How mixed messages may be better than silence in climate change education

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3084246/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

How mixed messages may be better than silence in climate change education

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3084246/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Polarization around climate change viewpoints – including climate change concern and commitment to action – continues to be a persistent challenge to collective action in the United States, and across the globe. Multiple studies have found that K-12 science teacher perceptions of climate change reflect that of the general population, raising concerns that education may be replicating among students the polarization found among adults. However, few have examined how approaches to teaching climate change may be linked to climate change concern and behavior among students. We began to address this gap with a pre/post survey of 354 middle school students from eight science classrooms across North Carolina and their teachers. We measured changes in climate change concern and behavior among students, student-reported frequency of discussing climate change in class, and teacher-reported approach to teaching climate change as consistent with the scientific consensus (climate change is attributed to human activity; 13.2% of students in these classes), mixed messages (climate change is attributed to both human and natural causes; 53.2% of students), denial (climate change is attributed to natural causes; none of students) and avoidance (not discussing climate change; 33.5% of students). We also controlled for socioeconomic status (Title I) and location (rural versus urban) of the school. We detected gains in both concern and behavior across all teaching approaches. We also found frequency of school-based discussion about climate change was the most predictive of gains in concern, but no measured factors predicted gains in behavior. Baseline concern and behavior levels did vary across the different treatment approaches, with lower baselines concern and levels found among teachers who take an avoidance and mixed messages approaches. Together, these results suggest that cultural contexts may be the drivers of both teaching approaches and student climate change concern and behavior, but variations in teaching approaches are not polarizing forces themselves. Instead, encouraging classroom-based conservations about climate may boost concern levels, even in cultural contexts that do not prioritize scientific consensus about climate change drivers. These findings may provide guidance for teaching climate change as well as other politically fraught topics.

The scientific consensus is clear: anthropogenic climate change is a reality that poses serious environmental, economic, and health-related challenges that will persist in the coming decades (IPCC, 2021). These problems include rising sea level, increased intensity and frequency of climate and weather extremes, species extinction, and higher risks for sustainability of human and ecological systems (IPCC, 2021). Frontline communities are already experiencing this reality, often with the greatest impacts being shouldered by those with the fewest resources (Handwerger et al., 2021; Hoffman et al., 2020). As highlighted at the latest international meetings (COP26), global collective action is required to mitigate climate change and avoid worsening impacts (Smith & Mayer, 2018).

Despite the urgent need for collective action, political polarization continues to stymie these necessary efforts, particularly in the United States (U.S.). This polarization manifests in many ways, often resulting in people seeking the company and viewpoints of others who share their political views (Dunlap et al., 2016; Kahan et al., 2012). This tendency to seek out ideologically compatible experiences and information can contribute to widely different interpretations (or degrees of acceptance) of scientific facts across the political spectrum (Bolsen & Shapiro, 2018) and can help explain the gap between scientific consensus and public opinion. For instance, despite the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and caused by human activities, only around 72% of the U.S. population believes in climate change, and only 56% believe it is caused by humans (Leiserowitz et al., 2022). These numbers represent a considerable shift toward the scientific consensus over the last decade (Leiserowitz et al., 2022), but the remaining proportion of U.S. adults who do not accept basic facts of climate change is seen as one of the major impediments to a coordinated global effort to combat climate change (Dunlap et al., 2016). As the second largest carbon emitter and outsized role the U.S. play in global politics, U.S. denialism is a clear barrier to protecting communities disrupted by climate systems (Taylor Aiken et al., 2017).

Education is often offered as one way to close the gap between public perceptions and scientific consensus, but research around climate change education suggests the same polarizing forces shaping public opinion may also be at work in schools (Henderson & Drewes, 2020). Especially in K-12 settings, science education is seen as a mechanism to equip younger generations with accurate knowledge and useful skills as preparation for addressing real-world challenges (DeBoer, 2000; National Research Council, 2012). In the case of climate change, many researchers accordingly focus on ways to increase understanding of climate change among students or combat misconceptions around climate change (Busch, Henderson, et al., 2019; Monroe et al., 2019). However, several studies suggest this process may be far from straightforward. For instance, many U.S. state standards are not reflective of the scientific consensus on climate change (National Center for Science Education, 2020). A study of science textbooks in California found high instances of climate change denialist discourse in textbook mentions of climate change (Román & Busch, 2016).

Teachers also espouse misconceptions and politically-motivated interpretations of climate change at rates similar to the general public (Khalidi & Ramsey, 2021; Wojcik et al., 2014). Research supports a strong correlation between teachers’ political and religious affiliations and beliefs and their views of scientific consensus and causes of climate change, as well as how they approach teaching climate change (Khalidi & Ramsey, 2021; Plutzer et al., 2016). For instance, among 1500 public middle- and high-school science teachers, 54% of teachers emphasized a scientific consensus that climate change results from human activities, 31% sent mixed messages that climate change was attributable to both human and the natural causes, and 10% teach a strictly denialist message (Plutzer et al., 2016). Furthermore, these teaching approaches correlated with teachers’ personal beliefs about climate change (Plutzer et al., 2016).

Studies beyond the U.S. suggest teachers in other countries may be more likely to agree with the scientific consensus, but there is still some evidence of polarization. For example, 60% of a representative sample of educators in Canada believed that climate change is caused “mostly by human activities” and 74% of pre-service teachers in Greenland were “certain” or “very certain” that climate change was caused by humans (Demant-Poort & Berger, 2021). Similarly, Skarstein (2020) found that Norwegian pre-service science teachers with closer ties to the petroleum industry are less likely to teach about human-induced climate change and assign lower importance to it, than those with looser ties. The notion that teachers are as polarized as the general public is perhaps not surprising, but it is potentially problematic because it may mean that they are passing along their ideologically driven views, rather than fact-based information, to students they teach.

Though the prospect of teachers contributing to continued misinformation among students is concerning, evidence around predictors of children's climate change perceptions suggests that adults may have limited direct influence on how youth engage with climate change. To start, it appears that children approach climate change in different ways than adults. Worldview and political ideology drive climate change beliefs in adults by influencing the information adults seek and how they interpret it (Hornsey et al., 2016). As a result, climate change communication and education may only increase polarization around climate change among adults, as people tend to interpret new information in ways that reinforces their ideologically driven beliefs (Hamilton, 2011; Kahan et al., 2012). On the other hand, it appears the opposite may be true among young people, as increased climate change understanding seems to overcome, rather than exacerbate, worldview-linked polarization (Authors, 2014), perhaps explained in part by youth being more trusting of science than adults (Corner et al., 2015).

Next, although adults can shape climate change perception among young people, the process is complex. Interactions with parents, family, and teachers may serve to encourage young people to engage with climate change on their own terms instead of sparking mimicry between older and younger generations (Authors 2018, 2019a, 2019b; Meeusen, 2014). For example, Authors (2019) found that adolescents’ own beliefs around anthropogenic climate change influenced climate change concern more than discussing the topic with family and friends or the perceived or actual beliefs of their parents. Family norms around climate change did seem to encourage climate change concern, but this influence was less than peer norms or adolescents’ own beliefs (Authors, 2019). Further, discussion around climate change with parents seemed to raise concern among children (Authors, 2019), and promote climate-friendly behaviors (Authors, 2018), regardless of the viewpoints of their parents. Together, this research suggests that though adults do seem to shape climate change perception among youth through discussions and norms, young people also form their perceptions relatively independently from the viewpoints of adults in their lives.

Few studies however, have examined the degree to which teachers influence climate change perceptions of students. Research on general teacher beliefs such as around the nature of science, suggest that beliefs shape the way teachers teach science, which in turn can shape student learning (Waters‐Adams, 2006). In the context of climate change-specific beliefs, Authors (2016) showed that some teachers' beliefs are linked to those of their students, but not all. They found that teachers’ beliefs about whether climate change is happening or not were linked to similar beliefs among students, but their views about the causes do not correlate to the students' views (Authors, 2016). A study in Finland found that teacher’s personal perceptions of climate change had a neutral role in how they teach climate change (Haswell, 2020). This evidence may mitigate concern that teachers are actively perpetuating polarized and inaccurate understandings of climate change to their students. However, additional research is needed to better understand how teacher perceptions link to teaching practices, and in turn, how those practices may impact student climate change related concern and behavior.

Research Purpose and Hypothesis

In this study, we were interested in exploring links between teaching approaches to climate change and students’ climate change related concern and behavior. We begin to address these needs with a survey of 439 middle school students and their teachers (n = 9) in North Carolina, U.S. over the 2016-17 school year. We asked teachers to self-report their approaches to teaching climate change following Plutzer and colleagues’ (2016) methods, which allowed us to characterize teaching approaches into one of four groups: 1) scientific consensus (emphasizing climate change results from human activities), 2) mixed messages (presenting climate change as attributable to both human and the natural causes, 3) avoidance (not addressing climate change at all), and 4) denial (discussing how climate change is not happening). We asked students to self-report how much they discussed climate change in the classroom, as well as their climate change behavior and concern. Given links between denialist framings found in textbooks and levels of climate change uncertainty among students (Busch, 2021), we expected that these differing teaching approaches will be correlated with differing levels of climate change concern and behavior among students. Specifically, we hypothesized that gains in both student climate change concern and behavior would be the highest among those classes who a) talked about climate change most frequently and b) whose teachers taught with the scientific consensus, followed by mixed messages, avoidance, and denialist approaches.

Sampling

We focused on middle school students (ages 11-14) for this study, as this age range represents a group that is capable of understanding climate change (Mason & Scirica, 2006) relatively independent of worldviews (Authors, 2014), but is still influenced by peers and parents in forming their perceptions of climate change (Busch, Ardoin, et al., 2019; Authors, 2019). We used a hierarchical sampling design (Ericson & Gonzalez, 2003) to include both teachers and students. We began by recruiting teachers to the study with a sample frame of all 432 public middle school science teachers in the 20 Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) counties of North Carolina (NC). We invited 200 randomly selected teachers from this list, of which 24 participated in the duration of the study. The sample used for this study is part of a larger project in which we split the teachers intro treatment and control groups (see Authors, 2019). For this study, however, we focused only on the control group teachers (n = 8) and their students (n = 354).

Students in our final sample included slightly more than half (50.6%) who identified as male, with 49.4% identifying as female. A plurality of students identified as white, non-Hispanic (44.6%), with fewer identifying as African-American, non-Hispanic (13.07%), Hispanic (15.3%), Asian or Pacific Islander (2.0%), Native American (6.25%), multi-racial (8.81%), and as a category not included on the survey (9.94%). Groups of students associated with any one teacher ranged from 2 to 73 (Table 1).

Survey Instrument Development

We drew on scales used in previous studies to develop both the teacher survey and the student survey. For teachers, we included three questions found in the Plutzer et al. (2016) study designed to measure approaches to teaching about climate change. These included choices from strongly agree (6) to strongly disagree (1) and (0) I do not teach about climate change, responding to two prompts: When I teach about climate change, I emphasize… “… the scientific consensus that recent global warming is primary being caused by human release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels” and “ … that many scientists believe that recent increase in temperature are likely do to natural causes.” For students, we measured student climate change concern and behavior with the same corresponding scales as reported in Authors (2018) and Lawson et al., (2019). To measure concern, we used 4 items measuring level of worry about climate change in general and belief that climate change would affect respondents personally, people in the U.S., and future generations. For behavior, we used 8 items that measured both individual-level behaviors (e.g., recycling, water conservation) and more social-oriented behaviors (talk with my parents or guardians about what I can do about environmental problems). See Appendix for item wording, coding, and reliability and validity information specific to this sample. In the post-survey, we also asked students how often they talked about climate change in class, with answer choices ranging from never (1), once (2), two or three times (3), four or five times (4), or more than five times (5).

Data Collection

As we were interested in how a teacher’s reported approaches to teaching climate change were linked to changes in their students’ concern and behavior, we administered pre- and post-surveys to students and post-only surveys to teachers. From September to November 2016, we asked teachers to send home an information sheet to parents giving them the opportunity to opt their child out of the study, as well as a script for administering the survey during class. Between March and June 2017, we asked teachers to take their survey through Qualtrics and similarly administer student post-surveys during class. We acknowledge that these relatively large windows of data collection could result in variation of scores based on timing, and we considered this possibility in interpretation of results (see discussion).

Data Analysis

For student concern and behavior, we created composite scores by adding up the item scores for each corresponding construct. This resulted in possible concern scores ranging from -8 to 8 and behavior scores ranging from -16 to16 (see supplemental information for item-level coding). We also performed t-tests comparing the pre- and post-survey scores for each construct to test for changes in student scores for both climate change concern and behavior. To represent climate change teaching approach, we combined responses to the two teacher questions from the teacher post-surveys to assign each teacher’s approach to one of four categories. These included a) scientific consensus: emphasizing global warming is human caused and not emphasizing natural causes, b) mixed messages: emphasizing global warming is both human caused and natural caused, c) avoidant: selecting “I do not teach about climate change or not emphasizing either category of causes, and d) emphasizing global warming is naturally caused and not emphasizing it is human caused (Figure 1).

To test our hypotheses, we completed two multiple linear regression analyses with a random effect included for the teacher, to account for similarities students may display from being in the same classroom. We modeled change in student concern and behavior with the corresponding pre-test score to control for a ceiling effect (Theobald & Freeman, 2014) frequency of discussion of climate change in class (retrieved from the student post-survey), and category of climate change teaching approach (retrieved from the teacher post-survey). We also controlled for locale of the school (urban versus rural) and Title I status, both of which we obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics.

Change in concern = B₀ + B₁Concern pretest score + B₂ Classroom discussion of climate change + B₃ Teaching approach + B₄Rural school + B₅Title I school

Change in behavior = B₀ + B₁Behavior pretest score + B₂ Classroom discussion of climate change + B₃ Teaching approach + B₄Rural school + B₅Title I school

We chose scientific consensus as the reference category for climate change teaching approach in both models. We also included an interaction between discussion of climate change in class and teaching approach in each model, but excluded it from the final models, as it was not a significant predictor in either.

Of the eight responding teachers, two reported teaching the scientific consensus (associated student n = 47), four reported teaching mixed messages (associated student n = 189), and four reported avoiding talking about climate change (associated student n = 119; Figure 1). No teachers reported using climate change denialist teaching approaches. As concern and behavior scores were centered around zero, concern scores near zero indicate moderate concern levels and engaging in behavior sometimes, respectively. Concern scores ranged from -8 to 8 and behavior scores from -16 to 16. Scores suggest that students were slightly to moderately concerned about climate change in the pretest (M = -1.15, SD = 3.19), and a little more concerned in the post-test (M = -0.60, SD = 3.58), representing a significant increase across the sample (t = -3.16, df = 353, p = 0.002). Similarly, students slightly disagreed that they engaged in climate-friendly behaviors in the pre-test (M = -0.63, SD = 5.59), and slightly agreed they engaged with them in the post-test (M = 0.13, SD = 6.19), which also represents a significant change in behaviors (t = -2.29, df =352, p = 0.023). Students reported talking about climate change between two and five times in class over the course of the 2016 - 2017 academic school year (M = 3.35 out of 5, SD = 1.30). These levels were similar in consensus (M = 3.92, SD = 1.05) and mixed messages approach (M = 3.62, SD = 1.36) classrooms, and slightly lower in avoidance classrooms (M = 2.97, SD = 1.23).

Changes in concern and behavior scores were similar among students experiencing the different teaching approaches, but pre-survey and post-survey scores differed (Figure 2). That is, both pre-test and post-test scores for concern and behavior were higher for students in classrooms with consensus approaches, followed by those in classrooms with mixed message approaches and avoidance approaches. Students in the consensus group displayed moderate concern on the pre-test (M = -0.32, SD = 3.75), those with mixed messages slight to moderate concern (M = -1.01, SD = 3.24) and those with avoidance approaches less concerned (M = -1.56, SD = 2.76). Results from ANOVA tests with Tukey post-hoc comparisons revealed differences between the avoidance and consensus groups approached significance (t = -2.28, p = 0.060). Post-test concern levels followed similar patterns with consensus groups displaying slightly more than moderate concern (M = 0.52, SD = 3.49), followed by the mixed-messages with slightly less than moderate concern (M = -0.54, SD = 3.71) and avoidant groups with slightly less concern (M = -1.12, SD = 2.76). The difference between avoidance and consensus group post-tests was significant (t = -2.66, p = 0.022).

Behavior scores followed similar patterns as concern scores (Figure 2). Students in the consensus group reported engaging in climate change behaviors on the pre-test slightly more than sometimes (M = 1.15, SD = 5.75), those with mixed messages and avoidant messages less frequently (M = -0.98, SD = 5.68; M = -0.76, SD= 5.32, respectively). Again, differences between between the mixed messages and consensus groups approached significance (t = -2.34, p = 0.052). Students in the consensus groups reported to engaging in climate change behaviors often in the post-test (M = 2.53, SD = 5.19), followed by sometimes in the mixed messages and avoidant groups (M = -0.53, SD = 6.39; M = -0.50, SD = 6.02, respectively). Differences between each group were significant for behavior post-test scores (mixed messages vs. consensus: t = -2.54, p = 0.031; avoidance vs. consensus: t = -2.83, p = 0.014).

When controlling for both discussion frequency and teaching approach together, results partially supported hypothesis one, as frequency of discussing climate change in schools was associated with increased student concern levels (B = 0.632, p < 0.001) but not with changes in climate change behaviors (B = -0.299, p = 0.182; Table 2). However, interactions between discussion and the teaching approach were not significant in either model. Results did not support hypothesis two, as there were not relationships between teaching approaches and changes in student outcomes. However, we did find that students in rural scores had lower climate change concern levels than those from urban schools (B = -1.281, p = 0.0.017). The random effect for teacher did not account for any variance in either model.

This study builds on previous research by suggesting young learners develop climate change concern and actions somewhat independently of the accuracy with which teachers address causes of climate change in the classroom. Previous research has shown that conversations with family and friends impacted climate change related bahaviors more than discussions with teachers (Valdez et al., 2018) and that teachers’ personal acceptance of climate change causes did not link to students’ own beliefs (Authors, 2016). This study adds that teaching approaches, including the most commonly employed mixed messages approach (this study, Plutzer et al., 2016), is perhaps not as alarming as it first appears. Promoting climate change concern among young learners may be less about the message and more about the conversation happening at all. This is not to suggest that teacher professional development and support in teaching climate change is not warranted, nor that accurate mechanistic knowledge about climate change is not influential in how students approach climate change (Zummo et al., 2021). Rather, it is possible that though much is made about student and teacher misconceptions around climate change (Busch, Henderson, et al., 2019; Henderson & Drewes, 2020), addressing those misconceptions in teaching approaches may be less important than ensuring teachers address the topic in the first place.

Though changes in discussion and behavior were consistent across teaching approaches, differing starting points for these measures may reflect how larger cultural contexts impact how adolescents engage with climate change. The fact that changes were stable across the teaching approaches helps counter the idea that teaching approach alone will stymie the development of climate change concern or action, or that teachers are driving polarization in their classrooms (Plutzer et al., 2016). However, differing baseline levels of concern and behavior across different teaching approaches may point to wider cultural forces that may impact teacher and student views on climate change. Multiple areas of study suggest that climate change concern and behaviors have heavy cultural influences – such as cultural worldview (Kahan et al., 2012), social norms (Lo, 2013), or political ideology (Hamilton, 2011; Marquart-Pyatt et al., 2014). As is true in many areas, certainly including the study area, these cultural markers covary with geography, with more urban areas more concerned with climate change and more rural areas less so (Howe et al., 2015). As both teachers and students are embedded in communities with specific cultural markers, it is perhaps not surprising that teaching approaches and initial student concern and behavior levels were related and predicted by urban versus rural locale. What is encouraging is that, unlike among adults when learning about climate change – particularly those that receive mixed messages – drives polarization, in this study, students gained in concern and behavior at similar rates. Like in other studies demonstrating that young people are shaped by parents and teachers in some ways, but ultimately shape their own viewpoints (Authors, 2019; Lee et al., 2020; Authors, 2018, 2019; Valdez et al., 2018), young people avoided replicating the patterns of polarization found among older generations.

This study adds to evidence around the importance of talking about climate change in promoting climate change concern and action, even when the conversation is not carefully scripted to align with scientific consensus. This is one of several studies that have found that discussion around environmental topics with adults and peers promotes pro-environmental concern and/or behaviors (Authors, 2019; Authors, 2019; Valdez et al., 2018). Here, we add that conversations in classrooms, regardless of the specific messaging approach, may similarly boost concern and behavior among students. Emerging research on climate change education offers several strategies for effectively supporting conversations around climate change in the classroom, such as using interdisciplinary and humanities-based approaches (Siegner & Stapert, 2020) or guiding student discussions to allow for alternative possibilities and viewpoints (Öhman & Öhman, 2013). These strategies, and support for teachers to implement them, are certainly warranted.

Future research should address a few limitations we acknowledge in this study. Especially given evidence for cultural drivers of climate change concern and behaviour among students, future work should include additional demographics, including race, gender, political ideology, and/or worldview, as each of these have been shown to predict youth outcomes in come contexts (Corner et al., 2015; Authors, 2018). Further, we acknowledge that the data collection windows were relatively long, introducing the possibility that changing contexts (e.g., an extreme weather event) could have influenced students’ scores. Future research may consider shortening these windows, in as much is possible while accommodating classroom schedules. Lastly, as the climate change education and public opinion contexts continues to evolve, these questions should be re-examined with more contemporary samples.

On the whole, this study may support an approach to climate change education that is consistent with the adage, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” The view that climate change education has a place in K-12 classrooms is increasingly accepted, as a mechanism to prepare students to understand and address the inevitable challenges they already are and will continue to face related to climate change (Anderson, 2002; Reid, 2019). Accordingly, research around climate change education is growing, and continues to identify pitfalls to avoid and promising strategies to try (Reid, 2019). In light of results highlighted here, as well as several others calling for climate change conversations as a way to build broad-based support for climate action (Hayhoe, 2021), we suggest that though climate change education research is critical, we need not wait for the perfect approach for fear of causing damage in classrooms. At least in this case, teachers spreading confusing messages about climate change (Plutzer et al., 2016, p. 201) may have limited impact, especially compared with not talking about it at all. One key caveat to this point is the acknowledgement that this study does not include teachers who reported denialist teaching approaches, which has been reported in both classrooms (Plutzer et al., 2016) and in textbooks (Busch, 2021; Román & Busch, 2016) in other contexts. Future research should examine this link specifically, as well as continue to understand how a variety of teaching approaches translate to student outcomes. In the process, however, this paper suggests that we should be encouraging teachers to talk about climate change in the classroom, giving students space to voice their growing concern. Future research should work to understand if similar dynamics may be at play at other politically fraught topics, such as discussion of sex education, bioengineering, or gender and race identity.

Ethics approval and consent to participate: All participants in this study consented (adults) or assented and obtained parental permission (minors) under NC State IRB # 7793

Consent for publication: All authors consent to publication of this manuscript.

Competing Interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author contributions: Dr. Stevenson secured the funding, directed the research, drafted the manuscript. Dr. Busch edited the manuscript and supervised student input. Dr. Peterson was a collaborator in conducting the research and reviewed the manuscript. Dr. Lawson directed data collection and reviewed the manuscript. R. Chavez completed analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Funding: This work was supported by NC Sea Grant, grant # R/18-ELWD-1

Availability of data and material: Data is not public because of IRB disallows sharing of raw data. It is available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, provided it is in compliance with IRB protocols (NCSU IRB# 7793).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the teachers who participated and supported this work, as well as Allison Carr, who helped advance the manuscript with initial outlining and feedback.

Declarations of funding and competing interests

This work was supported by NC Sea Grant, grant # R/18-ELWD-1.The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Data availability

Data is not public because of IRB disallows sharing of data. It is available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, provided it is in compliance with IRB protocols (NCSU IRB# 7793).

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming Science Teaching: What Research Says About Inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982
Bolsen, T., & Shapiro, M. A. (2018). The U.S. News Media, Polarization on Climate Change, and Pathways to Effective Communication. Environmental Communication, 12(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1397039
Busch, K. C. (2021). Textbooks of doubt, tested: The effect of a denialist framing on adolescents’ certainty about climate change. Environmental Education Research, 27(11), 1574–1598. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1960954
Busch, K. C., Ardoin, N., Gruehn, D., & Stevenson, S., Kathryn T. (2019). Exploring a theoretical model of climate change action for youth. International Journal of Science Education, 41(17), 2389–2409. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1680903
Busch, K. C., Henderson, J. A., & Stevenson, K. T. (2019). Broadening epistemologies and methodologies in climate change education research. Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 955–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1514588
Centola, D. (2018). How Behavior Spreads: The Science of Complex Contagions. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/9781400890095
Corner, A., Roberts, O., Chiari, S., Völler, S., Mayrhuber, E. S., Mandl, S., & Monson, K. (2015). How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators: Engaging young people with climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(5), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.353
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
Demant-Poort, L., & Berger, P. (2021). “It is not something that has been discussed”: Climate change in teacher education in Greenland and Canada. Journal of Geoscience Education, 69(2), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2020.1858265
Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016). The Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995
Ericson, J. E., & Gonzalez, E. J. (2003). Hierarchical sampling of multiple strata: An innovative technique in exposure characterization.
Hamilton, L. C. (2011). Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change, 104(2), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9957-8
Handwerger, L. R., Sugg, M. M., & Runkle, J. D. (2021). Present and future sea level rise at the intersection of race and poverty in the Carolinas: A geospatial analysis. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 3, 100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100028
Haswell, N. (2020). Finnish teachers’ conceptions of their roles in climate change education and student climate action: A phenomenographic study. https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/122378
Hayhoe, K. (2021). Saving us: A climate scientist’s case for hope and healing in a divided world. One Signal Publishers.
Henderson, J., & Drewes, A. (Eds.). (2020). Teaching climate change in the United States (First published). Routledge.
Hoffman, J. S., Shandas, V., & Pendleton, N. (2020). The Effects of Historical Housing Policies on Resident Exposure to Intra-Urban Heat: A Study of 108 U.S. Urban Areas. Climate, 8(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8010012
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
Howe, P. D., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the U.S.A. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 596–603. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2583
IPCC. (2021). IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
Khalidi, R., & Ramsey, J. (2021). A comparison of California and Texas secondary science teachers’ perceptions of climate change. Environmental Education Research, 27(5), 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1838447
Lawson, D. F., Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Carrier, S. J., L. Strnad, R., & Seekamp, E. (2019). Children can foster climate change concern among their parents. Nature Climate Change, 9(6), 458–462. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0463-3
Lawson, D. F., Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Carrier, S. J., Seekamp, E., & Strnad, R. (2019). Evaluating climate change behaviors and concern in the family context. Environmental Education Research, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1564248
Lee, K., Gjersoe, N., O’Neill, S., & Barnett, J. (2020). Youth perceptions of climate change: A narrative synthesis. WIREs Climate Change, 11(3), e641. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.641
Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J. E., Carman, J., Neyens, L., Myers, T. A., Goldberg, M., Campbell, E., Lacroix, K., & Marlon, J. (2022). Climate Change in the American Mind, April 2022. Yale University and George Mason University. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/climate-change-american-mind-april-2022.pdf
Lo, A. Y. (2013). The role of social norms in climate adaptation: Mediating risk perception and flood insurance purchase. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1249–1257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.019
Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., McCright, A. M., Dietz, T., & Dunlap, R. E. (2014). Politics eclipses climate extremes for climate change perceptions. Global Environmental Change, 29, 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.004
Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007
Meeusen, C. (2014). The Intergenerational Transmission of Environmental Concern: The Influence of Parents and Communication Patterns Within the Family. The Journal of Environmental Education, 45(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2013.846290
Monroe, M. C., Plate, R. R., Oxarart, A., Bowers, A., & Chaves, W. A. (2019). Identifying effective climate change education strategies: A systematic review of the research. Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1360842
National Center for Science Education. (2020). Making the grade: How state public school science standards address climate change. Available at: https://climategrades.org/#intro
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
Öhman, J., & Öhman, M. (2013). Participatory approach in practice: An analysis of student discussions about climate change. Environmental Education Research, 19(3), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.695012
Plutzer, E., Hannah, A. L., Rosenau, J., McCaffrey, M. S., Berbeco, M., & Reid, A. H. (2016). Mixed Messages: How Climate Change is Taught in America’s Public Schools. National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/files/MixedMessages.pdf
Reid, A. (2019). Climate change education and research: Possibilities and potentials versus problems and perils? Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1664075
Román, D., & Busch, K. C. (2016). Textbooks of doubt: Using systemic functional analysis to explore the framing of climate change in middle-school science textbooks. Environmental Education Research, 22(8), 1158–1180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1091878
Siegner, A., & Stapert, N. (2020). Climate change education in the humanities classroom: A case study of the Lowell school curriculum pilot. Environmental Education Research, 26(4), 511–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1607258
Skarstein, F. (2020). Climate beliefs in an oil-dependent economy: Norwegian pre-service science teachers’ attitudes towards climate change. Environmental Education Research, 26(4), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1728233
Smith, E. K., & Mayer, A. (2018). A social trap for the climate? Collective action, trust and climate change risk perception in 35 countries. Global Environmental Change, 49, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.014
Stevenson, K. T., King, T. L., Selm, K. R., Peterson, M. N., & Monroe, M. C. (2018). Framing climate change communication to prompt individual and collective action among adolescents from agricultural communities. Environmental Education Research, 24(3), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1318114
Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., & Bondell, H. D. (2019). The influence of personal beliefs, friends, and family in building climate change concern among adolescents. Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 832–845. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1177712
Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Bondell, H. D., Moore, S. E., & Carrier, S. J. (2014). Overcoming skepticism with education: Interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived climate change risk among adolescents. Climatic Change, 126(3–4), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7
Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., & Bradshaw, A. (2016). How Climate Change Beliefs among U.S. Teachers Do and Do Not Translate to Students. PLOS ONE, 11(9), e0161462. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161462
Taylor Aiken, G., Middlemiss, L., Sallu, S., & Hauxwell‐Baldwin, R. (2017). Researching climate change and community in neoliberal contexts: An emerging critical approach. WIREs Climate Change, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.463
Theobald, R., & Freeman, S. (2014). Is It the Intervention or the Students? Using Linear Regression to Control for Student Characteristics in Undergraduate STEM Education Research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe-13-07-0136
Valdez, R. X., Peterson, M. N., & Stevenson, K. T. (2018). How communication with teachers, family and friends contributes to predicting climate change behaviour among adolescents. Environmental Conservation, 45(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892917000443
van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. W. (2016). Communicating the Scientific Consensus on Human-Caused Climate Change is an Effective and Depolarizing Public Engagement Strategy: Experimental Evidence from a Large National Replication Study (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2733956). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2733956
Waters‐Adams, S. (2006). The Relationship between Understanding of the Nature of Science and Practice: The influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(8), 919–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500498351
Wojcik, D. J., Monroe, M. C., Adams, D. C., & Plate, R. R. (2014). Message in a Bottleneck? Attitudes and Perceptions of Climate Change in the Cooperative Extension Service in the Southeastern United States. 2(1), 20.
Zummo, L., Donovan, B., & Busch, K. C. (2021). Complex influences of mechanistic knowledge, worldview, and quantitative reasoning on climate change discourse: Evidence for ideologically motivated reasoning among youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(1), 95–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21648

Table 1. Distribution of students across participating teachers

Teacher Code	# of students	Teaching Approach
1	45	Scientific Consensus
2	2	Scientific Consensus
3	70	Mixed Messages
4	57	Mixed Messages
5	49	Mixed Messages
6	13	Mixed Messages
7	73	Avoidance
8	46	Avoidance

Table 2. Regression results predicting changes in student climate change concern and behavior. We included a random effect for classroom.

	Student Concern			Student Behavior
	Beta	Std Beta	P-value	Beta	Std Beta	P-value
Variable

Pretest score	-0.494	-0.475	<0.001	0.616	0.614	<0.001
Discussion in school	0.632	0.252	<0.001	-0.299	-0.064	0.182
Teaching Approach^a
Mixed Messages	0.082	0.012	0.882	1.360	0.110	0.152
Avoidance	0.821	0.117	0.244	0.026	0.002	0.983
Title I^b	0.640	0.071	0.247	1.440	0.086	0.124
Rural School^c	-1.281	-0.193	0.017	0.475	0.038	0.599
Intercept	-2.387		0.002	-0.481		0.709

Overall R2	0.250			0.366
N	354			353
Rho	<0.001			<0.001
Notes: ^aReference category is scientific consensus ^bTitle I = 1; non Title I = 0 ^cRural = 1; urban = 0

05supplementalinfo.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

How mixed messages may be better than silence in climate change education

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Research Purpose and Hypothesis

Methods

Sampling

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion

Declarations

References

Tables

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1