Presenting and evaluating a holistic model for climate change education

Climate change is one of the most pressing environmental issues of the present day, prompting the need for effective climate change education. There are many political, economic, and environmental implications of climate change; however, research has shown that climate change education does not always address the full extent of this issue. Research has shown that many teachers have misconceptions about climate change or generally lack critical knowledge of the subject, which can impact its integration into curricula. Practitioners also often consider climate change to be related to natural sciences rather than the many other disciplines with which climate change is connected. This lack of connection is only furthered by the use of environmental and sustainability education models, which do not fully represent climate change. This study introduced a climate change education model, the bicycle model, and evaluated its usefulness.

The bicycle model is named as such because it is visualized as a bicycle. Similar to a bicycle, climate change education requires that all parts function together for a successful output. Each part of the bicycle represents an essential aspect of climate change education. The wheels represent thinking and knowledge skills; the frame represents identity, values, and worldview; the chains and pedals represent action against climate change; the seat represents motivation and participation; the brakes represent operational barriers; the light represents hope and other emotions that climate change issues illicit; and the handlebars represent future orientation.

To determine the efficacy of the model, researchers first facilitated a group discussion, then distributed a questionnaire. The group discussion was conducted in December of 2017 at a research seminar in Finland. The 11 participants were climate and sustainability educators as well as researchers. Participants discussed what kinds of climate change education they researched or practiced and then were presented the bicycle model and asked to consider whether it would be useful in their work. The researchers analyzed discussion notes for themes. Researchers then developed a questionnaire to identify the portions of the model that participants felt were most or least important and determined whether the model was useful or not. The questionnaire was distributed in January of 2018 to 30 individuals who held an advanced degree with extensive experience in research or environmental education. Individuals who participated in the group discussion were also sent the questionnaire. Seventeen experts completed the questionnaire.

Results showed discussion participants liked the model and found it applicable to climate change education. Participants suggested several improvements to the model, the first of which was to eliminate or combine some components to simplify the model. Participants identified some overlaps between parts, such as “hope and other emotions” and “action”, though they did note that maintaining separate categories was helpful because these parts have much more depth individually. They also suggested adding a bell to the bicycle that would represent lobbying or illuminate climate change to people. Participants felt the model was missing social and societal aspects—they recommended creating a tandem version of the bicycle to represent multiple people getting involved or adding an additional visual such as a globe to represent the global challenge climate change presents. Finally, they suggested adding service spots or equipment for cyclists to represent supporting climate and environmental educators.

The questionnaire respondents identified motivation and participation, knowledge of climate change, action to curb climate change, and hope and other emotions as the most important parts of climate change education. Barriers to climate change was identified as the least important part of climate change education, followed by thinking skills and knowledge of climate change—though this was ranked highly by 9 respondents, 4 respondents ranked it in their bottom three of importance. The researchers noted that respondents were hesitant to make a ranked list of these components, emphasizing the holistic nature of effective education. They also found that respondents, though asked to think about these rankings as they apply to climate change education more generally, did apply some of their professional experience to their selections.

This study had some limitations. The small sample size and restriction to only a portion of climate change educators may have limited the results. Also, the study only included participants from Finland, limiting the generalizability of the results.

The researchers recommend that practitioners apply this model when developing or presenting climate change education to create a more balanced program and learning environment. The model can help teachers to reflect on their teaching practices when planning lessons or activities and determine how holistic their current practices are. Students could also use the model to analyze how holistic their learning opportunities related to climate change may be. Future research should focus on further developing and testing the reliability of this model by collecting data from other countries.