Systematic Review of Environmental Education Teaching Practices in Schools: Trends and Gaps (2015–2024)

Abstract

Environmental education plays a vital role in cultivating environmentally responsible citizens. Although teachers are central to environmental education, their pedagogical practices remain under-researched. Thus, this study targeted to systematically review empirical research on environmental education teaching practices to synthesize findings and identify gaps. 2273 papers between 2015 and 2024 from Teacher Reference Center, ERIC, and GreenFILE were filtered to cover studies focused on environmental education teaching practices by teachers under formal education. To interpret trends of discoveries, we propose an expanded Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework—TPAC+E—by incorporating environmental knowledge alongside existing dimensions. Majority of 111 peer-reviewed articles employed case study designs and interviews, with an increasing emphasis on digital technologies in the post-COVID era. Common teaching practices identified include cross-disciplinary integration, outdoor learning, participatory approaches, and the promotion of critical thinking and empathy. However, widespread reliance on textbooks and teacher-centered instruction persists. The review also highlights significant research gaps in primary education and in underrepresented regions such as the Global South and East Asia. We advocate for more interdisciplinary and context-specific approaches, along with enhanced support for teacher training and curriculum development. This review offers both practical and conceptual insights to advance equitable and effective environmental education worldwide.

1. Introduction

Amid escalating environmental challenges, fostering environmental awareness and responsible behavior is more urgent than ever [1]. Environmental education (EE) aims to cultivate environmentally literate citizens equipped to address these challenges [2]. Basic education students—especially in primary and secondary schools—constitute a core audience for EE, as its integration into early education can promote pro-environmental behaviors [3,4].

Teachers play a pivotal role in EE [5,6,7,8]. They shape learning environments, facilitate school-based initiatives, influence students’ environmental attitudes and behaviors, and act as mediators between EE content and learners [1,4]. Teaching practices are therefore central to the success of EE [9], particularly because the mere transmission of environmental knowledge does not necessarily lead to behavior change or the development of action competence [10].

Nevertheless, several challenges remain. Teacher-centered instruction continues to dominate [11], often failing to meet course expectations [12,13] or societal demands [14]. Teachers’ lack of confidence is also a widely reported barrier to effective EE [5,7]. These limitations call for pedagogical strategies that empower students and foster meaningful engagement in environmental action [15].

To better understand how teachers deliver EE, systematic literature reviews can offer critical insights. Such reviews synthesize existing evidence through transparent and replicable methods, enabling a comprehensive understanding of research trends and informing evidence-based practices [16]. Given the inherently interdisciplinary nature of EE, systematic reviews are particularly suitable for capturing its complexity [3]. Several prior reviews have explored EE outcomes [3,17], competencies [18,19], or approaches to higher education [20]. Others have addressed early childhood education [21] or targeted grounded theory for middle-school education [2]. However, few reviews have focused specifically on teachers’ pedagogical practices in EE within primary and secondary school settings.

This paper systematically reviews empirical studies on EE teaching practices in schools as formal education contexts, with the aim of synthesizing key findings and identifying research gaps. Two guiding questions shape this review:

• What EE teaching practices have been documented in recent research, and what content, methods, materials, and technologies are involved?
• How do these practices align with widely accepted principles of environmental education?

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines [22,23], adapted for EE by Ardoin and Bowers [21] based on the frameworks of Cooper [24] and Gough et al. [25]. (Supplementary Materials).

2.1. Literature Search

A review protocol was developed to document the analytic procedure and establish inclusion criteria. We searched three databases hosted on the EBSCO platform—Teacher Reference Center, ERIC, and GreenFILE—which have previously been identified as relevant to environmental studies and education [3]. The review process adhered to established methodological standards for systematic literature reviews [24,25].

To ensure comprehensive retrieval, we used three sets of search terms. The first set captured environmental education-related terms: “environment* education”, “education for sustainability”, “sustainability education”, and “education for sustainable development”. The second set focused on teaching practices: “teach*” and “pedagog*”. The third set limited results to formal education contexts: “school*” and “grade*”.

Search results were restricted to peer-reviewed publications in English. We focused on a ten-year period (2015–2024) to capture recent developments within the context of the end of United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in 2014 and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which began in 2015, indicating changes in EE. The final search, conducted on 9 October 2024, yielded 4299 citation records.

2.2. Literature Screening

After the removal of duplicates by EBSCOhost, 2273 records remained. These were imported into Zotero (version 6.0.37) for further processing. An additional 338 duplicates were identified and excluded, resulting in 1935 records for initial screening (Figure 1). Two independent reviewers assessed the titles and abstracts of all records. A total of 1680 articles were excluded because they did not:

• Focus on EE;
• Target teaching practices;
• Address teachers as central agents;
• Involve formal education settings of primary or secondary schools.

Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussion. When consensus could not be reached, a third reviewer made the final decision. This process left 255 articles for full-text review. After applying the same exclusion criteria, 111 articles were selected for full coding and analysis (Figure 1).

2.3. Theoretical Framework: Technological Pedagogical Content + Environmental Knowledge (TPAC+E)

The growing integration of digital technologies—particularly in the post-pandemic era—reinforces the relevance of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework [26] for understanding teaching practices. However, EE presents unique demands not fully addressed by TPACK alone. To fill this gap, we propose an expanded model: TPAC+E.

Originally proposed by Shulman [27], the concept of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) emphasized the intersection of subject matter and instructional strategies. The TPACK framework, developed by Mishra and Koehler [26,28], added technological knowledge to reflect the evolving demands of teaching in digital contexts. Zhou [29] later proposed substituting environmental knowledge for technological knowledge in the TPACK framework (EPACK) to better incorporate environmental issues to content knowledge, emphasizing their interdisciplinary nature [29].

While we agree with separating environmental knowledge from content knowledge, we argue that both environmental and technological knowledge are critical and should be integrated. Thus, we propose TPAC+E as a more comprehensive framework for examining EE teaching practices. This model underscores the importance of integrating environmental knowledge alongside pedagogical, content, and technological knowledge in teacher preparation and practice. Previous studies (e.g., [1]) have pointed to a lack of integrative capacity in many EE classrooms—often due to insufficient training, limited interdisciplinary resources, or unclear curricular expectations. Thus, in this review, we incorporated environmental knowledge as a distinct and essential component, resulting in four core knowledge domains: content, pedagogy, technology, and environment.

The TPAC+E framework was applied in this research as categories for extracting data from research regarding schoolteachers’ pedagogical practices in EE and as a guideline for cross analysis of collected information.

3. Results

3.1. Basic Statistics

A total of 111 articles published across 46 academic journals were identified (Supplementary Materials). Among them, 36 articles (32%) appeared in Environmental Education Research, followed by five each (5%) in International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, The Journal of Environmental Education, and Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability. Four articles (4%) were published in the Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, while the remaining 41 journals contributed three or fewer articles each. Over half of the articles (60, 54%) were published in the second half of the 10-year review period, indicating a slight upward trend in research activity (Figure 2).

The studies spanned 139 countries (Figure 3), with the most represented being the United States (29 articles, 21%), Sweden (10, 7%), Australia (8, 6%), the United Kingdom (7, 5%), and Germany (6, 4%). Most research was conducted in Global North contexts (98 studies, 71%), with limited representation from the Global South (40 studies, 29%), including countries such as South Africa and India.

In terms of educational level, 57 studies (51%) focused exclusively on secondary education (e.g., [30]), while 24 studies (22%) examined primary education alone (e.g., [31]). Another 22 studies (20%) addressed both levels, and 8 articles (7%) did not clearly specify the educational stage. A few studies also extended to preschool (e.g., [32,33,34,35]) and tertiary education (e.g., [35,36]).

Most studies centered on teaching practices. However, five focused on personal experiences (e.g., [37]) or provided demonstrative teaching units (e.g., [38,39,40,41]). A majority of articles (67, 60%) investigated teacher practices exclusively (e.g., [42]), while 30 (27%) included both teachers and students (e.g., [43]). The remaining 16 studies (14%) incorporated perspectives from principals (e.g., [44]), school staff (e.g., [45]), community members (e.g., [46]), parents (e.g., [47]), and non-profit organizations (e.g., [48]).

3.2. Research Design and Methods

Among the 82 studies (74%) that explicitly reported their research design, most adopted a qualitative case study approach (Figure 4)—either instrumental (e.g., [44]), critical (e.g., [49]), interpretive (e.g., [50]), or multi-case (e.g., [51]). Other studies employed reconstructive (e.g., [52]), exploratory (e.g., [53]), or action research designs, including participatory (e.g., [54]), extended (e.g., [55]), or practice-based approaches (e.g., [56]). Some combined multiple methods within a single study, often integrating case studies with qualitative, mixed-methods, or field-based approaches (e.g., [48,57]).

Data collection methods were predominantly interview-based (Figure 5) (e.g., [58]), utilizing a wide range of formats: semi-structured, structured, open-ended, individual, group, online, telephone, and face-to-face. Interview techniques included in-depth interviews (e.g., [59]), narrative interviews (e.g., [52]), thematic interviews (e.g., [60]), post hoc interviews (e.g., [61]), walking or memory-box interviews (e.g., [62]), and think-aloud strategies (e.g., [63]). Surveys (e.g., [64,65]) combining multiple-choice, Likert-scale, and open-ended questions and observation (e.g., [66]) were also frequently employed. Other data sources included classroom artifacts (e.g., [67]), curricula and lesson plans (e.g., [68]), textbooks and teaching materials (e.g., [69]), student group discussions (e.g., [70]), participant reflections (e.g., [71]), and field notes from researchers or participants (e.g., [72]).

3.3. TPAC+E Elements

3.3.1. Technologies

The technological tools reported in the reviewed studies fell into two broad categories: conventional and digital technologies. Traditional tools included textbooks (e.g., [73]), photographs (e.g., [34]), chalkboards and whiteboards (e.g., [39]), printed materials (e.g., worksheets brochures, handouts, journal articles) (e.g., [50]), posters (e.g., [55]), and science journals (e.g., [67]). In addition, various physical models were used, such as representations of carbon molecules (e.g., [38]), anaerobic digesters (e.g., [41]), and ecosystems (e.g., [74]). Other tools included activity materials and artifacts (e.g., [61]), games (e.g., [69]), maps (e.g., [75]), lab equipment (e.g., [76]), bulletin boards (e.g., [77]), ESD calendars (e.g., [78]), creative objects and cards (e.g., [79]).

Digital technologies became more prevalent during the pandemic years (2020–2024), with 29 studies (26%) adopting digital tools, compared to 20 (18%) in the preceding five years. However, the adoption rate did not significantly differ by country income level. The most frequently used digital tools were video clips and films, including YouTube resources (e.g., [80]), presentation software (e.g., [81,82]), online platforms and applications, including videoconferencing tools (e.g., [83]), digital games (e.g., [55,84]), mobile apps, social media, digital worksheets (e.g., [76]), and virtual tours (e.g., [85]). Hardware included tablet PCs (e.g., [86]), projectors, sensors and probes (e.g., [87]), desktop computers (e.g., [88]), LED screens, flip cameras (e.g., [87]), USB drives, and 3D printers (e.g., [36]).

3.3.2. Pedagogies

Teaching in EE was predominantly teacher-led (e.g., [89]), yet a wide variety of pedagogical approaches were documented such as discussions (e.g., [47]), and a variety of activities (e.g., [66]). While some classes emphasized subject integration, a few remained confined to single disciplines (e.g., [77,90]). The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a shift to online teaching modalities in some studies (e.g., [33]). Outdoor learning, including field trips and nature-based activities, was the most widely reported strategy (e.g., [32]). Teachers often employed questioning techniques, connected topics to students’ prior knowledge and lived experiences (e.g., [76,87]), introduced environmental terminology (e.g., [79]), and facilitated student reflection and feedback (e.g., [84]). Many teachers relied heavily on textbooks, national guidelines, and pre-designed curricula (e.g., [57]). Nonetheless, they frequently sought to foster students’ critical thinking (e.g., [91]), creativity (e.g., [92]), emotional engagement (e.g., [93]), and environmental competencies (e.g., [94]). Teachers mostly focused on fostering students’ systems thinking (e.g., [95,96]), higher-order thinking (e.g., [68]), strategic and future-oriented thinking (e.g., [97]), and divergent thinking (e.g., [76]) skills via EE.

Cross analysis of the extracted pedagogical practices by factors such as school level revealed distinct patterns. In primary schools, creative activities, role-playing, and whole-school approaches (e.g., [44]) were more prevalent. In contrast, in secondary schools, EE was more frequently confined to textbook-based instruction; however, greater emphasis on multi-perspective approaches and the development of critical thinking skills was observed, alongside a higher prevalence of student-centered and project-based learning activities. Comparisons between the Global North and South also unveiled notable differences. In wealthier regions, collaborative approaches, creative activities, experiments, and place- or project-based education were more common, often characterized by higher levels of interdisciplinarity or multidisciplinarity. On the other hand, EE in the Global South tended to remain largely textbook-based and relatively teacher-centered.

Communication and expression were sometimes overlooked. However, certain studies noted the use of humor (e.g., [37]), non-verbal expression (e.g., [40]), code-switching in multilingual settings (e.g., [90]), interactive dialog (e.g., [98]), and analogies or metaphors (e.g., [99]). Student engagement typically involved group discussions, environmental campaigns, experiments, and simulations. Students also created posters (e.g., [32]), artistic or multimedia products (e.g., [48]), and presentations (e.g., [67]). Role-playing and game-based learning were also common participatory strategies (e.g., [50]). Several studies noted limitations in pedagogical practice, such as minimal student empowerment or group work (e.g., [72]), lack of environmental or interactive activities (e.g., [100]), and weak problem identification and solution processes (e.g., [101]). Assessment was rarely reported, but some reported the use of student reports, worksheets, group assignments, and written tests. Curriculum planning was similarly under-addressed, with only a few studies explicitly discussing it (e.g., [60,102]).

3.3.3. Contents

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) was the most popular content leading EE by 94 cases (86%), covering biology and life sciences (e.g., [103]), chemistry (e.g., [88]), physics (e.g., [104]), earth, marine, and space sciences (e.g., [105]), mathematics (e.g., [106]), technology/engineering (e.g., [90]), agricultural studies (e.g., [107,108]), forensics (e.g., [109]), and environmental sciences (e.g., [110]) itself. Especially, more focus on EE through STEM was observed during post-COVID era (2020–2024) with highlights on secondary schools.

The social sciences and humanities were also prominent (29 studies, 26%), encompassing subjects such as religion (e.g., [111]), ethics and philosophy (e.g., [112]), history and civics (e.g., [113]), and economics (e.g., [103]). Geography featured in 23 studies (21%) (e.g., [114,115]), while language education, mainly English, was included in 22 studies (20%) (e.g., [103]). Meanwhile, non-STEM environment-related disciplines—such as environmental health, ethics, sustainability, and education for sustainable development—were explicitly addressed in 7 studies (6%) (e.g., [116,117]). Less frequently reported disciplines included fine arts—covering drama, theater, and craft-based learning (e.g., [91]), philology (e.g., [107]), business and development studies (e.g., [108]), physical and health education (e.g., [118]), home economics (e.g., [119]), and psychology (e.g., [120]).

Among other contents, virtual school garden exchanges [95] tried to offer students opportunities to gain insights into foreign environment and communicate with other students with technologies. The South African subject Life Orientation, which blends personal development with civic and environmental learning, appeared in three studies [53,121,122]. Two studies showcased innovative cross-disciplinary combinations—such as dance and science [40], and the integration of nature and society [123].

3.3.4. Environmental Issues

While general environmental issues (23 studies, 21%) (e.g., [124,125,126]) and sustainability or sustainable development (21 studies, 19%) (e.g., [127,128,129,130,131]) were the most popular, ecology, biodiversity, and conservation (21 studies, 19%) (e.g., [132]), and water systems and catchment environments (13 studies, 12%) (e.g., [117]), as expansion of ecological conservation, were another focus by teachers. Climate change, the most urgent environmental issue, was dealt in 18 cases (16%) (e.g., [133]).

Consideration of human-environmental interactions and social dimensions are regarded in 11 studies (10%) (e.g., [117,134]), specific approaches of such relations such as waste problem (11 studies, 10%) (e.g., [112]), food systems and nutrition (10 studies, 9%) (e.g., [135]), and energy (7 studies, 6%) (e.g., [124]) were also independently taught. While many studies addressed well-established topics, some explored emerging or underrepresented issues, such as the ethics of sustainability [75], indigenous knowledge (e.g., [136,137]), resource use (e.g., [138]), eco-critical literacy (e.g., [139]), and environmental chemistry [140], indicating an increasing diversification in EE content.

4. Discussion

4.1. Alignment with Core EE Principles

According to the Belgrade Charter [141] and the Tbilisi Declaration [142], which established the foundational concept of EE, EE should address not only natural but also economic or social aspects of environmental issues; provide continuous learning processes; incorporate multiple disciplines; emphasize activities and participation; deliver essential knowledge and values needed to understand, examine, and resolve complex environmental problems; promote a sense of cooperation and solidarity at local, national, and international levels; and take full advantage of all available resources. These basic principles are consistent with Tilbury’s [143] view that EE must be learner-relevant, value-oriented, holistic, issue-based, action-oriented, and explicitly critical. Contemporary EE principles reflect original perspectives with emphasis on environmental literacy [144] and on systems and critical thinking [44]. By synthesizing these principles, UNESCO introduced a framework for fostering key competencies, including systems, anticipatory, normative, strategic, collaboration, empathic, and critical thinking skills, along with self-awareness, and integrated problem-solving abilities [145]. UNESCO also highlighted the importance of assessing learners at multiple levels and strengthening teacher knowledge and competencies [145]. Silva et al. [84] consolidated principles suggested by previous researchers, including those cited above, while emphasizing learners’ roles by referring to “children as changing agents”, rejecting underestimating views on children, and presenting them as “leaders of education for sustainability practices”.

In this review, to evaluate the consistency of teaching practices, we categorized EE principles into six dimensions: totality, interdisciplinarity, and curriculum integration; actions and participation; environmental literacy; key competencies; partnerships; and use of equipment (

Table 1. Common principles for EE derived from previous materials.

Principle Concept	Details
Totality, interdisciplinarity, and curriculum integration	Addresses non-natural aspects of the environment including social, economic, cultural, or aesthetic dimensions [142], and embeds EE topics across diverse core subjects rather than treating them as a standalone discipline.
Actions and participation	Encourages authentic experiences and participatory actions to develop problem-solving skills.
Environmental literacy	Involves knowledge of environmental issues, ecological foundations, issue identification and analysis, action planning, perceived competence in action-taking, and self-reported behaviors [144].
Key competencies	Encompasses systems thinking, anticipatory, normative, strategic capacities, as well as collaboration, empathy, critical thinking self-awareness, and integrated problem-solving [145].
Partnerships	Builds connections with local communities, third-party stakeholders, and global networks to enhance EE.
Use of facilities	Promotes the full utilization of available facilities and environments to support EE implementation.

). Subjects beyond natural sciences sometimes incorporated environmental issues, thereby broadening perspectives to include socio-environmental relationships, although STEM contents remained dominant. However, several studies regarded environmental topics as an add-on to existing lessons [72,77,90], a practice not recommended under the UNESCO guidelines [145]. Learners engaged in educational and environmental activities and in diverse experiences provided by teachers in project-based, participatory, and action-based approaches. Despite widespread coverage of general environmental issues or values, ecology being a popular environmental theme delivered in class, and knowledge, responsibility, and topics shared occasionally by teachers with students, environmental literacy itself was seldomly addressed in depth. Teachers sought to foster key competencies such as collaboration, critical thinking, and integrated problem-solving through their pedagogical designs, and some also targeted empathy by engaging students’ emotions. Strategic thinking and systems thinking were less frequently emphasized.

The inclusion of local environment contexts and the involvement of community stakeholders appeared in several studies, and examples of global exchange were also documented [95,134]. Few studies mentioned a whole-school approach to EE [66,77,84,111], although the increasing use of digital technologies in EE reflects the principle of fully utilizing available equipment and environments. While some researchers highlighted the importance of learner-centered teaching [146], teachers continued to act as the primary agents of EE. In overall, recent EE teaching practices largely aligned with the common foundational principles, though substantial potential for improvement remains.

4.2. Application of TPAC+E to Analyze EE Practices

Building on the principles of EE identified above, our analysis was guided by an expanded version of the TPACK framework that incorporates environmental knowledge, thus suggesting TPAC+E. This framework provided a lens for evaluating a wide range of EE practices by integrating technologies, pedagogies, contents, and environmental knowledge in EE over the previous decade.

In the post-COVID era (2020–2024), digital technologies were increasingly implemented to support project-based approaches more so than other instructional practices. In contrast, pedagogies such as discussions, inquiry-based activities, and textbook-based instruction showed limited involvement of digital technologies. Although most subjects demonstrated minimal relevance to the use of digital technologies, certain environmental themes, such as waste, environmental values, and socio- or human-environmental relationships, were more frequently addressed using non-digital tools.

Pedagogical strategies also varied across contents. Group work and student-centered approaches were more common in STEM fields, whereas critical thinking and inter- or multidisciplinary were more often emphasized in teacher-led sessions within non-STEM classes. This pattern suggests that EE delivered through non-STEM subjects may require greater facilitation due to its complexity, which originates from wide academic scopes. Outdoor experiences emerged as a widely employed pedagogy across school levels, periods, geographical contexts, and subjects; however, their use was relatively limited when addressing climate-related topics, unlike other environmental themes such as ecosystems and sustainability. Group work and creative activities were especially prevalent when teaching about ecosystems, while sustainability was frequently addressed in non-STEM sessions, and climate change and ecosystems predominated in STEM contexts. This distribution reflects both interdisciplinary nature of sustainability and remaining perception on climate issues as primarily scientific matters (e.g., [42]).

Through the TPAC+E framework, it was possible to understand current EE practices in the classrooms, thus offering clues for effective EE with regard to respective knowledge domains. This reflection is not only for scholars, but also for teachers or policymakers. Also, by articulating environmental knowledge as an independent yet interdependent domain, TPAC+E reflects the interdisciplinary nature of EE and may support curriculum design, teacher reflection, and policy development in diverse contexts.

4.3. Further Implications

This review synthesizes key insights into teaching practices in EE, encompassing pedagogical strategies, technological integration, subject matter, and environmental content areas. Based on the findings, we identify several critical directions for future research and educational practices.

First, given the dominance of secondary education in the reviewed literature, there is an urgent need for more research on EE in primary school settings. Early-age environmental literacy plays a pivotal role in shaping students′ lifelong attitudes and behaviors [1], but research in this domain remains underdeveloped.

Second, as previously noted, the overwhelming concentration of studies in the Global North reveals a persistent geographic imbalance. Greater scholarly attention must be directed toward underrepresented regions, particularly the Global South and East Asia, where large populations, rapid environmental degradation with larger impacts due to different socioeconomic characteristics [147,148], and complex socio-ecological systems [147,149] heighten the urgency of context-specific EE. Nevertheless, EE practices in these regions often differ from those in the Global North, exhibiting fewer collaborative approaches, experiments, creative activities, and project-based learning opportunities. At the same time, evidence of educational transformation is emerging from Global South, with numerous examples [150]. Research from these regions can provide essential insights for localizing EE strategies and advancing a more equitable global discourse.

Third, with respect to methodology, most studies relied on self-reports and interviews. Given the well-documented discrepancies between self-perceptions and actual classroom behaviors [151], future studies should adopt triangulated approaches, including classroom observations and mixed-methods designs. Incorporating the perspectives of multiple stakeholders—such as students, parents, and community partners—can also yield richer understandings of EE implementation dynamics.

Finally, EE should move beyond its traditional anchoring in science education. Greater inclusion of the arts, humanities, and social sciences would better reflect the interdisciplinary and transformative goals of EE [141,142] and align with holistic aspect of EE [143]. This diversity would support the development of essential competencies, such as critical, systemic, and normative thinking, within school curricula.

4.4. Limitations

Several limitations of this review warrant consideration.

First, although systematic procedures were followed, the literature search was restricted to three databases targeting peer-reviewed publications in English. Relevant studies published in other databases or regional and interdisciplinary journals may have been overlooked, with chances of excluding valuable research conducted in other languages, especially from the Global South, potentially underrepresenting culturally diverse pedagogical perspectives.

Second, despite the application of inclusive screening criteria, initial exclusions based on abstracts may have omitted studies whose relevance only became apparent upon full-text review. This limitation may have affected the comprehensiveness of the final sample. With relation to this matter, the review focused exclusively on school-based EE as formal education settings. In practice, the boundary between formal and non-formal education is often blurred [152]—particularly when teachers engage in community-based or extracurricular environmental initiatives. Future reviews may benefit from including hybrid or informal learning settings to provide a more complete picture of EE practices.

Finally, although this review introduced the TPAC+E framework as a conceptual model, its applicability was not empirically tested. Future studies should investigate how this integrated knowledge framework supports teachers’ real-world practice across different cultural and institutional contexts.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review has synthesized key trends and patterns in EE teaching practices within formal schooling contexts between 2015 and 2024. The findings highlight several critical insights:

• A dominance of secondary education in existing research, with relatively limited attention to primary education;
• A concentration of studies in Global North countries, reinforcing geographic disparities in EE scholarship;
• A growing adoption of digital technologies, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic;
• A partial but uneven alignment between classroom practices and internationally endorsed EE principles.

To help conceptualize the knowledge demands of effective EE, we introduced the TPAC+E framework—an expanded version of TPACK that explicitly incorporates environmental knowledge alongside technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. This model can be applied for integrative, interdisciplinary approaches in EE and offers a practical tool for both research and improvement of EE classes.

Ultimately, we hope that this review supports future research and policy efforts aimed at enhancing the quality, inclusiveness, and impact of EE globally. In an era of escalating ecological crises and social inequalities, educating for sustainability, justice, and global citizenship is not just a curricular choice—it is an educational imperative.