Introduction
Socio-environmental (S-E) challenges are wicked, multi-layered problems that emerge at the interface of social systems and ecological processes (Wei et al., Reference Wei, Deaton, Shume, Berardo and Burnside2020), such as climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss. They are driven by intertwined environmental degradation, social inequity, economic pressures and governance gaps, and therefore demand holistic, justice-oriented solutions. S-E challenges have gained increasing prominence globally, requiring coordinated international responses (Lenzi, Reference Lenzi2023). Addressing these challenges involves not only environmental preservation but also social and environmental justice, empowering individuals to advocate for these principles.
In this context, Education for Environmental Citizenship (EEC) emerges as a crucial approach, enabling individuals to understand S-E challenges and act as agents of change (Dobson, Reference Dobson2007; Hadjichambis & Reis, Reference Hadjichambis, Reis and Hadjichambis2020). EEC is defined as a type of education that fosters the knowledge, skills, values and competencies needed for individuals to engage actively in society, address S-E challenges, prevent new ones, promote sustainability and nurture a healthy relationship with nature (ENEC, European Network for Environmental Citizenship [ENEC], 2018).
Education plays a pivotal role in translating the principles of environmental citizenship into concrete classroom practice, where students can engage critically with S-E challenges, envision alternative futures and exercise civic agency. Evidence from agroecology-centred programmes shows that learning activities which connect social justice, traditional knowledge and ecological restoration help learners recognise their own capacity to address such challenges (Martins et al., Reference Martins, Costa and Pereira2024). Realising this potential, however, presupposes that educators receive specific professional development to address these topics meaningfully in the classroom (Činčera et al., Reference Činčera, Romero-Ariza, Zabic, Kalaitzidaki, Díez Bedmar and Hadjichambis2020). Currently, many educators lack the necessary knowledge and resources to guide students in critical thinking, problem-solving and civic engagement around S-E challenges (Reis, Reference Reis, Hadjichambis, Reis and Paraskeva-Hadjichambi2019; van Harskamp et al., Reference van Harskamp, Knippels and van Joolingen2021).
While the European Network for Environmental Citizenship [ENEC] (2018) framework provides a conceptual foundation for EEC (see above) and outlines eight intended outcomes (from solving environmental problems to practising environmental rights and inter-/intra-generational justice), its pedagogical implementation was further elaborated in 2020 through a six-stage educational approach (Hadjichambis & Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Reference Hadjichambis, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Hadjichambis, Reis, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Činčera, Pauw, Gericke and Knippels2020a). This pedagogical pathway guides student learning through inquiry, civic engagement and transformative action. However, despite its conceptual and pedagogical contributions, it does not address how teachers should be prepared to adopt and adapt this approach in classroom contexts. The authors themselves raise open questions about how to educate teachers effectively for EEC, acknowledging the absence of concrete teacher professional development (TPD) models to support its implementation (Hadjichambis & Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Reference Hadjichambis, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Hadjichambis, Reis, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Činčera, Pauw, Gericke and Knippels2020a, p. 255). This highlights a critical gap concerning in-service TPD for EEC, a gap that this study seeks to address through a systematic literature review (SLR) that informs the development of an in-service TPD model to prepare educators for EEC.
Through the SLR, we identify the key characteristics of effective in-service TPD initiatives within the domains of environmental education (EE), education for sustainable development (ESD), education for sustainability (EfS) and EEC designed for educators working in primary and secondary education, examining how these features may contribute to developing competencies related to EEC. The research questions guiding this study are: (1) What characteristics are frequently recommended in the literature for effective in-service TPD programmes in the fields of environmental and sustainability education? (2) How do these characteristics promote competencies for EEC?
Evolution of the citizenship concept
The concept of citizenship has evolved significantly over time, from active participation in public affairs in classical Athens (Cortina, Reference Cortina1997; Heater, Reference Heater2003) to Marshall’s (Reference Marshall1967) model of civil, political and social rights, known respectively as first-, second- and third-generation rights. These dimensions continue to inform many liberal conceptions of citizenship, which often emphasise formal equality and individual entitlements (Isin & Turner, Reference Isin and Turner2007). Later formulations highlighted the need to account for multiculturalism and global inequalities (Heater, Reference Heater2003; Isin & Turner, Reference Isin and Turner2007).
These developments paved the way for new formulations, such as cosmopolitan and ecological citizenship, which foreground collective justice, environmental responsibility and global responsibility (Cortina, Reference Cortina1997; Dobson, Reference Dobson2007). Environmental perspectives were often integrated as part of third-generation rights alongside social and economic rights (Gudynas, Reference Gudynas2009). However, liberal conceptions of citizenship face criticism for marginalising vulnerable groups and overlooking social and environmental inequalities (Mravcová, Reference Mravcová2023), reinforcing human–nature dualism (Krenak, Reference Krenak2020).
Critical approaches have further challenged the anthropocentric and dualist foundations of modern citizenship, which separate humans from nature and position environmental control as a marker of political progress (Gudynas, Reference Gudynas2009; Latour, Reference Latour and da Costa2009). For example, Gudynas (Reference Gudynas2009) proposes ‘meta-ecological citizenships’, which integrate ecological awareness and justice. His proposal highlights (1) context-specific ecological recognition; (2) an expanded territorial concept including ecology, power and culture; (3) biocentric ethics valuing nature intrinsically; and (4) a political engagement fostering empowerment and collective action.
These critical frameworks advocate for an EEC that cultivates skills, values and attitudes necessary for social and environmental justice (Hadjichambis & Reis, Reference Hadjichambis, Reis and Hadjichambis2020), promoting responsibility for sustainable practices and social equity, and aligning with Lenzi’s (2023) argument that S-E rights stem from democratic struggles rather than mere policy shifts.
Though educational approaches like environmental and sustainability education share similar goals (Hadjichambis & Reis, Reference Hadjichambis, Reis and Hadjichambis2020), many focus on individual market-driven actions, such as recycling or encouraging responsible consumption, while avoiding complex and value-laden topics. Hart (Reference Hart2024) critiques this tendency, arguing that education focused on personal responsibility can obscure the political and economic systems driving environmental degradation. This is reflected in both pre- and in-service teacher education: Tolppanen et al. (Reference Tolppanen, Claudelin and Kang2021) found that pre-service teachers tend to overvalue visible, low-impact actions due to limited knowledge and confidence. Similarly, Činčera et al. (Reference Činčera, Valesova, Krepelkova, Simonova and Kroufek2019) found that in-service elementary and secondary teachers often chose environmentally “safe” topics, like redesigning school gardens, due to discomfort with conflict or lack of preparation. A further cause is that teacher preparation seldom tackles the structural and political roots of environmental issues; Dunlop et al.’s (Reference Dunlop, Atkinson, Malmberg, Turkenburg-van Diepen and Urbas2024) study of English science classrooms shows that teachers feel ill-equipped to move beyond low-impact personal actions towards political engagement and calls explicitly for targeted professional development. Such shortcomings are especially problematic given that S-E challenges are rooted in conflicting values, requiring critical reflection and ethical awareness (Chan, Reference Chan2022).
The literature underscores EEC’s role in advancing social and environmental justice by: (1) developing knowledge and critical problem-solving skills (Adamou et al., Reference Adamou, Georgiou, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi and Hadjichambis2021; Andrighetto, Reference Andrighetto2010; Jacobi, Reference Jacobi2003); (2) fostering youth agency and civic engagement (Amos & Carvalho, Reference Amos and Carvalho2020; Hodson, Reference Hodson, Bencze and Alsop2014; Monte & Reis, Reference Monte and Reis2021; Reis, Reference Reis and Bencze2025); (3) raising environmental awareness and influencing values and behaviours (Adamou et al., Reference Adamou, Georgiou, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi and Hadjichambis2021; Sarid & Goldman, Reference Sarid and Goldman2021); (4) promoting environmental justice by addressing inequalities and empowering youth to advocate for vulnerable communities (Dobson, Reference Dobson2007; McBeath et al., Reference McBeath, Tian, Wang and Xu2021; Monte & Reis, Reference Monte and Reis2021); and (5) encouraging collaboration through national and international collective action (Finger et al., Reference Finger, Draghici, Perniu, Smederevac-Lalić, Halbac-Cotoara-Zamfir, Sehic and Solomun2021; Jacobi, Reference Jacobi2003).
Therefore, EEC stands as a critical tool for addressing contemporary S-E challenges, fostering intergenerational justice and supporting sustainability. Effective teacher education is crucial for embedding EEC in educational settings, equipping educators with the competencies and strategies to drive transformative change (Reis, Reference Reis, Hadjichambis, Reis and Paraskeva-Hadjichambi2019).
Teacher education in EEC
Teachers’ understanding of EEC is often confined to local, individual and private dimensions, which affects their ability to address broader S-E challenges in educational settings (Georgiou et al., Reference Georgiou, Hadjichambis and Hadjichambi2021). As previously discussed, although the ENEC framework (2018) and its pedagogical approach (Hadjichambis & Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Reference Hadjichambis, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Hadjichambis, Reis, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Činčera, Pauw, Gericke and Knippels2020a) have advanced conceptual and instructional foundations for EEC, they do not provide a corresponding model for in-service TPD. Without structured education, teachers may misunderstand EEC, confusing it with existing approaches and implementing superficial actions with limited strategies that do not necessarily align with contextualised, inquiry-based, action-oriented, student-centred and interdisciplinary approaches (Reis, Reference Reis, Hadjichambis, Reis and Paraskeva-Hadjichambi2019). Effective TPD should be sustained, content-focused and embedded in practice, with opportunities for active learning and collaboration (Desimone, Reference Desimone2009) — principles that offer a useful lens for designing TPD for EEC.
Despite some initiatives to promote EEC in higher education (Telešienė et al., Reference Telešienė, De Pauw, Goldman and Hansmann2021) or pre-service teacher education (e.g., Abd-El-Aal & Steele, Reference Abd-El-Aal and Steele2013; Linhares & Reis, Reference Linhares and Reis2023a; Green et al., Reference Green, Medina-Jerez and Bryant2015), there is still a limited number of reported in-service TPD programmes specifically tailored to EEC. To date, five studies have been found addressing this field: Spektor-Levy and Abramovich’s (Reference Spektor-Levy and Abramovich2017) model for early childhood educators; Olsen et al.’s (Reference Olsen, Miller, Eitel and Cohn2020) adventure learning model with K-12 teachers; Ariza et al.’s (Reference Ariza, Christodoulou, van Harskamp, Knippels, Kyza, Levinson and Agesilaou2021a) SSIBL-based model applied in primary and secondary education; Ariza et al. (Reference Ariza, Boeve-de Pauw, Olsson, Van Petegem, Parra and Gericke2021b), which presents a case of upper secondary TPD without proposing a formal model; and Salman and Hassan (Reference Salman and Hassan2023), which describes a programme for biology teachers but does not present a structured model.
Each of these initiatives makes valuable contributions. For example, Olsen et al. (Reference Olsen, Miller, Eitel and Cohn2020) provide a meaningful, context-based model to deepen teachers’ understanding of socio-ecological systems through place-based exploration. However, three main gaps remain. First, existing models tend to be context-specific or limited to particular educational levels or disciplines. There is no structured and adaptable in-service TPD model for EEC that can be applied across primary and secondary settings. The model proposed in this study addresses this by offering a flexible and replicable structure aimed specifically at in-service teachers in basic education. Second, few programmes explicitly align EEC competencies — such as critical thinking, civic engagement and transformative action — with concrete pedagogical strategies. This research bridges that gap by systematically deriving competencies from supranational frameworks and mapping them onto actionable strategies such as S-E challenges, outdoor learning and nature-based solutions (NbS). Third, few assess the impacts of teacher education in EEC on students. Although this article does not address this dimension directly, the model includes an implementation phase in school contexts with data collection involving students, aiming to evaluate the outcomes of EEC-oriented teaching practices.
This study proposes an in-service TDP model in EEC, addressing gaps identified by drawing on best practices from the literature. By offering a structured yet adaptable framework grounded in pedagogical strategies and competency development, the model supports educators in integrating EEC into their practice across diverse educational contexts. It seeks to enhance the reach and impact of EEC, contributing to more effective teacher education and fostering environmental citizenship in educational settings.
Methodology
The SLR was conducted to identify key characteristics of effective in-service TPD programmes, particularly those promoting EEC. The review followed the PRISMA protocol, which offers a structured approach to conducting transparent and reproducible systematic reviews (Page et al., Reference Page, McKenzie, Bossuyt, Boutron, Hoffmann, Mulrow, Shamseer, Tetzlaff, Akl, Brennan, Chou, Glanville, Grimshaw, Hróbjartsson, Lalu, Li, Loder, Mayo-Wilson, McDonald and Moher2021). Searches were performed across the databases: EBSCO, B-on, Web of Science (WoS), the Scientific Repository of Open Access of Portugal (RCAAP) and the University of Lisbon’s Integrated Library System (UL), including peer-reviewed articles, theses and books, without restrictions on publication year.
Anticipating the limited number of reported in-service TPD programmes explicitly linked to EEC, the scope was intentionally broadened to include EE, ESD and EfS. These fields share pedagogical goals with EEC, such as civic engagement, critical thinking and action for sustainability (Hadjichambis & Paraskeva Hadjichambi, Reference Hadjichambis, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Hadjichambis, Reis, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Činčera, Pauw, Gericke and Knippels2020a), and according to Berkowitz et al. (Reference Berkowitz, Ford, Brewer, Berkowitz, Ford and Brewer2005), EEC is the overall goal of EE. The Boolean search terms used were: (“Teacher Professional Development” OR “Teacher Training”) AND (“Environmental Citizenship” OR “Environmental Education” OR “Sustainability Education” OR “Education for Sustainability”). Searches were limited to publications in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. The term “environmental citizenship” was used intentionally to capture studies aligned with EEC principles, even if not explicitly labelled as such.
It is important to mention that although this review adopts the term TPD, alternative expressions such as teacher professional learning (TPL) are also widely used in the literature, and our choice certainly limited the retrieval of relevant studies that use other terminologies, and this is acknowledged as a methodological limitation.
Screening criteria and data extraction
To ensure the relevance and quality of the studies selected for the full review, specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied during the screening stage (Haddaway et al., Reference Haddaway, Bethel, Dicks, Koricheva, Macura, Petrokofsky, Pullin, Savilaakso and Stewart2020; Xiao & Watson, Reference Xiao and Watson2019) as systematised in Table 1.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria in the SLR
During the screening stage, we extracted basic information from each identified source (e.g., author, title, keywords, etc.) to assess relevance. In the full review stage, detailed data extraction captured comprehensive information from each study, including objectives, focus (e.g., course description, course results), methodologies, theoretical frameworks, conclusions and implications for teacher education. For studies describing a TPD programme, additional data on the target audience, theme, location, duration, strategies, impacts, challenges and relevance to EEC were collected.
Data were organised using Microsoft Excel for efficient categorisation and trend identification. Thematic content analysis (Bardin, Reference Bardin2011) was conducted through NVivo to code and analyse qualitative data, revealing common themes and characteristics among the TPD programmes. AI-powered tools (e.g., Typeset) were also tested for data extraction.
Supranational documents (e.g., UNESCO, UN, OECD) were analysed to identify competencies and strategies for environmental and sustainable education and TPD. These documents were analysed before the empirical literature to identify the competencies and pedagogical strategies recommended by international organisations. The aim was to compare this guidance with practices found in the empirical literature, highlighting both alignments and divergences. Although such frameworks are influential in shaping national curricula and TPD initiatives, they have been criticised for offering generalised recommendations that may overlook local cultural, institutional and ecological specificities, limiting their applicability across diverse educational settings (Dillon & Wals, Reference Dillon and Wals2006). Findings informed the conceptualisation of a TPD model for EEC, further detailed in the results section.
Results
The SLR initially identified 1,943 articles through database searches. After removing 1,000 duplicate records (i.e., identical documents retrieved from multiple databases), 943 unique studies were screened. Based on the defined criteria, 862 papers were excluded for the following reasons: 1) not open-access (n = 34); 2) language outside the English, Spanish, or Portuguese criterion (n = 26); 3) publication type other than journal article or thesis (n = 41), such as conference proceedings; 4) not related to teacher education (n = 125), that is, studies in environmental and sustainability education topics that merely extrapolated implications for teacher education without investigating or describing a TPD programme; 5) not related to environmental or sustainability education (n = 240), that is, studies addressing environmental or educational themes without a clear pedagogical focus or relevance to teacher education for EEC (e.g., studies on technological innovation, STEM education without pedagogical depth); 6) focused exclusively on initial teacher education (n = 264); or 7) lacking a description of a TPD programme (n = 132), namely papers that reported a programme had occurred but provided no details on its structure, strategies or duration.
Consequently, 81 empirical studies were retained for full analysis. In parallel, a separate search identified 16 supranational documents, all of which were included in the study. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flow diagram guiding the selection process.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Insights from TPD programmes with potential for EEC
Studies from 1987 to 2024 indicate a growing focus on environmental and sustainability education and TPD, reflecting increasing recognition of educators’ role in fostering sustainable practices (Álvarez-García et al., Reference Álvarez-García, Sureda-Negre and Comas-Forgas2015). While the concept of environmental citizenship has been discussed since the early 2000s (e.g., Dobson, Reference Dobson2007), its articulation in educational contexts, particularly under the term EEC, gained prominence with the European COST Action ENEC, whose 2018 framework mobilised a wide network of researchers and institutions across Europe (Hadjichambis et al., Reference Hadjichambis, Reis and Hadjichambis2020).
In this context, the review identified TPD initiatives related to environmental and sustainability education whose design features, strategies and competencies offer relevant insights for developing TPD models for EEC. These programmes cover topics such as climate change, sustainability and STEM education, fostering competencies in biodiversity conservation and STEM skills (Alsina & Silva-Hormazába, Reference Alsina and Silva-Hormazába2023; Costa, Domingos, Teodoro & Vinhas, Reference Costa, Domingos, Teodoro and Vinhas2022; Martins-Loução et al., Reference Martins-Loução, Gaio-Oliveira, Barata and Carvalho2019; Tischner et al., Reference Tischner, Davies and Reginato2015). The initiatives employ pedagogical strategies such as inquiry-based learning (Martins-Loução et al., Reference Martins-Loução, Gaio-Oliveira, Barata and Carvalho2019; Xie et al., Reference Xie, Henry, Bydlowski and Musial2014), experimental practices (Coronel & Núñez, Reference Coronel and Núñez2015) and technology integration (Marques & Pombo, Reference Marques and Pombo2021; Puertas-Aguilar et al., Reference Puertas-Aguilar, Varela-Losada and Pérez-Rodríguez2021). Such strategies enable teachers to manage data and enhance student engagement with scientific practices (Dresner & Worley, Reference Dresner and Worley2006; Duffin & Perry, Reference Duffin and Perry2018).
In identifying barriers, such as knowledge, pedagogy and motivation, faced by teachers in environmental and sustainability education initiatives, the literature also helps to anticipate potential challenges that could hinder effective EEC integration. Cheng and Monroe (Reference Cheng and Monroe2010) found that prior experience influenced teachers’ confidence and enthusiasm in the Lagoon Quest programme, with less experienced participants requiring additional support. This points to the need for an adaptable TPD that bridges knowledge gaps.
The analysed papers report that TPD initiatives emphasise pro-environmental behaviours and foster communities of practice (CoP) (Dumrauf & Cordero, Reference Dumrauf and Cordero2020; Keown, Reference Keown2009; Martins-Loução et al., Reference Martins-Loução, Gaio-Oliveira, Barata and Carvalho2019; Moreno-Fernandez, Reference Moreno-Fernández2015; Nur et al., Reference Nur, Anas and Pilu2022). By involving local stakeholders, teachers gain tools to translate environmental concepts into practical applications (Boeve-de Pauw et al., Reference Boeve-de Pauw, Olsson, Berglund and Gericke2022). Although establishing partnerships with universities and schools presents challenges, these collaborations enhance teacher autonomy and confidence by incorporating diverse perspectives (Beasy et al., Reference Beasy, Richey, Brandsema and To2024; Kaplan et al., Reference Kaplan, Vidal, do Nascimento Dawidman and de Santana2021). Programmes also immerse teachers in methods like place-based and outdoor learning (Can et al., Reference Can, Lane and Ateşkan2017; Duffin & Perry, Reference Duffin and Perry2018) and activism (Casanova, King & Fischer, Reference Casanova, King and Fischer2023), encouraging classroom application and sustainability integration. Such collaborative and practice-oriented approaches can demonstrate ways to connect abstract concepts with local realities and civic participation.
Programme designs also reflect frameworks like the SDGs and Agenda 2030 (Mandrikas, Reference Mandrikas2020; Puertas-Águilar et al., Reference Puertas-Aguilar, Varela-Losada and Pérez-Rodríguez2021), aiming to integrate environmental and sustainability education into curricula (Ford, Reference Ford2004; Lotz-Sisitka, Reference Lotz-Sisitka2011). Furthermore, TPD not only enhances pedagogical skills but also empowers teachers as agents of change (Sumaryanta et al., Reference Mardapi and Herawan2019; Blanco-Portela et al., Reference Blanco-Portela, Poza Vilches, Junyent-Pubill, Collazo Expósito, Solís-Espallargas, Benayas del Álamo and Gutiérrez-Pérez2020), incorporating decolonial practices and indigenous knowledge to promote inclusive EE (Chinn, Reference Chinn2007; Iribarren et al., Reference Iribarren, Tamayo and Garelli2022). These programmes’ underlying values — such as justice, inclusion and teacher agency — are strongly aligned with EEC’s aims.
While these TPD programmes demonstrate valuable outcomes, such as raising environmental awareness and enhancing pedagogical practice, a deeper analysis is needed to identify which strategies effectively support the development of competencies aligned with EEC. This SLR offers insights into emerging trends, guiding the next steps in developing TPD models for EEC.
Supranational frameworks
Supranational organisations (e.g., UN, UNESCO, OECD) establish guidelines that member states are encouraged to follow, addressing shared challenges like promoting sustainable development and EE (Sauvé et al., Reference Sauvé, Brunelle and Berryman2005). Their reports and other documents can influence national policies, setting global standards for education (and teacher education), highlighting competencies to tackle sustainability challenges and advocating their integration into national curricula (Bürgener & Barth, Reference Bürgener and Barth2018; García-González et al., Reference García-González, Jiménez-Fontana and Goded2020).
Such guidance often catalyses curricular innovations internationally, moving the field forward. As previously mentioned, SDG-linked guidance has already reshaped teacher programmes (Mandrikas, Reference Mandrikas2020; Puertas-Águilar et al., Reference Puertas-Aguilar, Varela-Losada and Pérez-Rodríguez2021). A forthcoming illustration is the PISA 2025 Science Framework, which may exert a similar influence, given the OECD’s well-documented “soft-governance” sway over national curricula (Li et al., Reference Li, Xue and Guo2025).
However, applying these suggestions can be challenging due to diverse national circumstances, and flexibility is essential to accommodate local needs while respecting national diversity (Roman & Mauerhofer, Reference Roman and Mauerhofer2019). Table 2 summarises competencies and strategies from EE, EfS and ESD identified in the 16 reviewed documents, which may inform competencies and pedagogical strategies in EEC.
Table 2. Competencies and strategies in supranational frameworks
While these documents provide a foundation for competencies in environmental and sustainability education, they present critical gaps in practical application. These include: 1) a lack of contextualisation, as the frameworks often overlook regional, cultural and resource-based differences, especially in non-Western or Indigenous contexts (Rauch & Steiner, Reference Rauch and Steiner2013); 2) limited pedagogical guidance for subject areas such as science education, particularly in integrating competencies like critical and systems thinking into science curricula (Bürgener & Barth, Reference Bürgener and Barth2018); and 3) an over-reliance on technological solutions that assume universal access, which fails to address the equity issues related to the digital divide, particularly in rural or underfunded areas (Salemink et al., Reference Salemink, Strijker and Bosworth2017; Williamson & Hogan, Reference Williamson and Hogan2021).
Given these limitations, while the frameworks offer valuable foundations for EE, EfS, ESD and EEC, relying solely on them may result in models that replicate their shortcomings. Moreover, their implementation requires more than mere alignment with global standards. This disconnect between global objectives and local realities becomes evident when translating these frameworks into TPD programmes. Addressing these gaps necessitates a more localised approach that takes into account the social and environmental contexts in which teachers work, ensuring that global sustainability goals are adapted to meet the specific needs of diverse educational settings.
In the following section, we examine empirical evidence, focusing on how various TPD programmes navigate the tensions between global competencies with local demands. While supranational frameworks inform the discussion, the analysis goes beyond a direct application of these models, aiming instead to explore how the principles they propose resonate with — or diverge from — the realities reflected in the empirical material.
Insights from the literature
In the analysed papers, TPD initiatives often intertwine supranational policies with local educational needs, fostering enhanced scientific knowledge and pedagogical skills (Collazo Expósito & Granados Sánchez, Reference Collazo Expósito and Granados Sánchez2020). In particular, by anchoring scientific inquiry in regional S-E challenges, such as biodiversity or climate data analysis, these programmes link complex issues with classroom practices, promoting contextual applications (Can et al., Reference Can, Lane and Ateşkan2017; Clark et al., Reference Clark, Majumdar, Bhattacharjee and Hanks2015).
In STEM fields, TPD bridges cutting-edge scientific content with practical pedagogy, equipping educators to integrate novel concepts into daily teaching (Costa et al., Reference Costa, Domingos, Teodoro and Vinhas2022). In doing so, it blends experiential learning with theoretical updates, reinforcing teachers’ capacity to implement new strategies effectively.
Beyond technical skills, many articles reported initiatives that address ideological and socio-political dimensions, encouraging educators to act as agents of change (Iribarren et al., Reference Iribarren, Tamayo and Garelli2022). These programmes often engage with intersectionality, indigenous knowledge and environmental justice, fostering transformative education responsive to community needs. While some initiatives remain anchored in a value-neutral approach to scientific knowledge, others take a more explicit socio-political stance, aiming to reshape educational practices in a manner deeply attuned to both local community and broader societal dynamics.
In sum, the papers reported initiatives which: (1) align supranational frameworks with local S-E challenges (e.g., Can et al., Reference Can, Lane and Ateşkan2017; Collazo Expósito & Granados Sánchez, Reference Collazo Expósito and Granados Sánchez2020); (2) combine scientific content with experiential and pedagogical innovation (e.g., Costa et al., Reference Costa, Domingos, Teodoro and Vinhas2022); and (3) incorporate ideological and socio-political dimensions to foster transformative, context-sensitive education (e.g., Iribarren et al., Reference Iribarren, Tamayo and Garelli2022).
Competencies and strategies in TPD programmes
While supranational frameworks provide strategic competencies, the reviewed empirical studies highlight the need for context-sensitive competencies that align with local realities and community needs. Socio-emotional competence plays a central role in fostering strong connections between educators, students and their environments. These studies highlight the significance of dialogic and sensory-based pedagogies, particularly through outdoor learning, which cultivate emotional ties and enhance S-E awareness. These pedagogies empower educators to create spaces that inspire empathy, activism and ethical responsibility towards ecosystems and local communities (Andrade da Silva et al., Reference Andrade da Silva, Figueroa Figueiredo, Luiz Bozelli and Freire2020; Jukes et al., Reference Jukes, Fox, Hills, White, Ferguson, Kamath, Logan, Riley, Rousell, Wooltorton and Whitehouse2024; Monte & Reis, Reference Monte and Reis2021; Puertas-Aguilar et al., Reference Puertas-Aguilar, Varela-Losada and Pérez-Rodríguez2021; Winks & Warwick, Reference Winks and Warwick2021). Complementing these affective and dialogic approaches, Dunlop et al. (Reference Dunlop, Atkinson, Malmberg, Turkenburg-van Diepen and Urbas2024) suggest that embedding Freire’s notion of critical consciousness, that is, the ability to reflect and act upon the world in order to transform it (Freire, Reference Freire1970), within TPD is a promising pathway for equipping educators to tackle S-E challenges.
Environmental literacy cannot rest on knowledge alone; it depends on educators’ capacity to recognise, regulate and purposefully channel both negative (e.g., eco-anxiety) and positive (e.g., hope) emotions towards collective engagement, a socio-emotional competence that Dunlop and Rushton (Reference Dunlop and Rushton2022) label an “emotionally responsive” pedagogy. Many of the TPD initiatives identified in our review embody this coupling. Engaging with nature through outdoor learning deepens educators’ understanding of ecological systems, enhancing both their knowledge and behaviours towards sustainability (Martins, Reference Martins2019; Santos-Pastor et al., Reference Santos-Pastor, Ruiz-Montero, Chiva-Bartoll, Baena-Extremera and Martínez-Muñoz2022). Additionally, cultural-territorial competence is crucial for contextualising environmental education, with studies showing the value of integrating local sociocultural knowledge and indigenous perspectives (Chinn, Reference Chinn2007; Fien et al., Reference Fien, Kumar and Ravindranath2001; Hart, Reference Hart2024; Sumaryanta et al., Reference Mardapi and Herawan2019). Future-oriented thinking, vital for addressing S-E challenges, enables educators to guide students in envisioning and implementing sustainable solutions by linking local needs with global perspectives (Collazo Expósito & Granados Sánchez, Reference Collazo Expósito and Granados Sánchez2020; Vega-Marcote et al., Reference Vega-Marcote, Álvarez and Llanos2015).
We quantified how frequently each competency is referenced in the 81 analysed papers. Although the competencies were identified within the broader fields of environmental and sustainability education, they show strong convergence with the aims of EEC. The first six competencies also appear in supranational frameworks (see Table 2), while the remaining four reflect additional dimensions that emerged from the empirical literature. Together, these competencies offer a comprehensive picture of the skills and dispositions that may support teacher preparation for EEC in diverse contexts. Table 3 summarises our findings.
Table 3. Competencies in the analysed papers
The table reveals the central role of critical thinking and environmental literacy in fostering environmental and sustainability education. While less frequently mentioned, competencies like cultural-territorial competence, global citizenship and future-oriented thinking, closely aligned with the aims of EEC, address specific social and environmental needs and long-term planning. These variations underscore that while foundational competencies anchor environmental and sustainability education, emerging ones are vital for adapting to evolving S-E challenges, reflecting the need for a flexible approach to EEC.
Strategies and competencies to foster EEC
The success of TPD programmes is often attributed to a combination of structural, motivational and collaborative factors tailored to diverse educational contexts. A central feature of many successful programmes is integrating experiential learning (Pruneau et al., Reference Pruneau, Doyon, Langis, Vasseur, Ouellet, McLaughlin, Boudreau and Martin2006; Sondergeld et al., Reference Sondergeld, Milner and Rop2014) or NbS (Linhares & Reis, Reference Linhares and Reis2023b), allowing teachers to acquire new content and practice applying it through direct engagement with real-world and ecological contexts.
Participation in supportive professional communities further enhances the effectiveness of TPD. In such environments, teachers exchange ideas, reflect on their practices and learn collaboratively, cultivating a culture of adaptability and innovation (Duffin & Perry, Reference Duffin and Perry2018; Dumrauf & Cordero, Reference Dumrauf and Cordero2020). This collaborative engagement is vital for adopting new pedagogical strategies and for professional growth more broadly (Dresner, Reference Dresner2002). Reflective practices are also key in this process, helping educators critically assess their teaching and refine their approaches toward transformative outcomes (Brookfield, Reference Brookfield2017). Effective TPD programmes also integrate content knowledge, pedagogical strategies and technology, equipping teachers with both the confidence and skills needed for innovative classroom practice (Costa et al., Reference Costa, Domingos, Teodoro and Vinhas2022).
The deliberate alignment between pedagogical strategies and competencies is another hallmark of effective TPD programmes. Based on the analysed articles, most of which are in EEC-related fields such as environmental and sustainability education, we identified specific relationships between pedagogical strategies and the competencies they support. Table 2 shows, for every strategy–competency pair, the number of studies in which the two were reported together within the same intervention.
The alignment between strategies and competencies is key to understanding how a TPD programme can foster EEC. While these relationships reflect key patterns in the literature, other potential alignments may emerge based on specific educational contexts and needs.
The findings from the SLR provide a basis for addressing the research questions guiding this study. Concerning RQ1, the review highlights the recurring importance of experiential, community-based and interdisciplinary strategies. About RQ2, the mapping between strategies and competencies reveals key connections for fostering a range of EEC-related competencies while also supporting emerging context-sensitive dimensions. These findings emphasise the need for structured and deliberate integration of pedagogical strategies with targeted competencies in TPD design. Building upon this analysis, the next section presents the development of a TPD model that synthesises these insights into a coherent and adaptable framework for preparing teachers to implement EEC in their contexts.
Development of the prototype model
The model was developed by analysing supranational guidelines and empirical studies, both focused on EE, ESD, EfS and EEC, to identify competencies and strategies relevant to TPD. The resulting elements were applied to the context of EEC to inform the design of an adaptable framework that integrates best practices and addresses contextual needs to foster EEC.
The model
Table 4 presents the structure of the model. It includes its phases, addressing specific strategies while progressively moving from theoretical discussions to practical applications in schools and communities. This structure — comprising four phases, subtopics, strategies and objectives — is inspired especially by the model proposed by Moctezuma Tereza et al. (Reference Moctezuma Teresa, Aparicio López, Rodríguez Alviso, Gervacio Jiménez and Brito Carmona2022). Each phase has a question to help guide reflection and critical thinking during the professional development process, aligning with Brookfield’s (2017) perspective on fostering critical reflection in TPD. All elements included in the model are grounded in evidence from the literature, and the rationale for each choice is detailed in the paragraphs following the table.
Table 4. Prototype of TPD model in EEC
Considering that our objective is to foster competencies for EEC, both by preparing teachers as environmental citizens and by equipping them to form environmental citizens, it is essential that the TPD model employs diverse didactic strategies to achieve this aim. The SLR identified competencies prioritised in TPD and the strategies supporting their development. Analysis of different programmes structures informed the allocation of these strategies, comparing outcomes and suggested improvements. While the table presents each phase’s main strategies and objectives, the related competencies — previously detailed in Table 5 — are implicitly linked. For example, reflective practice supports competencies such as critical thinking, socio-emotional competence and transformative action, although other associations may emerge depending on specific contexts.
Table 5. Co-occurrence of strategies and competencies in the analysed papers
The model structure draws from successful initiatives such as TMTAS (Collazo Expósito & Granados Sánchez, Reference Collazo Expósito and Granados Sánchez2020), which integrates content, theory and teaching methods; lesson plan incorporation (Kelley, Reference Kelley2010); fostering awareness inside and outside the classroom (Sondergeld et al., Reference Sondergeld, Milner and Rop2014); community diagnosis models (Moctezuma Tereza et al., Reference Moctezuma Teresa, Aparicio López, Rodríguez Alviso, Gervacio Jiménez and Brito Carmona2022); and the spheres and levels of action in EEC (Hadjichambis & Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Reference Hadjichambis, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Hadjichambis, Reis, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Činčera, Pauw, Gericke and Knippels2020a). Technologies and curriculum sustainability (Puertas-Aguilar et al., Reference Puertas-Aguilar, Varela-Losada and Pérez-Rodríguez2021), cultural components linked to global citizenship (Saiful & Setyorini, Reference Saiful and Setyorini2022), and reflection on student and community needs (Sondergeld et al., Reference Sondergeld, Milner and Rop2014) further shape the model.
The model addresses competency evaluation for EEC using AI technologies (e.g., ChatGPT) for rubric development, while including safeguards and teacher guidance to ensure reliable use, alongside interdisciplinarity, and connections with open schooling (Sarid et al., Reference Sarid, Boeve-De Pauw, Christodoulou, Doms, Gericke, Goldman, Reis, Veldkamp, Walan and Knippels2024) and community engagement. Didactic strategies include outdoor learning, PBL, SSIBL, NbS and experiential learning, fostering environmental literacy as already mentioned by Guerrero & Sjöström (Reference Guerrero and Sjöström2024).
This model not only expands competencies but also boosts teachers’ confidence as agents of change (Georgiou et al., Reference Georgiou, Hadjichambis and Hadjichambi2021), aligning with the 2030 Agenda and SDGs. While Casanova et al. (Reference Casanova, King and Fischer2023) highlight that teachers are often assigned a limited role in the design of TPD initiatives, primarily as recipients rather than co-creators, the model proposed here seeks to address this gap by fostering co-participation. It does so through context-based reflections and continuous feedback through focus groups, SWOT analyses and validated tools like the Environmental Citizenship Questionnaire (Hadjichambis & Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Reference Hadjichambis and Paraskeva-Hadjichambi2020b).
The model also aims to initiate a CoP centred on EEC, supporting long-term sustainability through material exchange, discussion and school openness.
Next steps
The upcoming phase of this research will involve refining the prototype model through expert review, followed by real-world application in school contexts. The model will first be evaluated by a panel of specialists drawn from three domains: practising EEC teachers, EEC scholars and TPD scholars. This process will guide adjustments to ensure relevance and practical applicability (López Gómez, Reference López Gómez2018). After revisions, it will be implemented, focusing on in-service teachers who will design and carry out classroom EEC activities. Their experiences, along with feedback from their students, will be captured through pre- and post-test assessments, interviews and SWOT analyses.
Acknowledgements
We express our sincere gratitude to the Unidade de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em Educação e Formação (UIDEF), the Instituto de Educação — Universidade de Lisboa, and the research projects in which we participated for their support.
Financial support
This work was supported by National Funds through FCT-Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P., under the scope of UIDEF — Unidade de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em Educação e Formação, UIDB/04107/2020, https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04107/2020. It was also funded by the European Commission under the COSMOS project (Grant Agreement n.° 101005982) within the SwafS-01-2018-2019-2020: Open Schooling and Collaboration in Science Education, Personnel Costs.
Ethical standard
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa (on the 19 of June 2024).
Author Biographies
Larissa Nascimento is a PhD candidate in Science Education at the Institute of Education, University of Lisbon. She holds a Master’s degree in Science Education (2022) and a Bachelor’s degree in Biology (2018) from the University of São Paulo. Her research focuses on continuous teacher professional development in environmental citizenship education. Larissa has experience as a science teacher and has participated in projects promoting environmental literacy and transformative pedagogies. She collaborates on international initiatives addressing socio-ecological challenges through education.
Pedro Reis is Full Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, University of Lisbon, where he coordinates the PhD programme in Science Education. He holds a PhD (2004), MEd (1997) and BSc in Biology (1988) from the University of Lisbon. A former science teacher, his research focuses on teaching the nature of science and technology, socio-scientific issues, and ICT integration in science education. He leads projects on environmental and social issues in education across Europe, Africa and Latin America, contributing to teacher training and curriculum development.
Open access
