Climate change training for teachers should use a multidisciplinary, data-driven approach

As the impacts of climate change become more pronounced, an increasing number of educators are integrating climate change education (CCE) into their classrooms. Because climate change is complex and multidisciplinary, teachers may lack a holistic understanding of the phenomenon. Research shows that teachers require certain skills and knowledge to effectively teach CCE. Specifically, teachers must be well-versed in climate science so that they can thoughtfully address climate change denial theories with students. Additionally, they must possess foundational knowledge of other subjects so that they can teach CCE using a multidisciplinary approach. Teachers must also be able to guide students through the process of argumentation (using evidence to support claims) so that students develop the skills to think critically, thoughtfully consider different perspectives, and dispel denial theories. Teacher education and professional development programs can give teachers the necessary tools to be effective CCE educators. However, teachers' current perceptions opinions of climate change may influence how they teach this subject. This study explored how that teachers perceived climate change by investigating how they constructed written arguments about the topic.

This study focused on K-12 science teachers in Maryland and Delaware. The authors chose these two states because both had adopted CCE standards in 2016 and actively encouraged teachers to seek out CCE professional development opportunities. The authors recruited teachers from a professional development opportunity—a week-long climate change academy held over the summer. A total of 33 teachers attended the academy and 24 participated in the study. Participants taught at different schools, had a wide range of teaching experience, and had varying levels of knowledge about climate science. To gauge participants' understanding of climate change, the authors asked participants to complete a survey they created called the “Scientific Argumentation on Climate Change.” The survey was composed of ten questions about the ten most common denial theories. The denial theories were related to anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change and were identified on SkepticalScience.com, a website dedicated to using peer reviewed research to rebut pseudoscientific arguments. Each of the ten survey questions presented a denial theory and asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with it. All participants had to provide reasoning and sources for their responses; those who disagreed with the denial theory were asked to write a rebuttal statement and to provide supporting evidence. The authors examined the evidence the teachers used to support their claims and used an evidence-based method to evaluate the quality of teachers' arguments.

Overall, the authors found that the quality of rebuttal arguments was significantly better than the quality of arguments used to support a denial theory. A total of 66% of arguments in support of a denial theory did not provide any evidence or cite sources, whereas 88% of rebuttal arguments provided sound supporting evidence.

Survey results showed that participants cited a variety of sources to support their arguments. However, participants who rebutted a denial theory typically used government agencies and NGOs as their evidentiary sources, while participants who agreed with a theory generally named online resources. For each denial theory, most participants disagreed; however, the number of supporters for each denial theory ranged from one to six participants. Every denial theory also had between two and eleven participants claiming not to know enough to agree or disagree with it. The authors found that participants who agreed with or were uncertain about denial theories generally: (1) lacked complete understanding about climate versus weather, Arctic sea ice versus land ice, various cycles in nature, and/or ecosystem functions; (2) relied on a single source for their argument; and (3) lacked understanding of how climate data is collected and modeled. Interestingly, all teachers indicated that they believed in the importance of teaching anthropogenic climate change in the classroom.

This study was limited by the fact that the number of participants was small, participants came from similar geographical and cultural contexts, and participants opted to participate in the study based on their interest in climate change education. These limitations mean that the results are not generalizable to other populations in other locations; another study in a different context may produce different results.

The authors offer several recommendations for the improvement and expansion of CCE. Several of their recommendations are related to teacher education courses and professional development opportunities. First, they emphasize that these courses should encourage participants to practice evaluating the merits of different climate change resources. Second, the courses should pair climate change content with instruction on how to teach the content effectively. Third, students in these courses should practice collecting data for different disciplines so that they understand how to analyze and interpret different types of data. The authors also offer recommendations for CCE teachers. They recommend that CCE teachers give students hands-on activities—such as collecting data, observing and investigating phenomena, and reporting and communicating findings—to teach and reinforce climate change concepts. They also encourage teachers to develop and share resources, such as climate change lessons and activities.