In-Service Teachers' Attitudes, Knowledge and Classroom Teaching of Global Climate Change

Full text

WINTER 2015 VOL. 24, NO. 1 1
In-service Teachers’ Attitudes, Knowledge
and Classroom Teaching of Global
Climate Change
Abstract
This study explores in-service teach-
ers’ attitudes and knowledge about a
pressing environmental issue, global
climate change (GCC), and how these
may relate to their classroom teaching.
In this work, nineteen teachers from Na-
tive American communities attended a
professional development workshop that
focused on enhancing their scientifi c
understanding and classroom teaching
of GCC. Teachers’ responses to surveys
and interviews revealed that the major-
ity of them considered GCC as mainly
human-induced and shared similar con-
cerns about potential consequences of
GCC, but their specifi c ecological beliefs
varied to different degrees. Throughout
the workshop, teachers became more
aware of the urgency of GCC and the
importance of incorporating climate is-
sues into their science teaching. However,
teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about GCC
were not strong indicators of their level
of knowledge, as misconceptions were
sometimes found among teachers who
were very concerned about climate issues.
This work opens up further discussions
on the relationship between individuals’
attitudes and knowledge about environ-
mental issues. More importantly, it pro-
vides important implications for future
professional development programs on
climate change education and proposes
effective tools to evaluate teachers’ per-
spectives about GCC.
Introduction
The primary goal of environmental
education is to develop students’ sense
of the relationship between humans
and the environment (Desjean-Perrotta,
Moseley, & Cantu, 2008). K-12 science
classes offer opportunities to enhance
students’ environmental literacy, which
lays important foundations for fulfi lling
this goal (Littledyke, 2008). However,
existing literature shows that an increase
in scientifi c knowledge about environ-
mental issues may not necessarily par-
allel with pro-environmental attitudes
or behaviors (Guy, Kashima, Walker, &
O’Neill, 2014; Hamilton, 2011; Kollmus
& Agyeman, 2002). The present study
aims to explore the relationship between
in-service teachers’ attitudes and knowl-
edge in the context of global climate
change (GCC). In particular, three re-
search questions guided this work:
(1) What are teachers’ attitudes and
beliefs about GCC and how do
they change through professional
development?
(2) What is the nature of teachers’
knowledge about GCC and how
does it relate to their attitudes?
(3) How do teachers’ attitudes and
knowledge relate to their class-
room teaching of GCC?
Literature Review
GCC involves “any substantial change
in measures of climate (such as tem-
perature or precipitation) lasting for an
extended period (decades or longer)”
which “may result from natural factors
and processes or from human activities”
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2014, p.3). Issues related to GCC have
been a pressing concern and one of the
grand challenges for scientists and edu-
cators (Crowley, 2000). Despite increas-
ing evidence for GCC (e.g., Good et al.,
2011), a considerable percentage of the
U.S. public still doubt its seriousness and
urgency (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-
Renouf, & Smith, 2011). GCC thus
constitutes an important topic for both
science and environmental education,
and developing a scientifi c understand-
ing of GCC is a prominent component of
the Next Generation Science Standards
(Achieve, Inc., 2013).
Teachers play a critical role in educat-
ing future generations about GCC. Re-
search has shown that teachers’ beliefs
about science have important impacts
on students’ perspectives toward cor-
responding topics, and teachers often
align teaching strategies with their own
knowledge and beliefs (Duschl, 1990;
Waters-Adams, 2006). Thus, to provide
effi cient support for climate change edu-
cation in the classrooms, it is critical to
fi rst examine the nature of teachers’ at-
titudes and knowledge regarding GCC.
Attitudes and Beliefs about GCC
The term attitude is often used in-
terchangeably with belief (e.g., Oliver
& Koballa, 1992; Lumpe, Haney, &
Czerniak, 2000), but there is a distinction
between these two constructs. Beliefs are
propositions individuals hold to be true:
they can be non-evidential and based on
personal judgment and evaluation (Koballa
& Crawley, 1985; Pajares, 1992). In con-
trast, attitudes are an individual’s general
feelings about certain things or situations.
Bord, O’Connor, and Fisher (2000) de-
fi ned attitude as a set of beliefs “connected
with pursuing a given line of behavior and
the relative rewards and costs connected
with those outcomes” (p.207). Indeed,
connections among beliefs can lead to the
generation of certain attitudes, which may
ultimately infl uence or determine behav-
ior (Ajzen, 1985; Pajares, 1992).
Attitudes and beliefs are both critical
for understanding people’s perspectives
Keywords: global climate change, attitudes,
knowledge, professional development,
climate change education
Shiyu Liu, Gillian Roehrig, Devarati Bhattacharya, and Keisha Varma

2 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
and predicting their behaviors regard-
ing environmental issues. A comparison
study on Gallup polls found that during
1989 and 2003, the U.S. public were in-
creasingly worried about consequences of
GCC and became more supportive of pro-
environmental policies throughout these
years (Brechin, 2003). Similarly, the Yale
Project on Climate Change Communi-
cation reported that from 2011 to 2014,
there was an 8% increase in Americans
who believed that GCC is happening and a
10% increase in Americans who reported
having taken more pro-environmental
actions (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-
Renouf, Feinberg, & Rosenthal, 2014).
While there is a growing body of re-
search that explores the general public’s
attitudes toward GCC, studies that spe-
cifi cally investigate in-service science
teachers’ perspectives about GCC are
sparse. Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs
play an important role in how they orga-
nize knowledge and plan their teaching
(Richardson, 1996; Taylor & Caldarelli,
2004; Waters-Adams, 2006), and can
greatly affect the climate literacy of fu-
ture generations. Studying teachers’ at-
titudes and beliefs thus constitutes an
essential step in promoting science and
environmental education (Cheng &
Monroe, 2011; Robertson, 1993; Wals,
1992). Therefore, the primary goal of
this study is to measure in-service teach-
ers’ attitudes and beliefs about GCC.
Conceptual Knowledge about GCC
Given the complexity of climate sci-
ence and mixed messages from the
public media, GCC is a particularly
challenging topic in environmental edu-
cation. Despite the ongoing endeavors,
misconceptions are still widespread
among students and even teachers. One
of the most common views students hold
is that “ozone depletion” is a cause of
global warming. Many students confuse
stratospheric ozone with the greenhouse
effect and believe that the greenhouse
effect is the trapping of solar rays by
the ozone layer (Lambert, Lindgren, &
Bleicher, 2011). Some students make
no distinction between the greenhouse
effect and global warming, and consider
that simply planting more trees and using
renewable energy would prevent or resolve
issues resulting from GCC (Shepardson,
Niyogi, Choi, & Charusombat, 2011).
Compared to the heavy emphasis on
students’ knowledge about GCC, re-
search on teachers’ understanding of
GCC is relatively limited. The few stud-
ies in this regard have revealed that, like
students, pre-service teachers also hold
misconceptions about GCC, greenhouse
effect, and ozone layer depletion. For
example, they confuse weather with
climate, and incorrectly relate GCC to
air pollution and ozone layer depletion
(Groves & Pugh, 1999; Fortner, 2001;
Papadimitriou, 2004). Nonetheless, little
is known about whether such miscon-
ceptions also persist among in-service
teachers. Hence, the second goal of this
study is to explore in-service teachers’
understanding about GCC.
Relationship between Attitudes and
Knowledge about GCC
There have been ongoing debates re-
garding the relationship between indi-
viduals’ attitudes and knowledge about
environmental issues. Many researchers
adopt a knowledge-defi cit model (Hansen,
Holm, Frewer, Robinson, & Sandoe, 2003)
and consider that attitudes and knowledge
operate together to elicit pro-environmental
behaviors. Individuals may be more sus-
ceptible to initiating an action if they are
familiar with the cause of a problem and
believe in their coping abilities to solve
the problem (Hungerford & Volk, 1990;
Kollmiss & Agyeman, 2002). For in-
stance, Papadimitriou (2004) found that
pre-service teachers’ climate literacy was
related to their beliefs about GCC, and
their level of GCC knowledge was a
predictor of their pro-environmental ac-
tions. From this perspective, exposing
individuals to more information about
climate science may positively impact
their personal effi cacy for protecting the
environment and perceptions about risks
of GCC.
However, some researchers have argued
that the relationship between attitudes and
knowledge is not linear and many infl uen-
tial factors should be taken into consider-
ation (Kellstedt, Zahran, & Vedlitz, 2008).
Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera (1986)
proposed a model of predictors of environ-
mental behavior and suggested that the re-
lationship between attitudes and knowledge
is weak as it is constrained by “situational
factors” such as economics and social pres-
sures. High levels of knowledge and con-
cerns thus do not necessarily guarantee that
an individual will adopt pro-environmental
behaviors (Monroe, 1993; Hwang, Kim, &
Jeng, 2000). Maibach, Roser-Renouf, and
Leiserowitz (2008) expanded the scope of
this model to the context of GCC and added
that pre-existing values and ideological
orientations may act as a perceptual screen
for the knowledge individuals take in and
impact their perspectives toward GCC.
Given the inconclusive discussions
concerning how attitudes and knowledge
interact, the present study aims to extend
the existing literature by exploring this
relationship among in-service teachers.
More importantly, this work further in-
vestigates how in-service teachers’ atti-
tudes and knowledge may relate to their
teaching of GCC. As this work was em-
bedded in the context of a teacher profes-
sional development program on climate
change education, it provides important
implications for teacher educators.
Method
Context
This research was part of a three-year
NASA Innovations in Climate Education
project, CYCLES: Teachers Discovering
Climate Change from a Native Perspec-
tive. CYCLES aimed to enhance climate
literacy in Native American commu-
nities through culturally-sensitive ap-
proaches. Challenges related to GCC
are faced by all Americans, but Native
American communities are especially
concerned due to the adverse infl uence
GCC imposes on their cultural and eco-
nomic ties to the land. Thus, there is an
urgent need to enhance the climate liter-
acy of Native Americans so that they can
be actively involved in policy making as
it relates to climate change in their com-
munities (Roehrig, Campbell, Dalbotten,
& Varma, 2012). To meet this need,
CYCLES provided a weeklong sum-
mer workshop and fi ve follow-up daily
workshops each year to engage science

WINTER 2015 VOL. 24, NO. 1 3
teachers from Native American com-
munities in professional development
activities. These activities were designed
to help teachers better understand the
causes, evidence, and ecological impacts
of GCC on Native lands and facilitate
their classroom teaching of GCC. Table 1
provides a summary of the main topics
covered in the workshops. For more de-
tails of the content and pedagogical ap-
proach of the workshops see Roehrig,
Campbell, Dalbotten, and Varma (2012)
and Kern et al. (2012).
Participants
The data presented in this paper is from
the fi rst year of CYCLES, when a total of
nineteen secondary science teachers par-
ticipated in the weeklong summer work-
shop (eleven females and eight males).
These teachers were all from schools
with high enrollments of Native Ameri-
can students in suburban areas of the
Midwestern U.S., with twelve teachers
at schools where Native American stu-
dents account for more than 50% of the
student population.
Data Collection
Attitudes toward GCC.
Pre- and post-workshop surveys were
composed of items from the Six Ameri-
cas Survey developed by the Yale Proj-
ect on Climate Change Communication
(Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, &
Smith, 2011), which measures the pub-
lic’s attitudes about GCC and related
policy making. This survey identifi es six
categories (“Six Americas”) that describe a
spectrum of people’s concerns and actions
related to GCC: Alarmed, Concerned,
Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and
Dismissive (Maibach, Leiserowitz, Roser-
Renouf, & Mertz, 2011). A description of
these six groups is provided in Table 2.
Beliefs about GCC.
To assess teachers’ beliefs about the
relationship between humans and Earth,
we administered the New Ecological
Paradigm (NEP) Scale (Dunlap, Van
Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000) after the
workshop and received responses from
thirteen participants. The NEP Scale
includes 15 Likert-scale items and was
designed to examine the degree to which
people endorse an ecological worldview.
It provides a comprehensive coverage
of key aspects of specifi c environmen-
tal concerns in the modern society, with
fi ve interrelated facets that measure in-
dividuals’ internalized primitive beliefs
(Dunlap, 2008; Dunlap et al., 2000, see
Table 3). Previous research has shown that
the NEP Scale possesses a high validity
and reliability and is closely related to
a wide range of environmental attitudes
and behaviors (Dunlap et al., 2000).
Conceptual knowledge and
classroom teaching about GCC.
Teachers’ knowledge and classroom
teaching about GCC were measured at
three time points-before, during and af-
ter the weeklong workshop-with three
forms of assessment: pre- and post-
workshop surveys, daily refl ection jour-
nals, and photo elicitation interviews.
Pre- and post-workshop surveys.
In the pre-and post-workshop surveys,
two open-ended questions were used to
evaluate teachers’ understandings about
greenhouse effect and the scientifi c pro-
cess of GCC. In addition, four multiple
choice questions were included to ob-
tain baseline information about teachers’
perceptions about teaching GCC in their
classrooms and their previous experi-
ence in climate change education.
Daily refl ection journals.
During the week-long workshop, par-
ticipant teachers were asked to refl ect
on the information they learned through
the professional development activities.
Each day, three questions were designed
to assess teachers’ knowledge about cli-
mate issues discussed in the workshop
and how they would incorporate the
workshop materials into their classroom
teaching.
Photo elicitation interviews.
In addition to the surveys and re-
fl ection journals, a photo elicitation
interview (PEI) was developed to pro-
vide a more in-depth understanding of
teachers’ knowledge about climate is-
sues. Usually, in a PEI, interviewees
are presented with images to provoke
comments and discussions on topics of
interests (Banks, 2001). In the form of
semi-structured interviews, PEIs create a
more comfortable environment for lon-
ger and more comprehensive discussions
and may impose less infl uence from in-
terviewers compared to completely ver-
bal interviews (Clarke- Ibañez, 2004).
The PEI in this study included eight
questions that closely aligned with prin-
ciples in the Climate Literacy: The Es-
sential Principles of Climate Science
(NOAA, 2009) (see Table 4). Each ques-
tion was paired with corresponding im-
ages from the NASA image collection
and local climatology websites. The PEI
was administrated both before and after
the workshop and ten teachers consented
to participate.
Data Analysis
Data from the pre-and post-workshop
surveys, NEP Scale, and refl ection jour-
nals were entered into a spreadsheet for
Table 1 Main topics covered in the CYCLES workshops throughout the three years
Timeline Workshop Topics
Year 1
• Exploring abiotic/biotic factors in different local biomes and discussing
local climate change
• Constructing past climate trends using local proxy data
• Developing lesson plans for incorporating global and local climate change
into classroom teaching
Year 2
• Discussing indigenous perspectives on climate change and impacts on wild rice
• Analyzing local lake water sample and understanding lake ecology.
• Developing lesson plans for incorporating global and local climate change
into classroom teaching
Year 3
• Discussing the impacts of GCC on invasive species
• Exploring effective tools and activities for teaching GCC in classrooms
• Developing lesson plans for incorporating argumentation, concept mapping
and video projects into the teaching of climate issues

4 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
descriptive analysis. Teachers’ responses
to the Six America Survey items were en-
tered on the KQED Climate Survey web-
site (http://uw.kqed.org/climatesurvey/
index-kqed.php) where each teacher’s
Six Americas profi le was provided. The
PEIs were fi rst transcribed verbatim and
a rubric was developed based on climate
literacy to code the transcripts. Teach-
ers’ responses to each interview question
were scored on a 0-4 point scale based
on both their correctness and complete-
ness. The inductive analysis approach
(Patton, 2002) was then employed to
obtain a more in-depth understanding
of teachers’ knowledge about GCC and
four researchers were involved to en-
hance the reliability and validity of the
data analysis.
Results
Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs
about GCC
A summary of the participant teach-
ers’ “Six Americas” categories is shown
in Figure 1 with a comparison to the
general U.S. public. Overall, the teach-
ers on the CYCLES project were on the
concerned end of the spectrum in terms
of their attitudes toward GCC, with the
majority believing that human-induced
GCC is underway and may impose
signifi cant environmental and social
consequences. Specifi cally, prior to the
workshop, fi fteen teachers fell into the
Concerned category and one teacher
was categorized as Alarmed. Among
the remaining three teachers, one was
categorized as Cautious, one Doubtful
and one Dismissive. Compared to Con-
cerned and Alarmed teachers, these three
teachers were much less certain about
whether GCC is happening and whether
humans or natural changes are the cause
for it. After the workshop, the major-
ity of Alarmed and Concerned teachers
stayed in the same category, with only
one Concerned teacher moving to the
Alarmed category. In contrast, the Cau-
tious teacher moved to the Concerned
category, and the Doubtful teacher and
the Dismissive teacher both moved to the
Cautious category.
While the majority of the teachers held
similar attitudes toward GCC, there were
different degrees of variations when it
came to specifi c facets of their ecological
views (see Table 5). Teachers were close
to consensus on the facets of “balance of
nature” and “eco-crisis.” Almost all teach-
ers believed that the balance of nature is
delicate and is easily subject to human in-
terference. In addition, most teachers held
that if the current environmental situation
continues, there will be disastrous conse-
quences. In contrast, teachers’ responses
to the facets of “anti-exemptionalism”
Table 2 Description of the six categories (Six Americas) of views on GCC (Maibach, Leiserowitz,
Roser-Renouf, & Mertz, 2011)
Category Description
Alarmed Most engaged group in the issue of global warming. Very convinced climate
change is happening, human-caused, and a serious and urgent threat. The
Alarmed are already making changes in their own lives and support an
aggressive national response.
Concerned This group is convinced that global warming is a serious problem, but while
they support a vigorous national response, they are distinctly less involved
in the issue, and less likely than the Alarmed to be taking personal action.
Cautious This group believes that global warming is a problem, although they are less
certain that it is happening than the Alarmed or the Concerned. They do not
view it as a personal threat, and do not feel a sense of urgency to deal with
it through personal or societal actions.
Disengaged This group has not thought much about the issue of climate change. They are
the group most likely to say that they could easily change their minds about
global warming where “don’t know” was presented as an option.
Doubtful This group is evenly split among those who think global warming is happening,
those who think it is not, and those who do not know. Many within this group
believe that if global warming is happening, it is caused by natural changes in the
environment, that it will not harm people for many decades into the future, if at all,
and that America is already doing enough to respond to the threat.
Dismissive This group, like the Alarmed, is actively engaged in the issue, but on the opposite
end of the spectrum. The large majority of the people in this segment believe that
global warming is not happening, is not a threat to either people or non-human
nature, and is not a problem that warrants a personal or societal response.
Table 3 Five facets of an “ecological” worldview (Dunlap et al., 2000; Dunlap, 2008)
Facets Defi nitions Sample Items
Balance of nature Beliefs that human activities impact the balance of nature e.g., When human interfere with nature, it often
produces disastrous consequences
Limits to growth Beliefs that the earth has limited resources e.g., We are approaching the limit of the number
of people the earth can support
Anti-anthropocentrism
(Human domination)
Beliefs that human beings have the right to modify and
control the natural environment
e.g., Humans have the right to modify the natural
environment to suit their needs
Anti-exemptionalism Beliefs that human beings are not exempt from the
constraints of nature
e.g., Humans will eventually learn enough about
how nature works to be able to control it.
Eco-crisis Beliefs that humans are causing detrimental harm
to the physical environment
e.g., If things continue on their present course,
we will soon experience a major environmental
catastrophe.

WINTER 2015 VOL. 24, NO. 1 5
and “anti-anthropocentrism” were less
uniform. Responses split on statements
about the limits of natural resources. For
example, fi ve teachers agreed that “The
earth has plenty of natural resources if we
just learn how to develop them,” whereas
fi ve other teachers mildly disagreed and
two teachers were unsure (one of the
thirteen teachers did not respond to this
item).
Teachers’ Knowledge about GCC
The participant teachers’ average
scores on each question are presented
in Table 6. Due to limited sample size,
statistical analysis is not applicable here.
However, these scores provide baseline
information about teachers’ knowledge
level in alignment with climate literacy
principles. In general, the participant
teachers held better understandings
regarding the relationship between life on
Earth and climate as well as how human
activities are affecting the climate sys-
tem. Yet, the teachers provided relatively
weak explanations about aspects such as
the complex interactions among compo-
nents of the Earth system and computer
models of climate data. The following
section provides more details of teachers’
knowledge on three main GCC topics:
underlying scientifi c processes, evidence
of human-induced changes, and eco-
logical and social consequences. Pseudo-
nyms are used when teachers’ specifi c
opinions and quotes are included.
Underlying scientifi c processes of
GCC.
Before the workshop, when describing
the scientifi c processes involved in GCC,
teachers tended to focus on the causes of
GCC and were vague about details of the
scientifi c processes involved. Four of the
Concerned teachers explicitly claimed
that humans are the main cause of GCC,
whereas the other eleven Concernd
teachers either did not provide an answer
or explained the processes very briefl y.
Of note, David, although identifi ed as
Concerned, indicated that GCC is more
of a natural process and explained that
“Climate change, to me, is the gradual
adapting of the plant and animal spe-
cies, over time, to live in a particular
environment.” In addition, teachers who
were Dismissive or Doubtful did not an-
swer this question and the one Cautious
teacher, Brandon, considered GCC as “a
result of human sanctioned release of
pollutants into the atmosphere.”
After the workshop, most of the
Alarmed and Concerned teachers’ re-
sponses became more detailed about the
scientifi c processes underpinning GCC.
A similar pattern of change was found
among the previously Cautious, Doubt-
ful, or Dismissive teachers. For example,
Ron, who moved from Doubtful to Cau-
tious, explained the scientifi c process of
GCC as follows:
Primarily CO2 accumulates in the
atmosphere and slows down the
sun’s energy from returning to space.
Because it takes longer to leave, it
is allowed to energize more mol-
ecules. This results in temperature
increase and changes to the global
climates.
Of note, while Ron was able to pro-
vide the brief description above, further
details were needed to clarify how in-
creased greenhouse gases in the atmo-
sphere may affect the global climate.
Moreover, changes in attitudes were
refl ected in teachers’ explanations of
GCC processes. For example, before the
workshop, David suggested that GCC
was mostly a natural adaptation, but after
the workshop, he incorporated scientifi c
details to explain that GCC is more than
just a natural change:
By putting more of the elements
into the atmosphere, that do not
move through the atmosphere as fast,
the atmosphere slowly builds up an
Table 4 PEI Question contents and alignment with Climate Literacy Principles (NOAA, 2009)
No. Question Content Climate Literacy
Principle Aligned
1 General opinion about climate change
2 Difference between weather and climate 4
3 Differences between climate change, greenhouse
effect and ozone depletion 2, 3, 6
4 Understanding of the Keeling Curve 3, 6
5 The effect of CO2 on global temperature 2, 3
6 The recent climate change trend 2, 6
7 Opinion about computer models and proxy data 4, 5
8 Prediction about precipitation and droughts 7
Figure 1. Proportion of the U.S. population (2011) and CYCLES teachers in the Six Americas

6 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
excess of greenhouse gasses. These
warm the earth surface by trapping
the CO2, like a “pin ball”, before
releasing them to outer-space. This
would in turn slowly melt the ice
and puts additional moisture into
the atmosphere, that changes plant
life on the earth’s surface until it
locks up CO2 to begin changing the
atmosphere.
However, not all Concerned teachers
were able to explain the scientifi c process
in details. Leah, who was Concerned
both before and after the workshop, only
stated that the way greenhouse gases
work is “capturing heat-they trap the
heat on the earth.” But Brandon, who
moved from Cautious to Concerned,
gave more thorough explanations when
answering the same question:
[There are] more of those molecules
getting trapped in the atmosphere.
And they provide more of a chance
for radiation from the sun to bounce
off of it instead of getting, you know,
[energy] usually may be bouncing
off one molecule and it bounces its
way back. When we were think-
ing about this, energy would maybe
bounce once or twice off of a mol-
ecule and eventually it’d fi nd its way
out. Whereas now, there are more of
the molecules to bounce off of, and it
takes them longer to eventually make
its way out, so more of the energy is
trapped in the atmosphere.
Despite the improvement in teachers’
understanding of climate change processes,
the PEIs revealed some misconceptions
teachers held. In particular, when asked if
the ozone hole is related to GCC, six teach-
ers (one Alarmed and fi ve Concerned) be-
lieved that they were closely connected.
Four teachers (one Alarmed and three
Concerned) were able to differentiate
ozone depletion and GCC. For instance,
Ron, who moved from Doubtful to Cau-
tious, indicated that ozone depletion and
GCC were separate with a brief answer:
I know back in the ‘80s or late ‘70s
they were harping on the CFC’s and
stuff and that was causing the open-
ing of the ozone. I think it had more
to do with the ultraviolet radiation
Table 5 Responses to the NEP scale from participant teachers*
NEP Items Strongly Agree Mildly Agree Unsure Mildly Disagree Strongly Disagree
Balance of Nature
When human interfere with nature, it often produces
disastrous consequences
6700 0
The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the
impacts of modern industrial nations
0136 3
The Balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset 3 8 1 1 0
Limits to Growth
We are approaching the limit of the number of people
the earth can support
1912 0
The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn
how to develop them
1425 0
The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room
and resources
5701 0
Anti-anthropocentrism
Humans have the right to modify the natural
environment to suit their needs
1305 4
Plant and animals have as much right as humans to exist 9 4 0 0 0
Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature 0 1 1 5 6
Anti-exemptionalism
Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make
the earth unlivable
0247 0
Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject
to the laws of nature
10 3 0 0 0
Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature
works to be able to control it
0224 5
Eco-crisis
Humans are severely abusing the earth 6 5 2 0 0
The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind
has been greatly exaggerated
0236 2
If things continue on their present course, we will soon
experience a major environmental catastrophe
4810 0
*The numbers show how many teachers chose a specifi c category under each item

WINTER 2015 VOL. 24, NO. 1 7
more than anything else. So I think
that’s what that is.
Perspectives about evidence on
GCC.
When discussing evidence for GCC,
all teachers considered that computer
models and proxy data are helpful tools
to help us understand GCC, but only half
of them gave specifi c reasons to support
their opinions. For example, Molly, who
moved from Concerned to Alarmed, said:
I think it’s an accurate picture... I
think it’s pretty cool that we actu-
ally see a correlation in the last 100
years that the temperature has risen
a lot faster. And, in the past 100
years, I assume, would be more cor-
rect because you’re getting it from
thermometers as opposed to tree
rings and ice cores and things like
that. I do think we can trust the data.
You know, it’s sketchy because it’s
from tree rings and coral and ice
cores, but that’s an average of what
they found from many samples. I
think … you’ve got a lot of bases
that are put together to make this
graph, and they didn’t get it from
just one source.
However, while all teachers consid-
ered computer models helpful, Ron was
the only teacher who raised the concern
that using proxy data as evidence may
not be suffi cient for a comprehensive un-
derstanding of GCC:
I think it’s one of the things that
you can use. I don’t think you can
go with just that. I mean, there are
other departures in temperature. I
think it’s something that you have to
use in conjunction with other things
too, to help support it.
Consequences of GCC.
Regarding the possible consequences
from GCC, many teachers referred to
the local climate in their discussions. In
particular, when answering the question
of whether there be an increased risk of
droughts and/or precipitation as a result
of GCC, three Concerned teachers made
very brief claims drawing on local cli-
mate or recent weather events. For ex-
ample, Leah believed that “you’re going
to have more precipitation because that’s
how we’re getting the fl ooding.” The re-
maining teachers provided more detailed
arguments stating that there is likely to
be both more precipitation and droughts.
For example, Tylor, who were Alarmed
both before and after the workshop, fi rst
stated:
It [precipitation] will increase, be-
cause warm air holds more mois-
ture. So, if the atmosphere warms
up, it will hold more moisture and
the storms will be more intense be-
cause it also has more energy.
Then, Tylor continued to discuss
the possibility of increasing droughts
by comparing with the reasons for
precipitation:
I think due to the way that the glob-
al circulation patterns of winds and
things are set up—so, areas now that
are dry will get drier and areas now
that are wet will get wetter. Because,
if it’s naturally a warm, dry area
anyways, it’s going to get hotter and
hotter and hotter, and there’s not go-
ing to be more moisture there. But,
if it’s normally an area with a more
intermediate climate, where there’s
rainfall, the increased energy in the
atmosphere and the increased tem-
perature of the atmosphere is going
to allow the air that’s normally wet
to hold even more water, which is
going to give us more rain. So it’s
going to exacerbate or accentuate
the cycles that are already there.
Classroom Teaching of GCC
Before the workshop, twelve Con-
cerned teachers reported having taught
about topics on climate issues in their
classrooms but the remaining four Con-
cerned teachers did not have such teach-
ing experience due to job assignments at
their schools. All teachers who were Dis-
missive, Doubtful, or Cautious reported
that they had not taught about GCC but
did not provide any reasons. Figure 2
presents a distribution of the topics the
twelve teachers had taught. The results
show that the three topics mostly taught
were: how human activities cause cli-
mate change, options for reducing or
adapting to impacts of climate change,
and causes and effects of rising tempera-
tures on Earth. Only one teacher reported
having discussed local climate change
issues with the students.
Before the workshop, when discuss-
ing the experienced challenges and po-
tential barriers in teaching GCC, two
teachers, one Concerned and one Dis-
missive, reported that the topic of GCC
did not align well with their curricula.
The teacher who was Dismissive, along
with seven other Concerned teach-
ers, suggested that a main challenge in
teaching GCC was that they did not have
suffi cient scientifi c knowledge in this re-
gard. In addition, two Concerned teach-
ers indicated that topics related to GCC
are too controversial and they were con-
cerned about the potential confl icts with
Native American students’ own cultural
perspectives.
Furthermore, there was a variation in
teachers’ perceptions of what to teach
Table 6 Teachers’ average PEI scores by questions
No. Question Content Average Score
1 General opinion about climate change 2.5
2 Difference between weather and climate 2
3 Differences between climate change, greenhouse
effect and ozone depletion 2.6
4 Understanding of the Keeling curve 2.7
5 The effect of CO2 on global temperature 1.9
6 The recent climate change trend 2.6
7 Opinion about computer models and proxy data 1.8
8 Prediction about precipitation and droughts 1.9
Total Average Score 2.25

8 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
about GCC. Before the workshop, only
two teachers (both Concerned ) believed
that basic scientifi c knowledge about
GCC should be the priority in their
teaching. At the same time, eleven Con-
cerned teachers believed they should let
students know what individuals could do
to reduce GCC, with six of them consid-
ering it particularly important that their
students are aware that humans are the
cause for GCC and will be impacted by
its effects. In comparison, the Cautious,
Doubtful and Dismissive teachers did not
respond to this question. However, after
the workshop, these three teachers, to-
gether with the others, were more aware
of the importance of teaching human im-
pacts on GCC and helping students un-
derstand potential ways to reduce such
impacts.
Discussion
The present study aimed to reveal the
relationship between teachers’ attitudes
and beliefs concerning GCC, their de-
veloping knowledge about climate sci-
ence, and classroom teaching of GCC.
In the following section, we address the
research questions that guided this study.
Research Question 1
Results from the Six Americas Survey
items suggest that the majority of teach-
ers fell into the Concerned category both
before and after the workshop. They were
convinced that human-induced GCC is
underway and will bring tremendous
consequences to the society. While most
teachers’ attitudes toward GCC stayed
the same throughout the workshop, there
were attitude changes among some teach-
ers. In particular, teachers who were on
the skeptical end of the spectrum became
more aware of the signifi cance of GCC
and its potential threat to humans and
shifted their attitudes about GCC. The
current fi ndings indicate that professional
development may induce attitude changes
on the topic of GCC.
As the Six Americas Survey tapped
into teachers’ general attitudes toward
GCC, the NEP Scale revealed the eco-
logical worldviews they held about the
human-Earth relationship. We found that
while teachers showed a similar degree
of concerns about GCC, they did not
necessarily share specifi c beliefs about
humans’ roles and responsibilities in re-
lation to GCC. Their perspectives varied
regarding human’s rights to exploit natu-
ral resources and dominate the Earth,
and especially when it came to whether
human beings are exempt from the con-
straints of nature. These results provided
more comprehensive information for us
to understand teachers’ perspectives to-
ward GCC-related issues.
Research Question 2
Prior to the workshop, teachers’ expla-
nations of the scientifi c processes of GCC
were non-existent or limited. Some teach-
ers were able to describe causes of GCC
but were unaware of the mechanisms or
of the full-scale of the impacts of GCC.
By the end of the workshop, the major-
ity of the participant teachers possessed
a basic understanding of climate science.
Most of them were able to provide details
about the causes and scientifi c processes
of GCC, although misconceptions per-
sisted for some teachers.
Attitudes were not strong indicators
of teachers’ levels of GCC knowledge.
Some teachers on the Concerned end of
the spectrum held misconceptions about
topics such as the relationship between
the ozone hole and GCC, whereas more
skeptical teachers were able to differ-
entiate these two scientifi c processes.
On the other hand, when explaining the
complex science underlying GCC, such
as its infl uence on droughts and precipi-
tation, the Concerned and Alarmed were
more likely to give detailed responses.
However, changes in GCC knowledge
were more marked among teachers who
experienced category changes in the Six
Americas survey. Teachers with skep-
tical attitudes towards climate issues
started the program with minimal knowl-
edge but ultimately demonstrated strong
growth in their understanding of climate
change. It is possible that these skeptical
attitudes stemmed from lack of knowl-
edge about climate science and that the
focus of the workshop on improving
GCC knowledge promoted changes in
attitudes based on access to scientifi c ev-
idence. Conversely, increased awareness
and concern about climate issues devel-
oped throughout the workshop may also
have helped teachers to better integrate
new and previous knowledge.
Similar to existing research in the lit-
erature (Kellstedt, Zahran, & Vedlitz,
2008), the current fi ndings indicate an
uncertain relationship between beliefs
and knowledge on environmental issues.
As changes in attitudes and knowledge
related to a complex topic such as GCC
may develop over time, we will continue
to explore the relationship between teach-
ers’ attitudes and knowledge in our future
professional development programs.
Research Question 3
While the majority of teachers in
this study viewed GCC as an important
Figure 2 Topics of GCC that CYCLES teachers had taught

WINTER 2015 VOL. 24, NO. 1 9
topic, their opinions varied about spe-
cifi c aspects that should be taught to
their students. Teachers who were on the
Concerned end of the spectrum generally
considered it critical that students are
aware that GCC is happening and know
about its causes and effects. However,
teachers who were more skeptical about
GCC issues had not necessarily taught
about them and tended to avoid dis-
cussing what they think students should
know about GCC. As they became more
aware of the signifi cance of GCC after
the workshop, these teachers started to
stress that students should understand
the infl uence human activities have on
the climate. Consistent with previous
studies which suggested that teachers’
attitudes may play an important part in
how they plan their teaching (e.g., Waters-
Adams, 2006), the current results indi-
cate that teachers’ attitudes about GCC
may infl uence their decision-making in
teaching GCC.
On the other hand, we found that there
was a lack of attention to teaching stu-
dents the scientifi c evidence and pro-
cesses related to GCC. Many teachers
stressed that they did not have suffi cient
scientifi c background to teach GCC
well. Even though data from surveys and
interviews showed that, after the work-
shop, these teachers held basic scientifi c
understanding about GCC, they still pos-
sessed certain misconceptions regard-
ing this environmental issue. While it is
uncertain what relationship there may
be between knowledge and behaviors
(Hwang, Kim, & Jeng, 2000), research-
ers have argued that a good understand-
ing about certain issues may positively
impact personal effi cacy (Hansen et al.,
2003). Therefore, future professional de-
velopment should consider placing more
emphasis on providing scientifi c infor-
mation to teachers in order to enhance
their capacity and confi dence in imple-
menting climate change education.
Conclusion
Humanity faces a number of environ-
mental, economic, and social challenges
related to GCC. Increasing attention has
been given to climate change education
due to its timeliness and importance. To
better promote climate change educa-
tion, it is important to understand teach-
ers’ perspectives toward GCC. This
study explored the relationship between
teachers’ attitudes and knowledge about
GCC. More importantly, considering
that teachers’ instructional decisions
are closely related to their attitudes and
knowledge, this work took a further step
and looked into how attitudes and knowl-
edge may relate to teachers’ classroom
teaching about GCC. The current fi nd-
ings will initiate more discussions on the
nature of teachers’ attitudes and beliefs
about GCC and how their classroom
practices may be infl uenced by attitudes
and knowledge. In addition, this work
will help inform teacher educators about
how to cultivate positive environmental
experiences and curricula in professional
development programs (Moseley & Utley,
2008). Improving student learning is the
ultimate goal of teacher professional de-
velopment (Guskey, 2002; Supovitz &
Turner, 2000). To fulfill this goal, it is
important that professional development
programs focus on initiating changes in
the beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of
teachers (Borko, 2004). By exploring the
relationship between teachers’ attitudes,
knowledge, and classroom teaching
about GCC, this work provides helpful
implications for the design of future pro-
fessional development programs on cli-
mate change education.
References
Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science
Standards. http://www.nextgenscience.org/
next-generation-science-standards
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to
actions: A theory of planned behavior.
In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action
control: From cognition to behavior (pp.
11-39). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Banks, S. (2001). Ethics and Values in So-
cial Work. Basingstoke, Palgrave.
Bord, R., O’Connor, R., & Fisher, A.
(2000). In what sense does the pub-
lic need to understand global climate
change? Public Understanding of Sci-
ence, 9(3), 205-218.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development
and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Brechin, S.R. (2003). Comparative public
opinion and knowledge on global cli-
matic change and the Kyoto Protocol:
The US versus the rest of the world?
International Journal of Sociology and
Social Policy, 23(10), 106-134.
Cheng, J. C-H., & Monroe., M. C. (2010).
Teachers’ attitudes toward an environ-
mental education program. Applied
Environmental Education and Commu-
nication, 9(1): 28-37.
Clarke-Ibañez, M. (2004). Framing the
social world with photo-elicitation inter-
views. American Behavioral Scientist,
47(12), 1507–1524.
Crowley, T. (2000). Causes of climate
change over the past 1000 years. Sci-
ence, 289(5477), 270-277.
Desjean-Perrotta, B., Moseley, C., &
Cantu, L. (2008). Preservice teachers’
perceptions of the environment: Does
ethnicity or dominant residential expe-
rience matter? The Journal of Environ-
mental Education, 39(2), 21-32.
Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The new environ-
mental paradigm scale: From mar-
ginality to worldwide use. Journal of
Environmental Education, 40(1), 3-18.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig,
A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measur-
ing endorsement of the New Ecological
Paradigm: A revised NEP Scale. Journal
of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.
Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring Science
Education: The Importance of Theo-
ries and Their Development. New York:
Teacher’s College Press.
Fortner, R. (2001). Climate change in
school: Where does it fi t and how ready
are we? Canadian Journal of Environ-
mental Education, 6(1), 18-31.
Good, P., et al. (2011). A review of recent
developments in climate change science.
Part I: Understanding of future change in
the large-scale climate system. Progress
in Physical Geography, 35(3), 281-296.
Grove, F., & Pugh, A. (1999). Elementary
pre-service teacher perceptions of the
greenhouse effect. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 8(1), 75-81.
Guskey, T. (2002). Does it make a difference?
Evaluating professional development. Ed-
ucational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
Guy, S., Kashima, Y., Walker, I., & O’Neill,
S. (2014). Investigating the effects of
knowledge and ideology on climate

10 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
change beliefs. European Journal of So-
cial Psychology, 44(5), 421-429.
Hamilton, L. (2011). Education, politics
and opinions about climate change evi-
dence for interaction effects. Climate
Change, 104(2), 231-242.
Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson,
P., & Sandoe, P. (2003). Beyond the
knowledge defi cit: recent research into
lay and expert attitudes to food risks.
Appetite, 41(2), 111-121.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera,
A. N. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of
research on responsible environmental
behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal
of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8.
Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (1990). Chang-
ing learner behavior through envi-
ronmental education. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.
Hwang, Y. H., Kim, S. L., & Jeng, J. M.
(2000). Examining the causal relation-
ships among selected antecedents of re-
sponsible environmental behavior. Journal
of Environmental Education, 31(4), 19-24.
Kellstedt, P., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2008).
Personal effi cacy, the information envi-
ronment, and attitudes toward global
warm ing and climate change in the United
States. Risk Analysis, 28(1), 113-126.
Kern, A., Roehrig, G., Reynolds, B.,
Bhattacharya, D., Varma, K., Hougham,
R. , Finley, F., Miller, B., Liu, S., Nam,
Y., & Karahan, E. (2012). Teacher Pro-
fessional Development for Climate
Change Education in Native Communi-
ties. Paper presented at the Conference
of the Association of Science Teacher
Education, Clearwater, FL.
Koballa, T. R., & Crawley, F. E. (1985).
The infl uence of attitude on science
teaching and learning. School Science
and Mathematics, 85, 222-232.
Kollmus, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind
the gap: Why do people act environmen-
tally and what are the barriers to proen-
vironmental behavior? Environmental
Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
Lambert, J., Lindgren, J., & Bleicher, R.
(2011). Assessing elementary science
methods students’ understanding about
global climate change. International
Journal of Science Education, 34(8),
1167-1187.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf,
C., Feinberg, G., & Rosenthal, S. (2014).
Climate change in the American mind:
April, 2014. Yale University and
George Mason University. New Haven,
CT: Yale Project on Climate Change
Communication.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf,
C. & Smith, N. (2011). Global Warm-
ing’s Six Americas, May 2011. Yale Uni-
versity and George Mason University.
New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Cli-
mate Change Communication.
Littledyke, M. (2008). Science education
for environmental awareness: approaches
to integrating cognitive and affective
domains. Environmental Education Re-
search, 14(1), 1-17.
Lumpe, A., Haney, J., & Czerniak, C.
(2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about
their science teaching context. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3),
275-292.
Maibach, E., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Rerouf,
C., & Mertz, C.K. (2011). Identify-
ing like-minded audiences for global
warming public engagement campaigns:
An audience segmentation analysis
and tool development. PLoS one, 6(3),
e17571.
Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz,
A. (2008). Communication and market-
ing as climate change intervention assets:
A public health perspective. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(5),
488-500.
Monroe, M. C. (1993). Changing environ-
mental behavior. Clearing, 77, 28-30.
Moseley, C., & Utley, J. (2008). An ex-
ploratory study of preservice teachers’
beliefs about the environment. The Jour-
nal of Environmental Education, 39(4),
15-30.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration (2009). Climate Literacy:
The Essential Principles and Funda-
mental Concepts (Second Edition).
http://www.globalchange.gov
Oliver, J. S., & Koballa, T. (1992). Sci-
ence educators’ use of the concept of
belief. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association of
Research in Science Teaching. Boston,
Massachusetts.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and
educational research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational
Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Prospective pri-
mary teachers’ understanding of climate
change, greenhouse effect, and ozone
layer depletion. Journal of Science Edu-
cation and Technology, 13(2), 299-307.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research
and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitude
and beliefs in learning to teach. In J.
Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (2nd eds),
Handbook of Research on Teacher
Education (pp. 102-119). New York:
Macmillan.
Robertson, A. (1993). Eliciting students’
understandings: Necessary steps in envi-
ronmental education. Australian Journal
of Environmental Education, 9, 95-114.
Roehrig, G., Campbell, K., Dalbotten, D.,
Varma, K. (2012). CYCLES: A Culturally-
relevant Approach to Climate Change
Education in Native Communities. Jour-
nal of Curriculum and Instruction, 6(1),
73-89.
Shepardson, D., Niyogi, D., Choi, S., &
Charusombat, U. (2011). Students’ con-
ceptions about the greenhouse effect,
global warming, and climate change.
Climate Change, 104(3-4), 481-507.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H.M. (2000).
The effects of professional development
on science teaching practices and class-
room culture. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.
Taylor, E., & Caldarelli, M. (2004). Teach-
ing beliefs of non-formal environmental
educators: A perspective from state and
local parks in the United States. Envi-
ronmental Education Research, 10(4),
451-469.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014).
Climate change indicators in the United
States, 2014. Third edition. EPA 430-R-
14-004. www.epa.gov/climatechange/
indcators
Wals, A. E. J. (1992). Young adolescents’
perceptions of environmental issues: Im-
plications for environmental education
in urban settings. Australian Journal of
Environmental Education, 8, 45-58.
Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship
between understanding of the nature of
science and practice: The infl uence of
teachers’ beliefs about education, teach-
ing and learning. International Journal
of Science Education, 28(8), 919-944.

WINTER 2015 VOL. 24, NO. 1 11
Shiyu Liu, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral scholar
in the Leonhard Center for the Enhance-
ment of Engineering Education at Pennsyl-
vania State University.
Gillian Roehrig, Ph.D., Professor of Sci-
ence Education and Associate Director of
the STEM Education Center, University of
Minnesota. Correspondence concerning this
articles should be sent to: Dr. Gillian
Roehrig, STEM Education Center, Univer-
sity of Minnesota, 320 Learning and Envi-
ronmental Sciences, 1954 Buford Ave., St.
Paul, MN 55108. Email: roehr013@umn.edu
Devarati Bhattacharya, is a doctoral can-
didate in the Department of Curriculum and
Instruction at the University of Minnesota.
Keisha Varma, Ph.D., Associate Profes-
sor, Department of Educational Psychol-
ogy, University of Minnesota.
Acknowledgement: This material is
based in part upon work supported by
the NASA Innovations in Climate Edu-
cation program under Grant Number
NNXlOAT53A.