Content uploaded by Petra Breitenmoser
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Petra Breitenmoser on Jul 16, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH
Navigating controversy and neutrality: pre-service
teachers’ beliefs on teaching climate change
Petra Breitenmosera,b , Manuela Keller-Schneiderb and Kai Nieberta
aInstitute of Education, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; bDepartment of Primary Education, Zurich
University of Teacher Education, Zurich, Switzerland
ABSTRACT
Teachers’ climate change knowledge, beliefs, and the controversy sur-
rounding the topic influence their curricular decisions. However, there’s
limited understanding of pre-service teachers’ competencies and beliefs
to address controversial aspects. This qualitative interview study with
nine pre-service teachers in Switzerland explores their perspectives across
the audience segmentation groups of Global Warming’s Six Americas and
their preparedness to teach controversial aspects. The thematic analysis
revealed distinct differences. Teachers’ beliefs influenced their teaching
intentions, avoiding bias and controversy. Factors like inadequate ped-
agogical and content knowledge, the controversial nature of the topic,
and perceived pressure result in teachers adopting a neutral stance. Yet,
the interpretations of ‘controversy’ and ‘neutrality’ vary individually and
contextually. Climate change is often approached as a scientific issue,
focusing on private sphere actions, neglecting critical discussions, and
hampering transformative learning. These findings highlight the impor-
tance of recognizing diverse perspectives in addressing controversial
aspects – with implications for teacher education.
Introduction
While climate change has become a major issue in science, society, and politics, research shows
that teachers are reluctant to teach controversial topics such as climate change because they
fear negative reactions from parents (Breitenmoser & Keller-Schneider, 2024; Nganga et al. 2020;
Plutzer et al. 2016). They further state an insufficient pedagogical preparation while effective
strategies for addressing controversial aspects in Climate Change Education (CCE) and supporting
teachers in navigating these challenges are still scarce (Ennes etal. 2021; Nganga et al. 2020;
Reid, 2019). Therefore, the role of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about controversy must be
considered when examining their curricular decisions (Hess & McAvoy, 2015). The purpose of
this study is to better understand how primary school pre-service teachers’ climate change
beliefs, attitudes, values, policy preferences, motivations, behaviours, and underlying barriers to
action towards teaching controversial aspects influence their intention to teach climate change
in the classroom. Specifically, our goal is to analyse how statements of pre-service primary
school teachers within the audience segmentation groups according to the Global Warming’s
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Petra Breitenmoser petra.breitenmoser@ife.uzh.ch Institute of Education, University of Zurich,
Kantonsschulstrasse 3, Zürich, 8001, Switzerland.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms
on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 13 February
2024
Accepted 25 June 2024
KEYWORDS
Climate change
education; controversy;
sustainability; pre-service
teachers; Global
Warming’s Six Americas
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOP-
MENT GOALS
SDG 13: Climate action
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2375335
2 P. BREITENMOSER ETAL.
Six Americas differ regarding teaching controversial aspects. These climate-related attitude types
have proven to be suitable for addressee-oriented climate communication (Leiserowitz et al.
2021), hence this should also apply to an addressee-oriented teacher education, considering
scientific evidence and students’ prior concepts and beliefs. By combining an empirically proven
theoretical framework for pedagogical development (Keller-Schneider, 2020) with climate-related
attitude types (Maibach et al. 2011), the unique contribution of our study is the exploration of
diverse viewpoints of pre-service teachers in Switzerland when addressing controversial aspects.
The following research questions were addressed in this study:
• RQ 1: What Global Warming’s Six Americas attitude types are evident in the statements
of the pre-service teachers studied? How do these manifest in the data?
• RQ 2: For the different groups, what do pre-service teachers say about teaching contro-
versial aspects of climate change and which goals do they consider most relevant?
• RQ 3: What aspects do pre-service teachers see as motivations, challenges, or barriers
to teaching controversial issues and how does this influence their intention to teach
climate change?
Challenges of CCE
Students need to develop agency to cope with and shape a complex and uncertain future
(UNESCO, 2020, 9; White et al. 2023). Transformative learning is central to developing these
competencies, aligning with the objectives outlined in the Education for Sustainable Development
(ESD) framework (UN General Assembly, 2015). However, CCE has in the past focused strongly
on spreading knowledge and teaching desirable behaviours in the private sphere, and less on
the emancipatory and transformative learning processes in the public sphere (Kranz etal. 2022;
Stern, 2000; Waldron et al. 2019). These would be necessary for critical engagement with com-
plex, uncertain, and contradictory social, economic, political, and cultural interconnections of
climate change (Pettig & Ohl, 2023), as a so called ‘wicked problem’ (Rittel & Webber, 1973).
Moreover, teaching climate change is perceived as uncomfortable and hence challenging by
many teachers (e.g. Colston & Vadjunec, 2015; Gayford, 2002; Monroe et al. 2019; Plutzer etal.
2016; Reid, 2019; Spiropoulou etal. 2007), partly due to the controversial portrayal of the topic
in social media, news media, government, and in philanthropy (Allgaier, 2019; Farrell, 2019)
despite the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change (Lynas
etal. 2021). Oulton et al. (2004) claim that only 12% of the 600 surveyed teachers feel prepared
to teach controversial issues.
Approaches to teach controversy in the classroom
Previous experiences, the (social) context, and political ideologies shape learning processes
(Keller-Schneider, 2020; Long et al. 2022). Teachers draw on their professional knowledge and
beliefs (Blömeke, Kaiser, and Lehmann 2008) and influence children’s learning success (Lipowsky,
2006). Teacher education needs to build on this knowledge and beliefs of teachers to prepare
them for the challenge of teaching climate change (Brownlee et al. 2013). However, simply
providing teachers with more content knowledge is not enough (e.g. Keller-Schneider, 2020;
Plutzer etal. 2016; Walsh & Tsurusaki, 2014). In a qualitative study with ten (pre-service) geog-
raphy teachers, Seow and Ho (2016) were able to show that teachers’ beliefs about the purpose
of CCE guided them in the way they included controversies in the classroom. However, Ferguson
etal. (2021) concluded that so far little empirical evidence has been collected on the conceptual
understanding and positioning of (pre-service) teachers on Sustainable Development (SD) and
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). It often remains unclear what teachers understand
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 3
by ESD (Timm & Barth, 2021). This is significant in dealing with controversies in the sense that
teachers’ conceptual understanding of ESD has an impact on its implementation in the classroom
(Baumann & Niebert, 2022; Boeve-de Pauw & van Petegem, 2018). According to Vare and Scott
(2007), it is essential that aspects of both instrumental-anticipatory ESD 1 and critical-emancipatory
ESD 2 are included in the classroom. The instrumental approach is understood as the transmis-
sion of generally accepted scientific knowledge and values, as well as individual behaviour (e.g.
recycling, energy saving) in the private sphere. The emancipatory approach focusses on devel-
oping critical thinking and reflection (Vare & Scott, 2007). However, in environmental education
and CCE, the focus is on private sphere actions in an ESD 1, while ESD 2 is hardly considered
(Sund & Gericke, 2020). Likewise, the study results of Gaubitz (2023) showed that pre-service
primary school teachers implementing ESD in the classroom voiced arguments only for an
instrumental ESD 1 but against an emancipatory ESD 2. Moreover, results of an interview study
with ten Singaporean teachers by Seow and Ho (2016) further suggested that teachers’ beliefs
about their students’ academic abilities influence whether controversial issues are included in
the classroom. One possible interpretation of the authors is that controversy and thus the critical
handling of a variety of information is already perceived as demanding on a personal level and
thus not expected of students.
Perspectives on teaching controversial climate change issues
Apart from knowledge, previous research suggested that teachers’ beliefs about climate change
and the presence of controversy influenced their curricular decisions (Hess, 2004; Oversby, 2015).
Several factors influence the formation of beliefs about controversial issues such as climate
change. These factors include psychological processes (i.e. cognitive dissonance, confirmation
bias, or belief in the efficacy of individual actions), spiritual or religious beliefs about nature,
views about policy and governance, social norms, and knowledge of scientific concepts and
trust in scientific processes (Brownlee etal. 2013). Nation and Feldman (2021) found that teachers
have strong beliefs about the causes and implications of climate change and value CCE. However,
teachers’ personal beliefs about climate change did influence their teaching of the curriculum
in a sense, as they deliberately removed their beliefs about the issue so as not to appear biased
in their teaching. Hence, they shielded their students from the controversies within the climate
change dialogue. The controversial nature of climate change, the negative association of con-
troversy with conflict (Dängeli & Kalcsics, 2018), the prevailing political climate, and opposition
from parents or administrators prevented teachers from espousing their beliefs within their
instruction but remaining ‘neutral’ and reluctant to teach controversial topics (Nganga et al.
2020). However, Plutzer et al. (2016) and Wise (2010) found in their studies that only 4.4%,
respectively 15% of the teachers surveyed had experienced pressure from parents, community
leaders, or school administrators not to teach about climate change. Nicholls (2016) found that
Australian teachers, regardless of their position on climate change, approached it as a scientific
issue rather than a complex, multi-dimensional topic in order to remain neutral. Wise (2010)
and Nation and Feldman (2021) concluded that teachers present climate change as scientifically
debatable and as a two-sided issue to remain neutral. The teachers intended to provide a
balanced approach, presenting both sides of climate change science, and wanting to allow
students to form their own opinions. Plutzer etal. (2016) conclude that most US science teachers
underestimate the extent of scientific consensus about the anthropogenic driving force of cli-
mate change and therefore teach ‘both sides’ (Plutzer et al. 2016, 665) of the debate. In doing
so, teachers did not engage students in critical discourses or debates to better understand their
own and others’ viewpoints necessary in emancipatory and transformative learning processes,
introducing young citizens to participate in democracy (Hess & McAvoy, 2015; Kissling & Bell,
2020; Monroe etal. 2019). Likewise, there is a debate in the scientific community about teaching
‘both sides’ (e.g. Colston & Vadjunec, 2015; Hess & McAvoy, 2015). It is based on the question
4 P. BREITENMOSER ETAL.
of whether an empirical and political issue is settled or open (Hess & McAvoy, 2015, 161).
Climate change is special in the sense that the issue of human-induced climate change is settled
in the scientific community (Hess & McAvoy, 2015; Lynas et al. 2021). Similarly, climate change
is perceived decreasingly controversial by individuals. This awareness is not limited to specific
regions, but rather indicates widespread environmental awareness with agrowing demand for
political action (EU, 2021; UNDP, 2021). However, the relationship between industry-led political
philanthropy and the spread of scientific misinformation sows polarisation around climate
change, influences public attitudes towards climate change, and exerts control over political
processes (Farrell, 2019). This has implications for teaching decisions about how and whether
to introduce controversy in the classroom, particularly in value-conservative contexts (Long
et al. 2022).
Whether a teacher should be reserved and politically ‘neutral’ or whether he or she is allowed
to take a stand is controversially discussed in literature (e.g. Hess & McAvoy, 2015; Wohnig,
2020). The positions vary from a general commitment to the values of human and children’s
rights to a clear advocacy of individual standpoints as well as the disclosure of personal nor-
mative foundations and reference points. Despite these different positions, there is a consensus
that teachers need to be aware of their role and responsibility and that own normative stances
and attitudes need to be reflected (Hess & McAvoy, 2015; Wohnig, 2020). In German-speaking
countries – and hence important for the geographical context of this study – the ‘Beutelsbach
Consensus’ (Christensen & Grammes, 2020) serves as a kind of pedagogical safety net for teachers
to adhere to the principles of political education. These are not to overwhelm students, to treat
controversial issues as controversial, and give weight to the interests of students. If teaching is
experienced as indoctrination of desired values and behaviour, this can trigger a negative
reaction (a so-called boomerang effect) not only among students (Hörsch et al. 2023) but also
among pre-service teachers. Effective CCE should therefore allow to take up the issue of con-
troversy in teacher education and to critically deal with complexity, uncertainty, and contradic-
tions. Such teaching has a positive effect on learners’ behaviour (Boeve-de Pauw et al. 2015).
However, there is little evidence in the literature about how teachers’ attitudes differ and how
this affects the way they approach controversy in the classroom.
Climate-related attitude types
A deep understanding of an audience’s prior-knowledge and perspectives including beliefs and
attitudes regarding a specific issue is essential in education (e.g. Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992).
Knowing a target audience’s opinions about climate change helps educators design programs
addressing beliefs about climate change and how they influence teaching decisions (e.g. Drewes
et al. 2018; Leiserowitz et al. 2021; Walsh & Tsurusaki, 2014). For example, Long et al. (2022)
argue based on Kahan (2013) and McCright & Dunlap (2011) that teaching about climate change
demands attention to cultural-psychological conditions as these conditions shape conceptions
and learner identities. With the aim of developing strategies for effective and targeted climate
communication for different audiences, the Global Warming’s Six Americas was developed in
2008 by researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities. This framework segments the US
public into six distinct, but internally consistent audiences based on beliefs, attitudes, policy
preferences and behaviour regarding climate change (Maibach et al. 2011). The changes in the
groups have since then been tracked twice a year using representative surveys (e.g. Leiserowitz
et al. 2021). According to the representative survey of US citizens by Leiserowitz etal. (2021),
the following distribution emerges in the USA in 2020: alarmed (26%), concerned (29%), cautious
(19%), disengaged (6%), doubtful (12%) and dismissive (8%), with the ‘alarmed’ having the
highest and the ‘dismissive’ the lowest belief in Global Warming (Figure 1). Comparable analyses
on climate-related attitude types of other countries also showed that the public generally have
a high level of climate awareness (see also EU, 2021 and UNDP, 2021) and can be distinguished
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 5
by different patterns of information use and receptivity to climate-related information (Metag
et al. 2015; Morrison et al. 2013).
Methodology
The research questions RQ 1 to 3 were addressed using a qualitative research approach based
on oral narratives. In July 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, data was collected after pre-service
teachers participated in a ten-hour online course unit on ‘Teaching Climate Change’. This unit
was part of an elective module in ‘Natur, Mensch, Gesellschaft’ (i.e. nature, human, society –
largely corresponding to social and natural sciences) in the last semester of a single-phase,
seven-subject bachelor’s degree programme for primary teachers at the Zurich University of
Teacher Education in Switzerland. The participants included nine pre-service teachers (four
females and five males) who volunteered from a group of 20 students enrolled in the optional
social and natural sciences course. Participation was voluntary and they were free to withdraw
without consequence. At the time of the interviews, all had successfully completed the seminar
and the final examinations. They were about one month away from starting as fully qualified
and self-directed teachers, having to navigate the relative openness of the Swiss curriculum
with their knowledge and skills. The interview guide was based on Keller-Schneider’s (2020,
151) perception and stress-resource theory based professionalisation approach. To stimulate rich
narratives related to the perceived demands of teaching climate change, the semi-structured
guide was deductively differentiated according to thematic components of teaching climate
change (Breitenmoser & Keller-Schneider, 2022). All interviews were conducted online due to
contact restrictions. Each interview, varying from 46 to 73 min, was transcribed manually from
Swiss dialect into German, following Dresing and Pehl (2015), and translated into English for
analysis.
The fully anonymised data were initially analysed using content structuring qualitative content
analysis as suggested by Kuckartz (2016). In a first step, the statements were deductively assigned
to the upper categories based on the stress and resource theory-based model (Keller-Schneider,
2020, 151) and thematically differentiated for this study. Subcategories were then developed
Figure 1. Audience segments in the USA, Australia, and Germany (data retrieved from Leiserowitz et al. (2021), Metag
et al. (2015), and Morrison et al. (2013)). Note that comparison is limited due to differences in the survey items and data
analyses between the countries.
6 P. BREITENMOSER ETAL.
from the material inductively. This process revealed specific beliefs and values about teaching
and learning controversial aspects of climate change. The inductively developed category system
was reviewed and adjusted by the author team after coding three interviews. Subsequently, all
nine interviews were coded by the first author of this article using the revised category system.
The detailed category system is available in the Supplementary Materials in Breitenmoser and
Keller-Schneider (2024).
For this paper, we employed a second-order analysis step, wherein all material was deduc-
tively coded using Kuckartz’s evaluative categorisation based on the Global Warming’s Six
Americas’ framework (Maibach etal. 2011) (see Table 1). This involved classifying the pre-service
teachers evaluatively into one of the six attitude types, based on most codes per person. To
ensure the validity of this classification, three interviews were second-coded by a trained student
assistant. The achieved intercoder reliability (Kappa = 0.88, calculated according to Brennan and
Prediger (1981)) suggests a high level of consistency in the coding process.
Results
In the following sections, we present the climate related attitudes and approaches of pre-service
teachers towards teaching climate change, structured around the three research questions
(RQ 1–3).
The alarmed
In exploring the first research question, the ‘alarmed’ type prominently features in the statements
of the pre-service teachers S1 and S7. For instance, S1, an active member of Greenpeace, artic-
ulates a clear intention:
‘I want to show the children that we as humans have to change to combat the climate crisis […] and that they
can actively shape and change their future. […] For me as an adult, the focus is on concrete actions in everyday
life, not on running around at demonstrations. That does nothing for the climate.’ (S1)
The ‘alarmed’ type manifests itself in expressions of concern and conviction regarding the
urgency of climate change, primarily attributed to human activity. S1 and S7’s awareness and
informedness are evident in their emphasis on individual responsibility towards climate-conscious
behaviour and support for climate protection measures in the private sphere.
In addressing RQ 2, the data reveals a conflict among pre-service teachers about the peda-
gogical implications of teaching controversial aspects of climate change in relation to their own
values and understanding of teaching goals:
‘Because what do I accept and demand from the children and what do I not, for example when it comes to
recycling PET bottles on the school grounds? Where do I bring in my point of view? What is relevant to me and
what is socially important? […] Actually, I want to motivate the children to change their lifestyle. But I know
that in my role as a teacher, I must be careful that I don’t impose my opinion too much. But I can make them
think.’ (S1)
From this statement, it becomes evident that the topic of climate change is perceived as
highly relevant for teaching. The overarching goal identified is to raise awareness about climate
change among primary school students. S1 and S7 place significant emphasis on the role of
individual actions in areas like recycling, energy, nutrition, and consumption. They voice a
preference for practical, everyday measures over public-sphere actions, as illustrated in S1’s
statement above. S1 and S7 also want to encourage students to think critically and to foster
an informed decision-making process: ‘So that they can really understand the issue and form their
own informed opinions and actions’ (S7). To facilitate this, S1 and S7 want their students to gain
a foundational understanding of climate change. They value discussions, debates, and
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 7
Table 1. Excerpt from the codebook. The definition of the categories is based on Maibach et al. (2011).
Code Definition of category Anchor examples
Number of codes per
student S1–S9
Alarmed Human-caused only; major,
current threat; very concerned;
very well informed, high level of
interest; keen to change own
behaviour; strongly support
climate action
Climate change affects all areas
of life, somehow. It is a highly
topical issue. More and more
natural disasters are now
happening because of climate
change. […] I think the climate
strikes are good. You can then
discuss the issue with people.
(S7)
S1(7); S4(5);
S5(4); S7(9)
Concerned Mainly human-made; major
threat, but not top priority;
concerned; well informed,
interested; little effort to change
own behaviour; supports most
climate protection measures
I think climate change is a very
important issue to deal with.
But I’m pretty sure that if I’d
been at the climate
demonstrations, it would have
been even more important to
me. (S4)
S1(2); S2(3); S3(4);
S4(6); S5(8); S6(3);
S7(2); S8(4); S9(2)
Cautious Uncertain whether natural
processes are also involved;
threat in the future; not directly
personally affected; somewhat
informed, little interest; not eager
to change own behaviour; only
partially in favour of climate
protection measures
I think that climate change
would take place anyway
because it would just get
warmer. It’s not just because
people are destroying the
world, but I once read
something by a super-smart
researcher. I think he came up
with that. I don’t know whether
it’s true, but maybe not only
humans are responsible for it.
Humans make it larger, but I
have the feeling that this would
also happen in nature. – Just
perhaps slower, but I am not
completely sure. (S8)
S2(8); S3(2); S5(3);
S6(11); S8(7); S9(2)
Disengaged Mostly not being aware; little
informed; little climate awareness
No examples in the data –
Doubtful Mainly natural processes; little
concern; low threat; little
climate-conscious behaviour;
rejects most climate protection
measures
I acknowledge that there is
something about the warming.
But maybe in ten years
everything will be different
again and the earth will
regulate itself. […] I don’t know
what to believe. But I don’t
believe everything I hear. […] I
have no expert knowledge. For
this reason, I use my common
sense and the knowledge that
is still tangible and real and try
to form my own opinion. […] I
and the majority are not willing
to renounce anything. […] As
long as the perfect solution [no
renunciation] does not exist,
there is no point. (S9)
S9(5)
Dismissive Rejection that man-made; not
concerned at all; no threat;
no climate-aware behaviour;
rejects climate actions
No examples in the data –
8 P. BREITENMOSER ETAL.
philosophical conversations as methods to encourage evidence-based opinion formation, espe-
cially on the controversial aspects of the topic. However, they express uncertainty regarding
the actual implementation of these ideals in a classroom setting.
RQ 3 examined the motivational factors and barriers influencing pre-service teachers’ inten-
tions to teach climate change. Emotional involvement in climate issues emerged as a significant
challenge:
‘It is difficult to remain emotionally neutral on issues that affect me very much. […] But it should be made clear
to the children that a teacher also has an opinion. But this is not central for the children, because they should
learn to form their own opinions and to justify them. […] But at the end of the day, I think that it is the children
themselves who form the opinion that is strongest and that can be best justified with facts.’ (S7)
S7 acknowledges in this statement a strong personal belief but recognized the necessity
of maintaining a degree of emotional neutrality to encourage independent opinion formation
among students. Moreover, the importance of introducing various perspectives in the class-
room is emphasised in statements of S1 and S7, ensuring students to form their own
well-founded opinions. Although they acknowledge that the scientific community largely
agrees on the human-induced climate change, they note the diverse opinions present in
society. Parents may have different beliefs, but according to S1 and S7, this does not influence
their teaching. They refer to the curriculum and the Federal Constitution as a legitimising
basis for teaching climate change. At the same time, S1 and S7 believe that it ultimately
depends on a teacher’s convictions and interests whether climate change is taught, as the
following statement clearly indicates: ‘Everyone has to decide this for themselves and justify it
with the curriculum’ (S7). This is made challenging by the perceived lack of pedagogical content
knowledge to teach the topic.
The concerned
In exploring the first research question, the ‘concerned’ type prominently features in the state-
ments of the pre-service teachers S3, S4, and S5. Like the ‘alarmed’ type, they describe climate
change as a problem for society, but overall, they have less confidence in their own knowledge
and ability to teach the issue, as S5 expresses: ‘I need to learn more because I still know too little
to teach it’. The respondents show support for climate protection measures, but tend to favour
simpler, universal solutions.
For RQ 2, the statements reflect the importance of a neutral stance on teaching climate change:
‘I would not teach the subject as passionately as climate activists, which is good. That way the children are not
emotionally overwhelmed’ (S5); and ‘I have a neutral attitude. Therefore, I can deal with the topic objectively
and factually, i.e. without moralising or indoctrinating values.’ (S4)
This neutral stance is perceived to be essential by the pre-service teachers, as teaching the
topic requires a balanced approach. In addition, they agree that teachers should act as role
models for sustainable behaviour, while also maintaining neutrality on divisive subjects to pre-
vent indoctrination, moralization, and emotional overload of students. The aim of climate
education at the primary level should be to ‘instil basic knowledge that enables students to form
an informed opinion’ (S3). The emphasis is on promoting open-mindedness, the acceptance of
diverse opinions, and an awareness of the finite nature of resources. They further highlight the
importance of students to understand that individual restrictions and actions in the private
sphere, even if seemingly insignificant, play an important role in combating the climate crises.
Hence, the students should learn about the contribution they can make as individuals.
In terms of RQ 3, the implementation of controversial aspects in the classroom is described
as challenging. S5 voices a concern: ‘I constantly feel I am doing something wrong. Even if the
science was 100% certain, there are still different ideologies regarding the climate crisis.’ This
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 9
hesitancy is also reflected in S3’s comment: ‘Addressing it in the classroom is delicate because it
requires constant reflection and great care what and how I say something to whom. I cannot meet
this demand.’ This uncertainty also extends to the professional role of the teacher and how to
deal with normativity. The pre-service teachers are unsure how to discuss such content with
the children. Conflict is seen as something negative in the classroom and is avoided.
The pre-service teachers agree that no concrete instructions for action should be given and
all viewpoints need to be respected. They believe that students should adopt a critical perspec-
tive, using the information provided to make their personal choices. There is, however, no clear
idea of how to incorporate norms, responsibility, and individual action in the classroom. One
primary challenge these pre-service teachers face is the different opinions that students might
come with, often shaped by media and parental influences. They fear that these perspectives
differ from theirs and might negatively influence the lesson and they are afraid of giving wrong
information on controversial issues. This leads to uncertainty when dealing with students’
questions.
A lack of practical experience in discussing such current and emotionally charged issues in
class further complicates the matter. A solution, as proposed by the ‘concerned’ pre-service
teachers, revolves around focusing on the scientific perspective using ‘proven, objective teaching
materials to justify my decision to teach climate change’ (S4). This ensures accurate and neutral
teaching, as underscored by S3:
‘I would like to leave out emotional aspects and discussions about controversial topics outside as much as
possible and focus on objectivity and correctness so that the students are not overwhelmed, and the teacher is
not moralising about the measures.’ (S3)
However, they also admit that potential confrontations with parents and the school commu-
nity discourage them from discussing controversial topics. The fear of damaging relationships
and facing criticism is evident in S3’s and S4’s statements:
‘It’s a front I don’t want to get in between as a teacher […] It’s outside my comfort zone’ (S3) and ‘If the parents
and the school don’t want me to do it, then my hands are kind of tied and I would refrain from doing it for
selfish reasons because I don’t want to cause problems and jeopardise the relationship with the parents. I don’t
want to take that risk.’ (S4)
Consequently, despite recognizing the importance of addressing climate change, these
pre-service teachers are wary of introducing controversial content into their lessons, thereby
sidelining potential learning opportunities.
The cautious
In exploring the first research question, the ‘cautious’ type is reflected in the statements of the
pre-service teachers S2, S6, and S8. These pre-service teachers acknowledge human-induced
climate change, yet they also express uncertainty about the role of natural processes. In addi-
tion, the pre-service teachers express insufficient basic knowledge and a low level of interest
in the topic. They perceive climate change primarily as a distant threat and express limited
support for mitigation measures, stating the absence of effective solutions.
Addressing RQ 2 for the ‘cautious’ type, the focus of teaching is on promoting unbiased and
differentiated opinions among students, emphasizing that there are no strictly ‘right’ or ‘wrong’
opinions. They underscore the importance of students engaging with diverse perspectives and
what they can do about it to not merely echoing media headlines. S2 articulates this approach
as follows:
‘Students should learn what they can do concretely, e.g. dispose of glass and PET bottles or turn off the light
when leaving the room. Something small, without being insanely restrictive and that is not controversial, but
positive.’ (S2)
10 P. BREITENMOSER ETAL.
The aim is to promote actions that are non-controversial yet positively impactful for the
environment, thereby enhancing student self-efficacy to ‘do things like that’ (S8). However, S8
voices a concern that while children may aspire to save the planet, individual efforts of children
are futile. He wants to show these students that, once they can vote, they can make a differ-
ence. At the same time, teacher credibility is rooted in being reflective role models, but S6
questions the equity of holding teachers to stringent standards when others in society might
not be accountable. According to S2, it is important not to impose restrictive measures on
students unless there are good and workable solutions for all.
Several challenges are expressed in teaching climate change by the pre-service teachers (RQ
3). A significant concern is the difficulty in maintaining neutrality, especially on emotionally
charged topics like climate change. They express worries about the influence of personal biases
arising from personal guilt linked to unsustainable lifestyles and the potential of inadvertently
indoctrinating students. Even when teachers strive to be objective, it is difficult to convey sound
facts without personal bias.
Both S6 and S8 express doubts about climate education, citing ambiguities in current sci-
entific evidence and the prevalence of dissenting views. Their statements indicate a struggle
with the complexity of the issue and the conflicting information available. S6’s comment, ‘I
wouldn’t be happy if I taught something that I wasn’t completely convinced of and I wasn’t sure if
it was right. That’s what holds me back the most’, encapsulates this sentiment. The possibility of
a teacher with rigid views influencing students’ perceptions inappropriately is worrying them.
As S8 puts it, there is uncertainty if a passionate climate activist teacher ‘with an extreme opinion
can adequately consider the other side and teach the issue objectively.’ It is emphasised that a good
teacher should point out contradictions and that this is easier if the teacher has a neutral
attitude and a less extreme opinion. S2 vocalizes a ‘fear that I might indoctrinate the children
because the issue in society is very much dependent on personal opinion and the willingness to want
to change something, which is less tied to facts.’ To navigate this, S2 wishes for mandated teaching
materials that are both scientifically accurate and devoid of extreme stances: ‘I would like to
have a framework on how to talk to children about controversial issues without extreme positions
dominating’. Furthermore, in order to work and cooperate well with parents, privacy should be
respected. As S6 shares: ‘I don’t want to go out on a limb and tell the children and parents that
they can no longer fly. I don’t want to make a big deal out of it.’ This group also highlights the
influence of media on children and the negative, emotionally charged nature of climate cover-
age. They advocate for protecting children from distressing topics in the classroom. Consequently,
they prefer introducing non-controversial topics such as ‘forest’ as a foundation for more complex
discussions at higher school levels.
The doubtful
The ‘doubtful’ type manifests itself in the statements of S9 (RQ 1). This pre-service teacher’s
statements reveal a conflicted stance on climate change, acknowledging its existence, yet
expressing strong doubts about its causes. S9 describes a reluctance to accept the consensus
among climate scientists and a hesitation to endorse individual or political actions aimed at
mitigating climate change. Lifestyle changes or restrictions are particularly unpalatable to S9.
The pre-service teachers’ views on teaching controversial aspects of climate change reveal
varying educational priorities and approaches (RQ 2). S9’s perspective is illustrated through a
personal anecdote involving a student’s reaction to a speech by Greta Thunberg:
‘A third-grader told me after the weekend that she felt good because she had heard a speech by Greta. Surely,
a third-grader is not ready to understand that yet! She probably got it from her parents. I don’t impose my
opinion on anyone. But as a teacher, you should also show the children that not everything Greta or the climate
experts say is right and not everything the climate sceptics say is right either. It’s important to me that the
children don’t accept everything they hear about climate change without checking it out, but that they learn to
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 11
think critically and to believe what is right and important to them. This is not necessarily what their parents
say or what the media reports.’ (S9)
S9 emphasises that he does not want to impose his opinion on anyone and elaborates on
the importance of critical thinking and not accepting information at face value, whether from
teachers, media, parents, or (public) figures like Thunberg. S9’s focus in school is on neutrality
and presenting all sides of the debate, while intending to foster critical thinking.
In terms of RQ 3, S9 expresses uncertainty on the topic and a distrust of scientific knowledge.
He says that it is difficult to teach something as true when there are many different opinions
and it is not proven what is true. He describes himself as ‘objective, factual, and neutral,’ but
expresses strong convictions. He describes it challenging to provide students with an unbiased
view and highlights the importance of using neutral teaching materials that might sometimes
conflict with one’s personal beliefs. Moreover, finding such balanced resources that also take
up ‘other than mainstream scientific knowledge’ can be demanding. If he were to discuss climate
change, all sides of the controversy would need to be explored to give students an objective
view. He notes that addressing climate change has no priority for him as the search for such
‘neither extremely pro nor con texts’ involves too much time and effort. Moreover, S9 believes
primary school students to be too young to understand different perspectives and to form their
own, unbiased opinions. The pre-service teacher concludes with a sentiment of uncertainty: ‘I
don’t know what to teach the children, because I don’t want to just say that – they say this, the
others say that’, reflecting upon a conflict between personal beliefs and professional
responsibility.
Discussion and implications
This section will discuss along the three research questions of this study how Global Warming’s
Six Americas’ attitude types evidenced in pre-service teachers’ statements express varied per-
spectives and approaches to teach climate change, including aspects of neutrality, controversy,
and contextual influences.
Global Warming’s Six Americas attitude types evidenced in the pre-service teachers’
statements (RQ 1)
In our sample of nine pre-service teachers, we identified the following distribution of the groups:
‘alarmed’ (S1, S7), ‘concerned’ (S3, S4, and S5), ‘cautious’ (S2, S6, and S8), and ‘doubtful’ (S9).
Table 2 compares the distribution of the identified types in our study with the representative
survey of US citizens in 2008 (Maibach et al. 2011) and 2020 (Leiserowitz etal. 2021) and for
Germany with survey data from 2011. Two types (disengaged and dismissive) could not be
characterised by the evaluative coding in this study. In accordance with our findings, the ‘dis-
missive’ type could not be distinguished in Germany either (Metag etal. 2015). But despite the
limited sample sizes, differences in the analyses, and the year of the sampling, the proportion
of pre-service teachers in this study is comparable to that of the US and German populations,
particularly for the ‘alarmed’, ‘concerned’, and ‘doubtful’.
Teaching controversial aspects (RQ 2)
A strong emotional attachment to the issue is manifested in the statements of the ‘alarmed’,
yet these pre-service teachers emphasise that they want to teach it in a (politically) neutral
way. Only pre-service teachers in this group reflect upon their own privacy and their role as a
teacher. According to them, a professional teacher must not overpower and manipulate students
12 P. BREITENMOSER ETAL.
but must reflect clearly that teaching can never be neutral. Teachers should instead support
students in learning about different solutions to combat the climate crisis by taking different
perspectives, argue, judge, compare, discuss, and debate. However, they describe private sphere
actions. Moreover, they fear that they will not be able to meet the demand for neutrality in
every teaching situation which they relate to a lack of teaching experience and pedagogical
content knowledge, including assessment skills. In contrast to the findings of Seow and Ho
(2016), we found no evidence that teachers in the ‘alarmed’ group were reluctant to introduce
controversy because they did not want to confuse their students.
More than in any of the other groups, dealing with controversy in the classroom is among
the topics of greatest concern to the ‘concerned’. In contrast to the ‘alarmed’, these pre-service
teachers describe themselves as neutral both personally and in their teaching. Scientific knowl-
edge, the political centre, and not having a firm opinion are equated with neutrality. Not being
neutral is often equated with being moralising and the indoctrination of values. Thus, these
pre-service teachers see themselves as best suited to teach the issue. However, by focusing on
objectivity and neutrality, the political dimension of the controversy is unconsciously avoided.
This approach to dealing with controversial issues has already been described by Hess (2004)
as the ‘avoidance’ type. Besides, emotionality is largely avoided to focus on perceived objective
scientific facts in the classroom. This is linked to an expressed need for control and security.
Controversy means uncertainty and insecurity. They experience fears of introducing controversial
aspects in their classrooms, especially in relation to parents, despite research showing that most
teachers had never experienced such pressure (Plutzer etal. 2016; Wise, 2010). It can only be
hypothesised why these pre-service teachers perceive climate change as a much greater threat
than studies have shown. But parents represent an unsettling and unpredictable factor for
teachers, amplifying the uncontrollable effects of their teaching.
In contrast to the ‘concerned’ who describe a desire to be emotional neutral, the ‘cautious’
and ‘doubtful’ feel emotionally attached to the issue. However, they describe a guilty conscience
or annoyance which makes it difficult to remain neutral in the classroom. In contrast to the
‘alarmed’ and ‘concerned’, the ‘cautious’ and ‘doubtful’ describe climate change as not only eth-
ically but also scientifically controversial. Consequently, these pre-service teachers want to
present as many aspects of the debate as possible on an equal footing so that the students
can form their own opinions. As a strategy for dealing with the claim of neutrality, these groups
emphasise scientific and ethical controversy in the classroom without favouring any position.
Like the findings by Hess and McAvoy (2015) and Nation and Feldman (2021), even the largely
uncontroversial scientific aspects of the topic are presented as ‘one opinion among many’
because they underestimate the scientific consensus on the human-induced climate change
(Plutzer et al. 2016). It also remains unclear how the media coverage and informal contexts in
recent years have changed teachers’ perception as pre-service teachers are exposed to climate
change often in controversial ways (Allgaier, 2019; Farrell, 2019). Our findings support the con-
clusion by Long etal. (2022) that the assessment of the scientific consensus is not only related
to perceived content knowledge but is intertwined with teachers’ political attitudes and values
about climate change and its causes. Teaching about climate change is closely linked to the
context as it shapes the perception of the requirement to teach climate change (Breitenmoser
& Keller-Schneider, 2024). As the ‘doubtful’ type reflects, it is essential that ‘we’ should not take
Table 2. Comparison of the proportion of pre-service teachers in this study with the US population in the Six-Americas
(Leiserowitz et al. 2021; Maibach et al. 2011) and for the Five-Germanys classifications (Metag et al. 2015).
Alarmed Concerned Cautious Disengaged Doubtful Dismissive
This study (n = 9) 2 3 3 – 1 –
Leiserowitz et al. (2021) (n = 1006) 26% 29% 19% 6% 12% 8%
Maibach et al. (2011) (n = 2164) 18% 33% 19% 12% 11% 7%
Metag et al. (2015) (n = 3000) 24% 18% 28% 20% 10% –
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 13
science seriously as ‘they’ (climate experts) are not always right. This raises the problematic
question of what teachers then use to evaluate facts and statements if not science. This mis-
conception must be addressed in teacher education as teachers need to become aware of their
own beliefs as a reference system for evaluating facts and their own professional role as a
teacher. Therefore, teaching ‘wicked problems’ (Rittel & Webber, 1973) requires a clear distinction
between the scientific knowledge about what we know and how, and ethical questions in the
normative dimension about what future we want and what we should do (Hess & McAvoy,
2015). Colston and Vadjunec (2015) propose – for at least in conservative contexts – that taking
up ‘both sides’ of the controversy might be an entry point to engage conservative learners with
scientific knowledge, avoiding boomerang effects. While this may be a fruitful pedagogical
approach in very value-conservative contexts and for ‘climate deniers’, we agree with Hess and
McAvoy (2015) and Wohnig (2020) that this is not the case for the majority of learners. The
majority of learnersshow high support for climate action in general (EU, 2021; Leiserowitz, etal.
2021; UNDP, 2021), as evidenced by the absence of the dismissive type in our data.
While the ‘alarmed’ refer to the curriculum and the Sustainable Development Goals as a form
of legitimacy for addressing the topic and the ‘concerned’ think it is a ‘too hot topic to address
in the classroom’, the ‘cautious’ and ‘doubtful’ do not see climate change as an educational
mandate. These pre-service teachers emphasise that the inclusion of the topic in the classroom
is primarily a matter of opinion and depends on teachers’ attitudes. This finding is consistent
with Plutzer etal. (2016) and Seow and Ho (2016), who highlight that the willingness to address
controversial aspects in the classroom depends on the teacher’s value commitments. Moreover,
the salience of a topic (i.e. its importance, significance, or urgency), influences the attention
paid to it. Higher salience leads to greater focus on the topic. The pre-service teachers in this
study are consistent in their statements about their own attitudes as well as their statements
about others, showing motivated reasoning (Kahan, 2013). They agree that high salience is
associated with strongly held beliefs and attitudes towards an implementation in the classroom.
There is also agreement that the way in which controversial aspects of the issue are addressed
in the classroom is related to the political attitude of the teacher. While the pre-service teachers
describe dealing with neutrality and controversy in the classroom as challenging for themselves,
but at least fundamentally feasible, they do not trust colleagues from the left or right of the
political spectrum to deal with controversial issues in the classroom in an ‘objective’, ‘factual’,
and ‘neutral manner’. Climate sceptics are accused of ignorance and a lack of scientific evidence
in the classroom, while climate activists are accused of ignoring different opinions, failing to
take a ‘neutral stance’, and indoctrinating students through moralising. However, we found no
evidence in our data that the ‘alarmed’ ignore different opinions. They rather explicitly reflect
upon their beliefs and their professional role as a teacher. On the other hand, the ‘doubtful’
distrust science and use their own beliefs implicitly as a reference system. For all, neutrality is
seen as a goal and has only positive connotations, regardless of the context. Not having a
strong opinion is associated with the political centre and is equated with neutrality.
Motivation, challenges, and barriers and their influences on teaching controversial
aspects of climate change (RQ 3)
Our results can be interpreted considering Dängeli and Kalcsics (2018) findings that (political)
controversy and dissent in schools are often associated with the concept of conflict, which has
negative connotations in everyday life. This is consistent with the described desire of being
neutral through non-involvement and non-interference in the private sphere by the teachers.
Strikingly, none of them reflected upon neutrality in education. If teachers are to strengthen
children’s self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-regulation, teachers are intervening in the privacy
of children. As a result, institutionalised political struggles to negotiate solutions from different
perspectives remain unrecognised, respectively undesirable.
14 P. BREITENMOSER ETAL.
Although all pre-service teachers in our study state to follow the principles of the Beutelsbach
Consensus (Christensen & Grammes, 2020) and are hence aware of the problem of indoctrina-
tion, they describe a lack of content and pedagogical content knowledge to deal professionally
with their own values and beliefs, and thus with controversial aspects in the classroom. In line
with our findings, Baumann and Niebert (2022) conclude from a study conducted with geog-
raphy students that teachers based their lesson design on their own beliefs and values about
sustainability, rather than on their own professional penetration of the topic. The results of this
study also support this finding, but they show a differentiated picture across the different
groups despite the small sample size. Overall, the pre-service teachers consider aspects, such
as changing perspectives, forming different opinions, and critical thinking to be of high peda-
gogical relevance. But the interconnectedness of different value dimensions is perceived as a
challenge as Spiropoulou et al. (2007) have already described. This lack of expertise to deal
with different opinions, complexity, and controversy in the classroom with a lack of content
knowledge contributes to a great deal of uncertainty. However, it is the perceived challenges
related to the teacher’s professional attitude towards neutrality and controversy that lead the
pre-service teachers to avoid controversy in the classroom. Gayford (2002) and Plutzer et al.
(2016) came to a similar conclusion. According to their findings, it is the non-scientific aspects
that prevent teachers from addressing socio-scientific issues. For most teachers, teaching climate
change is about conveying scientific facts about the issue (Kranz etal. 2022). Hence, we strongly
urge to put the controversy where it really is. Various surveys (e.g. EU, 2021; Leiserowitz et al.
2021; UNDP, 2021) including our results have shown high support for climate protection in
general, but there is a controversy when it comes to specific protection measures.
Also, learning opportunities in the sense of political education under the aspect of sustainable
development were not perceived by the pre-service teachers. Climate change has been addressed
only indirectly, if at all, in the context of environmental education with a focus on individual
behaviour change. This indicates the extent to which the problem and responsibility are shifted
to the private sphere, rather than also being seen as a systemic problem requiring public sphere
solutions (Stern, 2000). Our findings are consistent with studies showing that CCE in schools
tends not only to focus on scientific facts but also on private sphere actions such as turning
off lights or recycling (e.g. Kranz et al. 2022; Nicholls, 2016). The integration of the political,
social, and ethical dimensions, as well as a collective approach, are hardly considered (Kranz
etal. 2022; Waldron et al. 2019). These measures in the private sphere are generally considered
less controversial in society but at the same time, they are problematic because these actions
run the risk of moralization (e.g. ‘I am a better person because I fly less’). Likewise, action ori-
entation is misunderstood as giving instructions for action (Baumann & Niebert 2022), which
leads to anxiety about no longer being neutral as a teacher and intervening in the privacy of
children and parents.
In summary and across all groups, a teacher’s ability to teach controversial issues is asso-
ciated with a neutral stance. A professional teacher must be ‘neutral’, i.e. have no fixed opinion
and rely on objective scientific facts (especially ‘concerned’) or take all positions into account
(especially ‘cautious’ and ‘doubtful’). Neutrality can be interpreted as an underlying fear of
positioning oneself as a teacher and as to where indoctrination starts. Neutrality is associated
with uninfluenced formation of opinion. Similarly, neutrality is seen as a protection against
being drawn into conflicts, especially with parents. Furthermore, neutrality and controversy
are individually interpreted by the pre-service teachers and are understood differently in dif-
ferent contexts. Aspects of neutrality, such as emotional, moral, ethical, political, social, or
scientific, are unspecifically intertwined. From the perspective of the pre-service teachers,
meeting the demand for neutrality is challenging and complex, perhaps because they misin-
terpret neutrality. For the pre-service teachers, neutrality (in all its aspects) is a maxim for
action and an inherent value, regardless of the context. However, value neutrality can be
problematic. Neutrality can degenerate into indifference, but this is not perceived by the
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 15
pre-service teachers. While neutrality is sought and uncritically valued positively, controversy
is negatively valued and avoided in the classroom. According to Christensen and Grammes
(2020), the debate about restraint and (supposed) neutrality is described as a ‘misconception,
as the principle of controversy does not mean “neutrality”’ (Christensen & Grammes, 2020, 15).
Teachers such as the ‘concerned’, who supposedly have no opinion, feel insecure or avoid
reflecting on their values, can thus run counter to the concerns of Global Citizenship Education.
According to Wohnig (2020), there can be no neutral political education [Politische Bildung],
just as education is not neutral. According to the author, central to the political dimension in
education is the reference to the normative guidelines of human and children’s rights. Nor
can the whole complexity, with all its arbitrary points of view and without corresponding
analysis and criticism, be placed side by side with equal emphasis in the classroom, from
which students are supposedly allowed to choose ‘neutrally’ (Hess & McAvoy, 2015; Wohnig,
2020). In addition, we propose to include the normative guidelines of sustainable development
in climate education. The teachers in our study often deal with everyday ideas in a very rel-
ativistic way and do not describe them as misconceptions or as normative. However, certain
statements, such as contemptuous of humanity ones, must be labelled as unethical or wrong
on the basis of scientific knowledge. Opinion forming requires – besides knowledge – exposure
to different (but not arbitrary) point of views.
In our sample, controversy is not seen as a learning opportunity and the political dimension
of climate change is avoided. Approaches of classical environmental education are preferred
(Baumann & Niebert 2022) despite that the public sphere could relieve teachers of the moral
burden of private sphere actions in climate education. Particularly among the pre-service teachers
in the ‘concerned’ group, the focus is on science-oriented teaching. Socio-political aims such as
age adequate participation in democratic, social decision-making processes are not recognised.
Thus, there is no reflection on the different interests and needs of individuals and groups as
well as on social norms and values. These are necessary for a change of perspective and for
the empowerment of self-determined, critically-reflective, and evidence-based decision-making
in a world characterised by uncertainty and normativity (Rittel & Webber, 1973). In contrast, a
teacher should act as a facilitator of the learning process, triggering and addressing uncertainty.
Moreover, the focus of CCE should be on socio-scientific issues. Pre-service teachers need to
learn that it is not about resolving controversies, but how they can deal with them to encourage
their students to change perspectives, evaluate different points of view, and, if necessary, to
position themselves to arrive at a well-founded, evidence-based opinion. According Kissling and
Bell (2020), understanding the global climate crisis requires scientific expertise, but dealing with
it requires active, informed (young) citizens.
Limitations
The main limitations of the study relate to sampling and the sample size. As the pre-service
teachers were enrolled in the course taught by the principal investigator of this study, a bias
in the statements due to familiarity with the lecturer and first author of this article cannot be
ruled out. However, at the time of the interviews, there was no longer a lecturer-student rela-
tionship. The pre-service teachers had all finished their final exams and were about to start
teaching as fully qualified and self-directed teachers. To ensure objectivity and reflexivity, reliance
was placed on peer-reviews (Trowler, 2011). Furthermore, due to the exploratory approach of
the study, the sample size was limited to nine pre-service teachers. The extent to which these
findings can be replicated in larger samples should be explored. Finally, the Global Warming’s
Six Americas framework was tailored for the US and for the general public. There is no equiv-
alent tailored segmentation for Switzerland nor for pre-service teachers. However, the framework
has been successfully extended to other countries such as Germany (Metag et al. 2015) or
Australia (Morrison et al. 2013).
16 P. BREITENMOSER ETAL.
Implications for an audience-specific climate change communication and future
research
Plutzer etal. (2016) highlight that enhancing teachers’ scientific knowledge alone is inadequate
for effective CCE. Instead, varying attitudes and beliefs among citizens, classified into distinct
climate types by Maibach etal. (2011), necessitate adapted communication strategies in teacher
education. These strategies should address the diverse needs and requirements of teachers,
enabling them to tackle controversial aspects professionally when teaching climate change.
The ‘alarmed’ could be engaged in their consumer role and taught a critical understanding
of global issues focussing on the public sphere. This involves in-depth content knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge for pre-service teachers, especially in handling controversial
topics and incorporating Global Citizenship Education. Others, like the ‘concerned’, who express
the greatest degree of uncertainty and prefer ‘neutrality’, may benefit additionally from best
practice examples and teaching materials. The ‘cautious’ group, characterised by moderate
engagement, could be approached with narrative-based communication to increase the relevance
of the subject matter. For the ‘cautious’ and ‘doubtful’, confronting political ideas, fake news,
and values in the context of scientific consensus and political negotiation is crucial. Likewise,
all teachers need to be trained in how to bring controversy into the classroom without over-
whelming students. Teachers must learn to teach evaluation skills so that they can differentiate,
lead and enable their students to relate ‘neutral’ scientific facts to values.
Plutzer et al. (2016) and Hörsch et al. (2023) warn university instructors against ‘boomerang
effects’ in teaching, where promoting a particular view might strengthen opposition. Waldron
et al. (2019) suggest a critical, open, and holistic approach to CCE, combining cognitive and
affective elements for social transformation. This calls for a pluralistic, reflective, and critical
examination of normative values and beliefs, linked to scientific, social, economic, and political
aspects of climate change, catering to different target groups.
We understand the implications of our study as an initial step towards audience-specific
climate change communication in higher education. Future research should explore how different
target groups use and are impacted by content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge
and attitudes towards climate change and how teaching materials can support the professional
development of (pre-service) teachers, especially concerning the public sphere.
Acknowledgments
We thank the participating pre-service teachers and the student assistant Sara Taner for the second coding.
Informed consent statement
This study was conducted with pre-service teachers and their participation was voluntary. Their contributions to
the empirical data have been fully anonymized. To recognize themselves in this publication, they were assigned
a pseudonym.
Disclosure statement
The authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.
ORCID
Petra Breitenmoser http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8932-5052
Manuela Keller-Schneider http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4442-2825
Kai Niebert http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7872-4688
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 17
References
Allgaier, J. 2019. “Science and Environmental Communication on YouTube: Strategically Distorted Communications
in Online Videos on Climate Change and Climate Engineering.” Frontiers in Communication 4 (36): 1–15. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036.
Baumann, S., and K. Niebert. 2022. “Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung in der Geographiedidaktik: Integration,
Evolution oder Revolution? Erste Ergebnisse zu einer qualitativen Untersuchung einer Lehrveranstaltung.”
Zeitschrift Für Geographiedidaktik (ZGD) 50 (2): 98–118. https://doi.org/10.18452/25712.
Blömeke, S., G. Kaiser, and R. Lehmann. 2008. Professionelle Kompetenz angehender Lehrerinnen und Lehrer: Wissen,
Überzeugungen und Lerngelegenheiten Deutscher Mathematikstudierender und-Referendare. Waxmann: Münster.
Boeve-de Pauw, J., and P. van Petegem. 2018. “Eco-School Evaluation beyond Labels: The Impact of Environmental
Policy, Didactics and Nature at School on Student Outcomes.” Environmental Education Research 24 (9): 1250–1267.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1307327.
Breitenmoser, P., and M. Keller-Schneider. 2022. Klimawandel unterrichten: Vorwissen und Sichtweisen von ange-
henden Lehrpersonen der Primarstufe. Widerstreit Sachunterricht, 26, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25673/92537.2.
Breitenmoser, P., and M. Keller-Schneider. 2024. “Ich möchte mir nicht die Finger daran verbrennen.” Angehende
Lehrpersonen und die Herausforderung Klimawandel zu unterrichten. Progress in Science Education (PriSE) 7 (1):
6–25. https://doi.org/10.25321/prise.2024.1447.
Brennan, R. L., and D. J. Prediger. 1981. “Coefficient Kappa: Some Uses, Misuses, and Alternatives.” Educational and
Psychological Measurement 41 (3): 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307.
Brownlee, M. T., R. B. Powell, and J. C. Hallo. 2013. “A Review of the Foundational Processes That Influence Beliefs
in Climate Change: Opportunities for Environmental Education Research.” Environmental Education Research 19
(1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.683389.
Christensen, A. S., and T. Grammes. 2020. “The Beutelsbach Consensus – The Approach to Controversial Issues in
Germany in an International Context.” Acta Didactica Norden 14 (4): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.8349 .
Colston, N. M., and J. M. Vadjunec. 2015. “A Critical Political Ecology of Consensus: On “Teaching Both Sides” of
Climate Change.” Geoforum 65: 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.08.006.
Dängeli, M., and K. Kalcsics. 2018. “Politische Vorstellungen von Primarschülerinnen und-Schülern zu ausgewählten
Lerngegenständen.” In «Wie ich mir das denke und vorstelle…»: Vorstellungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern zu
Lerngegenständen des Sachunterrichts und des Fachbereichs Natur, Mensch, Gesellschaft, edited by M. Adamina,
M. Kübler, K. Kalcsics, S. Bietenhard, and E. Engeli, 253–268. Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn.
Dresing, T., and T. Pehl. 2015. “Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse.” Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für
qualitativ Forschende, 6th ed. Eigenverlag: Marburg.
Drewes, A., J. Henderson, and C. Mouza. 2018. “Professional Development Design Considerations in Climate Change
Education: Teacher Enactment and Student Learning.” International Journal of Science Education 40 (1): 67–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1397798.
Ennes, M., D. F. Lawson, K. T. Stevenson, M. N. Peterson, and M. G. Jones. 2021. “It’s about Time: Perceived Barriers
to in-Service Teacher Climate Change Professional Development.” Environmental Education Research 27 (5):
762–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1909708.
EU. 2021. Eurobarometer. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/citizen-support-climate-action_en. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13504622.2021.1909708.
Farrell, J. 2019. “The Growth of Climate Change Misinformation in US Philanthropy: Evidence from Natural Language
Processing.” Environmental Research Letters 14 (3): 034013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf939.
Ferguson, T., C. Roofe, and L. D. Cook. 2021. “Teachers’ Perspectives on Sustainable Development: The Implications
for Education for Sustainable Development.” Environmental Education Research 27 (9): 1343–1359. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/13504622.2021.1921113 .
Gaubitz, S. 2023. “Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung im Verständnis von Sachunterrichtsstudierenden.” In
Herausforderungen und Zukunftsperspektiven für den Sachunterricht, edited by D. Schmeink, K. Michalik, and T.
Goll, 101–107. Julius Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn.
Gayford, C. 2002. “Controversial Environmental Issues: A Case Study for the Professional Development of Science
Teachers.” International Journal of Science Education 24 (11): 1191–1200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134866.
Hess, D. E. 2004. “Controversies about Controversial Issues in Democratic Education.” PS: Political Science & Politics
37 (2): 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096504004196.
Hess, D. E., and P. McAvoy. 2015. The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education. New York:
Routledge.
Hörsch, C., K. Scharenberg, E. -M. Waltner, and W. Rieß. 2023. “Wie gelingt Bildung für eine Nachhaltige Entwicklung
in der Schule? Eine empirische Studie zur Entwicklung von Nachhaltigkeitskompetenzen und zur Rolle der
Lehrkraft.” DDS – Die Deutsche Schule 2023 (2): 105–116. https://doi.org/10.31244/dds.2023.02.04.
Kahan, D. M. 2013. “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection.” Judgment and Decision Making 8
(4): 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005271.
Keller-Schneider, M. 2020. Entwicklungsaufgaben im Berufseinstieg Von Lehrpersonen, 2nd ed. Waxmann: Münster.
18 P. BREITENMOSER ETAL.
Kissling, M., and J. Bell. 2020. “Teaching Social Studies amid Ecological Crisis.” Theory & Research in Social Education
48 (1): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1673267.
Kranz, J., M. Schwichow, P. Breitenmoser, and K. Niebert. 2022. “The (un)Political Perspective on Climate Change
in Education – A Systematic Review.” Sustainability 14 (7): 4194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074194.
Kuckartz, U. 2016. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung: Grundlagentexte Methoden,
3rd ed. Beltz Juventa: Weinheim Basel.
Leiserowitz, A., C. Roser-Renouf, J. Marlon, and E. Maibach. 2021. “Global Warming’s Six Americas: A Review and
Recommendations for Climate Change Communication.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42: 97–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.007.
Lipowsky, F. 2006. “Auf den Lehrer kommt es an. Empirische Evidenzen für Zusammenhänge zwischen
Lehrerkompetenzen, Lehrerhandeln und dem Lernen der Schüler.” Kompetenzen und Kompetenzentwicklung von
Lehrerinnen und Lehrern [Beiheft 51], Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 47–70. Belz: Weinheim. https://doi.
org/10.25656/01:7370.
Long, D., J. Henderson, and K. Meuwissen. 2022. “What is Climate Change Education in Trump Country?” Educational
and Developmental Psychologist 39 (1): 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/20590776.2021.2013713.
Lynas, M., B. Z. Houlton, and S. Perry. 2021. “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in
the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature.” Environmental Research Letters 16 (11): 114005. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.
Maibach, E. W., A. Leiserowitz, C. Roser-Renouf, and C. K. Mertz. 2011. “Identifying like-Minded Audiences for
Global Warming Public Engagement Campaigns: An Audience Segmentation Analysis and Tool Development.”
PloS One 6 (3): e17571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017571.
McCright, A. M., and R. E. Dunlap. 2011. “Cool Dudes: The Denial of Climate Change among Conservative White
Males in the United States.” Global Environmental Change 21 (4): 1163–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenv-
cha.2011.06.003.
Metag, J., T. Füchslin, and M. S. Schäfer. 2015. “Global Warming’s Five Germanys: A Typology of Germans’ Views
on Climate Change and Patterns of Media Use and Information.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England)
26 (4): 434–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515592558.
Monroe, M. C., R. R. Plate, A. Oxarart, A. Bowers, and W. A. Chaves. 2019. “Identifying Effective Climate Change
Education Strategies: A Systematic Review of the Research.” Environmental Education Research 25 (6): 791–812.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1360842.
Morrison, M., R. Duncan, C. Sherley, and K. Parton. 2013. “A Comparison between Attitudes to Climate Change in
Australia and the United States.” Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 20 (2): 87–100. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14486563.2012.762946.
Nation, M. T., and A. Feldman. 2021. “Environmental Education in the Secondary Science Classroom: How Teachers’
Beliefs Influence Their Instruction of Climate Change.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 32 (5): 481–499.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1854968.
Nganga, L., A. Roberts, J. Kambutu, and J. James. 2020. “Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Preparedness and
Perceptions about Teaching Controversial Issues in Social Studies.” Journal of Social Studies Research 44 (1):
77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2019.08.001.
Nicholls, J. A. 2016. “Understanding How Queensland Teachers’ Views on Climate Change and Climate Change
Education Shape Their Reported Practices.” PhD thesis, James Cook University.
Oulton, C., V. Day, J. Dillon, and M. Grace. 2004. “Controversial Issues – Teachers’ Attitudes and Practices in the
Context of Citizenship Education.” Oxford Review of Education 30 (4): 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498
042000303973.
Oversby, J. 2015. “Teachers’ Learning about Climate Change Education.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences
167: 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.637.
Pauw, Jelle, Niklas Gericke, Daniel Olsson, and Teresa Berglund. 2015. “The Effectiveness of Education for Sustainable
Development.” Sustainability 7 (11): 15693–15717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71115693.
Pettig, F., and U. Ohl. 2023. “Dealing with Uncertainty in a Transformative Education for Sustainability.” In
Understanding Sustainability with Pedagogical Practice, edited by O. Muñiz Solari and G. Schrüfer, 29–40. Springer:
Singapore.
Plutzer, E., M. McCaffrey, A. L. Hannah, J. Rosenau, M. Berbeco, and A. H. Reid. 2016. “Climate Confusion among
U.S. Teachers.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 351 (6274): 664–665. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3907.
Reid, A. 2019. “Climate Change Education and Research: Possibilities and Potentials versus Problems and Perils?”
Environmental Education Research 25 (6): 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1664075.
Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4 (2): 155–169.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
Seow, T., and L. -C. Ho. 2016. “Singapore Teachers’ Beliefs about the Purpose of Climate Change Education and
Student Readiness to Handle Controversy.” International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education
25 (4): 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2016.1207993.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 19
Spiropoulou, D., T. Antonakaki, S. Kontaxaki, and S. Bouras. 2007. “Primary Teachers’ Literacy and Attitudes on
Education for Sustainable Development.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 16 (5): 443–450. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9061-7.
Stern, P. 2000. “Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3):
407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
Sund, P., and N. Gericke. 2020. “Teaching Contributions from Secondary School Subject Areas to Education for
Sustainable Development – A Comparative Study of Science, Social Science and Language Teachers.” Environmental
Education Research 26 (6): 772–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1754341.
Timm, J. -M., and M. Barth. 2021. “Making Education for Sustainable Development Happen in Elementary Schools:
The Role of Teachers.” Environmental Education Research 27 (1): 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.
1813256.
Trowler, P. 2011. Researching your own institution. British Educational Research Association online resource. https://
www.bera.ac.uk/publication/researching-your-own-institution-higher-education
UN General Assembly. 2015. “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” UN Dok.
A/RES/70/1. New York.
UNDP. 2021. Peoples’ Climate Vote. University of Oxford. https://www.undp.org/publications/peoples-climate-vote
UNESCO. 2020. Education for Sustainable Development. A Roadmap. https://doi.org/10.54675/YFRE1448.
Vare, P., and W. Scott. 2007. “Learning for a Change: Exploring the Relationship between Education and Sustainable
Development.” Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 1 (2): 191–198. https://doi.
org/10.1177/097340820700100209.
Vosniadou, S., and W. F. Brewer. 1992. “Mental Models of the Earth: A Case Study of Conceptual Change in
Childhood.” Cognitive Psychology 24 (4): 535–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W.
Waldron, F., B. Ruane, R. Oberman, and S. Morris. 2019. “Geographical Process or Global Injustice? Contrasting
Educational Perspectives on Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 25 (6): 895–911. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/13504622.2016.1255876.
Walsh, E., and B. K. Tsurusaki. 2014. “Social Controversy Belongs in the Climate Science Classroom.” Nature Climate
Change 4 (4): 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2143.
White, P. J., N. M. Ardoin, C. Eames, and M. C. Monroe. 2023. “Agency in the Anthropocene: Supporting Document
to the PISA 2025 Science Framework.” OECD Education Working Papers, 297. https://doi.org/10.1787/8d3b6cfa-en.
Wise, S. B. 2010. “Climate Change in the Classroom: Patterns, Motivations, and Barriers to Instruction among
Colorado Science Teachers.” Journal of Geoscience Education 58 (5): 297–309. https://doi.org/10.5408/1.3559695.
Wohnig, A. 2020. “Überzeugungen entwickeln, sich einmischen, Flagge zeigen – Politische Bildung als politisches
Engagement – Einleitung.” In Wochenschau Wissenschaft. Politische Bildung als Politisches Engagement, edited by
A. Wohnig, 5–13. Wochenschau Verlag: Frankfurt am Main.
