Technology and K-12 Environmental Education in Ontario, Canada: Teacher Perceptions and Recommendations

Abstract

This research explores the perspectives of kindergarten through to Grade 12 (K-12) teachers on incorporating information and communication technology (ICT) into the environmental education (EE) curriculum. In the context of the increasing influence of ICT in education, this study examines both the potential enhancements ICT offers to EE and the challenges it poses. Using data from an online survey and an in-person focus group, the investigation addresses the capacity of ICT to promote environmental stewardship and personal growth, alongside concerns regarding technology’s potential to alienate students from nature and the divided opinions among educators regarding optimal technology use. Attention is given to systemic barriers that complicate EE integration and the variability of its implementation in Ontario, Canada, where EE is mandated across K-12 curricula. The findings illuminate educators’ concerns about digital dependencies among their students and the difficulty they face in striking a balance between the use of ICT and non-technical pedagogical approaches when engaging students in environmental lessons. Importantly, study participants identified limited contemporary and timely technological tools to support EE delivery that deemphasize using personal mobile devices (e.g., smartphones and tablets). In response, we recommend three forms of technology (and accompanying lesson ideas) that are affordable, easy to integrate into classrooms, and do not require off-site trips, thereby enhancing accessibility and equity. This study’s implications are aimed at educators, policymakers, and stakeholders seeking to enhance EE delivery within a technologically evolving educational framework and ensure the development of environmentally conscious students.

1. Introduction

Introducing digital technologies into the educational landscape presents challenges and opportunities for environmental education (EE). This integration has the potential to foster environmental stewardship, practical skills, academic success, and personal growth despite facing challenges such as inadequate resources and limited teacher training [1,2,3,4]. As EE aims to develop students’ understanding of the environment and their interactions with it, it is crucial to explore the role of information and communication technology (ICT) in this educational domain [5,6]. ICTs include tools and resources that integrate software, hardware, and media, and share data across communication networks like the Internet [7]. While smartphones and tablets are commonly associated with ICT in schools, these devices are only part of a suite of ICT options suitable for delivering EE. The inherent personalization of smartphones and tablets simultaneously contributes to and distracts from student learning and enrichment, a double-edged sword that became apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic [8,9].

For EE to be effective, it must be comprehensive and address educational content about, through, and for the environment [10]. This includes disseminating knowledge about ecosystems, engaging directly with nature, and advocating for sustainability and eco-justice [6,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. The evolving educational environment, influenced heavily by advancements in ICT, may not serve all these pedagogical objectives. Teachers and students express varying levels of enthusiasm and concern for integrating ICT into education, highlighting its potential benefits and drawbacks on learning outcomes and environmental engagement [19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. The use of ICT in teaching EE can be fraught with complexities. There is evidence that technology might distance children from nature, and educators are divided on the appropriate level of technology use in educational settings [19,26,27,28,29,30,31]. These challenges are compounded by teacher attitudes, workloads, curricular demands, and systemic constraints, which influence the adoption of technology and the implementation of EE [3,14,26,30,32,33,34].

A transformative strategy for imparting EE effectively involves embedding it across subjects in a cross-disciplinary manner from kindergarten through to Grade 12 (K-12). However, this approach is hindered by systemic constraints and policy issues that limit widespread implementation and lead to fragmented EE, causing gaps in comprehensive environmental understanding [3,5,14,32,35,36,37,38]. In Ontario, Canada, where this study was conducted, the provincially mandated curriculum incorporates EE in a cross-disciplinary manner. However, the implementation of EE varies among teachers and is affected by decreased priority and budget cuts [14,39,40,41,42].

This research explores K-12 teachers’ perspectives on teaching EE, focusing on technology’s role in teaching amidst the opportunities and challenges ICT integration presents. By examining these perspectives, this study contributes to understanding how EE can be effectively delivered in the modern educational environment, ensuring that it remains a vital component of student learning and environmental stewardship. This manuscript also makes several recommendations for contemporary technology and complementary EE lessons that are accessible, topically relevant, scalable and, importantly, offer teacher discretion concerning including personal ICT devices.

2. Materials and Methods

This research was carried out with teachers from the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), leveraging a mix of an online survey and a semi-structured focus group to gather comprehensive insights. Participants were selectively chosen based on their involvement with the TDSB’s EcoSchools Program [3], ensuring they possessed the necessary expertise in EE and ICT. This stratification aimed to enrich the study with informed viewpoints on the pedagogical integration of EE and ICT. The TDSB Sustainability Office facilitated the recruitment process, providing potential contributors’ contact details. Upon completing the online survey, those who indicated additional interest were invited to participate in the semi-structured focus-group discussion.

The study was conducted using an explanatory sequential design (mixed-methods approach) that started with collecting and analyzing quantitative data (online survey); qualitative data (focus-group discussion) were then subsequently gathered to explain and interpret the quantitative results. Data collection occurred over five months, from July to November 2019, using an online survey that featured closed-ended questions on demographics, teaching experience, and attitudes towards EE and ICT. The semi-structured focus group, held on 12 September 2019, lasted two hours and was designed to stimulate in-depth discussion through open-ended questions. The physical setup of the discussion forum encouraged notetaking and reflection (e.g., when one participant spoke, others were directed to articulate their associated thoughts on a large paper-covered table, ensuring that all ideas and comments were captured, irrespective of time constraints). Discussion group participants were given time to ponder each question before sharing their insights (verbally or in writing). See Appendix A for the questions posed to the discussion group.

The focus-group conversations were recorded and transcribed using speech-to-text software (Otter.ai, v2.2.5), supplemented by the manual transcription of participants’ handwritten notes. These transcriptions were then imported into qualitative data analysis software (NVivo, v12) and coded into overarching research themes, such as EE’s dimensions and opinions on ICT use in education. This coding facilitated a detailed content analysis, supported by word frequency, to quantify the occurrence of specific terms and phrases, thereby illuminating participant perceptions and opinions.

The Mantel–Haenszel test examined associations between ordinal variables within a contingency table [43]. This method involved a preliminary crosstabulation with a Chi-square test, followed by a bivariate test using a Pearson correlation coefficient, with significance validated at an alpha threshold of 0.05 [44]. The mixed-methods approach used in this research provided a nuanced understanding of teachers’ perspectives on EE and ICT, framing the analysis within the broader discourse on effective educational strategies in a digitally evolving landscape.

3. Results

3.1. Survey

3.1.1. Response Rate and Participant Demographics

The survey was completed by 54 participants out of 415 unique email addresses, achieving a 13% response rate. These participants are part of the estimated 2000 TDSB teachers involved in environmental education, resulting in a margin of error of 13.2% at a 95% confidence interval. The age range of participants was from 30 to under 60 years, with the most significant proportion (42%) falling within the ‘40 to under 50 years old’ category. The gender distribution was 83% female and 17% male. Most respondents (76%) had a decade or more of teaching experience, while a small fraction (3%) had less than two years. Secondary school teachers formed 60% of the participants, with the remainder being elementary school teachers.

3.1.2. Environmental Education Delivery and Engagement

Table 1. Survey respondents’ knowledge and priorities concerning environmental education (EE).

Educators’ Knowledge/Priorities	Yes (%)	No (%)	Somewhat (%)
Knowledge of the Ontario Ministry of Education EE mandate	73	4	23
Familiarity with Ontario’s Ministry of Education’s EE goals	35	27	38
EE is important in K-12	98	2	0
EE is a priority in your classroom	74	2	24
There are barriers to including EE in your classroom/lesson plans	53	38	9

and

Table 2. Survey respondents’ perceptions about environmental education (EE) delivery.

Educators’ Perspectives	Strongly Agree (%)	Somewhat Agree (%)	Neutral (%)	Somewhat Disagree (%)	Strongly Disagree (%)
The quality of EE you are teaching is adequate	19	53	13	15	0
The quality of EE your school is implementing is adequate	11.5	35	13	31	9.5
Teaching about the environment with hands-on assignments helps students understand complicated subject matter	76	16	4	0	4
EE in all subject areas is realistic for K-12	51	25	11	11	2
Positive changes in student behavior can be attributed to EE	41	43	16	0	0
EE is an afterthought in curriculum requirements	13	61	15	7	4
Organizing field trips to take students off school property is straightforward	15	37	9	30	9
It is possible to include the EE curriculum adequately without leaving the classroom	6	31	13	30	20
You received adequate training to teach about the environment	2	9.5	11	43.5	34
Your outdoor school grounds are adequate to use for EE	37	39	5	0	19

provide detailed insights into participants’ experiences with EE delivery. Concerning student engagement with EE content, 25% reported that students were ‘always engaged’, 53% observed engagement ‘very often’, and 20% noted ‘sometimes’ engagement. Only a minimal 2% found students ‘rarely engaged’. The survey also identified significant obstacles to integrating EE, including curriculum constraints, resource scarcity, funding issues, and challenges related to organizing field trips. Additional factors impacting EE delivery encompassed teacher expertise, time availability, and staff support.

3.1.3. Environmental Knowledge Sources

Participants were asked about the sources of their environmental knowledge, choosing from pre-determined sources or specifying unique ones. A majority (41 respondents) indicated that they acquired their knowledge through personal study (i.e., informal methods), while only seven respondents credited their preparation to teachers’ colleges.

3.1.4. Information and Communication Technology Integration in Environmental Education

Responses on views towards ICT are summarized in

Table 3. Survey respondents’ use of information and communication technology (ICT) in their teaching.

Educators’ Use of Technology	Always (%)	Very Often (%)	Sometimes (%)	Rarely (%)	Never (%)
You use technology in your classroom	35	37	24	4	0
Your school uses technology in its classroom	22	59	17	2	0
Your school is receptive to the use of ICT for teaching	70	30	0	0	0
Technology is helpful for the delivery of K-12 education	29	47	24	0	0
Using technology as an educational tool is frustrating	0	15	66	17	2
Your classes use the Internet or applications to learn about the environment	13	27	52	4	4

and

Table 4. Survey respondents’ perspectives on student learning with information and communication technology (ICT) in their teaching.

Educators’ Perspectives	Strongly Agree (%)	Somewhat Agree (%)	Neutral (%)	Somewhat Disagree (%)	Strongly Disagree (%)
Students are more engaged when taught using ICT	19	55	17	9	0
Students retain more information when taught with ICT	15	41	25	19	0
Students are distracted when learning-focused ICT is used in the classroom	2	33	22	37	6

. Key barriers to using ICT in education identified by participants included resource availability issues, teacher “knowledge” and “confidence”. Other significant obstacles were “time”, “curriculum constraints”, and “Internet/technology accessibility”. Despite these barriers, 82% of participants did not see a conflict between EE and technology. Regarding the potential of technology in K-12 EE, 74% responded positively, 24% somewhat positively, and only 2% were uncertain.

3.1.5. Conflict and Effectiveness of Technology in Environmental Instruction

The survey reiterated questions on the perceived conflict between EE and technology, with 82% disagreeing with any notion of conflict, 9% somewhat agreeing, and 9% unsure. On the effectiveness of technology in K-12 EE instruction, 74% of respondents were positive, 24% were somewhat positive, and 2% remained uncertain.

3.1.6. Demographics, Teaching Experience, and Environmental Education Content Delivery

The analyses found no significant correlation between respondents’ age or gender identity and the frequency of teaching environmentally themed content (

Table 5. Association between the frequency with which a respondent teaches environmentally themed education and their age (n = 54), gender identity (n = 54), years teaching (n = 54), holding lessons outside of the school building (n = 54), enjoyment of the subject(s) (n = 53), their perception of student engagement when they teach about the environment (n = 52), the priority they give to environmental education in their classroom (n = 52), and whether they believe they have received adequate training to deliver environmental education to their students (n = 54). Numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of respondents identifying barriers according to characteristic grouping.

Characteristics	Frequency Teaching Environmentally Themed Content				χ2	p	r
	Rarely	Regularly
Age (years)					3.136	0.077	0.248
30 to <40	6 (40)	9 (60)
40 to <50	3 (14)	19 (86)
50 to <60	2 (13)	13 (87)
	Once/Twice	Monthly	Weekly	Daily
Age (years)					1.873	0.171	0.192
30 to <40	4 (27)	2 (13)	3 (20)	6 (40)
40 to <50	1 (4.5)	2 (9)	5 (23)	14 (63.5)
50 to <60	2 (13)	0 (0)	5 (33.5)	8 (53.5)
Gender Identity					0.084	0.773	−0.040
Female	6 (13.5)	2 (4.5)	13 (29)	24 (53)
Male	1 (11)	2 (22)	1 (11)	5 (56)
Years Teaching					6.221 *	0.013	0.343
<2	1 (50)	1 (50)	0 (0)	0 (0)
2 to <5	1 (33)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (67)
5 to <10	2 (25)	1 (12.5)	3 (37.5)	2 (25)
10 to <20	1 (5)	1 (5)	7 (33)	12 (57)
≥20	2 (10)	1 (5)	4 (20)	13 (65)
Lessons Outdoors					24.468 *	0.000	0.679
Never	3 (75)	1 (25)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Rarely	0 (0)	2 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Sometimes	4 (18)	1 (5)	9 (41)	8 (36)
Often	0 (0)	0 (0)	4 (27)	11 (73)
Always	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (9)	10 (91)
Subject Enjoyment					21.588 *	0.000	0.644
Sometimes	4 (67)	1 (16.5)	1 (16.5)	0 (0)
Often	1 (9)	3 (27)	2 (18)	5 (46)
Always	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	11 (31)	24 (66.5)
Student Engagement					9.587 *	0.002	0.434
Rarely	1 (100)	0	0	0
Sometimes	2 (20)	2 (20)	2 (20)	4 (40)
Often	2 (7)	2 (7)	9 (32)	15 (54)
Always	0	0	3 (23)	10 (77)
Teaching Priority: Environment Content					14.564 *	0.000	0.534
Yes	1 (2.5)	1 (2.5)	11 (28)	26 (67)
Somewhat	4 (33)	2 (17)	3 (25)	3 (25)
No	0 (0)	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Adequately Trained					1.713	0.191	−0.180
Strongly Agree	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (100)	0 (0)
Somewhat Agree	1 (17)	0 (0)	1 (17)	4 (67)
Neutral	0 (0)	1 (17)	0 (0)	5 (83)
Somewhat Disagree	3 (13)	0 (0)	6 (26)	14 (61)
Strongly Disagree		3 (17)	6 (33)	6 (33)

* p ≤ 0.05.

). However, teaching experience was positively related to the frequency of environmental content delivery. Similar positive relationships were observed between the frequency of outdoor educational activities and environmental content teaching. Teachers’ perceptions of student enjoyment and engagement were strongly linked to the frequency of environmental content in classes. There was also a significant positive association between the inclusion of environmental material in lessons and the value teachers placed on environmental content.

3.1.7. Obstacles to Incorporating Environmental Education in the Classroom

The study explored the perceived challenges of teaching EE in relation to demographics, teaching experience, sources of environmental knowledge, passion for the subject, and adequacy of training, as detailed in

Table 6. Participants’ perceptions of a personal challenge teaching environmental education in the classroom according to educator age (n = 51), gender identity (n = 53), years teaching (n = 53), whether summer training for skills development was sought (n = 50), whether the respondent holds an environment-related university degree (n = 47), the priority they give to environmental education in their classroom (n = 52), and whether they believe they have received adequate training to deliver environmental education to their students (n = 53). Numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of respondents identifying barriers according to characteristic grouping.

Characteristics	Difficulty Teaching About Environment		χ2	p	r
	Somewhat	No
Age (years)			0.147	0.701	−0.054
30 to <40	5 (33)	10 (67)
40 to <50	6 (29)	15 (71)
50 to <60	6 (40)	9 (60)
Gender Identity			5.842 *	0.016	−0.335
Female	11 (25)	33 (75)
Male	6 (67)	3 (33)
Years Teaching			1.730	0.188	0.182
<2	1 (50)	1 (50)
2 to <5	2 (67)	1 (33)
5 to <10	3 (38)	5 (62)
10 to <20	6 (29)	15 (71)
≥20	5 (26)	14 (74)
Years Teaching			1.537	0.215	0.172
<10	6 (46)	7 (54)
≥10	11 (28)	29 (72)
Summer Training			0.079	0.779	−0.040
Yearly	2 (33)	4 (67)
Every Few Years	9 (32)	19 (68)
Rarely	6 (38)	10 (62)
Environment Degree			0.299	0.585	−0.081
Yes	9 (31)	20 (69)
No	7 (39)	11 (61)
Teaching Priority: Environment Content			10.718 *	0.001	−0.458
Yes	8 (21)	31 (79)
Somewhat	8 (67)	4 (33)
No	1 (100)	0 (0)
Adequately Trained			2.257	0.133	0.208
Strongly Agree	1 (100)	0 (0)
Somewhat Agree	1 (17)	5 (83)
Neutral	1 (17)	5 (83)
Somewhat Disagree	4 (17)	19 (83)
Strongly Disagree	10 (59)	7 (41)

* p ≤ 0.05.

. Despite the small proportion of male participants, a significant relationship was identified between gender identity and the difficulty of teaching environmental topics, with males reporting it as more challenging. Additionally, a notable inverse correlation was found between the intensity of passion for environmental issues and the perceived difficulty of teaching them. An analysis revealed a statistically significant association between a teacher’s age and perceived barriers to EE instruction, as outlined in

Table 7. Participants’ perceptions of barriers to including environmental education in the classroom according to educator age (n = 51), gender identity (n = 54), years teaching (n = 53), whether summer training for skills development was sought (n = 51), whether the respondent holds an environment-related university degree (n = 46), whether environmental knowledge has been developed through personal interests (n = 46), and whether respondent attended community events as a way of learning more about the environment (n = 46). Numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of respondents identifying barriers according to characteristic grouping.

Characteristics	Barriers Exist to Including EE			χ2	p	r
	Yes	No	Don’t Know
Age (years)				5.628 *	0.018	0.335
30 to <40	10 (67)	5 (33)	0 (0)
40 to <50	13 (59)	7 (32)	2 (9)
50 to <60	4 (29)	7 (50)	3 (21)
Gender Identity				0.502	0.479	−0.097
Female	16 (36)	23 (51)	6 (13)
Male	4 (44)	5 (56)	0 (0)
Years Teaching				1.709	0.191	0.181
<2	1 (50)	1 (50)	0 (0)
2 to <5	3 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)
5 to <10	2 (25)	6 (75)	0 (0)
10 to <20	15 (71)	4 (19)	2 (10)
≥20	7 (44)	9 (56)	3 (70)
Years Teaching				0.030	0.863	0.240
<10	6 (46)	7 (54)	0 (0)
≥10	22 (55)	13 (33)	5 (12)
Summer Training				0.007	0.933	0.083
Yearly	2 (33)	3 (50)	1 (17)
Every Few Years	18 (64)	7 (25)	3 (11)
Rarely	7 (41)	9 (53)	1 (6)
Environment Degree				1.244	0.265	0.166
Yes	12 (41)	16 (55)	1 (4)
No	6 (35)	8 (47)	3 (18)
Personal Interests				2.281	0.131	0.225
Yes	11 (34.5)	19 (59.5)	2 (6)
No	7 (50)	5 (36)	2 (14)
Community Events				0.114	0.735	0.050
Yes	8 (42)	10 (53)	1 (5)
No	10 (37)	14 (52)	3 (11)

* p ≤ 0.05.

. No other significant correlations were found between the perceived teaching barriers and the evaluated characteristics.

3.1.8. Use of Technology to Teach Environmental Education

The frequency of ICT use among survey participants was examined against factors such as demographic characteristics, receptiveness to technology at the classroom and school levels, perceived utility as an educational tool, and compatibility with teaching environmental content, detailed in

Table 8. Participants’ use of technology in the classroom as a teaching tool according to their age (n = 52), gender identity (n = 54), years teaching (n = 54), whether technology is useful when teaching K-12 students (n = 54), receptiveness to teaching with technology (n = 54), whether environmental education is at odds with teaching with technology (n = 54), perceived frustration when teaching with technology (n = 54), whether they believe their school has reliable and current technology for teaching (n = 54), and whether they believe students retain more information when taught with learning-focused technology (n = 53). Numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of respondents identifying barriers according to characteristic grouping.

Characteristics	Use of Technology When Teaching				χ2	p	r
	Rarely	Sometimes	Often	Always
Age (years)					0.394	0.530	−0.088
30 to <40	0 (0)	4 (27)	6 (40)	5 (33)
40 to <50	1 (4)	7 (32)	7 (32)	7 (32)
50 to <60	1 (6.5)	1 (6.5)	6 (40)	7 (47)
Gender Identity					0.079	0.779	−0.039
Female	2 (4.5)	11 (24.5)	16 (35.5)	16 (35.5)
Male	0 (0)	2 (22)	4 (44.5)	3 (33.5)
Years Teaching					0.366	0.545	−0.083
<2	0 (0)	1 (50)	1 (50)	0 (0)
2 to <5	0 (0)	0 (0)	3 (100)	0 (0)
5 to <10	0 (0)	4 (50)	0 (0)	4 (50)
10 to <20	1 (5)	4 (19)	8 (38)	8 (38)
≥20	1 (5)	4 (20)	8 (40)	7 (35)
Tech Useful for Teaching K-12					17.029 *	0.000	0.567
Rarely	2 (17)	7 (58)	3 (25)	0 (0)
Often	0 (0)	4 (15)	13 (50)	9 (35)
Always	0 (0)	2 (12.5)	4 (25)	10 (62.5)
Receptive to Teaching with Tech					14.775 *	0.000	0.528
Somewhat Agree	2 (15.5)	6 (46)	5 (38.5)	0 (0)
Strongly Agree	0 (0)	7 (17)	15 (36.5)	19 (46.5)
Environmental Education and Tech are at Odds					0.531	0.466	−0.100
Somewhat	0 (100)	2 (40)	2 (40)	1 (20)
No	2 (4.5)	11 (25)	14 (32)	17 (38.5)
Don’t Know	0 (100)	0 (100)	4 (80)	1 (20)
Frustration Teaching with Tech					6.231 *	0.013	−0.343
Never	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (100)
Rarely	0 (0)	1 (11)	3 (33.5)	5 (55.5)
Sometimes	0 (0)	10 (28)	15 (41.5)	11 (30.5)
Often	2 (25)	2 (25)	2 (25)	2 (25)
Reliable/Current Tech for Teaching Use					13.574 *	0.000	0.506
Rarely	1 (25)	2 (50)	0 (0)	1 (25)
Sometimes	1 (4.5)	9 (41)	8 (36.5)	4 (18)
Often	0 (0)	2 (9)	11 (48)	10 (43)
Always	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (20)	4 (80)
Student Info Retention when Taught with Tech					8.287 *	0.004	0.399
Somewhat Disagree	0 (0)	5 (50)	4 (40)	1 (10)
Neutral	2 (14.5)	3 (21.5)	8 (57)	1 (7)
Somewhat Agree	0 (0)	3 (14.5)	7 (33.5)	11 (52)
Strongly Agree	0 (0)	2 (25)	1 (12.5)	5 (62.5)

* p ≤ 0.05.

. No significant link was observed between teacher demographics and their reported frequency of ICT use. However, significant positive correlations were identified between ICT use in the classroom and beliefs that technology facilitates teaching K-12 subjects, openness to using technology in teaching, and the perception of technology’s reliability within their school. Conversely, viewing technology as frustrating was significantly negatively associated with its use in teaching. The research delved into teachers’ perceptions of obstacles to using technology in teaching, focusing on demographics, years of teaching experience, and other qualifications, as presented in

Table 9. Participants’ perceptions of barriers to teaching with technology according to educator age (n = 52), gender identity (n = 54), years teaching (n = 54), and whether summer training for skills development was sought (n = 51). Numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of respondents identifying barriers according to characteristic grouping.

Characteristics	Barriers Exist to the Use of ICT				χ2	p	r
	Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Often
Age (years)					0.327	0.568	−0.08
30 to <40	0 (0)	3 (20)	9 (60)	3 (20)
40 to <50	0 (0)	4 (18)	15 (68)	3 (14)
50 to <60	1 (7)	2 (14)	10 (67)	2 (14)
	No	Yes
Age (years)					0.000	1.00	0.000
30 to <40	3 (20)	12 (80)
40 to <50	4 (18)	18 (82)
50 to <60	3 (20)	12 (80)
	Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Often
Gender Identity					4.155 *	0.042	0.280
Female	1 (2)	5 (11)	31 (69)	8 (18)
Male	0 (0)	4 (44)	5 (56)	0 (0)
Years Teaching					2.149	0.143	−0.201
<2	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (100)	0 (0)
2 to <5	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (67)	1 (33)
5 to <10	0 (0)	1 (12)	5 (63)	2 (25)
10 to <20	1 (5)	3 (14)	13 (62)	4 (19)
≥20	0 (0)	5 (20)	14 (70)	1 (10)
Years Teaching					1.910	0.167	−0.190
<10	0 (0)	1 (8)	9 (69)	3 (23)
≥10	1 (2)	8 (20)	27 (66)	5 (12)
	No	Yes
Years Teaching					1.794	0.180	−0.184
<2	0 (0)	2 (100)
2 to <5	0 (0)	3 (100)
5 to <10	1 (13)	7 (87)
10 to <20	4 (19)	17 (81)
≥20	5 (25)	15 (75)
Years Teaching					1.305	0.253	0.024
<10	1 (7)	12 (93)
≥10	9 (22)	32 (78)
	Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Often
Summer Training					1.594	0.207	−0.179
Yes	1 (3)	4 (12)	23 (67.5)	6 (17.5)
No	0 (0)	5 (29)	11 (65)	1 (6)
	No	Yes
Summer Training					1.524	0.217	−0.175
Yes	5 (15)	29 (85)
No	5 (29)	12 (71)

* p ≤ 0.05.

. Gender identity emerged as the sole significant determinant of perceived barriers, with females more frequently reporting challenges. Teachers who emphasized ICT usage tended to perceive greater compatibility between technology and EE, as detailed in

Table 10. Participants’ perceptions that technology can facilitate teaching environmental education according to educator age (n = 52), gender identity (n = 54), years teaching (n = 54), whether students are capable of effectively using technology as a learning tool (n = 54), whether teaching with current technology is a priority for them (n = 54), whether the school they teach at is receptive to using technology in the classroom for educational purposes (n = 54), whether they perceive their students to be distracted when learning-focused technology is used in the classroom (n = 54), whether they perceive students to be more engaged when taught with technology (n = 54), and whether they perceive students enjoy being taught using technology (n = 54). Numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of respondents with a specific view of technology’s role in teaching environmental education, according to characteristic grouping or agreement with the statement.

Characteristic/Statement	Tech Facilitates Environmental Teaching			χ2	p	r
	Yes	Somewhat	Don’t Know
Age (years)				1.302	0.254	0.160
30 to <40	14 (93)	1 (7)	0 (0)
40 to <50	15 (68)	6 (27)	1 (5)
50 to <60	11 (73)	4 (27)	0 (0)
Gender Identity				0.138	0.711	−0.051
Female	33 (73.5)	11 (24.5)	1 (2)
Male	7 (78)	2 (22)	0 (0)
Years Teaching				0.641	0.423	0.110
<2	2 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)
2 to <5	2 (67)	1 (33)	0 (0)
5 to <10	8 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)
10 to <20	12 (57)	9 (43)	0 (0)
≥20	16 (80)	3 (15)	1 (5)
Students Capable of Learning with Tech
Strongly Agree	21 (91)	2 (9)	0 (0)	2.043	0.153	0.196
Somewhat Agree	15 (65)	7 (30.5)	1 (4.5)
Neutral	0 (0)	4 (100)	0 (0)
Somewhat Disagree	3 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Strongly Disagree	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Teaching with Current Tech is a Priority				4.399 *	0.036	0.288
Strongly Agree	16 (84)	3 (16)	0 (0)
Somewhat Agree	16 (80)	4 (20)	0 (0)
Neutral	6 (54.5)	4 (36.5)	1 (9)
Somewhat Disagree	2 (50)	2 (50)	0 (0)
School is Receptive to Teaching with Tech				0.888	0.346	0.129
Strongly Agree	30 (79)	7 (18.5)	1 (2.5)
Somewhat Agree	10 (62.5)	6 (37.5)	0 (0)
Students Distracted by Tech in Classroom				0.215	0.643	−0.064
Strongly Agree	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Somewhat Agree	13 (72)	5 (28)	0 (0)
Neutral	7 (58.5)	5 (41.5)	0 (0)
Somewhat Disagree	16 (80)	3 (15)	1 (5)
Strongly Disagree	3 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Students More Engaged Using Tech				3.331	0.068	0.251
Strongly Agree	9 (90)	1 (10)	0 (0)
Somewhat Agree	23 (76.5)	7 (23.5)	0 (0)
Neutral	5 (56)	3 (33)	1 (11)
Somewhat Disagree	3 (60)	2 (40)	0 (0)
Students Enjoy Being Taught with Tech				2.023	0.155	0.195
Strongly Agree	28 (82)	5 (15)	1 (3)
Somewhat Agree	11 (61)	7 (39)	0 (0)
Neutral	1 (50)	1 (50)	0 (0)

* p ≤ 0.05.

. No additional significant findings were noted concerning the perceived alignment of ICT with EE.

3.2. Focus Group

Eighteen teachers par0ticipated in the focus group, with 15 of these also completing the online survey. The analysis of the focus group’s audio transcripts and written responses, facilitated by NVivo software (v12) and Otter.ai (v2.2.5) for transcription, is summarized in Appendix B. Thematic categories, or “nodes”, were identified to encapsulate the primary discussion points. The predominant sentiments expressed during the focus group, drawn from both audio and written feedback, are detailed in Appendix C.

Discussion on utilizing technology for EE delivery in classrooms yielded mixed reactions. Concerns were raised about excessive “screen time” and the need for students to reduce technology use. One participant highlighted the issue of ICT obsolescence leading to digital waste. Nonetheless, the majority of focus-group members were exploring ways to incorporate technology in EE, highlighting its potential to enhance access to environmental resources and knowledge, ranging from local to global insights. This approach was seen as a means to deepen understanding and foster actions towards environmental sustainability.

4. Discussion

The adoption of ICT in K-12 education has been increasingly recognized for its potential to enhance EE [45]. Studies have underscored a notable correlation between educators’ positive perceptions of technology as a learning tool and their proactive integration of ICT in teaching practice [4,21]. This trend is particularly relevant in the current technology-saturated era, where educators’ efforts to demonstrate technology’s active use, not just promote passive consumption, align with modern EE ideals [46].

Digital tools are often praised for their capacity to bolster students’ interest in environmental learning, facilitating meaningful connections between students’ skills and solutions for environmental challenges. Contrary to concerns about the adverse impacts of screen time on outdoor learning, technology, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, was celebrated by some for its expansive role as a conduit for exploring various themes and ideas beyond the conventional classroom [47,48]. This perspective is supported by diverse digital tools, enhancing students’ environmental learning interests and helping them recognize meaningful intersections between their skills and solutions for environmental challenges [49].

The surge in mobile technology availability has reshaped students’ perceptions of their surroundings, offering valuable opportunities for place-based learning in EE. Technologies foster a unique environmental connection, enabling active participation in community science through data contribution on environment-related attributes by teachers and students [19]. While these ideals may have existed before COVID-19, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the personal ICT pendulum has swung too far in the direction of student distractibility and away from community collaboration. Additional research into personal ICT and educational pedagogy pre- and post-pandemic would be instructive.

Educators acknowledge the potential of technology in facilitating EE through diverse applications, including the Internet, digital platforms, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This openness towards integrating ICT into teaching practices is consistent with earlier research, emphasizing the positive connection between technology use and student information retention in a technology-dominant era. One focus-group participant highlighted, “Teaching students to actively engage with technology and critically evaluate its usefulness instead of being a passive observer aligns with contemporary EE ideals”.

Despite the general optimism towards ICT in EE, teachers also shared concerns and practical challenges. Access to technology, while generally not seen as a barrier, requires careful management, especially in outdoor settings. “Things like iPads don’t work in cold temperatures, or […] the camera must be protected against the weather”, shared a high school teacher, underscoring the logistical challenges of integrating ICT in outdoor education.

Teachers also emphasized the importance of user-friendly ICTs and the value of prior exposure and training in facilitating effective technology use in the classroom. “We never get trained on anything new, but that would be super useful and helpful if somebody could tell me and show me how to [use] it with practical applications to the classroom”, reflected one participant, suggesting a need for professional development in ICT for EE.

Moreover, the study revealed positive student responses to ICT-enhanced EE activities, with teachers noting instant buy-in, high engagement, and motivation. “Anytime there’s that idea of collaborating with the public, […] it makes them take more ownership over it or makes them feel more relevant and real and valuable in what they’re learning”, shared a focus-group participant, highlighting the motivational impact of ICT in fostering student engagement and ownership in EE.

The integration of ICT into EE represents a dynamic interplay between opportunities and challenges. Educators’ narratives underscore the potential of digital technologies to enhance environmental learning, while also calling attention to the need for a strategic, thoughtful integration of ICT that complements rather than competes with the experiential nature of EE. The insights from this study, enriched by direct quotations from participants, illuminate the complexities of utilizing ICT in EE and the ongoing dialogue among educators to optimize its benefits for students’ learning experiences.

Overall, our study has identified that the pivotal challenge in merging technology with environmental education lies in balancing digital engagement and the invaluable experiences of hands-on learning. Environmental educators face rapidly evolving technology, much of which has pedagogical applicability and an equally quickly evolving suite of new and more complex environmental issues that demand their proficiency. Platforms such as mobile applications, gaming, and artificial intelligence have created the potential for a transformative shift in educational pedagogy. For example, technologies such as digital cameras can support children in performing basic ecological and nature-based research, thus enhancing their nature awareness [50]. This is echoed by other scholars who explain how a geogame increases biodiversity-related knowledge among children irrespective of their previous attitudes toward nature [51]. The integration of ecological simulations into geogames show that such approaches can make complex topics more tangible and engaging [52].

At the same time, educators caution against over-reliance on technology and raise concerns about videophilia [53], where increased screen time replaces nature-based play, suggesting that nature-based interventions are required to redirect this propensity. Similarly, other researchers assert that while technology can aid learning, it cannot fully substitute the experiential nature of outdoor education [54]. While the potential loss of experiential quality when integrating mobile technology into outdoor learning is a concern, combining traditional methods with technological interventions can improve knowledge and comprehension [55]. There remains a need for further research to optimize these approaches.

COVID-19 and the near-global requirement for online education, albeit for a limited time, revealed many new and enriching learning experiences while also exposing barriers and drawbacks to using technology in education.

Findings from our surveys and focus-group discussions generally support these views and reinforce the notion that environmental educators in the TDSB face many hurdles in embracing and integrating contemporary technology into their pedagogical practices. To support educators in adapting to the pace of technological and environmental change, some studies highlight a market-driven evolution of new approaches to content delivery that include dynamic, interactive, and personalized learning experiences [56,57]. While this paradigm shift can enable educators to cater to the diverse needs of students, potentially enhancing engagement with environmental topics, the cost of implementation and training of educators may add new barriers to access and reinforce existing inequities. Outdoor settings, in particular, present logistical and practical difficulties for using digital tools. Many teachers in our discussion group raised concerns about equitable access to technology, with disparities in digital devices and public WIFI access potentially widening educational inequalities. Moreover, reliance on education modules created by the private sector and learning management systems (LMS) for lesson content can restrict pedagogical freedom and may introduce unwanted bias.

The critical role of professional development for educators in leveraging technology effectively within environmental education cannot be overstated. The discourse calls for overhauling teacher education programs, including digital tool integration skills specific to environmental pedagogy. This is essential for equipping educators with the competence and confidence to deliver meaningful learning experiences, particularly during educational disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic [58,59]. Such challenges could be overcome with targeted infrastructure investments by school boards to bridge the digital divide and ensure an inclusive educational environment where all students can benefit from technology-enhanced learning experiences [60,61,62]. The practicality of this, however, is dependent on the prevailing political climate and successful lobbying on the part of school board administrators. This situation is not likely to change quickly, and as such, technologies are required that can be scaffolded from basic operation and interpretation to advanced analysis and reporting. Future research should reconnect with teachers to determine if their perceptions of opportunities and barriers to ICT in EE have stayed the same or changed in the post-COVID-19 world.

5. Recommendations

Based on conversations that occurred with educators who participated in the focus group, we recommend K-12 teachers consider implementing three easily accessible and cost-effective forms of technology that can be seamlessly integrated into the classroom. Importantly, these tools will enable teachers to make use of the school’s existing resources, lessening the need for off-site field trips and costly transportation and ensuring inclusivity and equitable access for all students. Each technology allows for many lessons that can be tailored to grade level and topic. Of note, these technologies can also serve complementary functions in the sciences that pair with environmentally themed content (e.g., physics, chemistry). Moreover, much of the data collected can include spatial and temporal attributes for later use in more advanced class exercises that leverage mapping and analyses.

Since this survey was conducted, several participating K-12 educators have noted an increase in the level of distraction students experience in class, as a result of the ubiquity of smartphones. It has been suggested that the root causes for this may be found in the digital dependencies developed by teens during the isolation they endured throughout the COVID-19 lockdowns, as well as the increasingly addictive properties of newer smartphone apps [8,9]. As such, none of the technologies recommended below for classroom inclusion rely on a need for personal devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets) in order to reduce concerns about accessibility and distractibility. In the following paragraphs, we outline the technology and recommend several options for its integration into classroom exercises.

5.1. Accessible and Collective Environmental Education Technologies

5.1.1. Weather Station

Local climate patterns: Students can access real-time data from a weather station on their school property via the Internet. They can analyze variables such as temperature, humidity, and wind speed recorded at different times of the day and year. By comparing these data with historical local weather data, students can identify seasonal trends and anomalies, fostering a deeper understanding of local climate variability specific to their school grounds.

Urban microclimates: Students can use the weather station data to study how meteorological conditions are influenced by the surrounding urban environment. They can correlate temperature and other meteorological data with knowledge of nearby buildings, asphalt, and green spaces visible from the school. This analysis helps students understand the concept of urban heat islands and the impact of different surfaces on local weather conditions. By examining the hyper-local data, students can make tangible connections between their immediate surroundings and broader urban geography concepts.

Environmental Impact and Sustainability: Students can use the weather station data to monitor how meteorological conditions affect the school’s energy usage and resource management. They can analyze how temperature and sunlight levels influence heating, cooling, and lighting needs within the school. This data-driven approach allows students to propose energy-saving measures, such as adjusting thermostats or implementing natural lighting strategies, based on actual weather patterns. This project not only reinforces their understanding of environmental science but also empowers them to make practical, real-world contributions to their school’s sustainability efforts.

5.1.2. Infrared (IR) Thermometer

Thermal Properties of Materials: Measure surface temperatures in various locations around the school, such as shaded areas, open fields, and paved surfaces. By comparing these temperatures, students can explore how different materials and environments influence microclimate conditions, making real-world connections to urban heat islands and local climate variations.

Energy Efficiency: Identify heat loss in the school building by measuring the temperature around windows, doors, and insulation. This hands-on activity allows students to understand the importance of building materials and design in energy conservation, and they can propose practical improvements to enhance the school’s energy efficiency.

Sustainable Planning and Development: Record the temperature of various surfaces (e.g., concrete, grass, and water) on sunny and cloudy days to understand how different surfaces absorb and radiate heat. These data can help students analyze the effects of land cover on local temperatures and discuss the implications for urban planning and climate adaptation.

5.1.3. Water and Electricity Meters

Resource Management: Analyze the school’s energy consumption data, identifying peak usage times and correlating them with school activities. By examining these data, students can propose energy-saving strategies, such as adjusting lighting and HVAC systems, and calculate the potential impact on the school’s carbon footprint.

Sustainable Practices: Track consumption patterns and identify areas where water is wasted, such as during the irrigation of the school grounds or in restroom facilities. Students can then develop water conservation plans, implement low-flow fixtures, or optimize irrigation schedules, linking their findings to broader water management concepts.

Human–Environment Interaction: Investigate the relationship between weather patterns and resource usage by correlating temperature and rainfall data with energy and water consumption at the school. This integrated approach helps students understand the dynamic interplay between environmental conditions and resource use, encouraging them to consider sustainable practices that can be applied within the school and in their broader community.

These recommendations for simple and adaptable technologies offer educators options in terms of accessible tools and tangible ideas for integrating them into curriculum-relevant and meaningful learning experiences. Moreover, they suggest strategies that aim to foster an environmentally literate and empowered student body, ready to confront future environmental challenges with knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of existing technology.

6. Conclusions

Expanding technology integration into environmental education presents many new learning possibilities and equally as many challenges. While the teacher participants in this study were generally enthusiastic about embracing new technology as part of their pedagogy, limitations of time, resources, training, and administrative support often stand in the way of implementation. For long-term and sustained change, these challenges must be addressed head-on through targeted professional development, equitable access to technology, and collaborative efforts to modernize curricula. In the interim, and as a transitional approach, we have recommended three technologies that can be implemented based on availability, scalability, and ease of deployment. Moreover, each technology allows students to collect and analyze real environmental data, locally sourced and easily connected to broader initiatives focused on environmental stewardship and social responsibility.