handbook of Research in STEM Education; Johnson, C.C., Mohr-Schroeder, M.J., Moore, T.J., English, L.D., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 278–288. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bybee, R. Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technol. Eng. Teach. 2010, 70, 30–35. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dare, E.A.; Ellis, J.A.; Rouleau, M.; Roehrig, G.; Ring-Whalen, E.A. Current practices in K-12 integrated STEM education: A comparison across science content areas and grade-levels (fundamental). In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 26–29 June 2022. [Google Scholar]
  4. Fensham, P.J. Preparing citizens for a complex world: The grand challenge of teaching socio-scientific issues in science education. In Science/Environment/Health. Towards a Renewed Pedagogy for Science Education; Zeyer, A., Kyburz-Graber, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 7–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Laudares, S.; Laudares, J.B.; Libório, M.P. Geographic information systems used as a practical way of teaching mathematics. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 2016, 8, 608–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mamun, M.; Jackson, T.; White, G. Does the geography major fit in STEM? J. Geogr. Geol. 2015, 7, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Oldakowski, R.; Johnson, A. Combining geography, math, and science to teach climate change and sea level rise. J. Geogr. 2017, 117, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baerwald, T.J. Prospects for geography as an interdisciplinary discipline. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2010, 100, 493–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Siller, H.-S.; Vorhölter, K.; Just, J. Problem Posing as a Way of Promoting Individual Mathematical Thinking in STEM Contexts—The Case of Climate Change. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Siller, H.-S.; Günster, S.M.; Geiger, V. Mathematics as a Central Focus in STEM—Theoretical and Practical Insights from a Special Study Program Within Pre-Service (Prospective) Teacher Education. In Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Education in STEM; Li, Y., Zeng, Z., Song, N., Eds.; Advances in STEM Education; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gersmehl, P. Teaching Geography, 3rd ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kellinghusen, A.; Sprenger, S.; Zieriacks, C.; Orschulik, A.; Vorhölter, K.; Schulz, S. Secondary School Students’ Perceptions of Subjects in Integrated STEM Teaching. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brante, G.; Brunosson, A. To double a recipe—Interdisciplinary teaching and learning of mathematical content knowledge in a home economics setting. Educ. Inq. 2014, 5, 23925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Just, J.; Siller, H.-S. The role of mathematics in STEM secondary classrooms: A systematic literature review. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Goos, M.; Carreira, S.; Namukas, I. Mathematics and interdisciplinary STEM education: Recent developments and future directions. ZDM-Math. Educ. 2023, 55, 1199–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Larkin, K.; Lowrie, T. Teaching approaches for STEM integration in pre- and primary school: A systematic qualitative literature review. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2023, 21, 11–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sergeyeva, A.M.; Yessembek, S.A.; Abdullina, A.G.; Baubekova, G.K. The analysis of the content of the geography school curriculum for the section country studies in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Ukr. Geogr. J. 2023, 2, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Biddulph, M.; Lambert, D.; Balderstone, D. Learning to Teach Geography in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience, 4th ed.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dorn, R.I.; Douglass, J.; Ekiss, G.O.; Trapidolurie, B.; Comeaux, M.; Mings, R.; Eden, R.; Davis, C.; Hinde, E.; Ramakrishna, B. Learning geography promotes learning math: Results and implications of Arizona’s GeoMath grade K-8 program. J. Geogr. 2005, 104, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Murphy, A.B. Geographies crosscutting themes: Golden anniversary reflections on the 4 traditions of geography. J. Geogr. 2014, 113, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hrynevych, L.M.; Khoruzha, L.L.; Rudenko, N.M.; Proshkin, V.V. STEM education in the context of improving the science and mathematics literacy of pupils. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2022, 2288, 012031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schwortz, A.C.; Burrows, A.C. Listening for integrated STEM discourse: Power and positioning in a teacher professional development dataset activity. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lochner, J.; Rieckmann, M.; Robischon, M. (Un)expected Learning Outcomes of Virtual School Garden Exchanges in the Field of Education for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stacchiotti, L.; Acqua, A.; Pennesi, D.; Beccaceci, A.; Paris, E. WASTEBERG: A didactic activity about waste and sustainable use of georesources in relation to the Agenda 2030. Rend. Online Della Soc. Geol. Ital. 2019, 49, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bell, D. The reality of STEM education, design and technology teachers perceptions: A phenomenographic study. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2016, 26, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ridsdale, C.; Rothwell, J.; Smit, M.; Bliemel, M.; Irvine, D.; Kelley, D.; Matwin, S.; Wuetherick, B.; Ali-Hassan, H. Strategies and Best Practices for Data Literacy Education Knowledge Synthesis Report; Council of Atlantic University Libraries: Halifax, NS, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tytler, R.; Mulligan, J.; Prain, V.; White, P.; Xu, L.; Kirk, M.; Nielsen, C.; Speldewinde, C. An interdisciplinary approach to primary school mathematics and science learning. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2021, 43, 1926–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Moore, T.J.; Johnston, A.C.; Glancy, A.W. STEM integration: A synthesis of conceptual frameworks and definitions. In Handbook of Research in STEM Education; Johnson, C.C., Mohr-Schroeder, M.J., Moore, T.J., English, L.D., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kysilka, M.L. Understanding integrated curriculum. Curric. J. 1998, 9, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Honey, M.A.; Pearson, G.; Schweingruber, H. STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rennie, L.; Venville, G.; Wallace, J. Making STEM curriculum useful, relevant, and motivating for students. In STEM Education in the Junior Secondary; Jorgensen, R., Larkin, K., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 125–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vasquez, J.; Comer, M.; Sneider, C. STEM Lesson Essentials, Grades 3-8: Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics; Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, H.-H.; Knobloch, N.A. Levels of STEM integration through agriculture, food, and natural resources. J. Agric. Educ. 2018, 59, 258–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, H.; Moore, T.J.; Roehrig, G.H.; Park, M.S. STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. J. Pre-Coll. Eng. Educ. Res. 2011, 1, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Choi, B.; Pak, A. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives and evidence of effectiveness. Clin. Investig. Med. 2006, 29, 351–364. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hobbs, L.; Clark, J.C.; Plant, B. Successful students—STEM program: Teacher learning through a multifaceted vision for STEM education. In STEM Education in the Junior Secondary; Jorgensen, R., Larkin, K., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 152–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Gough, D.; Thomas, J. Systematic reviews of research in education: Aims, myths and multiple methods. Rev. Educ. 2016, 4, 84–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide; Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kuckartz, U.; Rädiker, S. Qualitative Content Analysis, 2nd ed.; SAGE: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  41. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brennan, R.L.; Prediger, D.J. Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1981, 41, 687–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mahanin, H.; Shahrill, M.; Tan, A.; Mahadi, M. Integrating the use of interdisciplinary learning activity task in creating students’ mathematical knowledge. Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci. 2017, 3, 280–298. [Google Scholar]
  44. Benimmas, A.; Kerski, J.; Solís, P. The impact of a geographic technologies professional development institute on Middle Eastern and North African teachers. Int. Res. Geogr. Environ. Educ. 2011, 20, 21–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kolodziejczky, A.M.; Rzepa, A.; Cieślak, B.; Harasymczuk, M. Educational analog missions in Lunares habitat in Poland. In Proceedings of the 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1–5 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mitchell, J.T.; Roy, G.; Fritch, S.; Wood, B. GIS professional development for teachers: Lessons learned from high-needs schools. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2018, 45, 292–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gürkan, B. Examination of secondary school teachers’ opinions regarding interdisciplinary teaching. Pegem Eğit. Öğret. Derg. 2018, 9, 91–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. German Geographical Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geographie). Educational Standards in Geography for the Intermediate School Certificate; German Geographical Society: Bonn, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  49. Cyvin, J. Challenges related to interdisciplinary use of digital mapping technology in primary and lower secondary schools. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr. Nor. J. Geogr. 2013, 67, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Groessler, M.; Kanwischer, D.; Niehaus, E. Spatial orientation, geomedia and learning: The design of a comparative empirical study. In GI_Forum; Jekel, T., Car, A., Strobl, J., Griesebner, G., Eds.; Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Vienna, Austria, 2013; pp. 467–472. [Google Scholar]
  51. Adamchuk, V.; Barker, B.; Nugent, G.; Grandgenett, N.; Patent-Nygren, M.; Lutz, C.; Morgan, K. Learning geospatial concepts as part of a non-formal education robotics experience. In Robots in K-12 Education: A New Technology for Learning; Bradley, S.B., Nugent, G., Grandgenett, N., Adamchuk, V., Eds.; GI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2012; pp. 284–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Reid, P.T.; Roberts, S.K. Gaining options: A mathematics program for potentially talented at-risk adolescent girls. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2018, 52, 288–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Arino de la Rubia, L.S. The Astrobiology in Secondary Classrooms (ASC) curriculum: Focusing upon diverse students and teachers. Astrobiology 2012, 12, 892–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Niklanovic, M.; Miljanovic, T.; Pribicevic, T. A model of interdisciplinary teaching of ecology in the high school. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2014, 66, 1291–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hotaling, L.; Stolkin, R. Sensing the environment: Student-created water quality sensors. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2015, 49, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wijers, M.; Jonker, V.; Kerstens, K. MobileMath: The phone, the game and the math. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference Games Based Learn, Barcelona, Spain, 16–17 October 2008; pp. 507–517. [Google Scholar]
  57. Xie, Y.; Reider, D. Integration of innovative technologies for enhancing students’ motivation for science learning and career. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2013, 23, 370–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fernández-Morante, C.; Fernández-de-la-Iglesia, J.-d.-C.; Cebreiro, B.; Latorre-Ruiz, E. ATS-STEM: Global teaching methodology to improve competences of secondary education students. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Guzey, S.S.; Moore, T.J.; Harwell, M.; Moreno, M. STEM integration in middle school life science: Student learning and attitudes. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2016, 25, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lipan, L.; Cano-Lamadrid, M.; Martínez, R.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A.; García-García, E.; López-Lluch, D. Fruit-based drinks label scanning by high-school students: An important tool to encourage a critical consumer purchase. In EDULEARN19 Proceedings, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Palma, Spain, 1–3 July 2019; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2019; pp. 1891–1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Moreira, F.T.; Vairinhos, M.; Ramos, F. Internet of things in education: A reflection from fieldwork about hyper-situated experience. In The Internet of Things for Education. A New Actor on the Stage; Daniela, L., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 97–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ng, D.T.K.; Chu, S.K.W. Motivating students to learn STEM via engaging flight simulation activities. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2021, 30, 608–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Falloon, G.; Powling, M.; Fraser, S.; Hatisaru, V. Shaping science, technology, engineering and mathematics curriculum in Australian schools: An ecological systems analysis. Aust. J. Educ. 2022, 66, 171–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Caprile, M.; Palmen, R.; Sanz, P.; Dente, G. Encouraging STEM Studies for the Labour Market (PE 542.199); European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2015; Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/542199/IPOL_STU(2015)542199_EN.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2025).
  65. National Science Foundation. Revisiting the STEM Workforce; National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA, USA, 2015. Available online: https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2015/nsb201510.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2025).
  66. Asghar, A.; Ellington, R.; Rice, E.; Johnson, F.; Prime, G.M. Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdiscip. J. Probl.-Based Learn. 2012, 6, 85–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Holmlund, T.D.; Lesseig, K.; Slavit, D. Making sense of “STEM education” in K-12 contexts. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2018, 5, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Lewis, N.S.; Jeanpierre, B. An evaluation of a master’s degree in K-8 mathematics and science: Classroom practice. Sch. Sci. Math. 2010, 106, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Grunwald, A.; Routhe, H.W.; Hansen, M.H.H.; Sillassen, M.K.; Skott, C.K.; Petersen, M.R.; Petersen, J.H.; Olsen, L.D.; Steffen, E. Using a PBL Perspective in Continuing Education for Science and Mathematics Lower Secondary Teachers. In Educate for the Future: PBL, Sustainability and Digitalisation, 1st ed.; Guerra, A., Kolmos, A., Winther, M., Chen, J., Eds.; Aalborg Universitetsforlag: Aalborg, Denmark, 2020; pp. 453–464. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 07276 g001
Figure 1. Systematic search and selection process based on the PRISMA statement. Truncations (*) were used to include word variants (see Section 3.1). Source: adapted for this study from Page et al. [37].
Figure 1. Systematic search and selection process based on the PRISMA statement. Truncations (*) were used to include word variants (see Section 3.1). Source: adapted for this study from Page et al. [37].
Sustainability 17 07276 g001
Sustainability 17 07276 g002
Figure 2. Focus areas of analyzed research.
Figure 2. Focus areas of analyzed research.
Sustainability 17 07276 g002
Sustainability 17 07276 g003
Figure 3. Research publication density by country where studies were conducted.
Figure 3. Research publication density by country where studies were conducted.
Sustainability 17 07276 g003
Sustainability 17 07276 g004
Figure 4. Distribution of studies by year of publication.
Figure 4. Distribution of studies by year of publication.
Sustainability 17 07276 g004
Table 1. Integration model of the subject combination of geography and mathematics. Adapted from Choi & Pak [35], Vasquez et al. [32], Hobbs et al. [36], and Rennie et al. [31].
Table 1. Integration model of the subject combination of geography and mathematics. Adapted from Choi & Pak [35], Vasquez et al. [32], Hobbs et al. [36], and Rennie et al. [31].
FormsDescriptionRepresentationLevel of
Integration
Disciplinary
  • Each subject is limited to its own content
  • No connection between subjects
Sustainability 17 07276 i001Sustainability 17 07276 i002
Multidisciplinary
  • Two or more subjects work in parallel but independently on one content area
  • No integration between subjects
Sustainability 17 07276 i003
Interdisciplinary
  • Two or more subjects combine their methods, concepts, and perspectives on one content area
  • Integration between subjects
Sustainability 17 07276 i004
Transdisciplinary
  • Two or more subjects are integrated with non-academic knowledge and perspectives on a real-life content area
  • Aiming to create overarching concepts that go beyond the boundaries of the subjects
Sustainability 17 07276 i005
Table 2. Overview of the content of studies in the combination of geography and mathematics.
Table 2. Overview of the content of studies in the combination of geography and mathematics.
Main Category (C)ContentSourceNumber
(n = x)
C 1: CartographyRobotics technologies and geoinformatics (GPS/GIS)Adamchuk et al. [51]8
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Global Positioning System (GPS)Benimmas et al. [44]
Working with maps and coordinatesCyvin, 2013 [49]
Topology in the immediate vicinityGroessler et al. [50]
Drawing with consideration of the scaleMahanin et al. [43]
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)Mitchell et al. [46]
Mobile game with GPS in the fieldWijers et al. [56]
Geographic information systems (GIS) and information assurance (IA)Xie & Reider (2013) [57]
C 2: Education for Sustainable
Development
(ESD)		Working on problem-based learning environments on the topic of ESDFernández-Morante et al. (2022) [58]9
Declining bird populationGuzey et al. [59]
Water quality and environmental sensorsHotaling & Stolkin [55]
Ecological crisis of Lake Nyos in CameroonHrynevych et al. [21]
Food labelingLipan et al. [60]
Internet of ThingsMoreira et al. [61]
Ecology with protection and improvement of the environmentNiklanovic et al. [54]
Climate change and sea level riseOldakowski & Johnson [7]
Impact of waste production on the climateStacchiotti et al. [24]
C 3: Astronomy and space travelInvestigation of samples in the field compared using the analogy of Mars explorationArino de la Rubia [53]4
Working day of an astronautKolodziejczky et al. [45]
Working day of a pilotNg & Chu [62]
Web-based spreadsheet with astronomy data setsSchwortz & Burrows [22]
C 4: Scientific workScientific workReid & Roberts [52]1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kellinghusen, A.; Orschulik, A.; Vorhölter, K.; Sprenger, S. Integrated Teaching in Geography and Mathematics Education: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167276

AMA Style

Kellinghusen A, Orschulik A, Vorhölter K, Sprenger S. Integrated Teaching in Geography and Mathematics Education: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(16):7276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167276

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kellinghusen, Anna, Anna Orschulik, Katrin Vorhölter, and Sandra Sprenger. 2025. "Integrated Teaching in Geography and Mathematics Education: A Systematic Review" Sustainability 17, no. 16: 7276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167276

APA Style

Kellinghusen, A., Orschulik, A., Vorhölter, K., & Sprenger, S. (2025). Integrated Teaching in Geography and Mathematics Education: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 17(16), 7276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167276

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop