ICT-driven mathematical modelling approaches for embedding education for sustainable development in mathematics teacher education: a systematic review

Introduction

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is one of the critical pillars in the global agenda to equip future citizens and professionals with the knowledge, skills, and values necessary to address complex socio-environmental challenges United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2020). Within this agenda, mathematics education holds promise: its emphasis on modelling, quantitative reasoning, and problem-solving. Through data-driven inquiry and decision-making, mathematics promotes awareness of sustainability issues such as climate change, resource management, and socio-economic equity (Tesfamicael and Enge, 2024). Although mathematics education is often viewed as apolitical and abstract, it holds significant potential for exploring sustainability issues through modelling, statistics, and data interpretation. Moreover, the integration of digital technologies into mathematics education can facilitate interdisciplinary learning that connects mathematics to real-world sustainability challenges (Rico et al., 2021). The use of technology facilitates students' understanding of the relationship between mathematics and the world and serves as a strategy for their teaching in the context of ESD (Su et al., 2023).

Generally, the use of digital tools integration of ESD into mathematics teacher training remains uneven, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where teacher education programmes often lack both contextualised content and hands-on pedagogical approaches that marry mathematical concepts with real-world sustainability scenarios (Olawale et al., 2025). As a result, few publications exist on studies related to mathematics and sustainability (Budikusuma et al., 2024; Ivada, 2024). A systematic review by Álvarez Ariza and Olatunde-Aiyedun (2024) found that (1) teacher education programmes lack courses or subjects that allow integrating sustainability and STEAM areas in an interdisciplinary approach, (2) interventions for STEAM teacher education are focused on mathematics and statistics typically for the pre-service stage only, with a proposal for rural teachers, and (3) in-service teachers manifest difficulties in linking theoretical concepts with real-world experiences in classrooms. While their review provides important insights into teacher-centred initiatives in STEAM education for sustainability, it does not explicitly address mathematics-specific pedagogies or the role of ICT-driven mathematical modelling. Furthermore, although emerging research demonstrates the potential of mathematical modelling to connect mathematics education with sustainability issues, it remains unclear how digitally mediated mathematical modelling can contribute to the development of ESD competencies among prospective mathematics teachers. In particular, limited empirical evidence explains how digital technologies mediate the modelling process, what pedagogical conditions enable such technologies to support ESD competency development, and how these approaches can be implemented within resource-constrained mathematics teacher education contexts. Existing systematic reviews appear to have focused primarily on ESD in mathematics education more broadly, with limited attention to how digital technologies mediate mathematical modelling for the development of ESD competencies in teacher education. The present study therefore, extends this line of inquiry by examining how ICT-mediated mathematical modelling approaches can support the development of ESD competencies, as well as the design principles for professional development.

Literature review

Digital pedagogies in mathematics education

The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion of digital pedagogies in mathematics education. Studies (Adelabu et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2025) have documented how dynamic geometry software (e.g., GeoGebra), statistical packages (e.g., R), and open data platforms can enrich mathematical modelling activities, enabling students to simulate environmental processes and explore “what-if” scenarios grounded in authentic data (Zapata-Cardona and Martínez-Castro, 2023). More recently, the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and gamified learning environments has opened new avenues for engaging learners in complex problem-solving tasks, while collaborative online platforms facilitate co-design of lessons and peer-to-peer mentorship among teachers (Kassenkhan et al., 2025). The UNESCO (2019) report highlights the use of Personalized Virtual Math Tutors, adaptive Learning Platforms such as Math Whizz, which tailors mathematics content to students' abilities through AI-driven adaptation, offering a personalized learning experience; as well as AI-Powered Assessment tools that offer automated grading systems for mathematics assignments, including exercises and problem-solving tests, which can provide immediate feedback and reduce teacher workload (UNESCO, 2019). However, none of these AI-driven tools were designed with ESD competencies as an explicit outcome, representing a missed design opportunity.

ICT integration for education for sustainable development

Beyond general mathematics pedagogy, researchers have examined how ICT can specifically support ESD. The findings of Carrión-Martínez, et al. (2020), who, in their systematic review of 19 documents, found that the predominant types of ICT in Education for Sustainable Development are mobile learning (36.84%) and e-learning (15.79%). However, their review also highlighted a significant gap, noting that they did not investigate the specific pedagogical strategies carried out with ICTs in schools aimed at developing a more sustainable environment. Jeong and González-Gómez (2024) argued that teaching approaches relevant to sustainable STEAM and mathematics education include flipped classrooms, blended learning, escape rooms, gamification, virtual reality, e-learning, and project-based learning. This is aligned with interventions that have made use of Learning Management Systems (LMS), which provided structured environments for delivering sustainability-related coursework and supporting asynchronous engagement (Ahel and Lingenau, 2019). These platforms often served as gateways to curated content, peer collaboration, and instructor feedback. Beyond LMS and virtual collaboration platforms, interdisciplinary dialogue and problem-solving learning opportunities create an opportunity for students to engage in authentic hands-on experiences necessary for promoting an SDG of quality education (Fathurohman et al., 2023). Notably, embedding sustainability experiences in learning and teaching practices through e-learning and online learning is challenging; thus, there is a greater requirement to enhance aspects such as resources and effective ways to convey SD ideas (Gamage et al., 2021) through either structured teacher training modules or sustained in-service professional development programmes.

Research gaps at the intersection of digital pedagogy, mathematics teacher education, and education for sustainable development

Despite significant advances in digital pedagogies and growing recognition of mathematics as a vehicle for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), gaps continue to constrain the meaningful integration of these fields within mathematics teacher education (Álvarez Ariza and Olatunde-Aiyedun, 2024). Existing literature points to a fragmented landscape in which digital pedagogy, mathematics education, and ESD have largely evolved as parallel rather than integrated areas of scholarship. Consequently, the intersection of these three domains remains a nascent and critically underexplored field.

The first gap concerns the lack of structured opportunities in teacher education programmes to meaningfully integrate sustainability into discipline-specific teaching. Scholars (e.g., Lorente-Echeverría et al., 2022) argued that teacher education curricula frequently lack dedicated courses or coherent pedagogical frameworks that connect sustainability with disciplinary knowledge through interdisciplinary approaches. In mathematics education, this has led to sustainability being treated superficially and often disconnected from core mathematical practices such as mathematical modelling, quantitative reasoning, data analysis, and problem-solving (Supple et al., 2025). Consequently, teachers in training are seldom equipped to use mathematics as a disciplinary lens through which learners can investigate authentic sustainability challenges.

A second gap relates to the pedagogical integration of digital technologies. Although digital tools have proliferated rapidly, they are frequently introduced in a techno-centric manner, with insufficient attention to how they can be pedagogically leveraged to develop ESD competencies within mathematics-specific contexts (Körtesi et al., 2022). Furthermore, there remains limited empirical evidence demonstrating how ICT-supported pedagogical innovations translate into authentic classroom practice, particularly in resource-constrained environments (Álvarez Ariza and Olatunde-Aiyedun, 2024). As a result, many digital interventions remain confined to teacher training or emphasise technological proficiency without enabling teachers to connect theoretical knowledge with meaningful classroom implementation.

The limited evidence base is further compounded by important geographical and contextual gaps. Existing reviews have documented educational affordances of digital technologies for mathematical modelling and sustainability education as well as scarcity of integrated research. For example, Cevikbas et al. (2023), through a systematic review of 38 studies, identified substantial academic, cognitive, social, emotional, and pedagogical benefits associated with digital technologies in mathematical modelling, while also documenting challenges including limited technological competence and the “black-box” effect. Although their review concluded that the educational benefits outweigh these challenges, its primary focus remained on mathematical modelling rather than the preparation of teachers to integrate modelling, digital technologies, and ESD. Similarly, Borromeo Ferri and Bulut (2026) identified a persistent paucity of research examining mathematical modelling within ESD and concluded that the evidence base remains limited. Collectively, these reviews confirm that the integration of digital pedagogy, mathematical modelling, and ESD in teacher education remains insufficiently developed.

These limitations are particularly evident in sub-Saharan Africa, where contextually relevant digital ESD strategies remain largely unexplored. Evidence generated predominantly from well-resourced educational systems cannot readily be transferred to contexts characterised by infrastructural limitations, diverse curricular priorities, and different sustainability challenges (Maringe & Chiramba, 2022). Consequently, there remains little understanding of how digitally mediated mathematical modelling can support ESD competencies within resource-constrained teacher education programmes. Moreover, few studies (Cevikbas et al., 2023; Borromeo Ferri and Bulut, 2026) have systematically compared or adapted ICT-driven pedagogical strategies across different sustainability themes, educational contexts, and teacher education systems, leaving an important gap in both theory and practice.

These gaps reveal a critical need for a mathematics-specific synthesis that examines how digital pedagogies can support the development of ESD competencies within mathematics teacher education. Responding to this need, the present study employs the PRISMA framework to systematically synthesise empirical research published between 2016 and 2026 that connects digital pedagogy, mathematics education, and ESD. Thus, this systematic review study attempted to respond to two targeted research questions:

• Which ICT-driven mathematical modelling strategies are most effective in enhancing mathematics teachers’ competencies in linking mathematical concepts to sustainability issues?
• What design principles for professional development materials and workshops can be derived from the literature to equip mathematics teachers to integrate digital ESD approaches, particularly in resource-constrained contexts?

Methodological approach

The papers selected for this Systematic Literature Review (SLR) were obtained exclusively from an AI-powered, Google Scholar (Google Scholar Labs). Although Google Scholar indexes a wide range of document types, for the purpose of our study we targeted only peer-reviewed journal articles by applying the relevant filter and excluding books, conference proceedings, dissertations, and other non-peer-reviewed sources. The decision to use Google Scholar Labs as the sole database was because Google Scholar covers a wider variety of publications than traditional controlled databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC (Halevi et al., 2017; Mikki, 2009). Furthermore, Google Scholar returns a largest proportion of relevant articles among all databases and complementary search methods, highlighting its breadth and suitability for comprehensive systematic reviews (Harari et al., 2020). We also observed that Google Scholar Labs returns more context-specific publications, minimising screening quantity.

We began our analysis with papers published from 2016 to March 2026, as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its associated educational priorities were adopted in 2015. Consequently, empirical work published after 2015 is more likely to engage directly with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the post-2015 global ESD agenda. The systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 framework (Page et al., 2021).

We acknowledge, however, that Google Scholar's ranking algorithm is not static and may yield results that vary across time, geographic location, and account-level personalisation, which constitutes a reproducibility limitation relative to fixed, versioned databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. Thus, the exact search strings, filters, and date range used for possible replication.

Identification

Two separate search strings were developed, each aligned with one research question, and applied to Google Scholar Labs with the following filters: peer-reviewed journal articles only; publication year 2016–2026; English language. The first 150 results for each search were screened by title and abstract. Screening continued until thematic saturation was reached (no new strategy types or design principles appeared in consecutive batches of 10 records). Given the exploratory nature of our RQs and the rapidly growing literature, we adopted a saturation approach; however, we acknowledge this may have excluded relevant studies beyond the 150th record.

• RQ1 (strategies): “education for sustainable development” AND “mathematics education” AND (“modelling” OR “modeling”) AND (“ICT” OR “digital” OR “GeoGebra” OR “technology”)
• RQ2 (design principles): “professional development” AND “mathematics teacher” AND (“education for sustainable development” OR “ESD”) AND (“digital” OR “ICT” OR “online”)

Screening

We first segmented the title of each paper, and the abstract into nouns and adjectives and classified them according to the two research questions. In addition, research focus were systematically determined through the following procedures adapted from Kosaka et al. (2018). In the screening and selection phase, we excluded studies that focused on broader teacher education programmes, early childhood education, or higher education frameworks and others as detailed in Table 1.

• (a) The terms appearing in each title are first classified based on the two research questions’ themes.
• (b) If the research focus is not determined in (a), refer to the subtitles.
• (c) If the research focus is not determined in (b), refer to the abstract.
• (d) If the research focus is not determined through (a), (b), and (c), the paper is excluded from the review

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion and exclusion

Following title and abstract screening, 150 full-text reports were retrieved for eligibility assessment. We applied the inclusion criteria specified in Table 1 and followed the PRISMA flow chart (Figure 1), which required an empirical focus on tripartite integration of ICT and ESD within mathematics education. A total of 18 full-text papers met all inclusion criteria and were retained for synthesis. No studies were excluded solely on the basis of quality appraisal.

Figure 1 illustrates the summarised flowchart diagram used to ensure the quality assessment of articles included in this study, following the PRISMA guidelines.

Reliability

Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (Hong et al., 2018), which supports consistent appraisal across qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs (Hong et al., 2018). Both authors independently appraised each study using the five MMAT criteria relevant to its design, which are categorised into five methodological domains, namely: (a) qualitative, (b) quantitative randomised controlled trials, (c) quantitative nonrandomised, (d) quantitative descriptive, and (e) mixed methods (Hong et al., 2018). Discrepancies and disagreements in terms of exclusion and inclusion were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. In addition, the study's validity and reliability depended on the quality of the papers included and the review process utilized (Jabar et al., 2022). Final themes reflect patterns evident across multiple empirical contexts and were weighted in interpretation according to Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (2018) quality appraisals.

Data extraction and synthesis

A coding framework was developed based on the research questions, with nodes for: (a) digital category, (b) digital tools, (c) sustainability themes (e.g., climate change, resource management), (d) Mathematics topic/s, (d) type of study and (e) geographic context (Global North vs. Global South). The final coding structure is presented in different tables under the findings.

Given the small final sample (n = 18) and the methodological heterogeneity of included studies, we used a thematic narrative synthesis. The interpretive approach was chosen as this review aimed to describe how ESD is conceptualised and enacted in mathematics education, rather than to estimate effect sizes. Statistical meta-analysis or vote-counting was therefore inappropriate. Review articles were treated as secondary, interpretive sources, used to contextualise, triangulate, and corroborate patterns, while primary empirical studies formed the core evidentiary base.

Operationalisation

In relation to research question 1, we operationalised effective ICT-driven mathematical modelling strategies to compromise of cognitive competence, modelling competence, pedagogical competence, technological competence, sustainability integration, and affective and motivational dimension (Table 2).

Table 2. Dimensions of effective ICT-driven mathematical modelling strategies .

From Table 2, we coded and described the strategies as effective depending on their reported ability to support concurrent development of at least two dimensions, such as cognitive competence and modelling competence, with technology competence serving as the ICT-specific criteria (Table 2). Studies that report only one dimension (such as attitude change) are classified as partially effective evidence. This is a synthesis-derived classification based on documented evidence within the included studies, not a comparative or statistically estimated measure of effectiveness relative to alternative strategies.

Findings

We first present the studies considered for the review (Table 3). Secondly, we present answers to the research questions. Implications for course design are presented last, followed by conclusions. Reviewed studies were conducted across a range of national and institutional contexts, reflecting both the global relevance and the local specificity of ESD implementation.

Table 3. Studies included in the review.

The review comprises 18 peer-reviewed studies (Table 3) published between 2018 and 2026. Table 3 also shows the countries where the authors are based to show the geographical affiliation of authors as well as types of study. Notably, the authors’ institutional and country affiliations do not necessarily equal the study's context/sample/population of the study, which is not the context of analysis in this review; a study can be led by Global North authors but might have been conducted in the Global South and vice versa. Authors’ affiliations are presented to give an overview of persons and country universities involved in the research involving ESD and mathematics.

Study types and geographic distribution

Study type distribution

Figure 2 illustrates empirical studies constitute 56% of the review (n = 10) and review-type studies 44% (n = 8). The predominance of empirical studies indicates that the field has moved beyond purely conceptual or advocacy-oriented discourse and has begun generating primary evidence on Mathematics, ESD and digital.

In addition, Figure 3 presents the geographic distribution. Authors from institutions in the Global North account for 50% of the review (n = 9), Global South only 22% (n = 4), and mixed North-South collaborations for 17% (n = 3). Furthermore, (Table 3 and Figure 3) authors affiliated from institutions in regions including Sub-Saharan Africa beyond South Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and broader Latin America are few, which constitutes a substantive evidence gap that should inform future research agendas. The implications are that, ESD frameworks, ICT infrastructure, curriculum structures, and teacher education models differ substantially between Global North and Global South contexts. Strategies that have been documented and tested in these studies with teachers in well-resourced countries such as Germany, South Korea, or Spain may not translate directly to contexts characterised by limited digital infrastructure and different sustainability priorities.

Next, we present the link between Mathematical Topics and digital tools as documented in the reviewed literature related to research question 1. Only articles related to the research question 1 are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Co-occurrence of mathematical topics and digital tool categories.

Cell shading: shaded blue = present (1); light blue = absent (0). Row totals indicate the number of tool categories co-occurring with each mathematical topic. Column totals indicate how many mathematical topics are associated with each tool category. Scores are assigned on the basis of evidence reported in the studies Score assignments are interpretive and should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

Mathematical topics and digital tool categories

Table 4 the co-occurrence of mathematical topics and digital tool categories related to answering research question 1. Dynamic mathematics software is the only tool category that co-occurs with advanced mathematical topics including the full modelling cycle, multivariable calculus, functional models, covariation, and rate of change, which are the mathematical structures most directly implicated in modelling competence. This might imply that among all digital tool categories in the review, dynamic mathematics software uniquely supports the development of modelling competence as operationalised in this review, that is, the demonstrated ability to apply the mathematical modelling cycle using ICT tools to sustainability contexts. Collaborative and communication platforms co-occur with general mathematical engagement, including problem-solving, data handling, and STEM integration, but do not provide the structure required for systematic modelling task execution. Sensor and data collection technologies co-occur with data analysis and statistical reasoning, supporting cognitive competence and sustainability integration competence in environmental data contexts, as evidenced by Rico et al. (2021). AI and machine learning platforms as presented in Dewa (2024) co-occur exclusively with general mathematical literacy, without engagement with defined mathematical concepts or modelling processes, and therefore provide no evidence for modelling competence or sustainability integration competence as operationalised in this review.

Next, we present the link between Mathematical Topics and SDGs as documented in the reviewed literature. The articles related to the research question are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Co-occurrence of mathematical topics and SDG alignment.

Cell shading: shaded blue = present (1); light blue = absent (0). Scores are assigned on the basis of evidence reported in the studies Score assignments are interpretive and should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

Mathematical topics and SDG alignment

Table 5 the co-occurrence of mathematical topics and SDG alignment. A substantively important pattern emerges studies that frame their ESD orientation through broad competency frameworks, namely Meylani and Kaplan (2025), Guerrero-Ortiz et al. (2026), and Wiegand and Borromeo Ferri (2023), engage the most advanced mathematical content, including the multivariable calculus, covariation, and functional models. This is in contrast to the majority of SDG 4-anchored studies, which engage mathematical content at the level of general problem-solving, data literacy, or STEM integration. SDG 10 represents an analytically significant exception: Suh and Han (2019) employ algebraic and probabilistic modelling, including Markov chains and matrix calculation, in the context of income mobility and social inequality, demonstrating that mathematically advanced modelling can be deployed in social sustainability contexts, though this remains isolated within the review.

Now we present the descriptions related to research question number 1. 15 articles related to research question were included.

ICT-driven mathematical modelling strategies and ESD competency development

The following analysis evaluates the evidence for each of the four identified ICT-driven mathematical modelling strategy types against the six operationalised competency dimensions. Each strategy type is assessed for the strength and nature of evidence it provides for cognitive competence, modelling competence, pedagogical competence, technological competence, sustainability integration competence, and affective and motivational development. The analysis draws directly on observable indicators as specified in the operationalisation framework.

Iterative and cyclic modelling strategies

This strategy type is represented by Meylani (2025) through the IMETS Framework, Meylani and Kaplan (2025) through the Technology-Enhanced Shift, Borromeo Ferri and Bulut (2026) through Cyclic Tool Integration, and Körtesi et al. (2022) through a Mixed-Method Active Strategy.

In terms of cognitive competence, Meylani and Kaplan (2025) document qualitative improvement in preservice teachers' capacity to identify and apply appropriate mathematical concepts to sustainability contexts. Körtesi et al. (2022) document the ability to recognise unreliable computational outputs as a measurable form of conceptual understanding at the validation stage. Borromeo Ferri and Bulut (2026) provide indirect evidence through PRISMA synthesis, identifying modelling cycle stages most conducive to sustainability-linked cognitive engagement. More, the modelling competence strategy type, provides the strongest literature-wide evidence. Meylani and Kaplan (2025) document multiple sustainability-themed task completions using GeoGebra, MATLAB, and Python with qualitative evidence of model formulation quality. Körtesi et al. (2022) document the translation between real-world sustainability problems and mathematical structures using computer algebra systems and GeoGebra. Borromeo Ferri and Bulut (2026) synthesise tool-specific scaffolding evidence across modelling sub-processes.

In addition, pedagogical competence, Meylani (2025) and Meylani and Kaplan (2025) document sustainability-linked assessment design and reflective portfolios corresponding to lesson plan quality and self-efficacy indicators. Furthermore, on technological competence, Meylani and Kaplan (2025) report increasing proficiency across tool iterations, and Körtesi et al. (2022) document task completion rates and output accuracy with computer algebra systems.

On sustainability integration competence, Meylani and Kaplan (2025) document qualitative evidence of sustainability-context justification quality across energy, water, and agricultural modelling contexts. Borromeo Ferri and Bulut (2026) identify ecological, social, and economic domain action as competency outcomes. Notably, affective and motivational development, no study reports pre-post attitude measurement or formal engagement data. Reflective journals and self-assessment provide limited perceived-value evidence only.

Dialectical and collaborative modelling strategies

This strategy type is represented by Guerrero-Ortiz et al. (2026) through ACODESA Dialectical Modelling, Suh and Han (2019) through a Computational Prediction Strategy, Gamage et al. (2021) through Project-Based Integration, and Wiegand and Borromeo Ferri (2023) through an ESD-Modelling Seminar.

With reference to cognitive competence, Guerrero-Ortiz et al. (2026) document inter-rater assessed conceptual development in covariation and rate of change applied to water scarcity thresholds. Wiegand and Borromeo Ferri (2023) identify three teacher profiles through type-forming qualitative content analysis of 14 preservice teachers' written reflections, each representing a distinct level of ESD-modelling conceptual integration. Suh and Han (2019) document conceptual engagement with Markov chain theory applied to income mobility under SDG 10.

The modelling competence, Guerrero-Ortiz et al. (2026) provide the most direct corpus-wide evidence, with inter-rater assessed Blue Gold task completion demonstrating the full modelling cycle in GeoGebra from problem formulation to functional model construction and output interpretation. Suh and Han (2019) document the full cycle from student-generated database construction through Markov chain mathematisation to future-state prediction. Wiegand and Borromeo Ferri (2023) document task completion in the aluminium production problem using proportional reasoning supported by internet-based research.

In addition, for pedagogical competence, Wiegand and Borromeo Ferri (2023) provide the strongest corpus-wide evidence, with documented ESD-modelling task design and teaching readiness assessed through qualitative typology. Gamage et al. (2021) provide evidence for discussion facilitation in hybrid environments without modelling-specific teaching readiness. Furthermore, technological competence, Guerrero-Ortiz et al. (2026) document GeoGebra proficiency in functional model construction corresponding to frequency and sophistication of tool use indicators. Suh and Han (2019) document task completion and output accuracy with Markov chain programming tools and web spreadsheets.

Regarding sustainability integration competence, Guerrero-Ortiz et al. (2026) provide the strongest corpus-wide evidence, with inter-rater assessed systems thinking, anticipatory competence, and strategic thinking applied to the global water crisis. Wiegand and Borromeo Ferri (2023) document multi-dimensional sustainability reasoning across ecological, economic, and social dimensions. Suh and Han (2019) constitute the only corpus evidence for mathematical modelling applied to economic sustainability. Regarding affective and motivational development, Wiegand and Borromeo Ferri (2023) document positive attitudinal orientations across all 14 participants, with the Reformer and Do-Gooder profiles providing growth-mindset and perceived-value evidence. No study in this category uses pre-post attitude scales.

Interdisciplinary and place-based modelling strategies

This strategy type is represented by Álvarez Ariza and Olatunde-Aiyedun (2024) through STEAM Itineraries, Rico et al. (2021) through an Interdisciplinary Teaching-Learning Sequence, and Chin et al. (2018) through a Blended Learning Strategy.

Regarding cognitive competence, Rico et al. (2021) document conceptual understanding of air pollutant, health, and urban sustainability relationships through real-time sensor data across SDGs 3, 11, and 13. Chin et al. (2018) document understanding of derivatives and volume maximisation applied to resource conservation. Álvarez Ariza and Olatunde-Aiyedun (2024) synthesise evidence for statistics, geometry, and probability engagement across energy, health, and city sustainability contexts. For modelling competence, Rico et al. (2021) document partial cycle engagement at data-collection and mathematisation stages only; full cycle completion to validation is not evidenced. Chin et al. (2018) document two task completions without a formally structured modelling cycle. Evidence of pedagogical competence is most evident Chin et al. (2018) provide the most direct evidence, with 71% of participants reporting readiness to teach sustainability and documented sustainability project design in primary school settings. Álvarez Ariza and Olatunde-Aiyedun (2024) synthesise lesson plan quality and observer rating evidence across STEAM itinerary contexts.

Technological competence, Rico et al. (2021) document sensor task completion and accuracy of environmental data outputs. Chin et al. (2018) document platform use in sustainability-linked contexts without TPACK measurement. In terms of sustainability integration competence, Rico et al. (2021) document the accuracy of sustainability-themed model interpretation across SDGs 3, 11, and 13. Álvarez Ariza and Olatunde-Aiyedun (2024) demonstrate the broadest SDG coverage of any single study across six goals, though modelling depth within each context is variable.

Finally, affective and motivational development, Chin et al. (2018) report survey-based positive engagement corresponding to perceived value ratings. Rico et al. (2021) and Álvarez Ariza and Olatunde-Aiyedun (2024) provide no formal affective measurement.

Inquiry-based and generative digital strategies

This strategy type is represented by Helliwell and Ng (2022) through a Generative Inquiry Strategy, Naidoo and Reddy (2023) through Community of Inquiry and SAMR Scaffolding, Dewa (2024) through AI-enabled personalised learning, and Fathurohman et al. (2023) through STEM-ESD integration via engineering design and makerspaces. Evidence for cognitive competence is provided primarily by Helliwell and Ng (2022), who document data literacy and statistical concept development through IPCC-based speculative fiction tasks. Naidoo and Reddy (2023) report general problem-solving improvement without specifying mathematical concepts. Neither study extends engagement to modelling-linked conceptual understanding as operationalised. Modelling competence is absent across this strategy type, as no study provides evidence for the application of the mathematical modelling cycle using ICT tools to sustainability contexts. This absence is the most significant limitation of this strategy type in relation to the research question. Evidence of pedagogical competence is provided by Naidoo and Reddy (2023), who document workshop facilitation quality through the Community of Inquiry framework. Helliwell and Ng (2022) document pedagogical imagination through speculative fiction tasks without formal micro-teaching assessment.

Technological competence is represented by Dewa (2024), who documents AI-assisted feedback and learning analytics. However, the reported engagement relates to general platform use rather than modelling-specific ICT proficiency as operationalised. No study provides evidence for modelling-specific tool use.

For sustainability integration competence, Helliwell and Ng (2022) provide qualitative evidence of climate science data engagement as a basis for pedagogical imagination. Fathurohman et al. (2023) address environmental literacy through engineering design without modelling-linked sustainability interpretation. Furthermore, the affective and motivational development provides the most consistent, though predominantly qualitative, evidence in the corpus. Naidoo and Reddy (2023) document community-building and peer engagement. Helliwell and Ng (2022) document pedagogical imagination and growth-mindset-aligned dispositions. Dewa (2024) reports positive AI engagement. No study uses formal pre-post attitude scales.

Competency coverage across strategy types

Table 6 presents competency dimension coverage scored as 0 (not addressed), 1 (partially addressed), or 2 (substantively addressed) across 15 studies. Three distinct profiles emerge. The first, comprising Guerrero-Ortiz et al. (2026), Meylani and Kaplan (2025), Borromeo Ferri and Bulut (2026), Wiegand and Borromeo Ferri (2023), Suh and Han (2019), and Rico et al. (2021), demonstrates substantive engagement with cognitive, modelling, technological, and sustainability integration competencies and constitutes the primary evidence base for the research question. The second, comprising Helliwell and Ng (2022), Álvarez Ariza and Olatunde-Aiyedun (2024), Naidoo and Reddy (2023), Chin et al. (2018), and Körtesi et al. (2022), shows substantive engagement with pedagogical and affective dimensions but partial coverage elsewhere. The third, comprising Meylani (2025), Fathurohman et al. (2023), Dewa (2024), and Gamage et al. (2021), addresses competency dimensions at a general or incidental level and provides limited direct evidence for strategy effectiveness.

Table 6. ESD competency dimension coverage across studies.

Scores are assigned on the basis of evidence reported in the primary studies against the operational definitions provided in the review protocol. Score assignments are interpretive and should be treated as indicative rather than definitive pending full methodological appraisal.

Design principles for professional development in digital ESD for mathematics teachers

The synthesis of the included studies yielded five interrelated design principles that can guide the development of professional development (PD) materials and workshops. Table 7 summarises the analytical pathway from the reviewed evidence to each of the five design principles proposed for professional development.

Table 7. Analytical pathway from empirical evidence to design principles.

The first design principle is that PD must be aligned with the multidimensional nature of ESD competence and teacher readiness. Manasia et al. (2020), in developing a teaching readiness model for fostering education for sustainable development, conceptualised preparedness as encompassing professional knowledge and practice, professional engagement, and self-management. Their work indicates that effective PD extends well beyond knowledge acquisition; it must also deliberately cultivate the attitudes and dispositions that enable teachers to embed sustainability in their daily practice. Extending this line of reasoning, Vidal and Kuckuck (2025) argued that teacher education should move beyond imparting knowledge and attitudes by placing greater emphasis on fostering willingness to act and on practical implementation skills. They further proposed that ESD should be integrated into a broader range of subjects rather than being limited to traditionally sustainability-related disciplines such as geography or biology, and by implication, that mathematics must be one of those subjects. Taken together, these contributions establish that PD materials should be designed to develop the full spectrum of teacher readiness: knowledge, professional engagement, self-management, and action competence.

A second principle, closely related to competence development, is that PD must actively build teacher agency and a transformative professional identity. Alsina and Vásquez (2025) argue that PD should position preservice mathematics teachers as active agents capable of enacting change within their educational contexts. They concluded that designed training programs should create enabling opportunities, which should include developing teachers' skills, abilities, and tools to teach with; addressing the issue of the curriculum load, given the many objectives and extensive content; and providing sufficient time for meaningful engagement. Their view is supported by Avsec and Ferk Savec (2021), who examined how technology enhanced active learning can advance the concept and practice of teacher education for ESD. They argued that teacher education for ESD should use materials and workshops that promote critical reflection and shifts in perspectives regarding sustainability. In addition, they emphasised that technology enhanced learning should be used to support a pedagogical shift from “learning to understand” to “learning to act and transform” (p. 25), and that learning activities grounded in design thinking and a student-centred, socio-constructivist approach support the didactical, goal-oriented use of ICT. Similarly, Vidal and Kuckuck (2025) stressed that preservice teachers need to cultivate a reflective, interdisciplinary professional identity that allows them to navigate the complexities of sustainability in their daily teaching. Together, these findings indicate that PD materials should move beyond transmitting ready-made lesson plans and instead engage preservice teachers in critically adapting and reconstructing resources for their own classrooms, while reflecting on their evolving role as multipliers of sustainable action.

A third principle is the integration of mathematical modelling as the central pedagogical bridge between abstract mathematics and real-world sustainability issues. Bulut and Borromeo Ferri (2025) illustrated how modelling serves as an effective mechanism for linking mathematical concepts to sustainability, concluding that modelling activities are key tools for embedding sustainability into mathematics lessons. They recommended that preservice teachers be given structured opportunities to acquire the didactic skills needed to create their own ESD-modelling learning tasks. In a similar vein, Wiegand and Borromeo Ferri (2023) demonstrated that modelling seminars enhance preservice teachers' professionalism in STEAM education and ESD by fostering interdisciplinary thinking and professional competence. Their findings indicate that PD design should incorporate contextually rich modelling tasks that engage preservice teachers in analysing and interpreting complex sustainability problems. For resource-constrained settings, such tasks can be built around locally accessible data, for example, school utility records or publicly available government statistics, rather than relying on the sophisticated sensor equipment more commonly assumed in Global North studies (Maringe & Chiramba, 2022). By making modelling the core activity, PD materials simultaneously develop mathematical knowledge, digital tool proficiency, and sustainability reasoning.

A fourth principle concerns the purposeful integration of digital technologies within a coherent pedagogical framework, rather than treating technology as an add-on. Complementarily, Meylani (2025) proposed a structured framework, the IMETS framework, that enhances students' mathematical understanding while promoting sustainable practices and leveraging modern technological tools. The author highlighted that technology should be used to create interactive, personalised learning experiences, and that sustainability concepts should be embedded directly into the mathematics curriculum rather than treated as a separate strand. These contributions (Meylani, 2025) suggest that PD materials should prioritise the purposeful use of digital technologies in ways that enhance sustainability learning, rather than focusing narrowly on technological or mathematical proficiency in isolation.

A fifth principle is that the mode of delivery itself constitutes a critical design element, particularly where infrastructure constraints demand flexible and accessible approaches. Chin et al. (2018) provided evidence from two case exemplars in which a blended-mode curriculum was used to promote ESD through mathematics and science training courses. In one case, Facebook and Edmodo served as platforms for developing critical thinking through discussion of sustainability issues; in the second, teachers were trained in mathematics digital tools and engaged in a hands-on task, making origami paper cups with the largest possible volume. These examples demonstrate the effectiveness of blended learning approaches that combine face-to-face and digital modalities, offering both accessibility and adaptability, especially in contexts with limited resources.

The reviewed literature consistently highlights that the design of PD materials and workshops must be theoretically grounded, contextually responsive, and oriented toward transformative educational goals. At the same time, direct evidence on how these principles play out in resource-constrained African teacher education settings remains scarce; several of the adaptations suggested above therefore draw on pedagogical reasoning in addition to the empirical findings of the reviewed studies. This gap underscores the urgent need for design-based research conducted within African preservice mathematics programmes.

Discussion

This review examined ICT-driven mathematical modelling strategies for embedding Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in preservice mathematics teacher education and for deriving design principles for professional development. The evidence suggests a field that is moving beyond broad advocacy for sustainability toward more concrete pedagogical enactments. Yet the relationship between digital technologies, mathematical modelling, and sustainability remains uneven. The key issue is not the presence of technology itself, but the pedagogical arrangements through which it is used.

The strongest evidence for ESD competence development emerged from approaches that made mathematical modelling the central organising principle of learning. In particular, iterative and cyclic modelling strategies showed the most comprehensive competency profiles, supporting conceptual understanding, modelling competence, pedagogical readiness, and sustainability integration. Studies by Meylani and Kaplan (2025), Körtesi et al. (2022), and Cevikbas et al. (2023) suggest that digital tools become most powerful when they enable preservice teachers to move repeatedly between real-world sustainability problems and mathematical representations. Through this movement, sustainability is not treated as an external add-on to mathematics but as a legitimate context for developing and applying mathematical thinking.

A notable implication of these findings is the central role that mathematical modelling can play in ESD. Across studies examining water scarcity, social inequality, environmental sustainability, and resource management, modelling functioned as a disciplinary bridge through which sustainability issues were investigated, quantified, interpreted, and evaluated (Guerrero-Ortiz et al., 2026; Meylani and Kaplan, 2025; Rico et al., 2021; Suh and Han, 2019). In these studies, mathematics was not merely used to illustrate sustainability concepts; rather, modelling provided the analytical structures through which complex sustainability challenges could be examined and understood. For teacher education, this suggests that modelling competence may offer one of the most effective means of enabling pre-service teachers to engage with ESD in mathematically substantive ways.

Collaborative and dialectical forms of modelling also emerged as especially important for strengthening sustainability integration. Whereas iterative modelling strategies were strongest in technical and analytical terms, collaborative approaches appeared to deepen teachers' capacity to reason about sustainability as a complex social and environmental phenomenon. Guerrero-Ortiz et al. (2026) and Wiegand and Borromeo Ferri (2023) show how dialogue, shared interpretation, and collective problem solving can foster systems thinking, anticipatory reasoning, and the evaluation of alternative solutions. This matters because sustainability challenges rarely have single or predetermined answers; they involve uncertainty, and competing priorities. Collaborative modelling, therefore seems particularly well suited to teacher education programmes that aim to move beyond technical interpretations of sustainability.

Interdisciplinary and place-based approaches contributed in a different but still important way. Studies such as Rico et al. (2021) and Chin et al. (2018) show that authentic sustainability contexts can increase relevance, engagement, and pedagogical readiness by connecting mathematics to local environmental data, community concerns, and lived experience. Even so, contextual authenticity on its own was not enough. In several cases, sustainability contexts enriched learning without carrying participants through the full modelling cycle. The implication is that these approaches are effective when they serve as entry points into mathematical modelling, rather than as stand-alone sustainability activities.

The review also exposes a serious geographical imbalance in the evidence base. Relatively few studies came from Global South contexts, and even fewer focused specifically on Sub-Saharan Africa. This raises questions of transferability, since teacher education systems differ in infrastructure, curricular priorities, and sustainability challenges. Strategies that work in Germany, Spain, South Korea, or the United Kingdom cannot simply be assumed to work in South African or Namibian settings. This is especially important because the professional development principles proposed in this review are grounded largely in evidence from comparatively well-resourced contexts. Their adaptation to resource-constrained environments, therefore, requires further empirical testing.

The findings suggest that the future of ESD in mathematics teacher education will not be advanced by standalone sustainability modules or isolated technology initiatives. Meaningful integration occurs when sustainability issues are embedded in core mathematical practices, particularly mathematical modelling, and supported by purposeful digital use. The most promising approaches position digital tools as mediators of mathematical inquiry rather than as ends in themselves. The central challenge, then, is not whether sustainability should be included in mathematics education, but how mathematical, technological, and sustainability competencies can be developed in mutually reinforcing ways. The studies reviewed here indicate that mathematical modelling offers the most coherent foundation for that integration.

Conclusions and implications for course development

Digital technologies represent a powerful lever for embedding Education for Sustainable Development in preservice mathematics teacher education. When integrated intentionally, digital tools enhance systems thinking, support real-world application of mathematical knowledge, and foster ethical and reflective teaching identities. GeoGebra was among the most frequently identified tools. for embedding ESD in mathematics teacher education, particularly when supported by simulation tools and spreadsheet software. However, uptake in classrooms could be heavily constrained by infrastructure, training gaps, and policy-level disconnects. The exploration of using specific digital tools related to Mathematics is underexplored. Empirical findings suggest that specific digital tools can facilitate the integration of mathematical concepts, including ESD into preservice mathematics education by supporting core competencies such as modelling, data interpretation, and systems thinking. Targeted support through professional development, low-tech adaptations, and open educational resources may bridge the digital divide. Moreover, the field lacks robust models for mathematics-specific implementation, and structural barriers continue to hinder widespread adoption. This review calls for greater curricular integration, institutional commitment, and empirical research to fully realize the potential of digital ESD pedagogies in mathematics education. Future efforts must prioritize alignment with international ESD frameworks, equip faculty with appropriate skills, and design programs that enable preservice teachers to engage deeply with sustainability challenges through their disciplinary lens. Reflective practices should also be digitally supported as they provide opportunities for preservice teachers to articulate their learning journeys, document classroom experiments, and critically evaluate their emerging sustainability identities. Curriculum design must reflect ESD priorities at every level, from national policy to course syllabi. Alignment with frameworks such as UNESCO's ESD for 2030 is not merely desirable but necessary to ensure coherence, accountability, and lasting impact.

In order to operationalise integration we recommend four parallel actions: (1) curriculum mapping; explicitly link mathematics learning outcomes to a small set of ESD competencies and identify exemplar tasks, (2) textbook and resource revision; include contextualised sustainability examples and dataset-based modelling tasks, (3) teacher professional development; scale up PD that combines content knowledge with ESD pedagogy (as argued by Sanjigadu & Zulu, 2025), and (4) assessment alignment; incorporate ESD-oriented performance tasks and rubrics into formal assessments so that teachers and students treat ESD learning as core, not optional. (5) Use of mixed-class teaching settings for course design studies to bring together students with different experiences, strengths, and viewpoints, thereby creating a richer dialogue and more reflective engagement with mathematical interpretations of sustainability problems. These steps require coordinated policy directives at the national or institutional level and modest initial investment in curriculum and PD development to secure sustainable scale-up.

Limitations

This review should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the synthesis is based on the studies that met the predefined eligibility criteria and is therefore limited by the scope of the included literature. In addition, the review was restricted to the database specified in the review protocol and may have excluded relevant studies indexed in other databases, such as Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar, as well as relevant grey literature. Moreover, reliance on a single, algorithmically ranked database also limits the exact reproducibility of the search, notwithstanding the documented search strings and filters for replicability of the methodology. Finally, the proposed ICT-driven mathematical modelling strategies and professional development design principles are derived from a systematic synthesis of published evidence rather than from primary empirical implementation. Consequently, these findings should be regarded as evidence-informed and require validation through intervention and design-based research that examines the effectiveness of the proposed strategies and design principles in enhancing preservice mathematics teachers’ competencies for integrating mathematical concepts with sustainability.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) was used exclusively as a writing support tool during the preparation of this manuscript. The authors reviewed and edited all AI-generated suggestions and take full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the final manuscript. All substantive scholarly content, including the conceptualisation of the study, literature interpretation, methodology, data analysis, results, discussion, and conclusions, was developed and verified by the author(s). The author(s) assume full responsibility for the content of this work.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Daniel Osorio-Barreto, National University of Colombia, Colombia

Reviewed by: Mariam Makramalla, New Giza University, Egypt

Mohammad Nurwahid, Institut Alif Muhammad Imam Syafi'i, Indonesia