Content uploaded by Mohammad Seyedmehdi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohammad Seyedmehdi on Jul 16, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL REPORT
Corresponding Author: Seyed Mohammad Seyedmehdi
National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, Masih Daneshvari Hospital, Daar-Abad, Niavaran, Tehran, Iran, Zip Code: 19569-
44413, Po Box: 19575-154
Tel:+98 21 27122019, +98 912 1504381, Fax: +98 21 26109484, E-mail: Mseyedmehdi@gmail.com
Global Warming: Knowledge and Views of Iranian Students
Taraneh Yazdanparast1, Sousan Salehpour2, Mohammad Reza Masjedi3,
Seyed Mohammad Seyedmehdi1, Eddie Boyes4, Martin Stanisstreet4, and Mirsaeed Attarchi5
1 Air Pollution Health and Occupational Diseases Research Unit, Chronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of
Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Masih Daneshvari Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Pediatric Respiratory Diseases Research Center, NRITLD, Masih Daneshvari Hospital,
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Telemedicine Research Center, NRITLD, Masih Daneshvari Hospital,
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4Environmental Education Research Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
5Department of Occupational Medicine, Occupational Medicine Research Center, School of Medicine,
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Received: 21 Jun. 2012; Received in revised form: 10 Dec. 2012; Accepted: 5 Jan. 2013
Abstract- Study of students’ knowledge about global warming can help authorities to have better
imagination of this critical environmental problem. This research examines high school students' ideas about
greenhouse effect and the results may be useful for the respective authorities to improve cultural and
educational aspects of next generation. In this cross-sectional study, a 42 question questionnaire with mix of
open and closed questions was used to evaluate high school students' view about the mechanism,
consequences, causes and cures of global warming. To assess students’ knowledge, cognitive score was also
calculated. 1035 students were randomly selected from 19 educational districts of Tehran. Sampling method
was multi stage. Only 5.1% of the students could explain greenhouse effect correctly and completely. 88.8%
and 71.2% respectively believed “if the greenhouse effect gets bigger the Earth will get hotter” and
“incidence of more skin cancers is a consequence of global warming”. 69.6% and 68.8% respectively thought
“the greenhouse effect is made worse by too much carbon dioxide” and “presence of ozone holes is a cause of
greenhouse effect”. 68.4% believed “not using cars so much is a cure for global warming”. While a student’s
‘cognitive score’ could range from -36 to +36, Students' mean cognitive score was equal to +1.64. Mean
cognitive score of male students and grade 2 & 3 students was respectively higher than female ones (P<0.01)
and grade 1 students (P<0.001) but there was no statistically significant difference between students of
different regions (P>0.05). In general, students' knowledge about global warming was not acceptable and
there were some misconceptions in the students’ mind, such as supposing ozone holes as a cause and more
skin cancer as a consequence of global warming. The Findings of this survey indicate that, this important
stratum of society have been received no sufficient and efficient education and sensitization on this matter.
© 2013 Tehran University of Medical Sciences. All rights reserved.
Acta Medica Iranica, 2013; 51(3): 178-184.
Keywords: Global warming; Knowledge; Students
Introduction
One of the most critical environmental subjects of 21th
century is Global warming (1). More lately, global
warming is not only environmental danger but also
social and economic threat and unfortunately some
adverse consequences of it are becoming visible these
days (2). Greenhouse effect which causes this
phenomenon, happens because of greenhouse
gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, etc)
existing in the atmosphere, trapping sunrays and making
earth’s atmosphere warmer. Whereas some of these
gases are naturally found in the atmosphere,
human activity increases the amount of particular gases
(3-5).
Worries about environmental impacts of energy
T. Yazdanparast, et al.
Acta Medica Iranica, Vol. 51, No. 3 (2013) 179
consumption in Iran have been increased recently. Iran’s
total emission in 2006 included respectively 413.23,
2.18, 2.5, 0.75, 2.26, 0.59 and 0.32 million tons of
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, NOx, SO2, residual
hydrocarbons, aldehydes and dusts (6). There are some
challenges in this field including peoples’ lack of
enough awareness about global warming.
If people’s knowledge of environment generally
improves, they will behave in a manner that avoids
environmental degradation (7). This fact is also true
about global warming phenomenon; since the people’s
behavior in the field of producing greenhouse gasses is a
determinant factor and their action is directly dependent
on the amount of knowledge about this matter, it is so
important to discover what they know in this regard.
There may be some misconceptions about climate
change in persons’ minds; therefore it is necessary to
explore those misconceptions before any educational
planning (8). As students are among the most trainable
stratums of the society, it is essential to discover
their knowledge and perception of greenhouse effect
to prepare the best kind of educational program for
them.
While global warming and ozone layer depletion are
two totally different subjects a recent research which
was carried out in Turkey showed that apparently,
students mix the causes and consequences of global
warming up with those of ozone layer depletion (8). The
considerable point is that there are some relationship
between greenhouse effect and ozone layer depletion;
the greenhouse effect is responsible not only for heating
the lower atmosphere (lower troposphere), but also for
cooling the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). The
cooling poses problems for ozone molecules, which are
most unstable at low temperatures, and then
unprecedented stratospheric cold is driving the extreme
ozone destruction (9,10).
Another study in Sweden had indicated that students
didn’t completely understand what principal social
changes would happen if an effective reduction in CO2
emission occurs, but they were aware of adverse effects
of ozone layer depletion on humans (11). A research on
1460 Spanish secondary students showed that, education
about global warming is likely to make effective
willingness in students to act for reducing greenhouse
gasses (12).
This survey was conducted to assess Tehran high
school students’ ideas about global warming, with the
aim to assist respective authorities in educational
planning and improving cultural aspects of next
generation.
Materials and Methods
The present cross-sectional study was carried out by
National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung
Disease (NRITLD) in high schools of 19 educational
districts of Tehran from November 2008 to March 2009.
The instrument used in this study was the exact and
reliable Persian translation version of the English
questionnaire which had been prepared by Eddie Boyes
and Martin Stanisstreet (2). The Turkish translation
version has been used by Ahmet Kilinc and colleagues
(8) to evaluate Turkish students’ ideas about global
warming. The process of translation (English to Persian)
and back-translation of the questionnaire was conducted
by two separate individuals fluent in English and Farsi
who were conversant about the subject. The back
translation version was confirmed by designers of the
questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha (α) was calculated after
the pilot study and was equal to 0.85.
The questionnaire began by explanation about the
project and asking students to record their gender and
grade. The first main section of the questionnaire was an
open question and asked students to explain greenhouse
effect. Responses to this open question were categorized
into 5 groups: No response, incomplete response,
complete response (this group was dedicated to
responses which included at least this main point:
trapping sunrays by greenhouse gases in the earth’
atmosphere), wrong response (excluding misconception
with ozone layer depletion) and wrong response that
shows misconception with ozone layer depletion.
The second part asked students to mention what
percent they have learned about greenhouse effect from
any of the mass media. To evaluate the source which
students had taken their information about the
greenhouse effect from, we accessed average of the
reported percentages to the question: How much about
the greenhouse effect do you think you have learned
from television, internet, school, newspapers and
magazines and radio?
The rest and most important part of the questionnaire
was in three sections containing items about the
consequences, causes and cures of global warming and
each section consisted of six scientifically right ideas
and six scientifically wrong ideas about global warming
(totally 36 items). The available responses to these Items
were “I am sure this is right”, “I think this is right”, “I
don’t know about this”, “I think this is wrong” and “I
am sure this is wrong”. To evaluate students’ knowledge
about global warming and determine a cognitive score
for any student, we used students’ answers to this part of
Knowledge and views of Iranian students
180 Acta Medica Iranica, Vol. 51, No. 3 (2013)
the questionnaire. For each scientific statement, a “sure
right” response was given a mark of 1, “think right” 0.5,
“don’t know” 0, “think wrong” -0.5, and “sure wrong” -
1. The scoring was reversed for statements that were
scientifically wrong. The cognitive score was the sum of
the any person’s score for each of the 36 items.
The study population was a random sample of high
school (both public and private schools) students of
Tehran. The type of sampling was multi stage. To
sample from all socioeconomic status levels we divided
Tehran into five regions (north, south, east, west and
center), then we chose two female high schools and two
male high schools of any region randomly (totally 20
schools). Volunteer students of any grade level (9-11) at
each school participated in the study.
Students were assured that their score would be
confidential. The questionnaires were completed by
students themselves and under supervision of their own
teacher and questioner of the project without time
restriction. 1035 persons of 1054 eligible students
participated in the study (response rate: 98.2%). The
data were analyzed using SPSS version 15.
The Ethics committee of the National Research
Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (NRITLD)
approved the study. Additionally, students participated
in the study voluntary and the questionnaires were
anonymous.
Results
Demographic data of the 1035 participants in the study
are presented in table 1. While 34.6% of the students
were in grade 1, 29.3% and 36.1% were studying in
grade 2 and 3 of high school, respectively.
Table 2 shows students’ responses about the
mechanism of greenhouse effect according to the grade.
Totally among 1035 students 610 persons didn’t answer
the question, 202 students made an incomplete response,
53 people gave a correct complete answer, 124 students
gave wrong response but didn’t mix global warming up
with ozone layer depletion and 46 students confused
greenhouse effect with ozone layer depletion. There
were significant differences (P<0.01) in response to this
question among grades.
In response to the question; “how much about the
greenhouse effect do you think you have learned from
any of mass medias?”, The average reported percentage
were television 24.65%, internet 14.88%, school
38.49%, newspapers and magazines 14.76% and radio
9.66%.
Table 3 summarizes students’ ideas about the
consequences, causes and cures of global warming. It
must be emphasized that the percentages have brought
later in the results, belong to students who were sure or
thought that the statement was correct.
Table 1. Descriptive data of students who participated in the study.
Grade
Sex 1 2 3 Total
Girls 132 (34.8%) 119 (31.4%) 128 (33.8%) 379 (36.6%)
Boys 227 (34.6%) 184 (28%) 245 (37.4%) 656 (63.4%)
Total 358 (100%) 303 (100%) 374 (100%) 1035 (100%)
Distribution of girls and boys in the three grades has no statistical difference.
Grade 1: first year of high school/ Grade 2: second year of high school/ Grade 3: third year of high school
Table 2. Students’ responses to the question” Do you know about the greenhouse effect? Can you explain it? ”
Grade
Responses 1 2 3 Total
No response 60.9% 51.8% 63% 59%
Incomplete response 19% 22.8% 17.4% 19.5%
Complete response 7.5% 5.3% 2.7% 5.1%
Wrong response 10.1% 14.5% 11.8% 12%
Misconception with ozone layer depletion 2.5% 5.6% 5.1% 4.4%
P<0.01. Grade 1: first year of high school, Grade 2: second year of high school, Grade 3: third year of high school
T. Yazdanparast, et al.
Acta Medica Iranica, Vol. 51, No. 3 (2013) 181
Table 3. Student’s ideas about consequences, causes and cures of global warming.
Responses Sure right Think right Don’t know Think wrong Sure wrong
Consequences of greenhouse effect:
Misconceptions
More skin cancer 42.3% 28.9% 18.6% 5.5% 3.3%
More food poisoning 23.2% 35.5% 30.1% 7.1% 2.6%
Unsafe tap water 20.1% 35.6% 30.7% 8% 3.4%
More poisonings of fish 32% 33.9% 21.1% 6.9% 3.6%
More heart attacks 28.5% 29.4% 28.1% 7.3% 4%
More earthquakes 18.4% 19.6% 40.8% 12.3% 8.1%
Scientifically acceptable ideas
More bugs and pests 24.3% 32.5% 31% 7.4% 3.8%
More flooding 19.8% 16.3% 35% 15.1% 9.9%
More deserts 29.7% 30.3% 26.3% 7.4% 5.2%
Earth will get hotter 66.8% 22% 7.7% 1.9% 1.1%
Polar ice will melt 53.2% 23% 17.1% 3.2% 2.1%
Weather Changes 55.7% 25.8% 12.9% 2.4% 1.3%
Causes of greenhouse effect:
Misconceptions
Ozone holes 38.2% 30.6% 21.3% 4.8% 3.3%
Too many rays 32.6% 33.4% 21.6% 7.1% 3.8%
Radioactivity 29.6% 30.4% 27.9% 6.1% 3.5%
Street litter 17% 27% 31.9% 13.5% 7.6%
Acid rain 26.9% 32.3% 24.8% 9.6%
4.1%
Rubbish in rivers 20.8% 30.3% 31.4% 10% 6.4%
Scientifically acceptable ideas
Ground ozone 19.1% 27.8% 30.6% 12.4% 6.4%
Artificial fertilizers 27.4% 34.5% 28.5% 5.4% 2.3%
Trapped rays 35.2% 29% 22.2% 7% 4.7%
Rotting waste 24.3% 31.5% 28.9% 8.6% 2.8%
CFCs 41.1% 25.5% 22.9% 4.8% 2.4%
Carbon dioxide 34.8% 34.8% 21.6% 4.3% 1.5%
Cures for greenhouse effect:
Misconceptions
Fewer nuclear bombs 28.2% 25.7% 30.6% 6.6% 4.8%
Use unleaded petrol 37.3% 30% 21.8% 5.1% 2.3%
Clean beaches 26.7% 29.8% 28% 7.7% 4.1%
Protect rare species 27.1% 23.4% 28.9% 9.7% 7.1%
Healthy foods 26.2% 26.7% 26.4% 11.4% 7.2%
Reduce starvation 18.8% 20.1% 33.7% 13.4% 10.2%
Scientifically acceptable ideas
Save electricity 21..4% 22.6% 36.1% 10% 6%
Use nuclear power 32% 31.7% 26.6% 3.2% 3.1%
Use renewable power 35.3% 22.6% 30% 5.8% 2.5%
Use cars less 44.1% 24.3% 19.6%
5.1% 4.4%
Recycle paper 28.3% 27.3% 29.5% 7.1% 3.6%
Plant more trees 45.8% 22.3% 17% 6.4% 4.3%
In the field of scientifically acceptable consequences
of the greenhouse effect, the most common idea was “if
the greenhouse effect gets bigger the Earth will get
hotter” (88.8%), while 81.5% were sure or thought that
“if the greenhouse effect gets bigger there will be
changes in the world’s weather” and 76.2% believed that
“some of the ice at the Poles will melt as a consequence
of global warming”. After these three most popular ideas
about the consequences of the global warming, “more
deserts” (60%), “more bugs and pests” (56.8%) and
finally “more flooding” (36.1%) were in the next ranks,
sequentially.
Knowledge and views of Iranian students
182 Acta Medica Iranica, Vol. 51, No. 3 (2013)
Table 4. Comparison of Cognitive Score between students based on sex, grade and living region.
Mean S.D P-value
Sex
Girl 1.21 3.32 -
Boy 1.89 4.10 <0.01
Grade
1 0.94 3.42 -
2 2.24 4.21 -
3 1.83 3.83 <0.001
Region
North 1.84 4.11 -
South 1.76 4.02 -
Center 1.58 3.71 -
East 1.41 3.13 -
West 1.45 3.88 >0.05
Misconceptions about the consequences of global
warming, in the descending order according to the
prevalence, were “more skin cancer” (71.2%), “more
poisoning of the fish” (65.9%), “more food poisoning”
(58.7%), “more heart attacks” (57.9%), “unsafe tap
water” (55.7%) and “more earthquakes” (38%).
Investigation of the acceptable ideas about the causes
of global warming showed that 69.6% believed “the
greenhouse effect is made worse by too much carbon
dioxide in the air”. Meanwhile, 66.6% accepted
chlorofluorocarbons as a cause of global warming,
64.2% “trapped rays”, 61.9% “gas from artificial
fertilizers”, 55.8% “gas from rotting waste” and 46.9%
“too much ground ozone”.
On the other hand, prevalence of the students’
misconceptions about the causes of the global warming
for “ozone holes”, “too many sun’s rays”, “radioactive
waste”, “acid rain”, “rubbish in rivers”, % and “too
much street litter” were 68.8%, 66%, 60%, 59.2%, 51.1
and 44% respectively.
Assessment of students’ concepts about methods of
improving global warming, indicated that the percentage
of the student’s ideas in this regard were 68.4% for “not
using cars so much”, 68.1% for “planting more trees”,
63.7% for “more nuclear power stations”, 57.9% for
“using renewable power”, 55.6% for “more recycled
paper” and 44% for “not wasting electricity”.
Prevalence of students’ misconceptions about cures
for global warming were for “using unleaded petrol”
67.3%, “clean beaches” 56.5%, “reducing nuclear
bombs” 53.9%, “healthy foods” 52.9%, “protecting rare
species” 50.5% and “reducing starvation” 38.9%.
While a student’s ‘cognitive score’ could range from
-36 to +36, Students' mean cognitive score was equal to
+1.64 (SD=3.85). The levels of cognitive scores
according to gender, grade and region of the students’
school have been brought in table 4. There was
statistically significant difference between cognitive
scores for genders and grades; totally cognitive score of
male students and grade 2 and 3 students was
respectively higher than female ones (P<0.01) and grade
1 students (P<0.001) but there was no statistically
significant difference between students of different
regions (P>0.05).
Discussion
The findings of this survey totally indicated that students
of Tehran are not well informed about the global
warming phenomenon. According to the findings only
about 5% of the students were able to explain the
greenhouse effect correctly and completely, while more
than half of the students didn’t answer to this question at
all. There were also misconceptions in their minds such
as mixing global warming with ozone layer depletion.
In current project the students mentioned their most
common source of information on the greenhouse effect
as school, television, internet, newspapers & magazines
and radio. Considering this and the fact that students'
knowledge was not acceptable, it seems necessary to
increase our educational planning, especially via school
and television.
The study showed high percentages of the students
believed that if the greenhouse effect gets bigger “the
Earth will get hotter”, “there will be changes in the
world’s weather” and “polar ice will melt”. These
findings together with students’ low level cognitive
scores and the fact that students were not able to
T. Yazdanparast, et al.
Acta Medica Iranica, Vol. 51, No. 3 (2013) 183
describe greenhouse effect correctly and completely
indicate that students know some points about global
warming but their knowledge is not deep-seated.
71.2% of the students believed “more skin cancer” is
a consequence of global warming phenomenon, 68.8%
appreciated that “the greenhouse effect is made worse
by holes in the ozone layer” and 4.4% of the students
had described the mechanism of ozone layer depletion
instead of the global warming in response to the open
question of the questionnaire. These beliefs show that
students have confused global warming with the ozone
layer depletion.
Despite of assuming “holes in the ozone layer” as a
cause of greenhouse effect by most of the students, near
the same percentage of the students were aware of the
fact that too much carbon dioxide and
chlorofluorocarbons are causes of global warming.
These data show the students’ superficial awareness
about the causes of the greenhouse effect. While more
than two third of the students knew “not using cars so
much” and “planting more trees” are cures for global
warming, about the same percentage of the students
accepted this wrong idea that “using unleaded petrol is a
way to reduce greenhouse effect”, therefore students’
knowledge about cures for greenhouse effect is not
reliable too.
There are some themes about greenhouse effect in
Iranian students’ high school books, but according to the
results certainly this way is not enough to educate
students. Taber and Taylor have shown that after a
period of eight weeks specific educational program in
this field, students had a better understanding of the
science of the global warming and increase in awareness
was accompanied by increased level of concern and
belief of ability to impact (13). Therefore it seems
necessary that respective authorities plan specific
educational program in this field for the students and it
is better these programs begin in lower ages.
Students in grade 2 and 3 were more knowledgeable
about greenhouse effect than those in grade one, that
seems to be because of some themes about global
warming in the chemistry book of first grade of high
school.
A similar project with the same questionnaire had
been carried out in two secondary schools of Turkey
before (8). The sequence of prevalence of ideas in any
field (consequences, causes and cures) was not exactly
the same but it was almost similar to our study
conducted in Iran. For example more skin cancer as a
consequence and also ozone holes as a cause of global
warming were the most common misconceptions in both
countries. But totally Turkish students were more
informed about the greenhouse effect. In response to the
open question about the mechanism of the greenhouse
effect 28% of Turkish students gave a scientifically
acceptable answer but only about 5% of Iranian students
did the same.
A more recent study that has been performed by
Kilinc et al. in Turkey indicated that the idea of
“planting more trees will reduce global warming” was
the most popular idea (14) which this situation was
similar to their previous study (8). On the other hand,
the most common suggestion for reducing global
warming in this research was “not using cars so much”
and followed by “planting more trees”. It seems
considering less usage of cars as a priority by Iranian
students is due to special character of Tehran which
contains a lot of automobiles more than its actual
capacity.
Kerr and Walz have shown that 17% of the students
believed global warming has caused by the ozone holes,
40% assumed global warming has caused ozone layer
depletion and only 33% understood the correct
relationship between greenhouse effect and ozone layer
destruction (15). These misconceptions are comparable
with Iranian misunderstandings about the global
warming.
Mistaking global warming for ozone layer depletion
is not specific for students. Both students and the
general population have lots of misunderstandings about
these two subjects (16): A study in 1994 showed that
even highly educated people tend to mix stratospheric
ozone depletion up with the greenhouse effect. Increased
skin cancer was also considered as an effect of climate
change (17).
Apart from misconceptions, according to cognitive
score, Iranian students didn’t have acceptable
knowledge about global warming and need to receive
more practical education, since global warming is one of
the most important issues of environmental difficulties
these days.
Students of different regions of Tehran didn’t show
significant difference in cognitive scores. We can say
then, as conclusion socioeconomic aspects didn’t affect
students’ knowledge level about global warming.
In current project awareness of male students about
greenhouse effect was higher than female students
(cognitive score 1.89 vs. 1.21), a research on 768
students in India showed that there were no significant
difference between responses of male and female
students to the questions about usefulness of actions to
reduce global warming (18). Male students’ higher
Knowledge and views of Iranian students
184 Acta Medica Iranica, Vol. 51, No. 3 (2013)
knowledge in Iran is an appropriate subject for further
assessment in the future.
The questionnaire of current research was the exact
and reliable translation of the one had been prepared by
Liverpool University scientists and used in a study in
Turkey study (8). However it is necessary that future
studies will carry out with more developed
questionnaires according to specific situation and culture
of Iran. Also, it is recommended that such studied be
performed in other age groups and people with different
levels of education.
This research is the first study in Iran about such an
important and effective subject. Considering type of
sampling that students were included into the study from
any region of Tehran, it is possible to generalize the
results of the study to all students of such a big city like
Tehran. In conclusion, considering importance of the
global warming phenomenon and dependence of human
life to this subject and findings of this research which
showed students’ knowledge in this field is not
sufficient, it seems necessary that respective authorities
plan specific educational programs in this field for the
students.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank NRITLD for supporting
this project and Tehran Education Organization for the
cooperation in collecting data.
References
1. Skamp K. R, Boyes E, Stanisstreet M, Global warming
responses at the primary secondary interface: 1 students’
beliefs and willingness to act, Australian Journal of
Environmental Education, 2009;25:15-30.
2. Boyes E, Skamp K, Stanisstreet M. Australian secondary
students’ views about global warming: beliefs about
actions, and willingness to act, Research in Science
Education, 2009;39 (5):661-80.
3. Lee O, Lester BT, Ma L, Lambert J, Jean-Baptiste M.
Conceptions of greenhouse effect and global warming
among elementary students from diverse languages and
cultures, Journal of Geoscience Education,
2007;55(2):117-25.
4. Marlon JR, Bartlein PJ, Carcaillet C, Gavin DG, Harrison
SP, Higuera PE, Joos F, Power MJ, Prentice IC. Climate
and human influences on global biomass burning over the
past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2008;1(10): 697-
702.
5. Mitchell JFB, Johns TC. On modification of global
warming by sulfate aerosols. Journal of Climate
1997;10(2):245-67.
6. Avami A, Farahmandpour B. Analysis of environmental
emissions and greenhouse gases in Islamic Republic of
Iran, WSEAS Transactions on Environment and
Development, 2008; 4(4): 303-312.
7. Skamp K. R, Boyes E, Stanisstreet M, Global warming
responses at the primary secondary interface: 2 Potential
effectiveness of education. Australian Journal of
Environmental Education 2009;25:31-44.
8. Kilinc A, Stanisstreet M, Boyes E. Turkish students’ ideas
about global warming, International Journal of
Environmental & Science Education 2008;3(2):89-98.
9. Shindell, DT, Rind D, Lonergan P. Increased Polar
Stratospheric Ozone Losses and Delayed Eventual
Recovery Owing to Increasing Greenhouse-gas
Concentrations. Nature 1998;392:589-92.
10. Kerr, RA. Deep Chill Triggers Record Ozone Hole.
Science 1998;282(5388):391.
11. Andersson B, Wallin A. Students’ understanding of the
greenhouse effect, societal consequences of reducing CO2
emissions and why ozone layer depletion is a problem.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
2000;37(10):1096-111.
12. Rodriguez M, Boyes E, Stanisstreet M, Spanish secondary
students’ willingness to undertake specific actions to
combat global warming: can environmental education
help? , Psychology 2010;1(1):73-89.
13. Taber F, Taylor N. Climate of concern-A search for
effective strategies for teaching children about global
warming, International journal of Environmental & science
education, 2009; 4(2):97-116.
14. Kilinc A, Boyes E, Stanisstreet M, Turkish school students
and global warming: beliefs and willingness to act. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education
2011;7(2):121-134.
15. Kerr SC, Walz KA. Holes in student understanding:
addressing prevalent misconceptions regarding
atmospheric environmental chemistry. Journal of Chemical
Education 2007;84(10):1693-6.
16. Gautier C, Deutsch K, Rebich S. Misconceptions about the
greenhouse effect. Journal of Geoscience Education
2006;54(3):386-95.
17. Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Read D. What do
people know about global climate change? 1. Mental
Models, Risk Analysis 1994;14(6):959-70.
18. Chhokar K, Dua Shweta, Taylor N, Boyes E, Stanisstreet
M. Indian secondary students’ views about global
warming: beliefs about the usefulness of actions and
willingness to act. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education 2011;9:1167-8.
