Evaluating SERTPs: Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Teaching Practices Among Science Teachers

Abstract

The objective of this study is to assess the extent to which science teachers implement (SERTPs) and to examine whether these practices differ according to selected demographic and professional variables. Using a descriptive–analytical design, data were collected from 225 science teachers enrolled in graduate programs at King Khalid University during the 2025–2026 academic year. The findings reveal a high overall level of SERTPs (M = 2.45; 81.81%). The highest-scoring dimensions were Enhancing Students’ Environmental Awareness (86.59%) and Using Sustainable Resources in Teaching (84.00%), while Encouraging Community Participation showed the lowest application level (77.95%). No significant differences were found across gender, teaching stage, academic qualification, or age; however, a significant difference emerged in favor of teachers with a high level of technology use (p < 0.001). These results underline the vital role of technological integration in strengthening sustainable teaching practices. The study recommends targeted professional development, sustainability-centered curriculum enhancement, and institutional support to align science education with global Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) goals.

1. Introduction

In the context of mounting ecological crises and global sustainability demands, education must shift from passive knowledge transmission to active transformation. Science teachers are uniquely positioned to foster students’ environmental awareness, critical thinking, and pro-environmental behaviors; however, sustainable teaching depends on teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, institutional support, and capacity for pedagogical change. Evidence shows that implementation often remains superficial despite positive attitudes toward sustainability [1], while ESD studies highlight the influence of teachers’ life experiences, sustainability knowledge, and school context on their practices [2,3]. Therefore, professional organizations advocate integrating sustainability into science teacher preparation to build an environmentally literate citizenry [4].

Embed ecological awareness, conservation ethics, and long-term thinking into instruction, connecting scientific learning to local and global environmental challenges, and encouraging inquiry, systems thinking, and sustainable lifestyle reflections [5,6]. These practices move beyond superficial “green” activities to embed sustainability within core scientific concepts.

Environmentally responsible teachers make pedagogical choices that reduce environmental impact—such as using digital resources, minimizing disturbance during fieldwork, and integrating renewable and circular system examples—while continually reflecting on their practices through professional development [7,8,9]. Psychological perspectives note that sustainable teaching is shaped by environmental self-efficacy, motivation, and personal values and, aligns with social cognitive theory highlighting interactions between personal, behavioral, and environmental factors [10,11,12].

Pedagogically, sustainability education emphasizes competencies, values, and behavioral transformation. UNESCO’s ESD framework calls for integrating environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability into curriculum and instruction [13], while transformative learning theory stresses reflective experiences that challenge assumptions [14,15]. Experiential and project-based models further strengthen active learning and community participation. Additionally, sustainability education links ecological, social, and economic systems, helping students understand resource efficiency and circular economy principles while highlighting the need to rethink unsustainable consumption patterns [16].

From social, legal, and international perspectives, sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching reflects community obligations and global commitments rather than individual preference. Teachers are expected to connect scientific content with local environmental issues—such as pollution, waste management, and climate change—and to involve families and community members in collaborative initiatives. National regulations and international agreements further establish environmental rights and duties that should guide educational practice [17]. At the global level, the Sustainable Development Goals—particularly Goal 4—emphasize the teacher’s role in preparing learners as active global citizens capable of addressing environmental and developmental challenges [17,18].

Science education and sustainability are inherently linked, as scientific literacy provides the conceptual and inquiry skills needed to understand environmental systems and human impacts. Through SERTPs, science teachers integrate real-world sustainability dilemmas—such as energy transitions, water scarcity, and ecosystem services—helping students bridge scientific theory with practice. Engaging learners in investigations, modeling, and scenario analyses supports the development of evidence-based reasoning and systems thinking, fostering informed citizens capable of making sustainable decisions [18,19].

Science education also serves as a platform for active, participatory learning and experimentation with sustainable solutions. Laboratory and field investigations related to renewable energy, waste reduction, or habitat restoration allow students to examine ecological resilience and ethical considerations such as justice, resource allocation, and intergenerational equity. By guiding such learning, teachers help students view themselves as agents within environmental systems, fulfilling both the epistemic and civic aims of science education, including responsibility, stewardship, and action [8,9,20].

Developing SERTPs among science teachers is essential for preparing generations able to confront environmental challenges. Embedding sustainability in everyday scientific thinking strengthens students’ environmental responsibility and motivates their participation in meaningful environmental projects and community initiatives [21,22]. At the primary and middle levels, integrating field experiences, local inquiries, and small-scale environmental projects establishes core ecological understanding and sustainable values early in development, reinforcing the relevance of scientific learning to real-world phenomena [23].

In secondary and higher education, sustainable teaching practices deepen students’ analytical and critical capacities, enabling them to address complex issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion. These practices promote systems thinking, foresight, and interdisciplinary inquiry, preparing learners not only to understand science but also to apply it ethically in advancing environmental policy and sustainable innovation [24,25,26,27].

From a professional development perspective, enhancing sustainable teaching practices supports continuous teacher growth, engagement with emerging research, and a heightened sense of moral and professional responsibility for planetary well-being. When teachers possess the necessary knowledge, agency, and institutional support, their commitment to implementing sustainable practices increases; however, the absence of such support often leads to superficial or inconsistent application despite positive attitudes toward sustainability [1]. Thus, cultivating sustainable teaching is not optional but an ethical and professional necessity that positions science teachers as agents of meaningful and lasting change.

A systematic review of studies from 2015 to 2024 shows that research on SERTPs has relied heavily on qualitative methods, such as case studies and interviews, with increasing integration of digital technologies (TPACK + E framework). Commonly reported practices include interdisciplinary integration, outdoor learning, student participation, and fostering critical and empathetic thinking. Yet, dependence on traditional curricula remains widespread, resulting in uneven sustainability implementation across contexts and highlighting the need for systemic innovation and institutional support [28].

Cogut et al. examined the relationship between sustainability awareness and pro-environmental behavior, finding that awareness of campus waste-prevention efforts predicted waste-reduction behaviors, although this relationship did not extend to all sustainability-related behaviors. Student engagement also did not significantly strengthen the awareness–behavior link [29]. In a longitudinal study, Boeve-de Pauw et al. found that teachers with higher self-efficacy were more likely to integrate sustainability into their teaching, emphasizing the importance of professional development and hands-on training for translating awareness into practice [30].

Pamuk et al. identified significant life experiences, sustainability knowledge, and environmental attitudes as strong predictors of sustainable teaching behavior among science teachers, whereas the school environment showed no significant effect. These findings underscore the importance of internal and cognitive factors in shaping sustainable pedagogy [3]. In a related study, Al-Azab, Ali Ismail, and Abdellatif reported high levels of environmental attitude and social responsibility among university students, with a significant correlation between the two constructs, reinforcing the role of education in fostering responsibility for environmental protection and sustainable development [31]. Collectively, these studies demonstrate that sustainability in teaching must be viewed as both an ethical duty and a pedagogical imperative.

At the institutional level, Scheie et al. examined interdisciplinary curriculum design teams that collaboratively developed sustainability-focused teaching units. Most schools successfully integrated science with social studies and other disciplines, especially around local sustainability issues. Teachers who articulated clear objectives, competencies, and activities achieved more coherent and effective integration than those with vague plans, highlighting the importance of collaboration and clarity in sustainable educational practice [32].

Cocu et al. developed an integrated framework for embedding green and sustainable entrepreneurship in engineering curricula through digital innovation. Their cloud-based learning system—which included platforms dedicated to sustainability and tools such as the Green Business Innovation Canvas, TRIZ creativity matrices, and AI-driven recommendation systems—showed that combining advanced digital tools with innovative pedagogy strengthens learners’ ability to design eco-friendly business models and supports scalable sustainability-oriented education [33].

In teacher preparation, Nuan Chalerm et al. identified key sustainability competencies—including resource conservation, recycling, energy and, water saving, sustainable transport, and waste management—as essential for pre-service teachers. The study emphasized the need for these competencies to be developed through authentic classroom and community activities, enabling teachers to gain practical experience in sustainability implementation. Experiential training is fundamental for preparing future teachers to become sustainability advocates [34].

This study aims to assess the extent to which science teachers implement sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices, and to examine whether these practices differ according to specific demographic and professional variables, such as gender, educational level, academic qualification, level of technology use, and age.

Based on the existing literature and international frameworks for education for sustainable development, this study rests on two main hypotheses: (1) science teachers demonstrate an average level of sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices, and (2) there are no statistically significant differences in sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices attributable to demographic and professional variables.

The significance of this study lies in its contribution to the empirical assessment of sustainable teaching practices among science teachers in the context of higher education. By providing a validated measurement tool and identifying key indicators of sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices, the study offers practical applications for teacher preparation programs, professional development initiatives, and policy reforms aimed at aligning science education with the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 4, which focuses on quality education and learning outcomes geared towards sustainability.

Overall, the literature indicates that SERTPs are an essential component of modern science education, shaped by psychological, pedagogical, institutional, and ethical determinants. Despite the recognized importance of sustainability, gaps persist between teachers’ attitudes, professional competencies, and consistent classroom implementation. Additionally, much existing research is context-specific and does not offer comprehensive evaluation across educational levels and cultural settings. Therefore, this study aims to address these gaps by assessing the extent, quality, and predictors of SERTPs among science teachers, contributing to teacher preparation, policy reforms, and classroom strategies that promote sustainability and environmental stewardship. Accordingly, the present study seeks to answer the following research question: To what extent do science teachers implement Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Teaching Practices (SERTPs), and do these practices differ according to selected demographic and professional variables?

2. Research Problem

Despite global commitments to sustainability and the increasing integration of environmental themes into educational policies, there remains a substantial gap between the rhetoric of sustainability and its actual translation into classroom practice. Many science teachers acknowledge the importance of fostering environmental awareness and sustainable behaviors among students, yet their instructional practices often remain confined to traditional content delivery with limited experiential or inquiry-based engagement. Research indicates that teachers frequently lack sufficient training, resources, and institutional support to meaningfully embed sustainability principles in teaching [1,30]. Furthermore, the measurement and evaluation of such SERTPs remain inconsistent across contexts, hindering comparative understanding and evidence-based improvement. This gap underscores the urgent need to systematically assess how science teachers conceptualize and implement sustainability within their pedagogical approaches, thereby identifying barriers and opportunities for professional growth and curriculum innovation.

In recent years, major international conferences on education and sustainable development have repeatedly emphasized that evaluating teachers’ SERTPs is essential for assessing the effectiveness of policies and programs. For example, during the IEA International Research Conference (IRC), held under the theme “Researching Education for Sustainable Futures,” participants were encouraged to present methodological tools that enable countries to systematically assess how well teachers translate sustainability education policies into classroom practice [35]. This focus on evaluation highlights that assessment is not merely a research activity but an institutional requirement for ensuring the practical realization of sustainability in education systems.

At the international policy level, UNESCO and its Member States have underscored that institutional evaluation of sustainability education must be embedded within national education strategies. The ESD 2030 framework calls on countries to “monitor the integration of ESD and related indicators in national education policies, curricula, teacher education, and student assessments” [36]. This recommendation directly links the evaluation of sustainable teaching practices to national accountability frameworks, highlighting its strategic importance for aligning educational reform with the Sustainable Development Goals.

Within the European context, the European Commission published a supporting document accompanying the Council Recommendation on Learning for Environmental Sustainability, emphasizing that implementation, monitoring, and evaluation are fundamental pillars of success. The document urged EU member states to establish mechanisms for tracking and assessing teachers’ roles in implementing sustainability-oriented teaching practices and supporting them through targeted funding and institutional training. This approach recognizes that evaluation must be continuous, evidence-based, and directly connected to teacher empowerment and system-wide improvement [37].

Similarly, the United Nations Transforming Education Summit identified the enhancement of teachers’ capacities as a key pillar of action, explicitly recommending continuous professional development, self-assessment, and empowerment to evaluate one’s own sustainable practices. The Summit’s report highlighted that one of its four priority action tracks was to “strengthen teachers’ capacities and autonomy in sustainability assessment and education” [38]. This vision reframes the evaluation of sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching not merely as accountability but as a developmental and transformative process that promotes professional growth and advances environmental performance in education.

Zhang et al. conducted a systematic review of environmental education research published between 2015 and 2024 and found that among the 111 analyzed studies, a large proportion focused on teachers’ sustainable teaching practices. The authors explicitly called for the development of standardized evaluation tools to measure the extent to which teachers at various educational stages adopt sustainable and environmentally responsible practices. These findings highlight that the research field itself acknowledges a persistent methodological gap that must be addressed through systematic assessment and monitoring of teaching practices [28].

In a practical classroom context, Scheie et al. analyzed interdisciplinary teaching units designed by lower secondary teachers and observed that the successful integration of environmental, social, and economic dimensions required teachers to reflect on and evaluate their own practices. The presence of internal evaluation mechanisms enabled teachers to identify both strengths and areas for improvement in implementing sustainability-oriented instruction. The study emphasizes that systematic evaluation is not optional but an integral part of professional growth and curriculum development in sustainable education [32].

Recent research emphasizes the value of interdisciplinary collaboration in promoting sustainability competencies among students. Sørensen and Stenalt highlighted that integrating diverse disciplinary perspectives fosters deeper understanding and engagement with sustainability challenges, suggesting that science education should likewise incorporate interdisciplinary and student-centered approaches [39].

Al-Azab Ali Ismail and Abdellatif Evaluate the level of environmental attitude and social responsibility toward the environment among university students and their training for sustainable development. The study findings revealed that the student sample at Prince Satam Bin Abdulaziz University exhibited high levels of environmental sustainability attitudes and social responsibility toward the environment. A positive and statistically significant correlation was established between environmental sustainability attitudes and social responsibility. Crucially, the results confirmed the predictive capacity of environmental sustainability attitudes on students’ level of social responsibility. Therefore, the study concluded that student education plays an essential role in bolstering their social responsibility for environmental protection and sustainable development [31].

Gough asserts that teachers hold a pivotal responsibility in fostering environmentally responsible citizenship, thereby underscoring the imperative for teacher education programs to enhance the confidence and competence of prospective and in-service educators. The author observes that many teacher education institutions have demonstrated a lack of responsiveness in fully integrating sustainability education, often relegating it to peripheral content rather than establishing it as a core curricular focus. Gough’s analysis delineates the essential components of effective sustainability education programs, which must integrate sustainability-related knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and transformative pedagogies. Ultimately, the chapter identifies and discusses the significant systemic obstacles currently impeding the successful implementation and mainstreaming of sustainability within teacher education curricula [40].

In the context of Saudi science education, the qualitative study by Al-Barakat et al. based on interviews and observations of primary science teachers in Al-Ahsa, revealed that educators perceive science teaching as a tool to cultivate critical thinking and foster eco-friendly actions, moving beyond mere knowledge delivery. The findings showed that classroom practices successfully integrated environmental values and sustainability principles, reflecting a transformative view of the teacher’s role. According to the authors, effective science education centers on three main themes: promoting environmental awareness, developing environmental responsibility through active practices, and highlighting the ethical role of science in supporting sustainability, with the ultimate goal of shaping conscious, responsible global citizens [21].

Pandey and Pandey recommended that teacher training programs be redesigned to ensure effective implementation of environmental education, as this training is crucial for enhancing students’ environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, ultimately empowering future educators to motivate students toward local action for a better future [41].

European case studies by Scheie et al. further demonstrated that teaching teams engaging in internal self-assessment and reflective evaluation achieved deeper curricular integration of sustainability concepts than those without such practices. The findings affirm that systematic evaluation is not merely a monitoring tool but a transformative process that empowers teachers to refine their instructional practices and enhance sustainability implementation across disciplines [32]. Collectively, these studies converge on the conclusion that assessing the level and quality of sustainable teaching practices among science teachers is essential for ensuring genuine educational transformation.

Field observations conducted during classroom visits across various educational stages revealed noticeable variations in how science teachers integrate sustainability and environmental responsibility into their instruction. In several classrooms, lessons primarily focused on delivering scientific facts and principles without explicit connections to real-world environmental issues or sustainable applications. Activities related to sustainability—such as waste reduction, resource conservation, or critical discussions of human–environment interactions—were often treated as supplementary rather than integral components of science learning. Moreover, few teachers used inquiry-based or project-driven strategies that could engage students in investigating authentic environmental challenges. These findings reflect a disconnection between curriculum objectives advocating sustainability and the practical realities of classroom instruction, reinforcing the need for systematic evaluation of teachers’ actual practices.

Further classroom observations emphasized that while many teachers expressed positive attitudes toward sustainability, their instructional behaviors did not consistently demonstrate environmentally responsible practices. For instance, some laboratory sessions relied heavily on single-use materials without attention to environmental impact, and environmental ethics were rarely embedded in assessment or reflection activities. Discussions with teachers revealed a lack of structured guidance, professional training, and evaluative feedback mechanisms to support sustainable teaching methods. This gap between teachers’ intentions and their observed practices underscores an urgent need to assess the current status of SERTPs in science education. Such evaluation will provide empirical evidence for developing targeted professional development programs, curricular reforms, and institutional policies that bridge the divide between sustainability ideals and classroom implementation [30,36].

In summary, the reviewed literature, international recommendations, and classroom observations collectively reveal a growing recognition of the importance of sustainability and environmental responsibility in science education—but also expose a persistent gap between policy aspirations and pedagogical practice. Although numerous frameworks and initiatives advocate for sustainable teaching, evidence from recent studies and field observations indicate that many science teachers continue to struggle with effectively implementing sustainability principles in their lessons. Factors such as limited professional training, lack of evaluation tools, and insufficient institutional support have contributed to the inconsistent or superficial application of these practices. Consequently, there is a pressing need to systematically assess the current level of SERTPs among science teachers across different educational stages. The central problem of this research, therefore, lies in the absence of comprehensive, evidence-based evaluation of how science teachers conceptualize, apply, and sustain environmentally responsible teaching practices within real classroom contexts—an issue that this study seeks to address through empirical investigation and analysis.

3. Research Questions

This research answered the following questions:

• What is the level of SERTPs among science teachers?
• Are there significant differences in SERTPs among science teachers according to the following variables: gender (male/female), teaching stage (elementary/intermediate/secondary/out of class now), academic qualification (bachelor’s/master’s), level of technology use (moderate/high), and age (less than 30 years/30–40 years/more than 40 years)?

4. Research Objective

This research aimed to achieve the following:

• Assess the overall level of SERTPs among science teachers.
• Examine differences in SERTPs among science teachers based on gender, teaching stage, academic qualification, level of technology use, and age.
• Identify ways to enhance sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices in science education.

5. Research Hypotheses

The current research attempted to test the following hypotheses:

H1: 

The level of SERTPs among science teachers is moderate.

H2: 

The level of SERTPs among science teachers differs according to gender, teaching stage, academic qualification, level of technology use, and age.

6. Research Importance

This study is significant because it provides a clear understanding of how science teachers implement sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices (SERTPs), which are essential for preparing students to address current environmental challenges. By examining the level of these practices and the factors influencing them, the study identifies strengths and gaps in sustainability integration within science education. The findings contribute to improving teacher preparation, guiding institutional support, and advancing efforts to align science education with national and global sustainability priorities.

7. Research Methodology

This study adopted a descriptive methodology to effectively address the research questions.

8. Research Method

This study employed a descriptive analytical research method, which is appropriate for examining the current level of Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Teaching Practices (SERTPs) among science teachers. The descriptive component enabled the identification of prevailing teaching practices and patterns as they occur in real educational settings, while the analytical component allowed for examining the relationships and differences across selected demographic and professional variables. This approach provides a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under investigation and aligns with the study’s objective of assessing the extent, quality, and predictors of SERTPs in science education.

9. Research Sample

The research sample consisted of (225) male and female science teachers who were enrolled in the College of Education’s graduate programs at King Khalid University during the 2025/2026 academic year. The participants were selected using a simple random sampling technique, ensuring that all eligible teachers had an equal chance of inclusion in the study. The demographic characteristics of the sample are detailed in the following table:

Table 1. DESCRIPTION of the demographic variables of the sample.

Variables	Sub Variables	N	Percentage
Gender	Female	81	36.00%
	Male	144	64.00%
Teaching stage	Elementary	65	28.89%
	Intermediate	44	19.56%
	Secondary	68	30.22%
	Out of class now	48	21.33%
academic qualification	Bachelor’s	100	44.44%
	Master’s	125	55.56%
Level of technology use	Moderate	121	53.78%
	High	104	46.22%
Age	Less than 30 years old	35	15.56%
	From 30 to 40 years old	89	39.56%
	more than 40 years old	101	44.89%
Total		225	100%

displays the demographic characteristics of the study participants, comprising 225 science teachers. The results show that males constituted the majority (64%), whereas females represented 36% of the sample. In terms of teaching stage, the largest proportion of participants were secondary school teachers (30.22%), followed by elementary school teachers (28.89%) and, intermediate schoolteachers (19.56%). Additionally, 21.33% of the participants were not currently engaged in classroom teaching.

Regarding academic qualifications, more than half of the respondents (55.56%) held a master’s degree, while 44.44% held a bachelor’s degree, indicating a relatively advanced level of professional education among the sample. Concerning technology use, more than half of the teachers (53.78%) reported a high level of use, compared to 46.22% with a moderate level.

As for age distribution, the highest percentage (44.89%) fell within the over 40 years category, followed by 39.56% in the 30–40 age bracket, and 15.56% under 30 years old. Collectively, these results suggest that the sample predominantly comprised experienced, well-qualified teachers who demonstrate strong engagement with educational technology, representing a diverse range of teaching stages and age groups.

10. Research Tool

The researchers developed a Scale for Evaluating SERTPs to measure the level of SERTPs among science teachers. The initial form of the scale comprised 36 items equally distributed across six dimensions, with each dimension consisting of six items. These dimensions align with core SERTPs: using sustainable resources in teaching, enhancing students’ environmental awareness, applying active learning strategies, encouraging community participation, adopting sustainable classroom practices, and developing critical thinking on environmental issues. All items were constructed as positively worded self-report statements. Respondents indicated their level of agreement on a three-point rating scale: [Often (3), Sometimes (2), Rarely (1)].

The instrument used in this study was a structured questionnaire designed to measure sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices among science teachers. The questionnaire consisted of (6) dimensions reflecting key aspects of sustainable teaching: (1) Using Sustainable Resources in Teaching, (2) Enhancing Students’ Environmental Awareness, (3) Applying Active Learning Strategies, (4) Encouraging Community Participation, (5) Adopting Sustainable Classroom Practices, and (6) Developing Critical Thinking on Environmental Issues. The instrument included a total of 31 items distributed across these dimensions.

All items were rated using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), which allowed for assessing the degree to which teachers implement each sustainable teaching practice. The questionnaire was developed based on a review of relevant literature and previous validated instruments in the field of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). To establish content validity, the instrument was reviewed by a panel of experts in science education and sustainability to ensure the clarity, relevance, and appropriateness of the items. Construct validity was supported through item–total and inter-dimension correlation analyses. The reliability of the instrument was confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha, which showed high internal consistency for the total scale and for each of its dimensions.

This detailed structure of the instrument ensures its suitability for measuring science teachers’ sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices.

10.1. Psychometric Properties: Validity and Consistency

10.1.1. Validity

The face validity of the scale was established through expert consensus. The instrument was presented to a panel of 13 arbitrators specializing in educational psychology and science education. The experts unanimously agreed on the appropriateness of the scale’s items, format, and overall suitability for its stated purpose and intended research sample.

10.1.2. Internal Consistency (Item-Total and Dimension-Total Correlations)

The internal consistency of the scale was calculated following its administration to the study sample of (225) science teachers.

Table 2. Pearson correlation coefficients for individual item scores with respect to them respective scores Dimension Total Scores and Overall Scale Total Score (n = 225).

Items Number	Correlation with Its Dimension	Correlation with the Overall Scale	Items Number	Correlation with Its Dimension	Correlation with the Overall Scale
1	0.509 **	0.434 **	19	0.817 **	0.636 **
2	0.601 **	0.344 **	20	0.882 **	0.710 **
3	0.804 **	0.597 **	21	0.828 **	0.704 **
4	0.789 **	0.659 **	22	0.872 **	0.717 **
5	0.742 **	0.692 **	23	0.803 **	0.675 **
6	0.660 **	0.488 **	24	0.741 **	0.592 **
7	0.771 **	0.648 **	25	0.865 **	0.758 **
8	0.778 **	0.684 **	26	0.816 **	0.726 **
9	0.795 **	0.680 **	27	0.814 **	0.677 **
10	0.764 **	0.604 **	28	0.739 **	0.708 **
11	0.793 **	0.667 **	29	0.850 **	0.749 **
12	0.832 **	0.711 **	30	0.850 **	0.732 **
13	0.765 **	0.728 **	31	0.905 **	0.764 **
14	0.703 **	0.676 **	32	0.889 **	0.740 **
15	0.809 **	0.704 **	33	0.870 **	0.742 **
16	0.773 **	0.637 **	34	0.849 **	0.749 **
17	0.839 **	0.727 **	35	0.817 **	0.636 **
18	0.840 **	0.777 **	36	0.882 **	0.710 **

** Correlation is significant at the 00.01 level (2-tailed).

presents the correlation coefficients between each item and its corresponding total sub-dimension score, as well as the overall scale total score.

Item–dimension correlations: All correlations between the individual items and their respective sub-dimensions were statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level. The coefficients ranged from 0.509 (Item 1) to 0.905 (Item 31), indicating strong positive relationships. These results confirm that each item appropriately reflects the underlying construct measured by its specific dimension.

Item–Overall Scale Correlations: Similarly, all correlations between the items and the overall scale total score were statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level. The coefficients ranged from 0.344 (Item 2) to 0.777 (Item 18). These values demonstrate that each item contributes meaningfully to the measurement of the overall SERTP construct.

Overall, the consistently high and statistically significant item–dimension and item–total correlations provide strong evidence for the internal consistency of the scale and support its validity as a homogeneous and coherent measurement tool.

Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficient matrix: inter-dimension correlations and correlations with the overall scale total score (n = 225).

Dimensions	Using Sustainable Resources in Teaching	Enhancing Students’ Environmental Awareness	Applying Active Learning Strategies	Encourage Community Participation	Adopting Sustainable Classroom Practices	Developing Critical Thinking on Environmental Issues	Total Scale
Using sustainable resources in teaching	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Enhancing students’ environmental awareness	0.698 **	1	0	0	0	0	0
Applying active learning strategies	0.656 **	0.713 **	1	0	0	0	0
Encourage	0.548 **	0.612 **	0.773 **	1	0	0	0
Adopting sustainable classroom practices	0.613 **	0.661 **	0.686 **	0.672 **	1	0	0
Developing critical thinking on environmental issues	0.571 **	0.674 **	0.697 **	0.621 **	0.773 **	1	0
Total scale	0.782 **	0.845 **	0.893 **	0.841 **	0.868 **	0.859 **	1

** Correlation is significant at the 00.01 level (2-tailed).

presents the Pearson correlation coefficients among the six dimensions of SERTPs as well as their correlations with the overall scale total score. The results show that all inter-dimension correlations were positive and statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level. The correlation values ranged from moderate to high, indicating that the dimensions are strongly related and collectively measure the broader construct of sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching.

Specifically, the correlations among the dimensions ranged from 0.548 (between encouraging community participation and using sustainable resources in teaching) to 0.773 (between encouraging community participation and applying active learning strategies), reflecting meaningful conceptual overlap among the components of SERTPs. Additionally, all six dimensions exhibited strong and significant correlations with the overall scale total score, with coefficients ranging between 0.782 and 0.893. These high correlations confirm that each dimension contributes substantially to the overall construct and that the scale demonstrates strong internal coherence.

Overall, the correlation pattern provides robust evidence for the construct validity of the instrument, indicating that the dimensions collectively represent a unified and internally consistent model of SERTPs.

10.1.3. Reliability

The reliability coefficients of the scale were assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and the split-half method.

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): The alpha coefficients for the overall scale reliability coefficient were 0.956.
• Split-Half Reliability (Guttman): The Guttman split-half coefficients for the overall scale split-half coefficient was 0.899.

These consistently high reliability values confirm the high degree of reliability and suitability of the scale for application in this research.

11. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and frequencies, were used to determine the overall level of Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Teaching Practices (SERTPs) among science teachers. To examine differences according to demographic and professional variables, inferential statistical tests were employed, including independent-sample t-tests and one-way ANOVA, depending on the nature of the variables. When statistically significant differences were detected, post hoc comparisons (Tukey HSD) were applied to identify the source of variation. Additionally, a reliability analysis (Cronbach’s alpha) was conducted to assess the internal consistency of the instrument. All statistical tests were performed at a significance level of p < 0.05.

12. Research Results

1. First question answer: What is the level of SERTPs among science teachers?

To address this research question, the descriptive statistics—specifically the arithmetic means, standard deviations, and percentages—were calculated based on the research sample’s responses to each item of the scale.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the total scale and its six dimensions (n = 225).

Item	Dimensions	Mean	SD	Percentage	Level	Rank
1	Using Sustainable Resources in Teaching	2.52	0.42	84.00%	High	2
2	Enhancing students’ environmental awareness	2.60	0.46	86.59%	High	1
3	Applying active learning strategies	2.38	0.55	79.48%	High	5
4	Encourage community participation	2.34	0.57	77.95%	High	6
5	Adopting sustainable classroom practices	2.45	0.52	81.60%	High	3
6	Developing Critical Thinking on Environmental Issues	2.44	0.57	81.21%	High	4
Overall SERTPs		2.45	0.44	81.81%	High

presents the overall level of SERTPs, as well as the overall level for each of its six dimensions among science teachers.

The results presented in Table 4 directly address the first research objective, demonstrating that science teachers possess a high level of sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices (mean = 2.45; 81.81%). This finding indicates that, despite the challenges highlighted by the research problem—such as the aforementioned gap between sustainability policies and their consistent implementation in classrooms—science teachers are largely successful in integrating sustainability principles into their teaching practices.

The high scores observed across all six dimensions indicate that sustainability has become a core pedagogical orientation, rather than a marginal or supplementary element in science teaching. In particular, the highest mean score in the “Promoting Environmental Awareness in Students” dimension (86.59%) reflects teachers’ strong alignment with the core objectives of Education for Sustainable Development, which focus on developing environmental awareness in learners and instilling responsible attitudes. This finding directly addresses the research problem, demonstrating that teachers are actively addressing the cognitive and behavioral dimensions of sustainability in science education.

Similarly, the high level of sustainable resource use in teaching (84.00%) indicates teachers’ increasing reliance on low-impact digital learning resources, suggesting a practical response to the resource constraints identified in previous studies. This finding supports the hypothesis that sustainable teaching practices are facilitated by access to innovative technology and teaching tools.

However, despite all dimensions reaching high levels, relatively lower scores were recorded for encouraging community engagement (77.95%) and implementing active learning strategies (79.48%). These results reveal a partial gap between classroom sustainability practices and broader community engagement, directly reflecting the core research problem of the limited translation of sustainability ideals into broader social and experiential contexts. These findings suggest that institutional and contextual barriers—rather than teachers’ awareness or willingness—may limit the implementation of community-based and experiential sustainability practices.

Overall, the findings in Table 4 not only confirm the general level of sustainable professional development programs among science teachers, but also provide a nuanced understanding of how different dimensions contribute to addressing, or in some cases, perpetuating, the gap between sustainability goals and educational practices. This analysis highlights strengths while identifying specific areas that require targeted professional development and institutional support.

These results align with earlier studies that highlight how teachers’ environmental awareness and sustainable teaching practices form the cornerstone of effective Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). They also reinforce the UNESCO 2030 Framework, which calls for embedding sustainability across cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral aspects of teaching and learning [13,18,36,41,42,43,44,45]. Consequently, advancing teachers’ professional development in areas such as community engagement and active learning is essential for achieving the broader objectives of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda.

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Using Sustainable Resources in Teaching Among Science Teachers (n = 225).

No.	Items	Mean	SD	Percentage	Level	Rank
1	I use sustainable educational materials (e.g., digital books and electronic resources) in teaching science.	2.68	0.52	89.48%	High	2
2	I work to reduce paper usage in classroom activities by using digital tools.	2.45	0.59	81.78%	High	4
3	I ensure to select eco-friendly educational resources such as recycled or sustainable materials.	2.31	0.70	77.04%	Moderate	6
4	I encourage students to use reusable educational materials in their projects and research.	2.44	0.67	81.33%	High	5
5	I regularly integrate environmental content into teaching materials.	2.54	0.59	84.74%	High	3
6	I use innovative instructional technologies that minimize environmental impact, such as digital presentations instead of printed handouts.	2.69	0.54	89.63%	High	1
Overall		2.52	0.42	84.00%	High

presents these results for the items comprising the first dimension (Using Sustainable Resources in Teaching).

The results presented in Table 5 provide a detailed response to the first research objective, demonstrating how science teachers implement the use of sustainable resources in teaching as a key component of sustainable and environmentally conscious teaching practices. The high overall score (M = 2.52; 84.00%) indicates teachers’ strong commitment to resource-saving teaching practices, particularly those supported by digital technologies.

The highest-rated items—related to the use of innovative teaching technologies and digital educational resources—indicate that teachers actively adopt practices that reduce paper consumption and minimize environmental impact. This finding directly addresses the research problem, demonstrating teachers’ ability to translate sustainability principles into practical classroom actions when appropriate technological tools are available. These practices contribute to bridging the gap between sustainability-oriented educational policies and their actual implementation in science teaching.

Conversely, the relatively low scores for choosing environmentally friendly physical teaching materials reflect a moderate level of practice. This finding highlights a contextual and institutional constraint, rather than a lack of teacher awareness or commitment. These results suggest that access to recycled, or environmentally friendly materials may be limited by their availability, cost, or school procurement policies. This finding reinforces the research problem by demonstrating that sustainable teaching practices are influenced not only by teachers’ intentions but also by structural and institutional conditions.

Overall, the pattern of results in Table 5 reveals that science teachers tend to prioritize digital sustainability strategies over physical alternatives. While this indicates a positive shift toward environmentally responsible resource use, it also underscores the need for institutional support to expand access to sustainable physical resources. Thus, these results confirm that achieving holistic sustainability in science education requires individual teacher initiative and systemic support mechanisms that facilitate the use of diverse sustainable resources.

Overall, the findings show strong engagement with digital sustainability practices while highlighting the need for greater support in accessing and using eco-friendly physical resources. These patterns are consistent with previous studies emphasizing the role of technology in promoting sustainable educational practices. García-Hernández et al. emphasized the importance of information and communication technologies in advancing sustainable development [46]. Missaoui et al. proposed a digital learning environment framework that fosters environmental preservation [47], and Iroriteraye-Adjekpovu and Nwabuaku reported that technology-enhanced instruction strengthens sustainability awareness and resource efficiency [48]. Additionally, UNESCO stresses the importance of teachers modeling environmentally responsible behaviors through sustainable classroom practices [45].

Thus, the results reinforce the growing consensus that effective sustainability integration in science education requires both curricular inclusion and practical resource-conscious strategies. These findings underscore the need for professional development programs that support teachers in selecting and applying sustainable materials and technologies effectively.

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for the Dimension “Enhancing Students’ Environmental Awareness” among Science Teachers (n = 225).

No.	Items	Mean	SD	Percentage	Level	Rank
1	I ensure to consistently include environmental concepts in science curricula.	2.64	0.54	88.00%	High	3
2	I provide students with learning activities that encourage them to think about environmental challenges and possible solutions.	2.53	0.57	84.44%	High	5
3	I focus on global environmental issues, such as climate change and pollution, when teaching science.	2.50	0.66	83.41%	High	6
4	I use real-life examples from the local environment to enhance students’ understanding of environmental issues.	2.69	0.52	89.63%	High	1
5	I encourage students to take practical steps to protect the environment, such as recycling or reducing waste.	2.67	0.56	89.04%	High	2
6	I integrate topics related to the sustainability of natural resources into classroom activities to raise students’ awareness of environmental conservation.	2.55	0.64	85.04%	High	4
Overall		2.60	0.46	86.59%	High

presents these results for the items comprising the second dimension (Enhancing Students’ Environmental Awareness).

The results presented in Table 6 directly address the first research objective, demonstrating that fostering environmental awareness among students is the most frequently implemented dimension of Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Teaching Practices (SERTPs) among science teachers (mean = 2.60; 86.59%). This result indicates that teachers place great importance on enhancing students’ understanding of environmental issues and sustainability concepts, which aligns perfectly with the core objectives of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).

The highest-rated items, particularly those related to using real-world examples from the local environment and encouraging students to take practical environmental actions, indicate that teachers are adopting context-based and action-oriented teaching strategies. These practices directly address the research problem, demonstrating that science teachers are actively translating sustainability principles into meaningful learning experiences, rather than confining teaching to theoretical or abstract content.

Although all items within this dimension achieved high average scores, the relatively lower emphasis on global environmental issues—such as climate change and pollution—suggests a greater focus on local environmental contexts. While this approach reinforces the importance of the curriculum and student engagement, it may also indicate a partial imbalance between local and global perspectives on sustainability. This observation highlights the research problem by underscoring the need to systematically integrate global sustainability challenges into science curricula.

Overall, the results in Table 6 show that science teachers effectively address the cognitive and behavioral dimensions of sustainability education. However, the variation among the items suggests a need for further methodological guidance and professional development to ensure balanced coverage of local and global environmental issues. Such support would enhance alignment between classroom practices and the broader international sustainability frameworks that guide science education.

These results are consistent with existing literature emphasizing the importance of contextual learning in shaping students’ environmental attitudes. UNESCO highlights the role of local environmental contexts in building global ecological awareness [45]. Similarly, Huang and Hsin found that contextualized and action-oriented instruction enhances students’ pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors [49]. Tilbury [5] and Stevenson et al. [50] further note that linking classroom activities to real-life sustainability practices strengthens understanding and empowers students to act responsibly. The present findings support these conclusions and underscore the importance of active, context-based approaches in effective environmental education.

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for the Dimension “Applying Active Learning Strategies” among Science Teachers (n = 225).

No.	Items	Mean	SD	Percentage	Level	Rank
1	I use active learning strategies, such as environmental projects, to enhance students’ understanding of environmental concepts.	2.48	0.65	82.67%	High	2
2	I engage students in group discussions about environmental issues and how to address them in daily life.	2.53	0.63	84.44%	High	1
3	I use interactive activities, such as environmental educational games, to increase students’ engagement with environmental concepts.	2.38	0.72	79.26%	High	5
4	I involve students in field experiences related to environmental issues, such as visiting nature reserves or parks.	2.08	0.84	69.33%	Moderate	6
5	I use information technology tools to develop interactive environmental content that encourages greater student participation.	2.40	0.71	79.85%	High	4
6	I integrate collaborative environmental activities that promote students’ critical thinking skills in addressing environmental issues.	2.44	0.65	81.33%	High	3
Overall		2.38	0.55	79.48%	High

presents these results for the items comprising the third dimension (Applying Active Learning Strategies).

The results presented in Table 7 address the first research objective by illustrating how science teachers implement active learning strategies as part of sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices. The overall mean score (m = 2.38; 79.48%) indicates a high level of practice, suggesting that teachers frequently use active learning methods to engage students in environmental learning.

The highest-rated items—particularly those related to group discussions and environmental projects—demonstrate that collaborative classroom strategies are the most common active learning methods. These practices directly address the research problem by enabling teachers to integrate sustainability within the constraints of typical classroom environments, thus facilitating the practical application of a sustainability-oriented teaching methodology.

In contrast, the lowest mean score was associated with student participation in field experiments related to environmental issues, which was assessed at an average level. This finding highlights a significant deficiency in the experiential dimension of sustainability education and reflects the core of the research problem concerning institutional and contextual barriers. Constraints such as time limitations, administrative regulations, and limited access to field sites may hinder teachers’ ability to implement outdoor and community-based learning experiences, despite their recognized educational value.

Overall, the results in Table 7 demonstrate a reliance on discussion-based and project-based strategies rather than field-based experiential learning. While this approach ensures continuity and viability in school settings, it also highlights the need for institutional support and policy flexibility to enable richer experiential learning opportunities. Strengthening this dimension would help bridge the gap between sustainability theory and practice, which is at the heart of the research problem.

These findings align with previous research demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning in improving student engagement and comprehension of scientific concepts. Prince [51] and Freeman et al. [52] highlighted that active learning significantly enhances students’ understanding and retention. Similarly, Quintero-Angel et al. emphasized the role of collaborative discussions and project-based learning in fostering critical thinking and environmental responsibility [53]. The limited use of field experiences in this study is consistent with observations by Mallette et al., who noted that despite their benefits, outdoor environmental learning is often constrained by institutional challenges [54].

In this context, the findings underscore the importance of providing teachers with greater access to resources and professional development in experiential and technology-supported active learning, in line with global sustainability education frameworks advocating participatory and hands-on pedagogies.

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics for the Dimension “Encouraging Community Participation” among Science Teachers (n = 225).

No.	Items	Mean	SD	Percentage	Level	Rank
1	I motivate students to participate in community environmental activities, such as cleanup campaigns and tree planting.	2.54	0.62	84.59%	High	2
2	I encourage students to engage in volunteer community projects to protect the environment, such as waste reduction or water conservation.	2.58	0.60	85.93%	High	1
3	I work to build partnerships with local environmental organizations to offer workshops or environmental events.	2.09	0.82	69.63%	Moderate	6
4	I engage students in environmental competitions that raise awareness and encourage innovative solutions to environmental problems.	2.27	0.70	75.70%	Moderate	4
5	I integrate community case studies into the curriculum to highlight the role of communities in environmental preservation.	2.25	0.74	75.11%	Moderate	5
6	I encourage students to present their environmental projects to the local community to raise public awareness.	2.30	0.75	76.74%	Moderate	3
Overall		2.34	0.57	77.95%	High

presents the descriptive results for the fourth dimension, Encouraging Community Participation.

The results in Table 8 address the first research objective by illustrating the extent to which science teachers implement community engagement as a component of sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices. Although this dimension achieved a high overall score (mean = 2.34; 77.95%), it scored the lowest among the six dimensions, indicating a relative weakness compared to other aspects of sustainable teaching.

The highest-rated items—those related to motivating students to participate in voluntary environmental activities and community initiatives—indicate the effectiveness of teachers in fostering direct and practical engagement within the local community. These practices partially address the research problem by demonstrating teachers’ willingness to extend sustainability learning beyond the classroom when activities are feasible and require minimal institutional coordination.

In contrast, the lowest-rated item, related to building partnerships with local environmental organizations, received an average score. This result highlights a structural and institutional constraint rather than a pedagogical one. This research reflects the fundamental problem of limited translation of sustainability goals into sustainable school-community collaboration. Administrative hurdles, a lack of formal partnerships, and inadequate institutional frameworks may limit teachers’ ability to engage external stakeholders in sustainability education.

Overall, the findings in Table 8 reveal a clear distinction between informal community engagement and structured institutional collaboration. While science teachers actively encourage students to participate in community-based environmental activities, the development of long-term partnerships remains limited. Bridging this gap requires institutional support, policy alignment, and collaborative frameworks that enable schools to integrate community engagement more systematically into sustainability-oriented science education.

Overall, the findings indicate strong teacher engagement in fostering student participation in local environmental initiatives and highlight the need for additional institutional support to strengthen partnerships with community organizations. These results align with previous research stressing the importance of school–community collaboration in sustainability education. UNESCO emphasizes that such partnerships enhance environmental awareness and empower learners to contribute to sustainable development [45]. Similarly, Jensen and Schnack [55] and Tilbury [5] highlight that authentic community-based activities cultivate student agency and bridge the gap between environmental knowledge and action. The moderate levels observed in this study reflect challenges noted in prior literature (e.g., Mallette et al. [54]), including limited frameworks for collaboration and insufficient preparation for implementing community-based initiatives.

In summary, although science teachers demonstrate strong efforts in promoting student participation in environmental activities, enhancing structured community partnerships remains essential for maximizing the impact of sustainability education.

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for the Dimension “Adopting Sustainable Classroom Practices” among Science Teachers (n = 225).

No.	Items	Mean	SD	Percentage	Level	Rank
1	I adopt sustainable classroom practices, such as reducing energy consumption and material waste.	2.51	0.61	83.56%	High	3
2	I use teaching techniques that require minimal use of non-recyclable materials and resources.	2.48	0.64	82.67%	High	4
3	I strive to minimize material waste by reusing school supplies and reducing the use of environmentally harmful materials.	2.51	0.61	83.70%	High	2
4	I encourage students to use natural resources sustainably in their learning activities.	2.53	0.61	84.44%	High	1
5	I ensure that classroom arrangements minimize electricity use and maximize natural lighting.	2.40	0.68	80.00%	High	5
6	I implement sustainability policies, such as providing recycling bins in the classroom to encourage students to recycle materials.	2.26	0.76	75.26%	Moderate	6
Overall		2.45	0.52	81.60%	High

presents these results for the items comprising the second dimension (Adopting Sustainable Classroom Practices).

The results shown in Table 9 achieve the first research objective, demonstrating that science teachers exhibit a high level of commitment to adopting sustainable classroom practices (mean = 2.45; 81.60%). This result indicates that environmentally responsible behaviors are consistently integrated into teachers’ daily classroom management and teaching routines, reflecting a practical commitment to sustainability at the classroom level.

The highest-rated items, particularly those related to encouraging students to use natural resources sustainably and reducing material waste through reuse and minimization, indicate that teachers effectively embody environmentally responsible behaviors. These practices directly contribute to addressing the research problem by promoting sustainability through everyday practices rather than relying solely on formal curriculum content. This embodiment plays a crucial role in shaping students’ environmental attitudes and fostering sustainability as a practical aspect of the learning environment.

In contrast, the relatively low average rating for the implementation of formal sustainability policies—such as providing recycling bins in classrooms—was only average. This result highlights an institutional deficiency, not a lack of awareness or willingness among teachers to adopt sustainable practices. It indicates that the implementation of structured sustainability systems often depends on school infrastructure, administrative decisions, and policy support—factors that may be beyond the direct control of teachers.

Overall, the results in Table 9 show that science teachers effectively integrate sustainable behaviors into their classroom practices at both the personal and educational levels, while the institutionalization of sustainability through formal policies remains less consistent. This pattern directly reflects the research problem, demonstrating how systemic and organizational factors can influence the depth and sustainability of environmentally responsible teaching practices. Therefore, strengthening institutional support mechanisms would enhance the long-term impact of sustainable teaching practices in classrooms.

The lowest mean was observed for “I implement sustainability policies, such as providing recycling bins in the classroom” (M = 2.26; SD = 0.76; 75.26%), indicating a moderate level of implementation. This suggests that while teachers personally adopt sustainable behaviors, the establishment of formal classroom-level sustainability systems—such as structured recycling programs—remains limited, likely due to institutional constraints or insufficient administrative support. Overall, the results show strong teacher engagement in sustainable behaviors at the individual level, while highlighting the need for broader school-wide systems to reinforce and institutionalize sustainability practices. These findings align with previous research emphasizing the importance of classroom sustainability behaviors in shaping students’ ecological responsibility. Tilbury [5] and UNESCO [44] stress that energy conservation, material reuse, and waste reduction are foundational to effective environmental education. Ferreira et al. further noted that teachers’ modeling of sustainable behaviors significantly influences students’ environmental attitudes [56], while Stevenson et al. [50] found that integrating sustainability into everyday classroom management fosters collective environmental responsibility. In contrast, the moderate level of implementing structured sustainability systems reflects challenges identified by Karaarslan-Semiz and Sund, who reported that systemic barriers—such as limited infrastructure and insufficient policy support—often hinder the broader institutionalization of sustainability practices [57].

In summary, while science teachers demonstrate a strong personal commitment to sustainable classroom practices, the findings underscore the need for enhanced institutional policies and resources to support comprehensive, school-wide sustainability initiatives.

Table 10. Descriptive Statistics for the Dimension “Developing Critical Thinking on Environmental Issues” among Science Teachers (n = 225).

No.	Items	Mean	SD	Percentage	Level	Rank
1	I work on developing students’ critical thinking skills through the analysis of complex environmental issues, such as climate change and resource scarcity.	2.42	0.67	80.59%	High	5
2	I guide students to explore innovative solutions to environmental problems through critical thinking.	2.49	0.63	82.96%	High	1
3	I help students develop analytical and evaluative skills to enable them to understand the various environmental impacts on society and the world.	2.42	0.66	80.59%	High	4
4	I pose environmental questions that stimulate critical thinking about how human activities affect the environment.	2.48	0.63	82.81%	High	2
5	I use teaching methods that encourage students to discuss possible environmental solutions critically and realistically.	2.48	0.65	82.67%	High	3
6	I integrate critical analyses of environmental conditions into the curriculum to teach students how to assess the impact of personal choices on the environment.	2.33	0.70	77.63%	Moderate	6
Overall		2.44	0.57	81.21%	High

presents the descriptive results for the dimension Developing Critical Thinking on Environmental Issues.

The results shown in Table 10 achieve the first research objective, demonstrating that science teachers apply a high level of critical thinking skills in environmental issues (mean = 2.44; 81.21%). This result indicates that teachers consistently use instructional strategies that encourage students to analyze, evaluate, and reflect on complex environmental challenges, a key pedagogical requirement in Education for Sustainable Development.

The highest-rated items—particularly those related to guiding students to explore innovative solutions and ask critical environmental questions—suggest that teachers should focus on inquiry-based and reflective learning approaches. These practices directly contribute to addressing the research problem by enabling students to move beyond theoretical knowledge to the higher-order thinking skills necessary to understand the multidimensional nature of sustainability issues.

While most items achieved high averages, the relatively low rating of the integration of structured critical analyses of environmental situations into the formal curriculum indicates an average level of application. This result reflects a persistent challenge identified in the research problem: the difficulty of systematically integrating critical analysis of sustainability within rigid curriculum frameworks. It notes that while teachers frequently encourage discussion and critical reflection, the formal integration of these practices into the curriculum may be constrained by specific content, assessment requirements, or limited teaching time.

Overall, the findings in Table 10 reveal that science teachers are effective in fostering students’ critical engagement with environmental issues through questioning, discussion, and problem-solving activities. However, strengthening methodological consistency and providing targeted professional development would enhance the consistency and depth of critical thinking integration. Addressing these structural factors would help bridge the gap between educational intentions geared toward sustainability and their sustainable implementation in science education, which is the core of the research problem.

These results align with existing research emphasizing critical thinking as a cornerstone of environmental and sustainability education. Eilam and Trop note that critical thinking enables students to better understand environmental complexity and evaluate human impacts [58]. Similarly, Mallette et al. [54] and Stevenson et al. [50] highlight the effectiveness of inquiry-based and reflective pedagogies—such as discussions and case analyses—in enhancing environmental problem-solving skills. Zarzycki [59] further stresses that embedding critical thinking in environmental education fosters sustainable decision-making. Yet, as McBride et al. argue, many educators face challenges in aligning critical thinking with structured curricula due to limited training or rigid instructional frameworks [60]—a trend consistent with the moderate curricular integration observed in this study.

In summary, while science teachers demonstrate strong practices in encouraging critical engagement with environmental issues, enhancing curricular alignment and targeted professional development could further strengthen students’ analytical competencies—an objective strongly aligned with global ESD frameworks.

2. Second question answer: Are there significant differences in SERTPs among science teachers according to the following variables: gender (male/female), teaching stage (elementary/intermediate/secondary/out of class now), academic qualification (bachelor’s/master’s), level of technology use (moderate/high), and age (less than 30 years/30–40 years/more than 40 years)?

To address this research question, independent sample t-tests were used to detect differences in SERTPs among science teachers based on the dichotomous variables: gender, academic qualification, and level of technology use. Conversely, one-way analysis of variance was employed to detect differences according to the teaching stage.

The results presented in

Table 11. Independent sample t-test results for differences in SERTPs among science teachers across dichotomous variables (gender, academic qualification, and level of technology use).

Variables	Sub Variables	N	M	SD	DF	t	Sig. (2-tailed)
Gender	Male	81	90.98	13.94	223	1.883	0.061
	Female	144	86.88	16.57
academic qualification	Bachelor’s	100	87.67	15.16	223	−0.579	0.563
	Master’s	125	88.90	16.28
Level of technology use	Moderate	121	84.75	16.23	−3.802	223	0.000
	High	104	92.54	14.18

address the second research objective by investigating whether there are statistically significant differences in Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Teaching Practices (SERTPs) according to selected demographic and professional variables. The results indicate that gender and academic qualification do not produce statistically significant differences in SERTPs among teachers, suggesting that sustainable teaching practices are not dependent on these personal or academic characteristics. This finding directly addresses the research problem, indicating that sustainability-oriented teaching approaches have become a shared professional standard among science teachers, rather than an individual trait linked to gender or formal qualification level.

In contrast, the results reveal a statistically significant difference in SERTPs based on the level of technology use, favoring teachers with a high level of technology integration. This finding provides a crucial explanatory insight into the research problem, highlighting the use of technology as a key enabler in translating sustainability principles into effective classroom practices. Teachers who are more technologically oriented are better positioned to implement digital resources, reduce reliance on paper materials, and use interactive teaching strategies that support environmental responsibility.

The absence of significant differences related to gender and academic qualifications, coupled with the strong influence of technology use, suggests that sustainable teaching practices are more influenced by functional and contextual capabilities than by demographic variables. This pattern underscores the importance of technological competence as a practical driver for implementing sustainability in science education.

Overall, the findings in Table 11 confirm that while sustainability awareness is widespread among science teachers, the effective implementation of sustainability education programs depends heavily on teachers’ access to and competence in using educational technologies. This perspective directly contributes to addressing the research problem by identifying technology integration as a pivotal point for bridging the gap between sustainability-oriented educational policies and their consistent application in classroom practice.

These results highlight the critical role of technology integration in fostering sustainability-oriented teaching practices. The lack of significant differences across gender and qualification suggests that sustainable teaching is a shared pedagogical commitment rather than a function of demographic or academic background. However, the strong influence of technology use aligns with previous studies emphasizing that technological competence enhances teachers’ ability to implement eco-friendly practices by reducing reliance on physical materials and promoting interactive, digital-based environmental learning [61,62].

Furthermore, these findings resonate with Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, which posits that perceived behavioral control—in this case, teachers’ confidence in using technology—can significantly predict environmentally responsible actions [63]. The results also corroborate the observations of Lowan-Trudeau [64] and Jung et al. [65], who found that teachers with higher digital literacy were more likely to adopt sustainable and resource-efficient instructional approaches. Consequently, professional development programs should prioritize the enhancement of technological competencies among science teachers to strengthen their engagement in sustainability-oriented education.

The results presented in

Table 12. One-Way Analysis of Variance Results for Differences in SERTPs among science teachers according to Teaching Stage and Age.

Variables	Source of Variance	Sum of Squares	DF	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Teaching stage	Between Groups	874.634	3	291.545	1.175	0.320
	Within Groups	54,820.628	221	248.057
	Total	55,695.262	224
Age	Between Groups	388.954	2	194.477	0.781	0.459
	Within Groups	55,306.308	222	249.128
	Total	55,695.262	224

contribute to the second research objective, which is to investigate whether Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Teaching Practices (SERTPs) differ across educational stages and age groups. The results indicate no statistically significant differences between different educational stages or age groups. This suggests that the level of SERTPs is relatively consistent among science teachers, regardless of the educational stage they teach or their years of experience.

The absence of statistically significant differences between educational stages indicates that sustainability-oriented teaching practices are implemented similarly across primary, intermediate, and secondary education settings. This finding is directly related to the research problem, demonstrating that integrating sustainability into science teaching is not limited to specific curriculum levels but reflects a broader pedagogical approach shared by teachers. This suggests that sustainability principles have been sufficiently integrated into science education, transcending differences in curriculum scope and student age.

Similarly, the absence of statistically significant differences between age groups indicates that sustainable teaching practices are not dependent on generational factors or length of professional experience. This finding challenges the assumption that younger or more experienced teachers may differ significantly in their engagement with sustainability, instead highlighting sustainability as a shared professional value across different age groups. From the perspective of the research problem, this result suggests that barriers to implementing sustainability are unlikely to stem from individual teacher characteristics such as age, but rather from systemic and institutional factors.

Overall, the findings in Table 12 support the interpretation that sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices are shaped more by contextual support and professional standards than by demographic variables. This perspective contributes to addressing the research problem by shifting the focus from individual differences to the need for institutional strategies, professional development, and policy frameworks that support the consistent implementation of sustainability across all teaching levels and age groups.

Overall, these findings indicate that teaching stage and age do not play a significant role in influencing teachers’ sustainable teaching behaviors, suggesting a high level of uniformity in environmental responsibility among science educators regardless of demographic characteristics. The absence of significant differences across teaching stages and age groups aligns with a growing body of research suggesting that environmental awareness and sustainability-oriented pedagogy have become integral components of contemporary science education [50,66]. This uniformity may reflect the success of national and institutional initiatives aimed at integrating sustainability education across all grade levels and teacher demographics [45].

These results are also consistent with UNESCO’s assertion that teachers’ engagement in sustainability practices is primarily driven by shared professional values and institutional policies rather than by individual demographic traits [44].

In this context, the results emphasize the need to maintain consistent professional development initiatives across teaching levels to sustain and strengthen teachers’ environmental responsibility. A unified institutional approach to sustainability may thus continue to foster equitable engagement among teachers of all ages and educational stages.

13. Results Discussion

The findings revealed a consistently high level of Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Teaching Practices among science teachers, indicating a strong commitment to embedding sustainability principles across diverse instructional dimensions. The overall mean score of 2.45 (81.81%) reflects active pedagogical engagement with the core aims of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), including environmental awareness, responsible resource use, and critical engagement with ecological issues. This aligns with global educational priorities outlined by UNESCO and mirrors prior studies emphasizing teachers’ pivotal role in modeling sustainable behaviors within school environments [5,44,50].

Among the six dimensions assessed, Enhancing Students’ Environmental Awareness achieved the highest level (M = 2.60, SD = 0.46), suggesting that teachers place considerable emphasis on developing students’ understanding of environmental challenges and sustainability-oriented attitudes. This aligns with the findings of Huang and Hsin, who highlighted the importance of contextualizing environmental instruction through real-life examples to enhance students’ ecological literacy and promote informed action [49]. The present results further support UNESCO’s assertion that grounding environmental instruction in local contexts is a key strategy for fostering global environmental awareness [45].

Similarly, the high mean score for Using Sustainable Resources in Teaching (M = 2.52, SD = 0.42) reflects teachers’ increasing reliance on digital instructional tools and paperless teaching methods. This trend is consistent with García-Hernández et al. [46] and Iroriteraye-Adjekpovu and Nwabuaku [48], who reported that digital resource adoption reduces the environmental footprint of instruction while supporting sustainable pedagogical practices. Yet, the comparatively lower ratings for selecting eco-friendly physical materials suggest an institutional rather than pedagogical limitation, indicating that schools may need to expand access to tangible green materials.

Encouraging Community Participation received the lowest—though still high—mean score (M = 2.34, SD = 0.57). This pattern indicates that teachers frequently promote school-based environmental initiatives but engage less in broader community-based partnerships. Consistent with findings from prior research [5,54,55,67,68], systemic constraints, such as limited institutional support, logistical barriers, and insufficient collaboration frameworks, appear to restrict the implementation of sustained community engagement programs. Thus, enhancing school–community partnerships could significantly broaden the impact of sustainability education.

Teachers also exhibited strong practices in Adopting Sustainable Classroom Practices (M = 2.45, SD = 0.52) and Developing Critical Thinking on Environmental Issues (M = 2.44, SD = 0.57). These outcomes are consistent with those of Eilam and Trop [58] and Zarzycki [59], who emphasized that reflective inquiry and critical engagement form essential components of meaningful environmental learning. However, moderate ratings related to embedding sustainability policies and formal curricular integration of critical analysis highlight the need for structured institutional frameworks that explicitly support sustainability-oriented pedagogical objectives [57].

Regarding the second research question, the study found no statistically significant differences in SERTPs across gender or academic qualification, indicating that sustainability-oriented teaching appears to be a shared professional practice among science teachers. Conversely, significant differences emerged in favor of teachers with higher levels of technology use, reflecting the role of digital competence in enhancing sustainable instructional practices. This finding aligns with Abdelmagid et al. [69], Freeman et al. [52] and Quintero-Angel et al. [53], who reported that technology-supported active learning not only increases student engagement but also facilitates environmentally efficient teaching practices. The results underscore the dual function of technology as both a pedagogical enhancer and an environmental sustainability enabler.

Overall, the study contributes to the growing body of evidence asserting that effective sustainability integration in education depends not only on curricular content but also on teachers’ professional capacity to translate sustainability principles into meaningful pedagogical action. These findings reinforce the need to strengthen teacher preparation, improve access to sustainable teaching resources, and expand community partnerships to advance the ESD agenda in alignment with the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

14. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that science teachers exhibit a high level of sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices across all dimensions, particularly in promoting students’ environmental awareness and utilizing digital resources that reduce environmental impact. These findings align with international sustainability frameworks, such as UNESCO’s ESD and the UN 2030 Agenda [13]. Despite these strengths, moderate levels of community participation, structured recycling systems, and curricular integration of critical environmental analysis indicate institutional rather than individual challenges. Addressing these gaps requires enhancing teacher professional development, increasing access to sustainable materials and technologies, and embedding sustainability outcomes more explicitly within curriculum design.

The significant differences favoring teachers with higher technology use underscore the catalytic role of digital competence in advancing sustainable teaching practices, consistent with García-Hernández et al. [46] and Iroriteraye-Adjekpovu and Nwabuaku [48]. Overall, the findings affirm the essential role of science teachers as drivers of sustainable transformation. Strengthening institutional support and integrating sustainability across science education remain crucial for preparing environmentally responsible learners capable of navigating 21st-century environmental challenges.

15. Recommendations

15.1. Professional Development and Capacity Building

It is recommended that educational authorities and school leaders design systematic professional development programs focused on sustainability-oriented pedagogical competencies. Such programs should enhance teachers’ abilities to integrate environmental awareness, critical thinking, and community engagement into their instructional practices.

Furthermore, continuous training in digital literacy and technology integration should be prioritized, given the positive relationship between technology use and sustainable teaching practices observed in the study. Training initiatives should emphasize environmentally efficient technologies, such as digital simulations, paperless classrooms, and virtual laboratories. Finally, teachers should be encouraged to adopt reflective teaching practices that enable self-assessment and continuous improvement in reducing the ecological footprint of classroom activities.

15.2. Curriculum Design and Instructional Strategies

Curriculum planners are urged to embed sustainability education systematically across all levels of science instruction, ensuring that environmental issues, sustainable resource management, and problem-solving are aligned with learning outcomes. Adopting active and experiential learning approaches—including project-based learning, environmental field investigations, and inquiry-based activities—can foster students’ real-world understanding of sustainability concepts. Moreover, integrating interdisciplinary collaboration within science curricula can further strengthen students’ ability to address complex sustainability challenges. As noted by Sørensen and Stenalt, interdisciplinary and student-centered approaches promote deeper engagement and holistic understanding of sustainability, making them essential for effective curriculum design. Additionally, developing contextualized and locally relevant curricular content will help bridge the gap between global environmental challenges and community-based solutions, enhancing both student engagement and practical relevance [39].

15.3. Institutional Support and Infrastructure

At the institutional level, schools should adopt formal policies that promote sustainable classroom management practices, such as resource conservation, recycling, and the use of eco-friendly educational materials. Building strategic partnerships with community organizations, environmental agencies, and local industries can facilitate collaborative projects and sustainability awareness campaigns.

To achieve these goals, educational institutions must also provide adequate resources and infrastructure, including digital learning tools, renewable energy solutions, and sustainable facilities that serve as models of environmentally responsible behavior.

15.4. Research, Evaluation, and Policy Development

Future research should include longitudinal and comparative studies to evaluate the long-term effects of sustainability-focused pedagogical interventions across various teaching stages and demographic groups.

Moreover, sustainability indicators should be incorporated into teacher evaluation systems and institutional performance frameworks to encourage accountability and recognition of environmentally responsible teaching.

At the policy level, national and regional education authorities are encouraged to align science education frameworks with the UNESCO’s ESD 2030 agenda, ensuring coherence between educational objectives and sustainability imperatives.

15.5. Student Engagement and Community Outreach

Schools should promote student-centered sustainability initiatives, such as eco-clubs, school gardens, and environmental innovation contests, to cultivate students’ sense of responsibility and agency.

Creating cross-generational learning experiences—involving collaboration between students, teachers, families, and community members—can strengthen social responsibility and civic participation in addressing environmental challenges.

Finally, digital and social media platforms should be leveraged to expand the reach of environmental awareness campaigns, fostering broader community engagement and advocacy for sustainable development.

In summary, advancing sustainability in science education requires a systemic, multi-level approach that empowers teachers, supports schools, and aligns educational policies with global sustainability frameworks. By integrating professional development, curricular innovation, institutional commitment, and community collaboration, science education can play a transformative role in shaping environmentally responsible generations.