Advertisement

Teaching climate change in middle schools and high schools: investigating STEM education’s deficit model

  • Eric Plutzer
  • A. Lee Hannah
Article

Abstract

Science teachers play an important role promoting civic scientific literacy, but recent research suggests they are less effective than they could be in educating the next generation of citizens about climate change and its causes. One particular area of concern is that many science teachers in the USA encourage students to debate settled empirical findings, such as the role of human-generated emissions of greenhouse gases in raising global temperatures. A common reaction is to call for science teachers to receive more formal training in climate science to increase their knowledge, which will then improve teaching. Using a nationally representative survey of 1500 middle school and high school science teachers, we investigate each element in this argument, and show that increased science coursework in college has modest effects on teachers’ content knowledge and on their teaching choices, including decisions about debating “both sides.” We also find that teachers’ personal political orientations play a large role in their teaching strategies: right-leaning teachers devote somewhat less time to global warming and are much more likely to encourage student debate on the causes of global warming. We discuss the implications of these findings and argue teacher education might be more effective if informed by insights from the emerging discipline of science communication. However, although knowledge and ideology are predictive of pedagogy, a large number of teachers of all ideological positions and all levels of subject expertise encourage students to debate established findings. We discuss this and highlight potential explanations.

Keywords

Climate change Education Motivated cognition Political polarization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Ann Reid and Brad Hoge for comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We utilize data from the National Survey of Science Teachers, which is freely available to all researchers. The original data were collected by the Penn State Survey Research Center, under contract to the National Center for Science Education.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2253_MOESM1_ESM.docx (738 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 738 kb)

References

  1. Baumert J, Kunter M, Blum W, Brunner M, Voss T, Jordan A et al (2010) Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. Am Educ Res J 47(1):133–180.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berbeco M, Mccaffrey M, Meikle E, Branch G (2014) Choose controversies wisely: when teaching scientific argumentation, selecting the wrong topic can impair- rather than increase-student understanding. Sci Teach, vol 81. American Science Teachers AssociationGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkman MB, Pacheco JS, Plutzer E (2008) Evolution and creationism in America’s classrooms: a national portrait. PLoS Biol 6(5):e124.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkman M, Plutzer E (2010) Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America’s classrooms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corner A, Randall A (2011) Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Glob Environ Chang 21(3):1005–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darling-Hammond L (2000) Teacher quality and student achievement. Educ Policy Anal Arch 8(1):1–42Google Scholar
  7. Darling-Hammond L, Berry B, Amy Thoreson A (2001) Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educ Eval Policy Anal 23(1):57–77.  https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023001057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond L, Chung R, Frelow F (2002) Variation in teacher preparation. J Teach Educ 53(4):286–302.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053004002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunlap RE, McCright AM, Yarosh JH (2016) The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environ: Sci Policy Sustain Dev 58(5):4–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995 Google Scholar
  10. Duschl RA, Grandy RE (2008) Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: framing the debates. In: Duschl RA, Grandy RE (eds) Teaching scientific inquiry: recommendations for research and implementation. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, p 1–37Google Scholar
  11. Ferguson RF, Ladd HF (1996) How and why money matters: an analysis of Alabama schools. In: Ladd HF (ed) Holding schools accountable: performance-based reform in education. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., p 265–298Google Scholar
  12. Fielding KS, Hornsey MJ (2016) A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: insights and opportunities. Front Psychol 7(121).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00121
  13. Fritz A (2017) A Political Organization that Doubts Climate Science is Sending this Book to 200,000 Teachers. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/03/29/a-political-organization-that-doubts-climatescience-is-sending-this-book-to-200000-teachers/. Accessed 16 Jul 2018
  14. Griffith JA, Brem SK. (2004) Teaching evolutionary biology: Pressures, stress, and coping. J Res Sci Teach 41(8):791–809Google Scholar
  15. Gross PJ, Goodenough U, Haack S, Schwartz M, Schwartz R (2005) The state of state science standards, 2005. Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  16. Grossman P, Schoenfield, Lee (2005) Teaching subject matter. In: Darling-Hammond L, Bransford J (eds) Preparing teachers for a changing world: what teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, p 201–231Google Scholar
  17. Güber DL (2013) A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. Am Behav Sci 57(1):93–115.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212463361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guyton E, Farokhi E (1987) Relationships among academic performance, basic skills, subject matter knowledge, and teaching skills of teacher education graduates. J Teach Educ 38(5):37–42.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718703800508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hart PS, Nisbet EC (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication. Commun Res 39(6):701–723.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG, Fielding KS (2016) Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6(6):622–626Google Scholar
  21. Johnson RM, Holzer M (2011) Executive summary: National Earth Science Teachers Association K-12 Climate Change Education Survey. Fort Collins, CoGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahan DM (2012) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In: Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Roser S, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory. Springer, Netherlands, p 725–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Tarantola T, Silva CL, Braman D (2015) Geoengineering and climate change polarization. Ann Am Acad Polit SS 658(1):192–222.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kellstedt PM, Zahran S, Vedlitz A (2008) Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Anal 28(1):113–126.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Visser PS (2000) The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion. Public Underst Sci 9(3):239–260.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lederman NG (1992) Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. J Res Sci Teach 29(4):331–359Google Scholar
  27. Lederman NG, Lederman JS (2014) Research on Teaching and Learning of Nature of Science in Handbook of Research on Science Education edited by . Lederman NG & Abell SK. Routledge Handbooks OnlineGoogle Scholar
  28. Levy BL, Thomas EE, Drago K, Rex LA (2013) Examining studies of inquiry-based learning in three fields of education: sparking generative conversation. J Teach Educ 64(5):387–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ma L (1999) Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  30. Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2008) Communication and marketing as climate change–intervention assets: A public health perspective. Am J Prev Med 35(5):488–500Google Scholar
  31. McAvoy P, Hess D (2013) Classroom deliberation in an era of political polarization. Curric Inq 43(1):14–47Google Scholar
  32. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American Public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meehan CR, Levy BL, Collet-Gildard L (2018) Global climate change in US high school curricula: portrayals of the causes, consequences, and potential responses. Sci Educ 102:498–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller JD (2010) The conceptualization and measurement of civic scientific literacy for the 21st century. In: Meinwald J, Hildebrand JG (eds) Science and the educated American: a core component of liberal education. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, p 241–255Google Scholar
  35. Minner DD, Levy AJ, Century J (2010) Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. J Res Sci Teach 47(4):474–496.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Monk DH (1994) Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Econ Educ Rev 13(2):125–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(94)90003-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) Science literacy: concepts, contexts, and consequences. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/23595
  38. National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  39. National Research Council (2013) Next generation science standards: For states, by states. http://www.nextgenscience.org/standards/standards. Accessed 16 Jul 2018
  40. Nisbet EC, Cooper KE, Garrett RK (2015) The partisan brain. Ann Am Acad Polit SS 658(1):36–66.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plutzer E (2013) The racial gap in confidence in science. Bull Sci Technol Soc 33(5–6):146–157.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467614528902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plutzer E (2016) Replication data for “Climate confusion among US teachers” published 2/12/2016 in. Science Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VH2IQH
  43. Plutzer E, Hannah AL (2018) Replication code for Teaching climate change in middle schools and high schools, Harvard Dataverse, V1.  https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TWY65T
  44. Plutzer E, Hannah AL, Rosenau J, McCaffrey MS, Berbeco M, Reid AH (2016a) Mixed messages: how climate change is taught in America’s public schools. Retrieved from https://ncse.com/library-resource/mixed-messages-how-climate-change-is-taught-americas-public
  45. Plutzer E, Maney A, O’Connor RE (1998) Ideology and elites’ perceptions of the safety of new technologies. Am J Polit Sci 42(1):190–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Plutzer E, Mccaffrey M, Hannah AL, Rosenau J, Berbeco M, Reid AH (2016b) Climate confusion among U.S. teachers. Science 351(6274):664–665.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3907 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Redlawsk DP (2002) Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. J Politics 64(4):1021–1044.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reinisch B, Krüger D (2018) Preservice Biology Teachers’ Conceptions About the Tentative Nature of Theories and Models in Biology. Res Sci Educ 48(1):71–103Google Scholar
  49. Rowan B, Chiang F-S, Miller RJ (1997) Using research on employees’ performance to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociol Educ 70(4):256.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2673267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rutledge ML, Mitchell MA (2002) High School Biology Teachers’ Knowledge Structure, Acceptance & Teaching of Evolution. Am Biol Teach 64(1):21–28Google Scholar
  51. Sabatier PA (1988) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 21(2–3):129–168.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC (eds) (1993) Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition framework. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  53. Sadler PM, Sonnert G, Coyle HP, Cook-Smith N, Miller JL (2013) The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. Am Educ Res J 50(5):1020–1049.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213477680 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sinatra GM, Kienhues D, Hofer BK (2014) Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educ Psychol 49(2):123–138.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sullivan SMB, Ledley TS, Lynds SE, Gold AU (2014) Navigating climate science in the classroom: teacher preparation, perceptions and practices. J Geosci Educ 62(4):550–559.  https://doi.org/10.5408/12-304.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taber CS, Lodge M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Polit Sci 50(3):755–769.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van der Linden SL, Leiserowitz AA, Feinberg GD, Maibach EW (2015) The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence. PLoS One 10(2):e0118489.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wise SB (2010) Climate change in the classroom: patterns, motivations, and barriers to instruction among Colorado science teachers. J Geosci Educ 58(5):297–309.  https://doi.org/10.5408/1.3559695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Wright State UniversityDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations