Climate literacy

There are several definitions for CL. The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, 2009) describes CL as the understanding of one’s influence on climate and vice versa. “A climate-literate person understands the essential principles of Earth’s climate system; knows how to assess scientifically credible climate information; communicates about climate and climate change in a meaningful way; is able to make informed and responsible decisions with regard to actions that may affect climate” (USGCRP, p. 4). Meaning CL is composed of scientific climate knowledge, attitudes, skills to discuss the issue properly, and responsible environmental actions. Several researchers relied on this definition in their studies (e.g. Azevedo & Marques, Reference Azevedo and Marques2017; Leve et al., Reference Leve, Michel and Harms2023; Milér & Sládek, Reference Milér and Sládek2011; Mittenzwei et al., Reference Mittenzwei, Bruckermann, Nordine and Harms2019) Others adopted some of the components. Bedford (Reference Bedford2016) and Dzambo et al. (Reference Dzambo, Mooney, Handlos, Lindstrom, Hang and Ackerman2020) focused on the knowledge part of CL definition (USGCRP, 2009). Dupigny-Giroux (Reference Dupigny-Giroux2008) measured knowledge, skills and behaviours related to climate change and its impacts for CL. Dupigny-Giroux (Reference Dupigny-Giroux2008) included the understanding of the interconnectedness and complexity of climate patterns, human influence and the ability to act accordingly. DeWaters et al., (Reference DeWaters, Andersen, Calderwood and Powers2014) definition includes: knowledge (cognition), attitudes (affection) and behaviour as the components of CL. As well, DeWaters et al., (Reference DeWaters, Andersen, Calderwood and Powers2014), as did we, were aiming to develop higher-order thinking skills associated with handling real-world data through an instructional module and an assessment instrument. CL’s goal is to achieve environmentally responsible behaviour (ERB). While the USGCRP (2009) defines CL as the understanding of reciprocal influence on climate and the ability to engage with climate information and decision-making, DeWaters et al., (Reference DeWaters, Andersen, Calderwood and Powers2014) expands this definition for higher education by explicitly incorporating cognitive, affective and behavioural components, with the ultimate goal of achieving environmentally responsible behaviour (ERB).We find DeWaters et al., (Reference DeWaters, Andersen, Calderwood and Powers2014) definition as best meeting the CL components acquired and evaluated in higher education.

Environmental responsible behaviour (ERB)

Environmental responsible behaviour (ERB) requires an in-depth understanding of nature’s complexity as well as human needs and capabilities (Abramovich & Loria, Reference Abramovich and Loria2015; Stern, Reference Stern2000; Tal & Abramovich, Reference Tal and Abramovitch2013; Ünal et al., Reference Ünal, Steg and Granskaya2019). However, it is difficult to predict participants’ ERBs or identify characteristics or conditions that might influence their behaviour. Further, no conclusive answer exists regarding which variables influence ERB. Knowledge, for example, is often considered to be the first step toward ERB (Maartensson & Loi, Reference Maartensson and Loi2022; Mikusiński et al., Reference Mikusiński, Elbakidze, Orlikowska, Skaltsa, Żmihorski and Iwińska2023; Pitaloka & Aeni, Reference Pitaloka and Aeni2024; Spiteri, Reference Spiteri2022). However, knowledge alone does not naturally lead to ERB, as Ajzen, Joyce, Sheikh, and Cote (Reference Ajzen, Joyce, Sheikh and Cote2011) showed. However, they did not measure the wealth of knowledge people had, but rather examined the degree of information accuracy. Nevertheless, it is widely agreed that one must develop a concern for the environment, a sense of responsibility, as well as a deep understanding of the system and its complexity (Gould, Ardoin, Thomsen & Wyman Roth Reference Gould, Ardoin, Thomsen and Wyman Roth2018; Kollmuss & Agyeman, Reference Kollmuss and Agyeman2002; Maartensson & Loi, Reference Maartensson and Loi2022; Pitaloka & Aeni, Reference Pitaloka and Aeni2024; Stern, Reference Stern2000). The studies of Gunamantha and Dantes (Reference Gunamantha and Dantes2019) and Wu and Otsuka (Reference Wu and Otsuka2021) showed that despite moderate knowledge of climate change, attitudes and behaviour were not significantly affected by this knowledge. Ahmad et al., (Reference Ahmad, Madi, Abuhashesh, Nusairat and Masa’deh2020) concluded the same in their study in Jordan, where they demonstrated statistically significant impacts for knowledge and attitude adoption, but not for practice adoption. Geiger, Geiger, and Wilhelm (Reference Geiger, Geiger and Wilhelm2019) showed that certain domain of general knowledge (e.g., basic ecology, climate, resources, environmental contamination, economics, consumption behaviour) accounted for a small fragment (7%) of the variance in environmentally significant behaviour. Frick, Kaiser, and Wilson (Reference Frick, Kaiser and Wilson2004), and Barbosa, Randler, and Robaina (Reference Barbosa, Randler and Robaina2021) argue that environmental knowledge has three dimensions: system-related knowledge, action-related knowledge, and effectiveness knowledge. The first consists of ecosystem processes and human-nature interaction. The second addresses possible EBs, and the third is the least common type of knowledge. Some researchers believe that a behaviour based on comprehensive climate knowledge and literate decisions might help to reduce the exacerbation of global warming (Lehnert, Fiedor, Frajer, Hercik & Jurek Reference Lehnert, Fiedor, Frajer, Hercik and Jurek2019; Li & Monroe, Reference Li and Monroe2018; Monroe et al., Reference Monroe, Riley and White2024; Varela-Candamio, Novo-Corti & García-Álvarez Reference Varela-Candamio, Novo-Corti and García-Álvarez2018; NAAEE, 2024). Environmental education (EE) is a powerful tool for generating CL, which eventually will lead to environmentally responsible behaviour (ERB) (Azevedo & Marques, Reference Azevedo and Marques2017; Varela-Candamio et al., Reference Varela-Candamio, Novo-Corti and García-Álvarez2018).

Environmental education (EE) and climate change (CC)

Education is widely recognised as a powerful mitigation strategy (DeWaters et al., Reference DeWaters, Andersen, Calderwood and Powers2014; Kolenatý et al., Reference Kolenatý, Kroufek and Činčera2022; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Sahani, Rawat, Debele, Tiwari, Emygdio and Pfautsch2023; Monroe et al., Reference Monroe, Riley and White2024; NAAEE, 2024). School students might be the direct path to the whole family’s positive behaviour change (Li & Monroe, Reference Li and Monroe2018). Teaching about CC is quite complicated since educators feel uncertain/unqualified confronting climate change issues (Eilam, Reference Eilam2022; Li et al., Reference Li, Monroe, Oxarart and Ritchie2019; Monroe et al., Reference Monroe, Riley and White2024). On the other hand, children are concerned about climate change, which hurts their emotional and cognitive development (Gibbs et al., Reference Gibbs, Nursey, Cook, Ireton, Alkemade, Roberts, Gallgher, Bryant, Block, Molyneaux and Forbes2019). The North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) suggests guidelines for climate educators so they could enhance knowledge, attitudes and real commitment concerning CC. They mention five key characteristics: (1) Collaborative, Welcoming, and Responsive Learning Environments; (2) Knowledge and Skills to Foster Climate Action; (3) Attention and climate emotion; (4) Locally Focused and Community Driven; (5) Civic Engagement for Climate Action. These characteristics contain cognitive and emotional components as well as the engagement of learners. Monroe and colleagues (2024) claim that a reform in education is required addressing CC, so teachers could be able to support their students. They present teaching practices (e.g. problem-based inquiry, scientists discuss their research concerning CC) and strategies (Using technology to understand climate models, deal with issues from local environment, creating environmental actions opportunities) with a strong technology focus (e.g. digital animation, videos) for PSTs and in-service professional development. Other researchers suggested other practices to address CC and mitigation behaviour: autonomous learning, active learning, integrating social science principles within climate literacy programmes (Bissinger & Bogner, Reference Bissinger and Bogner2018; Foss & Ko, Reference Foss and Ko2019).

However, the literature points to a shortage of adequate educational materials and effective teaching strategies (Monroe et al., Reference Monroe, Plate, Oxarart, Bowers and Chaves2017). For example, the study by Baker et al., (Reference Baker, Clayton and Bragg2021) examined the perceptions of Australian parents and teachers on how children’s emotions are affected by CC and adults’ needs and challenges in supporting children. They found that parents and teachers similarly reported that children are very interested in CC. They pointed to a lack of resources to help teachers and parents support their children’s environmental learning in a way that fosters emotional well-being and promotes hopefulness. Lawson et al., (Reference Lawson, Stevenson, Peterson, Carrier, L Strnad and Seekamp2019) examined the increasing polarisation of public opinion on climate change in the U.S. and highlighted how education can mitigate scepticism, particularly among adolescents, by enhancing their understanding of climate risks. Moreover, Eilam (Reference Eilam2022) claims that educators’ poor conceptualisation of CC is the main cause of the limited use and development of CC teaching units. Lehnert et al., (Reference Lehnert, Fiedor, Frajer, Hercik and Jurek2019) and several other studies (e.g. Abdullah et al., Reference Abdullah, Samdin, Ho and Ng2019) confirm that knowledge and attitudes are essential for effective teaching interventions. According to the existing literature, and recognising the time limitations related to PSTs’ education, we designed a short-term intervention to measure CL among PSTs, focusing on their knowledge, attitudes and personal behaviour.

It proposes an intervention to measure CL among PSTs and addresses the following research questions:

1. 1. What are the effects of a short-term intervention in teacher training on climate literacy, specifically on knowledge, attitudes and behaviour?

2. 2. How do the constructs of climate literacy, i.e., knowledge, attitude and environmentally responsible behaviour, relate to each other and what are the characteristics of this relationship?

Research design

The objective of the course was to introduce future teachers to knowledge, attitudes and behaviours related to climate change on a personal and social level. The PSTs are the educators of tomorrow, and they should serve as ambassadors of change for their students and communities. The course consisted of seven lessons, which were integrated into teaching workshops for students in the Department of Science and the Department of Communication. Five additional lessons were conducted asynchronously as recorded video lessons and two lessons were conducted synchronously in a face-to-face format. Students participated in the course by watching the videos and answering questions that appeared in the reading materials that were accompanying the course content. A preliminary questionnaire was administered before the students were exposed to the course content, and a closing questionnaire was administered at the end of the course. The course was incorporated into two workshops (science and communication) as an optional learning module. Participants received a bonus score from the workshop instructors. The study was conducted in three phases:

1. 1. Participants in a face-to-face meeting completed an online pre-questionnaire.

2. 2. Participants participated in a seven-session course that included a variety of learning activities. Two lessons were taught face-to-face, and five more were based on videos produced by the researchers. Scientific explanations, climatic concepts, photographs, videos from around the world, and experiments were incorporated into the lessons by professional video producers in the college (Table 1). Throughout each lesson, the learners were introduced to further reading, questions that required written responses, and their own experiences as teachers in the classroom. The course focused on developing 21st-century skills through technological, laboratory and scientific challenges.

3. 3. Participants in a face-to-face meeting completed a post-questionnaire, identical to the pre-questionnaire but with two additional open-ended questions. These questions asked participants to describe changes in their ERB during the course and any actions they encouraged in their family, friends or students.

Table 1.

Five-session online course

The five lessons are described in table 1.

We drew on the work of Fischer et al., (Reference Fischer, King, Rieckmann, Barth, Büssing, Hemmer and Lindau-Bank2022) and González-Pérez and Ramírez-Montoya (Reference González-Pérez and Ramírez-Montoya2022), concentrating on designing learning environments and strategies, fostering systems change and assessing learning outcomes. Through the lessons, we introduced the three dimensions of environmental knowledge: Lesson 1 primarily addresses system-related knowledge (e.g., climate change and human influence), Lesson 2 emphasises action-related knowledge (ideas on what can be done about climate change) and Lesson 5 focuses on effectiveness knowledge (Barbosa et al., Reference Barbosa, Randler and Robaina2021; Frick et al., Reference Frick, Kaiser and Wilson2004).

Sample and data collection

Participants were all undergraduate students at the Teacher Training College. The college offers a variety of specialisations in teaching, such as mathematics, English, sciences, communication and others. Each student selects one of these subjects. Additionally, all students attend a practicum, in which PSTs attend schools once a week plus five consecutive days per semester. In this study, thirty-six PSTs were recruited from two different specialisations, 24 from the science department and 12 from the communications department.

Research tool

A 20-minute online four-part questionnaire was administered and completed by the participants during face-to-face meetings, before and after starting the unit. The questionnaire consisted of:

1. 1. Climate Change Knowledge: 16 statements (correct/incorrect), for example, “Climate change will only affect underprivileged populations and groups in more sensitive populations such as the elderly and chronically ill.” In addition, an open-ended question asking participants to define climate change (pre and post)

2. 2. Attitude to Climate Change Issues: 7 statements (rising type scale), e.g., “Indicate how much it concerns you that there is an increase in the use of disposable dishes.” (pre and post)

3. 3. Daily ERB: 17 statements describing daily personal behaviour that can influence global warming (rising type scale), e.g., “Indicate the frequency with which you shop while using reusable baskets.” (pre and post)

4. 4. Conceptual ERB: An open-ended question on changes in participants’ ERB and action they encouraged. (post questionnaire).

In addition, we collected open-ended responses from three assignments: Causes & Solutions (21 responses), Smart Consumption (29 responses) and Food Waste (16 responses). These assignments encouraged participants to express their knowledge and reflect on their behaviour. For example: “The lecturer, Stewart Tristram, discusses how the public has the power to stop the waste of resources or the loss of food. Write at least two ways this can be achieved.” (Lesson 5, Food Waste). Another example: “Share your opinion on the method of planting trees as a way to reduce carbon dioxide levels. Address environmental, economic, and social aspects.” (Lesson 2, Causes & Solutions).

The questionnaire underwent content validity and cognitive validity tests (Karabenick et al., Reference Karabenick, Woolley, Friedel, Ammon, Blazevski, Bonney and Kelly2007). A cognitive validation was conducted by three experts in environmental literacy education and two students who are not part of the research group. The questionnaire was revised based on these validation results. The reliability of the sub-questionnaires before and after the intervention was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha between 0.6 and 0.8).

Ethical considerations

The ethics committee of the institution approved the study in 2021. All participants were provided with detailed information outlining the commitment required.

Data analysis

This study’s results underwent qualitative and quantitative analysis, in parallel. Participants’ responses to the questionnaires and their comments during the course were collected. Data from the two open-ended questions in the pre- and post-questionnaire, responses and comments made during the course were analysed qualitatively using content analysis. Analysing the close-ended questions provided quantitative evidence to support the primarily qualitative findings.

Quantitative analysis

The data from the close-end parts of the questionnaire were analysed for normality, homogeneity of variances, normality of residuals, homoscedasticity, independence of observations and multicollinearity. The results of those tests met the criteria for using T-test and regression analysis. For each participant, a grade was calculated for each of the first three parts of the questionnaire: climate change knowledge, attitudes to climate change issues and daily ERB.

• • Scientific climate Change Knowledge (CK): The percentage of correct answers was calculated (X/16*100). A low level of CK was defined as 0 to 10 correct answers (up to 62%), a medium level of CK 11 to 13 correct answers (up to 81%), and a high level of CK: 14 to 16 (82% and above).

• • Attitudes to Climate Change Issues: An average grade was calculated based on the degree of agreement with statements expressing concern about CC (X/28*100).

• • Daily ERB: An average score was calculated based on the degree of agreement with expressions of mitigation behaviour (X/85*100).

Qualitative analysis

The authors utilised a double coding procedure with two independent coders, to validate the content analysis of written responses collected from students during the study. Authors developed a codebook outlining clear categories of content with examples representative of each category. Cohen’s Kappa was calculated after coding 20% of the responses. There was a reliability value of 0.90.

Scientific climate change knowledge (CK)

Scientific climate change knowledge (CK) was analysed based on an open-ended question from pre-post questionnaires. We asked: “Explain in your own words and in detail what global warming or climate change is.”

Scientific CK was characterised into three levels:

• • Basic Level scientific CK: e.g., “Global warming is the rising of the earth’s temperature.”

• • Medium-Level scientific CK: e.g., “Global warming causes long-range climate change. An extreme change in the temperature disrupts the natural balance and creates natural disasters.”

• • Complex-Level scientific CK: e.g., “Global warming is a phenomenon in which the average temperature of the earth is rising due to greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming has a harmful influence on the earth: storms, heavy rains, rising sea level, and flooding islands, and so forth….”

Different domains of climate knowledge (CK)

Looking further at the open-ended questions from the post questionnaire and questions from the various tasks, we identified different domains of CK: ecological knowledge, knowledge about natural resources, consumption behaviour knowledge, environmental contamination knowledge and social-economic knowledge (Table 2). We noted the presence of the different domains of knowledge for each participant without counting the number of times they were used.

Table 2.

Various domains of climate knowledge and examples

We conducted a further analysis of the average number of different domains of CK for each scientific CK level (post-results).

Attitudes

Attitudes were measured using statements derived from participants’ answers to the open-ended questions and their responses to various assignments indicating environmental awareness. The statements were classified into environmental awareness categories according to previous research (Tal & Abramovich, Reference Tal and Abramovitch2013):

1. 1. No concern or negative attitudes expressed

2. 2. General care for the environment expressed

3. 3. Concern supported by evidence for understanding and commitment expressed

Following this categorisation, each participant was assigned the maximum score possible based on their awareness statements. To ensure reliability, each researcher independently coded the categories, and contradictory answers were discussed and resolved. The initial agreement was 90%. The researchers continued discussing the statements until they reached full agreement.

Environmental responsible behaviour (ERB)

Daily Environmental Responsible behaviour (ERB) was examined based on participants’ responses in the post-questionnaire regarding actions they adopted after the course. Additionally, ERB levels were analysed based on expressions throughout the course tasks where participants were asked to suggest actions. For example, one question was: “Write suggestions on how to deal with climate change in the private sphere (home) and in the public sphere (neighborhood, community, school).” The analysis was based on previous studies (Abramovich & Loria, Reference Abramovich and Loria2015; Tal & Abramovich, Reference Tal and Abramovitch2013), revealing three main categories of responses:

1. 1. Habit-dependent or Unexplained behaviour:

2. 2. Broadly explained behaviour based on “general care” for the environment:

3. 3. Specifically explained and motivated by arguments about the complexity of environmental problems and explicit willingness to act to protect the environment.

To ensure reliability, each researcher independently coded the categories, answers were then compared and contradictory answers discussed. The final agreement was 90%. The researchers continued discussing the statements until they reached full agreement.