View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Middle and High School Students' Conceptions of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Middle and High School Students' Conceptions of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
Language: English
Authors: Bofferding, Laura, Kloser, Matthew
Source: Environmental Education Research. 2015 21(2):275-294.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2015
Sponsoring Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Contract Number: NNX09AL89G
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Junior High Schools
High Schools
Descriptors: Environmental Education, Middle School Students, High School Students, Climate, Behavior Change, Attitude Change, Knowledge Level, Pretests Posttests, Adjustment (to Environment), Adolescents, Social Problems, Surveys, Misconceptions, Student Behavior, Citizenship Responsibility, Coding
DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2014.888401
ISSN: 1350-4622
Abstract: Both scientists and policy-makers emphasize the importance of education for influencing pro-environmental behavior and minimizing the effects of climate change on biological and physical systems. Education has the potential to impact students' system knowledge--their understanding of the variables that affect the climate system--and action knowledge--their understanding of behaviors that can impact the system. Research on climate change education has largely focused on system and action knowledge that address mitigation while overlooking equally necessary adaptive responses. This study used a pre/post-test format to identify aspects of middle and high school students' climate system knowledge and action knowledge of both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Results indicate that adolescents currently conflate climate change mitigation strategies with unrelated environmental problems far less than in previous surveys. However, students demonstrated limited understanding of adaptive responses to climate change. After engaging in an instructional unit on climate change, students expressed stronger system and action knowledge, but significant misconceptions remained that conflated mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 33
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1050037
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFwiktE7nvA_LBKih2sdP9TAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIQFcp8esPDtxHN47gIBEICBm3NH3DPEMjVaV8CDEQgN14Dj070C8kkSiJcCHON7Do3DqjYr2FnOGHDYTKp2-N3Wr48GZW8BkkXyRK6ShAc8EnGV9kfqkQq0VLlWIOtj2zLdPC03JW-jq75ygAu3fONopmH7bDSI5UMiVU6afD6AveLTYeUy0fVjgADzj-SzR6gPUCr6RIuMjNo_f3HSvR4VCmYIAdq6pdKtochW
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0100491835;eed01feb.15;2019Feb20.14:21;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0100491835-1">Middle and high school students’ conceptions of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. </title> <p>Both scientists and policy-makers emphasize the importance of education for influencing pro-environmental behavior and minimizing the effects of climate change on biological and physical systems. Education has the potential to impact students' system knowledge – their understanding of the variables that affect the climate system – and action knowledge – their understanding of behaviors that can impact the system. Research on climate change education has largely focused on system and action knowledge that address mitigation while overlooking equally necessary adaptive responses. This study used a pre/post-test format to identify aspects of middle and high school students' climate system knowledge and action knowledge of both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Results indicate that adolescents currently conflate climate change mitigation strategies with unrelated environmental problems far less than in previous surveys. However, students demonstrated limited understanding of adaptive responses to climate change. After engaging in an instructional unit on climate change, students expressed stronger system and action knowledge, but significant misconceptions remained that conflated mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.</p> <p>Keywords: climate change education; mitigation; adaptation; middle school; high school; misconceptions</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a major cause of global climate change (GCC), have reached unprecedented levels since the pre-industrial age (IPCC [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]). Although Americans comprise less than 5% of the world's population, their contribution to GHG emissions is almost one-fifth of the global output (World Resources Institute [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref2">33</reflink>]). Educating new generations – generations that will be impacted even more acutely by climate change – about the impact of emissions and climate change is, therefore, critically important (Boyes, Chuckran, and Stanisstreet [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]). Unfortunately, both students and adults have been shown to exhibit misconceptions about climate change. These misconceptions include, but are not limited to, individuals' conflation of GCC with the depletion of the ozone layer (Bostrom et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>]; Boyes, Chuckran, and Stanisstreet [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]; Rye, Rubba, andWiesenmayer [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>]) and their misunderstandings about the impact of behaviors, like littering, on climate (Truelove and Parks [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>]). While many individuals may desire to reduce their negative impact on the environment, these and other flawed conceptual models can restrict one's ability to identify and enact effective practices that mitigate carbon emissions (Bostrom et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]). Furthermore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that current emission levels have already contributed to changes in the earth's systems that will require individuals and communities to respond to potentially negative impacts; mitigation alone will not suffice (IPCC [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref9">13</reflink>]). Yet little research has focused on what the public understands about the role of adaptation and how individuals differentiate between adaptive and mitigative responses.</p> <p>Education has long been one mechanism to improve the public's understanding of science, and both policy-makers and scientists have called for a more accurate public understanding of climate change (Niepold, Herring, and McConville [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref10">20</reflink>]). In the past, science content and skills important to helping students develop scientific literacy were articulated individually by the 50 states. More recently, the possibility of increased coherence across states has improved with the development of the <emph>Next Generation Science Standards</emph> (NGSS). Although the science standards have yet to reach the near unanimous uptake of the English/language arts and mathematics Common Core State Standards, 26 states have functioned as 'lead partners' in their adoption, and more states are considering their use (Robelen [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref11">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Based on <emph>A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas</emph> (NRC [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref12">21</reflink>]), the NGSS consists of three dimensions: eight scientific practices – such as 'developing and using models'; seven crosscutting concepts – such as 'cause and effect'; and 13 core disciplinary ideas grouped among life science, physical science, earth science, and engineering. States and schools that adopt these standards may adopt a wide variety of available curricula and assessments, but in meeting these standards, science classrooms will eschew the oft-maligned 'mile wide, inch deep' approach by focusing on a small core of important scientific ideas, including GCC. The vast majority of the suggested focus on GCC occurs in the middle school (MS) and high school (HS) grade bands. For example, the anthropogenic contributions to GCC are first introduced in MS where students learn about how 'human activities, such as the release of GHGs from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth's [global warming]' (NRC [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref13">21</reflink>], 198). The MS and HS frameworks focus on students learning about how to reduce human vulnerability, slow the rate of GCC, and apply their knowledge to make wise decisions and engage in activities that productively alter the consequences of GCC. By highlighting both the reduction of human vulnerability and behaviors that change the rate at which the climate is changing, the <emph>Framework</emph> prioritizes an adolescent science education in which students understand and can distinguish between adaptive and mitigative responses to climate change. These recommendations align strongly with the development of what some have termed a climate literate person: someone who has understanding of the climate system, can evaluate and communicate information regarding climate change, and considers the impacts of climate change when making decisions (U.S. Global Change Research Program [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref14">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>In order for students to fully achieve the goals outlined by the <emph>Framework</emph> and the resulting NGSS, we must collectively learn more about students' understanding of the mechanisms of GCC, their beliefs about their agency to counter its effects, and their major misconceptions regarding this phenomenon (Bostrom et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]). Unfortunately, most research and educational interventions regarding GCC have focused on individuals' knowledge of and misconceptions about mitigation while ignoring the crucial construct of individuals' understanding of adaptation to climate change. This study seeks to contribute to an emerging literature on students' understanding of GCC and their understanding of both humans' mitigative and adaptive responses to climate change.</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-3">Conceptual framework</hd> <p>Empirical data indicate that the earth's climate has experienced significant warming in recent generations (IPCC [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>]). Results from further studies indicate that anthropogenic causes, such as increases in carbon emissions are major drivers of this change. In recent decades, human responses to climate change and specifically to GHG emissions have become an increasingly public issue involving grassroots movements, state and federal legislation, and even representation in the <emph>NGSS</emph> (Niepold, Herring, and McConville [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>]). Despite these movements, public action toward climate change varies across regions, cultures, and individuals. Some pro-environmental actions have been misperceived as ways of countering climate change (e.g. reducing littering). Other actions do in fact help mitigate the amount of existing emissions by either reducing output (e.g. carpooling) or increasing carbon sinks (e.g. planting trees to increase photosynthesis). In contrast, many actions still increase existing emissions (e.g. cutting down trees). Some behaviors have focused less on controlling or reducing carbon emissions and more on adapting to the existing conditions as a way to reduce vulnerability to biological systems (IPCC [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>]). Both approaches – mitigation and adaptation – have been cited by the IPCC as important human responses to climate change and are essential understandings for a climate literate citizen.</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-4">Mitigation</hd> <p>The most significant changes to global climate have been attributed to the inability of earth's atmospheric system to transmit certain wavelengths of radiation, resulting in increased warming. Radiation that passes through the atmosphere is absorbed by the earth's surface and then re-emitted at a different wavelength. GHGs, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide prevent the re-emitted radiation from exiting the earth's system, resulting in a new equilibrium at higher temperatures. Therefore, one major focus of pro-environmental education has focused on mitigation – actions that decrease anthropogenic GHG emissions, especially carbon dioxide. The IPCC defines mitigation as actions intended to reduce anthropogenic net emissions of GHGs ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>]). Generally, this net reduction can occur in two ways – through decreased outputs or through carbon capture. Common forms of decreased GHG output include using renewable energy sources that eschew the burning of fossil fuels (e.g. energy produced by solar panels); lifestyle changes that decrease the overall amount of energy use (e.g. walking instead of driving); and the use of materials that reduce energy needs (e.g. improved housing insulation to reduce heating needs). In comparison, carbon capture includes actions that decrease the levels of existing GHGs such as methane capture at landfills or by decreasing deforestation, thus increasing the rate of photosynthesis.</p> <p>American understanding of mitigation is multifaceted. Most Americans recognize that the risks of climate change are substantial and that mitigation is a necessary action (Leiserowitz et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]; Lorenzoni and Pidgeon [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref21">18</reflink>]). However, individuals and societies have also recognized that some costly mitigation practices may in turn suppress economic development (IPCC [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]). Therefore, decisions about mitigation at the personal and national level must be weighed with respect not only to the environment, but also with respect to social and financial outcomes. This is especially important as evidence suggests that early adoption of some mitigation strategies can reduce costs in the future (Stern [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref23">28</reflink>]). Furthermore, the literature has indicated that many individuals have misconceptions about what actions actually constitute mitigation and how these actions impact the climate system (Boyes, Chuckran, and Stanisstreet [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref24">6</reflink>]; McNeill and Vaughn [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref25">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-5">Adaptation</hd> <p>Mitigation of carbon emissions is an essential human response to ameliorate the negative effects of climate change. Despite increased awareness of and some intergovernmental cooperation toward decreasing carbon emissions (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol), the rate at which the earth's climate is changing will result in increased vulnerability for biological systems in the coming decades. Some studies have shown that recent temperature changes less than or equal to 1°C have already negatively affected the social and economic standing of developing countries (Stern [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>]). Therefore, some responses must be instituted that address existing conditions and help reduce the dangers due to increased temperatures. According to the IPCC ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>]), adaptation is the adjustment of natural and biological systems in response to climatic changes that either reduces the amount of harm or capitalizes on beneficial opportunities for living organisms. Adaptations can be anticipatory or reactive and include a range of responses. For example, some responses might regulate temperature through the increased use of air conditioning. Other adaptive responses might address secondary impacts of temperature increases, such as rising sea levels. To adapt to changing water levels, humans might decide to move homes away from coastlines or build dams and levees that protect existing seaside homes.</p> <p>Although adaptation is a unique construct, this type of response is closely linked to mitigative practices (IPCC [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref28">13</reflink>]). For instance, the above example about increased use of air conditioners to reduce the effects of increased temperatures would likely also increase the net amount of anthropogenic GHG emissions. In other circumstances, mitigation and adaptation might be more complementary. For example, the decreased cost of mitigation might increase the total amount of mitigation and thus, make adaptation more effective. Even more common is the scenario in which adaptive behaviors also lead to higher rates of GHG mitigation. For example, planting trees with large canopies increases the amount of shade for biological organisms and reduces their vulnerability to increased temperatures. Concurrently, these shade trees also mitigate emissions by trapping carbon during photosynthesis. Unfortunately, student conceptions of adaptation to climate change are generally absent from the literature as many studies (e.g. Boyes, Chuckran¸and Stanisstreet [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>]; O'Conner, Bord, and Fisher [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>]) focus solely on mitigation.</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-6">Knowledge, cognition, and behavior</hd> <p>One's behaviors are influenced by a variety of psychological, cognitive, social, and cultural factors (Ajzen and Fishbein [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref31">2</reflink>]; Heimlich and Ardoin [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>]; Kollmuss and Agyeman [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref33">15</reflink>]). In relation to socio-scientific issues such as climate change and human responses to increasing levels of GHG, knowledge of pure science, of the possible actions available, and the risks and rewards for both individuals and societies can influence one's decisions and actions. Many theories of behavior and behavior change have recognized the role knowledge plays in behavior, but only as a minor variable (Kollmuss and Agyeman [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref34">15</reflink>]). For example, Ajzen and Fishbein's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>]) Theory of Reasoned Action and its successor, The Theory of Planned Behavior focus on the intention of an individual – the level at which they will exert effort to enact a particular behavior – and ability to enact the desired behavior. According to their theory, intention is influenced by several factors, including one's attitude, which is in turn influenced by information and knowledge. Within this theory of action, as with others like Stern's ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref36">27</reflink>]) belief-values-norm framework, knowledge plays only a distal role in determining one's behaviors. However, existing data suggest that with respect to climate change, individuals often cite a lack of declarative knowledge as reasons for not enacting particular behaviors (Truelove and Parks [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]). Based on these data, some models have identified that the type of knowledge matters in determining pro-environmental behavior.</p> <p>Frick, Kaiser, and Wilson ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>]), recognize the necessary, but not sufficient role of knowledge in behavior change and argue that merely targeting declarative knowledge is insufficient for environmental behavior decisions but that this form of knowledge must be parsed into its component parts. Based on their research, Frick et al. have identified three domains of declarative knowledge. First, 'system knowledge' is the form of declarative knowledge most commonly addressed. System knowledge focuses on the mechanistic understanding of how different variables relate within a system, how the variables interact, and the resulting outcomes from this interaction. For example, system knowledge includes understanding how carbon dioxide and other GHGs can cause increased global temperatures.</p> <p>The literature has shown that both adolescents and adults exhibit misconceptions about the mechanism of climate change. In some cases, individuals understand the underlying role of GHGs in the changing climate system but may not fully understand the science behind how these gases impact earth's systems (Andersson and Wallin [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>]). Alternatively, many individuals' system knowledge leads to mental models that incorrectly attribute changes in climate to holes in the ozone that allow the sun's heat to penetrate and get trapped in the earth's atmosphere (Boyes, Chuckran, and Stanisstreet [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>]). Of the three types of knowledge, it is likely that system knowledge plays the smallest role in determining pro-environmental behavior. This claim has been supported in studies of environmentalists who exhibited the same level of scientific knowledge about the environment as non-environmentalists, yet clearly displayed different behavior (Kempton, Bosterm, and Hartley [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref41">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The second form of declarative knowledge, 'action knowledge', represents an individual's understanding of what actions and behaviors can influence a situation. In relation to GCC, action knowledge might be a student's understanding that eating less meat or carpooling to school can reduce one's carbon footprint. Unsurprisingly, studies have indicated that action knowledge has a greater impact on pro-environmental behavior than system knowledge since action knowledge is more proximate to behaviors that are enacted and can exist without a full mechanistic understanding of, for example, the greenhouse effect or how climate change occurs (Smith-Sebasto and Fortner [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref42">26</reflink>]). Similarly, other studies have shown that individuals with high levels of environmental system knowledge may not enact pro-environmental behaviors if they lack a certain threshold of action knowledge (Aitken, Chapman, and McClure [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>]; Semenza et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref44">25</reflink>]). Taken together, system and action knowledge are also reflected in what Basu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref45">4</reflink>]) and Calabrese Barton ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>]) call 'critical science agency'. Critical science agency includes both a conceptual understanding of the natural system at hand, but also the ability and knowledge to take action in relation to this system.</p> <p>Third, and finally, Frick et al. identify the role that 'effectiveness knowledge' plays in behavior. Effectiveness knowledge reflects a utilitarian perspective by weighing the potential for positive or negative impact for particular behaviors. This effectiveness knowledge might play a role in decisions about whether to eat one steak or whether to carpool to work every day. In the former case, an individual might have the system and action knowledge to know that eating meat can contribute to GHG output, but since it is an isolated occasion, the overall impact is small. In the latter situation, making the decision to carpool is a recurring event that can have a significant impact on one's carbon footprint. Essentially, effectiveness knowledge helps an individual make decisions among options that maximize one's intentions.</p> <p>Taken together, the three dimensions of Frick et al.'s Knowledge Structure Model include an understanding of how the climate works, what actions can impact the climate system, and how effective each of these actions are in meeting a particular goal. In probing what adolescents know about human responses to climate change, especially mitigation and adaptation, an understanding of action knowledge – which behaviors will reduce carbon emissions and allow individuals to reduce their vulnerability to climate changes – is likely the most predictive of actual behavior. According to many studies, students are generally unclear about what pro-environmental behaviors will reduce the impact of climate change and why specific actions will reduce the impact (McNeill and Vaughn [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref47">19</reflink>]). Although system knowledge has been shown to have a smaller impact on behavior than other variables, the models of a climate literate person still suggest that individuals should understand foundational concepts about climate science.</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-7">Research questions</hd> <p>Based on Frick et al.'s Knowledge Structure Model, students' conceptions of the mechanisms of climate change and the possible responses that one can have to climate change can have an impact on their behavior. This study adds to the literature on students' engagement with the socio-scientific issue of climate change and responses to climate change in two ways. First, this study identifies contemporary middle and high school students' action and system knowledge about mitigation of GHG emissions. Furthermore, this study investigates students' action and system knowledge of adaptation to GCC and how students do or do not differentiate between these two important constructs. Specifically, the following research questions frame this study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are adolescents' conceptualizations of and justification for climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in their community?</item> <p></p> <item> How are students' understandings and beliefs affected by instruction on GCC, its causes, and human responses?</item> <p></p> <item> What similarities or differences exist between how students from the different developmental levels of middle and high school conceptualize these constructs?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0100491835-8">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0100491835-9">Participants</hd> <p>As part of a larger research project supported by NASA, 18 middle school and high school science teachers volunteered to implement a climate change curriculum in one or more of their classes. Although student data were collected from the classes of all 18 teachers, we focus on student data from six teachers (three who taught middle school and three who taught high school). The six teachers were chosen from middle and high schools to balance how students from different developmental levels might respond to issues of climate change. The teachers' classrooms also represented racial and ethnic diversity across the sample and had been identified by the research team as carrying out the climate change unit with high fidelity. Furthermore, these teachers had complete data-sets at the time of analysis and multiple course sections that contributed to the data-set. As a result, 162 middle school students and 225 high school students (387 students overall) from schools in the California Bay Area participated in this study. In the US, middle school students are typically 11–14 years old and high school students are generally 14–18 years old. The research team was not permitted to collect demographic data from students in the study, but Table 1 shows the school-wide demographics in which these classes were embedded, showing a range of school sizes and student populations. The unit on climate change was mandatory for all students in the course. Just over 95% of students provided complete data; missing data resulted from student absences on the day of the pre- or post-test.</p> <p>Table 1. Participating school demographics (2011–2012).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Schoolpseudonym</td><td>Enrollment</td><td>SES proxy (free/reduced Lunch) %</td><td>Under-represented minority %</td><td>English learners %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>Buchanan HS</td><td>1314</td><td char=".">9.8</td><td char=".">21.2</td><td char=".">8.4</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Polk HS</td><td>1887</td><td char=".">7.2</td><td char=".">12.6</td><td char=".">2.4</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Wilson HS</td><td>1764</td><td char=".">47.3</td><td char=".">60.6</td><td char=".">19.4</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Carter MS</td><td>1293</td><td char=".">9.5</td><td char=".">9.9</td><td char=".">2.6</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Truman MS</td><td>128</td><td char=".">0.8</td><td char=".">6.3</td><td char=".">0.8</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Adams MS</td><td>167</td><td char=".">23.0</td><td char=".">40.0</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>State Totals</td><td>6.2 MM</td><td char=".">57.5</td><td char=".">59.2</td><td char=".">22.3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0100491835-10">Curriculum description</hd> <p>The climate change lessons aimed to develop students' system and action knowledge by focusing on topics such climate science, the energy budget, mitigation, and adaptation, all with a focus on data analysis and making evidence-based claims. Further, the lessons included whole group and small group activities, as well as experiments. The lessons were designed by the research team – which included university level climate scientists, university level education/science education researchers, teacher educators, and former teachers – for high school students, and modifications were made to the lessons to make them appropriate for middle school students as well.</p> <p>At the middle school level, three of the six units had an emphasis on mitigation and adaptation. The focus of unit three was on GHGs and energy balance. Throughout these lessons students explored GHGs and their impact. Students had exposure to four mitigation strategies (fuel efficiency, transportation conservation, building efficiency through reducing heat and energy use or using alternative energy sources, and efficient electricity production) through a PowerPoint, during which they completed a worksheet about mitigation strategies (see Appendix 1).</p> <p>Following this introduction to mitigation, unit four focused on the impacts of climate change along with ways to mitigate and adapt to it. The main investigation in this unit focused on sea-level rise and the impact of melting sea ice versus land ice. Students also contrasted mitigation and adaptation and explored sectors in California susceptible to climate change (e.g. agriculture, coastal areas, energy) and short-term and long-term adaptations they could make to adjust to changes in these sectors (e.g. increase water use efficiency for irrigation in the short-term, develop drought-resistant crops in the long-term).</p> <p>The culmination of the climate change curriculum was a version of the wedge activity adapted from the Princeton University Environmental Institute's Stabilization Wedge Game (2007, <ulink href="http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/">http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/</ulink>), where students compare and contrast climate change mitigation strategies and decide which they think would be best to implement (given their potential impacts and benefits). A major difference between the middle and high school curricula is that unit four on the impact, mitigation, and adaptation of climate change was split into two separate units at the high school level to allow for more coverage. All lesson plans and resources for the climate change curriculum used can be found online at https://pangea.stanford.edu/programs/outreach/climatechange/curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-11">Research design and data sources</hd> <p>This study involved a pre-test, instruction, post-test design. Pre- and post-tests were identical and involved a series of multiple choice and open-response questions around the causes and effects of climate change. Post-tests were administered at the conclusion of the instructional unit. For this study, we focus on two open-response questions from both tests:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Name one thing that your community could realistically do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. Explain how this change or activity could reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.</item> <p></p> <item> What is one thing you or your community could realistically do to prepare for or adapt to future changes in climate? Explain how or why your suggestion would work.</item> </ulist> <p>Open-response questions were developed using Backward Design (Wiggins and McTighe [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref48">32</reflink>]) to directly address the goals of the unit. Questions were pilot tested with two summer school classes, one of middle school students and one of high school students and later coded by the research team. After piloting, small changes were made to the assessment items to better elicit student ideas regarding the desired constructs.</p> <p>Participating teachers received a week-long training on the climate change curriculum and met throughout the year with the research team – consisting of climate scientists, education researchers, and graduate students – for additional professional development experiences (e.g. learning about GCC experiments taking place at a nearby biological reserve). Teachers were also connected to a climate scientist whom they could use as a resource (and guest speaker) while they taught the climate change unit, and most teachers implemented the unit over the course of a month.</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-12">Data analysis</hd> <p>The first step of our data analysis involved coding students' responses to the open-ended questions. To develop our coding system, we read over a selection of student responses and made note of common categories of responses. We also compiled categories of mitigation and adaptation strategies presented in the literature (e.g. Bostrom et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref49">5</reflink>]) and compared these themes with the categories identified from the tests, resulting in a set of master codes (see Table 2). We used separate sets of codes to judge the completeness of students' justifications for the corresponding mitigation or adaptation strategy and whether the suggested adaptations would increase CO<subs>2</subs> emissions.</p> <p>Table 2. Mitigation and adaptation codes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td /><td>Examples of student responses</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Mitigation codes</italic></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Transportation – some emissions</td><td>Carpool or use hybrids</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Transportation – no emissions</td><td>Walk or bike to school</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Transportation – goods</td><td>Buy local</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Energy Use – alternative sources</td><td>Use solar panels</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Energy Use – conservation</td><td>Unplug computers when you aren't using them</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Energy Use – materials</td><td>Use high efficiency light bulbs</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Plants</td><td>Plant more plants, which take in CO2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Alternative materials</td><td>Use cloth shopping bags</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Non-relevant</td><td>Stop littering</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Adaptation codes</italic></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Temperature regulation</td><td>Install more air conditioning</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Building materials</td><td>Use more and better insulation</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Communal shade</td><td>Plant more trees for shade</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Clothing/materials</td><td>Wear light clothes when it is hot out</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Address rising sea level</td><td>Build dams and move inland</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Relocate from heat</td><td>Move away from the equator</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Adapt staples</td><td>Plant crops that can survive in hotter climates</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Conflation with mitigation</td><td>Carpooling [A mitigation strategy]</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Non-sea related disasters</td><td>Build basements to protect from increased storms</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Non-relevant</td><td>Adapt to it</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Adaptation type codes</italic></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Adaptation with decreased CO<sub>2</sub> emissions</td><td>Plant trees to increase shade</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Adaptation with increased CO<sub>2</sub> emissions</td><td>Use more air conditioning</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Adaptation only</td><td>Wear lighter colored clothing</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Justification codes for mitigationand adaptation</italic></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Valid</td><td>Reducing the use of cars can reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere which in turn would reduce the amount of global climate change</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Partially valid</td><td>We could use solar panels because we would never have to use oil for electricity.</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Invalid</td><td>If you build more greenhouses, they will trap the greenhouse gases</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>No justification provided</td><td>[Answer sheet left blank]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To establish reliability, both authors, who are current mathematics and science education faculty members and are former K-12 teachers in these disciplines, coded several classes and compared codes. Reliability for the mitigation codes was 88% and 80% for the adaptation codes. We discussed any discrepancies until we came to a consensus; then we coded the rest of the data independently and blind to occasion, highlighted any questionable codes, and discussed the questionable codes until we reached agreement. If students provided multiple mitigation or adaptation strategies, we coded the first complete response. Multiple responses were not coded because the question specifically asked for one response. After coding, we calculated the category frequencies (%) for middle school students, high school students, and all students. We also calculated the frequency (%) of each code for each level of justification. An omnibus chi-square test determined whether frequencies across all categories differed from pre- to post-test responses. Standardized residuals were examined at the 0.05 level to determine differences in pre- to post-test responses for individual categories.</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0100491835-14">Conceptualizations of climate change mitigation</hd> <p>For middle and high school students combined, their conceptualizations of mitigation strategies relevant to their community – that is, their action knowledge with respect to suppressing anthropogenic GHG emissions – reflected results from previous studies. Prior to instruction, students' most common responses, almost two-thirds of the total, were transportation related. These responses included both modes of transportation that reduce but do not eliminate emissions (35% of responses), such as using hybrid cars, and modes of transportation that eliminate emissions entirely (28% of responses), such as walking instead of driving to school (see Figure 1[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]). Unlike results from Ignell, Davies, and Lundholm ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref51">12</reflink>]), only two students referenced buying local as a way to reduce transportation-related emissions. Thirteen percent of students either did not answer or provided an irrelevant response. However, unlike previous surveys (Bostrom et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>]; Boyes, Chuckran, and Stanisstreet [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>]; Rye, Rubba, and Wiesenmayer [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref54">24</reflink>]), few students provided responses that conflated mitigation of climate change with pro-environmental behaviors that addressed the depletion of the ozone layer.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Frequency of combined MS and HS students' mitigation responses to GCC.Frequencies are normalized to percentages; n = 387.* = Within group significant differences from pre- to post-test based on χ2 standardized residuals.</p> <p>Like other recent curricular interventions addressing climate change (e.g. McNeill and Vaughn [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref55">19</reflink>]), students improved their overall knowledge of climate change, its causes, and how to reduce the impact of increasing temperatures. The omnibus chi-square test indicated a statistically different distribution from pre- to post-test, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref56">9</reflink>) = 64.52, <emph>p</emph> < .05. After instruction, students who responded with blank and irrelevant responses to the mitigation question decreased from 13% on the pre-test to 1% on the post-test. For example, one middle school student incorrectly wrote, 'Cut down more trees' (with the later justification that trees produce carbon dioxide) as a mitigation behavior prior to the unit, yet on the post-test provided a more valid response by writing, 'Use solar electricity' (with the justification that solar power does not use coal, which reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). On the post-test, students still identified modes of transportation as the most popular mitigation strategy. A greater percentage of students cited actions that reduced, but did not eliminate emissions (44%) and fewer students cited actions that eliminated carbon emissions (23%). The most significant change in response frequency after students experienced the curriculum resulted from students' increased identification of conserving energy as a mitigation response. Standardized residuals indicated that other than the change in the 'No Response' category, the increase in 'Energy Conservation', when students identified using less electricity or energy, was the only other statistically different category in the post-test.</p> <p>Students' justifications of why their chosen behaviors would mitigate GHG emissions serve as a proxy for students' system knowledge of climate change. Prior to the educational unit, 55% of students provided a valid justification for their choice (see Figure 2). The low-rate of justification reflects the findings of other studies in which individuals may know about pro-environmental behaviors, but may not understand the mechanism by which these actions protect the environment (Kempton, Boster, and Hartley [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>]). The omnibus chi-square test indicated a statistically different distribution from pre- to post-test, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>) = 89.91, <emph>p</emph> < .05. Similar to other curricular interventions, system knowledge in the form of valid justifications increased significantly to 85% after the educational unit. In turn, standard residuals indicated that the number of invalid justifications and partial justifications decreased – not surprising given the relationship with the number of increased valid justifications. These data suggest that students showed some understanding of the mechanisms of climate change for the strategies they proposed. It should be noted that invalid forms of mitigation were automatically categorized with invalid justifications. Therefore, the 12% change in valid mitigation actions alone increased the possibility for more valid justifications.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Frequency of combined MS and HS students' level of justification for mitigation responses to GCC.Frequencies are normalized to percentages; n = 387.* = Within group significant differences from pre- to post-test based on χ2 standardized residuals.</p> <p>Unsurprisingly, valid action and system knowledge differed between developmental levels, especially prior to the educational unit. Prior to the unit, 21% of Middle School (MS) students suggested an irrelevant or no answer to the question asking for a behavior that mitigates carbon emissions compared to only 8% of High School (HS) students. After the unit, both groups of students were able to provide one mitigation strategy with less than 3% of the sample providing irrelevant responses. Students' justification of their chosen mitigation strategy remained relatively constant across developmental levels for both the pre- and post-test.</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-15">Adaptation to climate change</hd> <p>Students provided far fewer valid adaptation responses to GCC when compared to the number of valid responses for mitigation. Prior to the climate change unit, over 36% of students provided no response to the question (compared to 13% of students who provided no response for the mitigation question). Moreover, 24% of the students conflated adaptive responses with mitigative responses, that is, they provided a response that would only reduce carbon emissions and would not reduce the vulnerability of biological organisms to increased global temperatures or rising sea levels (see Figure 3). For example, on the adaptation question many students offered the conflated response that they would 'use less energy'. This example indicates that students recognized adaptations to lifestyle choices; however, they did not recognize that this behavior would reduce carbon emissions, nor did they realize that it would not help them deal with their increased vulnerability due to increased climate change. No other response exceeded 10% of the sample. Middle school students exhibited the most confusion with nearly 55% of this age group leaving the answer blank on the pre-test and 18% conflating adaptation with mitigation (see Figure 4). High school students were more apt to answer the question (23% provided no response), but their most frequent response also conflated adaptation with mitigation responses. At the HS level, students did provide relevant responses that exceeded 10% of the sample on the pre-test, and these focused on dealing with sea level rise, wearing light-colored clothing to stay cool, and planting crops that can survive in elevated temperatures (coded as 'adapting staples').</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Frequencies of combined MS and HS students' adaptation responses to GCC.Frequencies normalized to percentages. n = 387.* = Within group significant differences from pre- to post-test based on χ2 standardized residuals.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Frequencies of disaggregated MS and HS students' adaptation responses to GCC.nMS = 162; nHS = 225.</p> <p>Middle and high school students' responses regarding adaptation changed after engaging in the educational unit on climate change, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref59">9</reflink>) = 144.81, <emph>p</emph> < .05. Only 6 and 5% of the students, respectively, left their answer blank after taking part in the unit. Although more middle school students answered the question about adaptation, even more students, 26%, conflated adaptation with mitigation. However, other relevant responses also increased. Twenty-percent of middle school students cited lighter clothing as a possible response while over 10% of the sample cited adaptations to sea level rise, adapting staples, and using different building materials. In contrast, high school students' responses were not as diversified. On the post-test, the most frequent response was now a valid adaptation to GCC. Thirty-six percent of students wrote responses that addressed sea-level rise. Given the proximity to the coast, teachers may have stressed adaptations to sea-level rise and/or students must have seen this adaptation as regionally significant. The second most frequent response, at 29%, was again the conflation of adaptive and mitigative responses. 'Adapting Staples' was the only other response that exceeded 10% of the sample. The frequency of students' responses that included adaptations that were also mitigation behaviors or adaptations that increased emissions remained below 10% of the responses for both pre- and post-tests.</p> <p>Compared to the mitigation questions, students had greater difficulty justifying their adaptation response. Nearly 70% of the combined middle and high school students had either no justification or an invalid justification for adaptive responses prior to the educational unit (see Figure 5). This is unsurprising as a large percentage of students provided either no adaptation or conflated adaptation with mitigation, which automatically received an invalid justification code. The level of justification differed significantly from pre- to post-test, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref60">3</reflink>) = 120.04, <emph>p</emph> < .05. At the end of the unit, standardized residuals indicate that more students provided a relevant adaptation to climate change and nearly 60% of students provided a valid justification. Approximately 30% still provided an invalid justification, most often due to continued conflation of adaptation and mitigation.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5. Frequency of combined MS and HS students' level of justification for adaptation responses to GCC.Frequencies are normalized to percentages. n = 387.* = Within group significant differences from pre- to post-test based on χ2 standardized residuals.</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-16">Discussion</hd> <p>Contemporary scholars suggest that individual actions and behaviors, when aggregated across a large sample, can have a significant impact on the causes and outcomes of climate change (Dietz et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref61">8</reflink>]). This study explored elements of middle school and high school students' system knowledge of climate change and action knowledge of behaviors to address issues related to climate change before and after an instructional unit.</p> <p>Building on previous studies, it was expected that students would provide examples of pro-environmental behaviors, like littering, that actually do not mitigate carbon emissions (Truelove and Parks [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref62">30</reflink>]). In contrast to these previous studies, few students provided responses about littering or the ozone when identifying mitigative behaviors or system knowledge for why the climate is changing. A large portion of students did, however, avoid answering the question or provided other incorrect responses. Unsurprisingly, high school students were more likely than the middle school students to provide a relevant response to the test questions. The older students also provided a higher frequency of valid justifications. In looking at the change between pre- and post-test, once middle school students experienced the instructional unit, it appears that they became more confident in providing answers to the questions about mitigation and adaptation even though they did not necessarily provide correct responses. Furthermore, responses were skewed toward a small set of mitigative behaviors. Given that international surveys of high-income countries report 44% of adult respondents identifying environmentally friendly cars as an important form of mitigation, it is not surprising that our sample of students identified lowering car emissions as an important behavior (as cited in Leiserowitz, Kates, and Parris [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref63">16</reflink>]). Other international perspectives, however, were not as strongly reflected in our study. For example, only a few students recognized material production and consumption as a possible form of mitigation. In contrast, the same international survey found that roughly one-third of respondents from 20 different nations cited specific product avoidance for environmental reasons. While the responses from the international sample may not all directly relate to mitigation, students' lack of responses identifying the effects of products and packaging on emissions points to an area of possible focus for future curricula.</p> <p>Although results suggest that students are less likely to conflate mitigation with other pro-environmental behaviors, students in this study showed that they confuse mitigation with adaptation behaviors. Many adaptations can also be classified as mitigative responses. However, when responding to the question on adaptation, the students who conflated the two constructs provided responses that required adaptations to one's lifestyle, such as using less energy, that have the potential to reduce emissions, but not necessarily reduce the students' vulnerability to the effects of climate change. Moreover, the frequency of conflating adaptation and mitigation did not change after the instructional unit. It is likely that many of the post-test conflations were generated by students who initially provided no response on the pre-test. This suggests that climate change curricula may benefit from increased activities or increased explicit instruction that addresses adaptation to climate change.</p> <p>Furthermore, students who provided relevant adaptations to climate change most often made suggestions that have little to no direct impact on CO<subs>2</subs> emissions (e.g. wearing lighter clothing). Even though fewer than 10% of the adaptations students provided would <emph>increase</emph> CO<subs>2</subs> emissions (e.g. use more air conditioning to stay cool in rising temperatures), fewer than 10% of the adaptations provided would <emph>decrease</emph> emissions (e.g. plant more trees for shade to stay cool in rising temperatures). The disconnect between students' suggestions for adaptations in relation to their mitigation strategies suggests that there is an intersection of system and action knowledge that needs to be addressed more specifically in climate change instruction. One way teachers can address deepening both students' system and action knowledge is by teaching how adaptations may or may not increase emissions, thus addressing Frick, Kaiser, and Wilson's ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref64">9</reflink>]) third type of declarative knowledge, effectiveness knowledge.</p> <p>As mentioned in the results, students were more likely to identify adaptation strategies that were personally relevant to their own contexts. Aside from conflating adaptation with mitigation, the majority of students in this study identified adaptations to climate change that involved dealing with the rise in sea level (e.g. build levees or move to higher ground). This is particularly interesting since a large-scale international survey found that sea-level rise was one of the least concerns of global citizens when thinking about the impact of climate change (GlobeScan [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref65">10</reflink>]). While perhaps not surprising given the students' location in the San Francisco Bay Area, these findings suggest that teachers are finding ways to make this part of the curriculum relevant to students' contexts and/or students identify most strongly with adaptations that are personally relevant. These results suggest that climate change curricula should be tailored for different regions of the world by emphasizing geographically relevant adaptations. For example, in countries such as China, where students place high value on economic reasons for not reducing carbon dioxide emissions (Sternäng and Lundholm [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref66">29</reflink>]), curricula could highlight the negative economic impact resulting from reduced tourism due to increased temperatures, and students could discuss how to adapt to the new financial situation. Further research should also explore ways of helping students recognize personally relevant adaptations and less regionally specific adaptations that are important to society more broadly.</p> <p>It is important to acknowledge several limitations of this study. For one, the questions embedded for this study on the pre- and post-test asked students for one mitigative and one adaptive behavior. Therefore, the results do not represent the depth of students' action knowledge, but rather the breadth of the first action that they identified. Future research could look especially at the depth of students' action knowledge for adaptive responses to climate change. Moreover, this study did not explore students' effectiveness knowledge, that is, students' understanding of the size of impact that different behaviors can have on climate change or, perhaps, more importantly, students' actual behaviors before and after the instructional unit. While much research remains on students' knowledge and behaviors related to climate change, these results show the impact that an instructional unit can have and that more attention needs to be paid to how students understand the difference between mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-17">Notes on contributors</hd> <p>Laura Bofferding is an assistant professor of mathematics education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Purdue University. Her primary research focuses on elementary students' understanding of negative integers, while her broader research interests include conceptual change in STEM topics.</p> <p>Matthew Kloser is the founding director of the Notre Dame Center for STEM Education in the Institute for Educational Initiatives at the University of Notre Dame. His research focuses broadly on issues of teaching, learning, and assessment in science classrooms, with a special focus on biology education.</p> <hd id="AN0100491835-18">Appendix 1.</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0100491835-19">Mitigation action notes handout</hd> <p>The level of _________ in the atmosphere has increased, causing the Earth's temperature to rise.</p> <p>One GHG in particular, ______________ has steadily increased in the atmosphere over the past century largely due to ______________ activity.</p> <p>Mitigation means?:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> to make less or reduce</item> <p></p> <item> to increase</item> <p></p> <item> to keep the same</item> </ulist> <p>Mitigation strategies: What are four areas where we can reduce emissions?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> One way to do this is:</item> <p></p> <item> One way to do this is:</item> <p></p> <item> One way to do this is:</item> <p></p> <item> One way to do this is:</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0100491835-20">Appendix 2.</hd> <p>Table B1. Response percentages disaggregated by MS and HS correlating to Figure 1.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Mitigation strategy</td><td>Level</td><td>Pre-test %</td><td>Post-test %</td><td>Gain %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>No/not relevant response</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">−20</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">−6</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Transportation – some emissions</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">40</td><td char=".">14</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">41</td><td char=".">47</td><td char=".">6</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Transportation – 'no' emissions</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">31</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">25</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">−8</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Transportation – buying local</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Energy use – alternate</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">−2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Energy use – conservation</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">7</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Energy use – materials</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Plants</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">−6</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Alternative materials</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Other</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table B2. Response percentages disaggregated by MS and HS correlating to Figure 2.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Mitigation justification</td><td>Level</td><td>Pre-test %</td><td>Post-test %</td><td>Gain %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>No response</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">−26</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">−6</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Valid response</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">52</td><td char=".">84</td><td char=".">32</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">57</td><td char=".">85</td><td char=".">27</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Partially valid response</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">−17</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Invalid response</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">−6</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">−4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table B3. Response percentages disaggregated by MS and HS correlating to Figures 3 and 4.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Adaptation strategy</td><td>Level</td><td>Pre-test %</td><td>Post-test %</td><td>Gain %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>No/not relevant response</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">53</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">−47</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">−18</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Temperature regulation</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">−1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">−3</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Building materials</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">9</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Increase shade</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Clothing</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">11</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">−3</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Address sea-level rise</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">13</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">36</td><td char=".">23</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Relocation</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">−1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Adapting staples</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">8</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Conflation with mitigation</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">8</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">27</td><td char=".">29</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Other – disasters</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">−2</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table B4. Response percentages disaggregated by MS and HS correlating to Figure 5.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Adaptation justification</td><td>Level</td><td>Pre-test %</td><td>Post-test %</td><td>Gain %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>No response</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">53</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">−50</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">−11</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Valid response</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">58</td><td char=".">41</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">35</td><td char=".">58</td><td char=".">23</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Partially valid response</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">−3</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Invalid response</td><td>MS</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">30</td><td char=".">6</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>HS</td><td char=".">42</td><td char=".">33</td><td char=".">−9</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0100491835-21">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>Many thanks go out to the project team at Stanford University that created the climate change education curriculum, including: Rachel Lotan, Jennifer Saltzman, Pamela Matson, Michael Mastrandrea, Noah Diffenbaugh, Polly Diffenbaugh, Salina Gray, and the participating teachers and students. This work was supported by a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Grant No. NNX09AL89G).</p> <ref id="AN0100491835-22"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref43" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> For Figures 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4–5, corresponding tables appear in Appendix 2 showing the disaggregated percentages by MS and HS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref31" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Laura Bofferding and Matthew Kloser contributed equally to this manuscript.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0100491835-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Aitken, C., R. Chapman, and J. McClure. 2011. "Climate Change, Powerlessness and the Commons Dilemma: Assessing New Zealanders' Preparedness to Act." Global Environmental Change 21 (2): 752–760. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.002.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.002">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.002.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.002</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 2005. "The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior." In The Handbook of Attitudes, edited by D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna, 173–221. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref39" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Andersson, B., and A. Wallin. 2000. "Students' Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect, the Societal Consequences of Reducing CO2 Emissions and the Problem of Ozone Layer Depletion." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37 (10): 1096–1111. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1096:AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-8.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref45" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Basu, S. J., A. Calabrese Barton, N. Clairmont, and D. Locke. 2009. "Developing a Framework for Critical Science Agency through Case Study in a Conceptual Physics Context." Cultural Studies of Science Education 4: 345–371. doi:10.1007/s11422-008-9135-8.10.1007/s11422-008-9135-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bostrom, A., M. G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, and D. Read. 1994. "What Do People Know about Global Climate Change? 1. Mental Models." Risk Analysis 14 (6): 959–970. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00065.x.10.1111/risk.1994.14.issue-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boyes, E., D. Chuckran, and MStanisstreet. 1993. How Do High School Students Perceive Global Climatic Change: What Are Its Manifestations? What Are Its Origins? What Corrective Action Can Be Taken? Journal of Science Education and Technology 2 (4): 541–557. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40186323.10.1007/BF00695323">http://www.jstor.org/stable/40186323.10.1007/BF00695323</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref46" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Calabrese Barton, A. 2008. "Feminisms and a World Not Yet: Science with and for Social Justice." In The World of Science Education: Handbook of Research in North America, edited by W.-M. Roth and K. Tobin, 409–426. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref61" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dietz, T., G. T. Gardner, J. Gilligan, P. C. Stern, and M. P. Vandenbergh. 2009. "Household Actions Can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce US Carbon Emissions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (44): 18452–18456. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908738106.10.1073/pnas.0908738106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref38" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Frick, J., F. G. Kaiser, and M. Wilson. 2004. "Environmental Knowledge and Conservation Behavior: Exploring Prevalence and Structure in a Representative Sample." Personality and Individual Differences 37 (8): 1597–1613. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015.10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015.10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> GlobeScan. (2001). Environics International Environmental Monitor Survey Dataset. Toronto: GlobeScan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heimlich, J. E., and N. M. Ardoin. 2008. "Understanding Behavior to Understand Behavior Change: A Literature Review." Environmental Education Research 14 (3): 215–237. doi:10.1080/13504620802148881.10.1080/13504620802148881</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ignell, C., P. Davies, and C. Lundholm. 2013. "Swedish Upper Secondary School Students' Conceptions of Negative Environmental Impact and Pricing." Sustainability 5: 982–996. doi:10.3390/su5030982.10.3390/su5030982</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IPCC. 2007. 4. Adaptation and Mitigation Options. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kempton, W., J. S. Boster, and J. A. Hartley. 1995. Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. "Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to pro-Environmental Behavior?" Environmental Education Research 8 (3): 239–260. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350462022014540110.1080/13504620220145401">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350462022014540110.1080/13504620220145401</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leiserowitz, A. A., R. W. Kates, and T. M. Parris. 2005. "Do Global Attitudes and Behaviors Support Sustainable Development?" Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 47 (9): 22–38.10.3200/ENVT.47.9.22-38</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leiserowitz, A., E. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, G. Feinberg, and P. Howe. 2013. Global Warming's Six Americas, September 2012. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. <ulink href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/Six-Americas-September-2012">http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/Six-Americas-September-2012</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorenzoni, I., and N. F. Pidgeon. 2006. "Public Views on Climate Change: European and USA Perspectives." Climatic Change 77 (1–2): 73–95.10.1007/s10584-006-9072-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeill, K. L., and M. H. Vaughn. 2012. "Urban High School students' Critical Science Agency: Conceptual Understandings and Environmental Actions around Climate Change." Research in Science Education 42: 373–399. doi:10.1007/s11165-010-9202-5.10.1007/s11165-010-9202-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niepold, F., D. Herring, and D. McConville. 2007. "The Case for Climate Literacy in the 21st Century." Paper presented at the 5th International Symposium on Digital Earth. <ulink href="http://www.isde5.org/">http://www.isde5.org/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NRC (National Research Council). 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor, R. E., R. J. Bord, and A. Fisher. 1999. "Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change." Risk Analysis 19 (3): 461–471. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robelen, E. W. 2013. "States Soon to Weigh Science-standards Adoption.' Education Week. Accessed January 30. <ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/30/19science.h32.html">http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/30/19science.h32.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rye, J. A., P. A. Rubba, and R. L. Wiesenmayer. 1997. "An Investigation of Middle School students' Alternative Conceptions of Global Warming." International Journal of Science Education 19 (5): 527–551. doi:10.1080/0950069970190503.10.1080/0950069970190503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Semenza, J. C., D. E. Hall, D. J. Wilson, B. D. Bontempo, D. J. Sailor, and L. A. George. 2008. "Public Perception of Climate Change." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (5): 479–487. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.020.10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith-Sebasto, N. J., and R. W. Fortner. 1994. "The Environmental Action Internal Control Index: Voluntary Mitigation and Barriers to Behavior Change." The Journal of Environmental Education 25 (4): 23–29. doi:10.1080/00958964.1994.9941961.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stern, P. C. 2000. "New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior." Journal of Social Issues 56: 407–424. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175.10.1111/0022-4537.00175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stern, N. H. 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. London: HM Treasury.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternäng, L., and C. Lundholm. 2012. "Climate Change and Costs: Investigating students' Reasoning on Nature and Economic Development." Environmental Education Research 18 (3): 417–436.10.1080/13504622.2011.630532</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Truelove, H.B., and C. Parks. 2012. "Perceptions of Behaviors That Cause and Mitigate Global Warming and Intentions to Perform These Behaviors." Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32: 246–259. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.002.10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.002">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.002.10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.002</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Sciences. Washington, DC. <ulink href="http://eo.ucar.edu/asl/pdfs/ClimateLiteracyPoster.pdf">http://eo.ucar.edu/asl/pdfs/ClimateLiteracyPoster.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiggins, G. P., and J. McTighe. 1998. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Resources Institute. 2011. Climate Analysis Indicators Too (CAIT) Version 8.0. Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Laura Bofferding and Matthew Kloser</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref66"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1050037
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Middle and High School Students' Conceptions of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bofferding%2C+Laura%22">Bofferding, Laura</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kloser%2C+Matthew%22">Kloser, Matthew</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Environmental+Education+Research%22"><i>Environmental Education Research</i></searchLink>. 2015 21(2):275-294.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: NNX09AL89G
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Education%22">Environmental Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Climate%22">Climate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Change%22">Behavior Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitude+Change%22">Attitude Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pretests+Posttests%22">Pretests Posttests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adjustment+%28to+Environment%29%22">Adjustment (to Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Problems%22">Social Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Surveys%22">Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Misconceptions%22">Misconceptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Citizenship+Responsibility%22">Citizenship Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coding%22">Coding</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13504622.2014.888401
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1350-4622
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Both scientists and policy-makers emphasize the importance of education for influencing pro-environmental behavior and minimizing the effects of climate change on biological and physical systems. Education has the potential to impact students' system knowledge--their understanding of the variables that affect the climate system--and action knowledge--their understanding of behaviors that can impact the system. Research on climate change education has largely focused on system and action knowledge that address mitigation while overlooking equally necessary adaptive responses. This study used a pre/post-test format to identify aspects of middle and high school students' climate system knowledge and action knowledge of both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Results indicate that adolescents currently conflate climate change mitigation strategies with unrelated environmental problems far less than in previous surveys. However, students demonstrated limited understanding of adaptive responses to climate change. After engaging in an instructional unit on climate change, students expressed stronger system and action knowledge, but significant misconceptions remained that conflated mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 33
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1050037
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1050037
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13504622.2014.888401
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 275
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Climate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitude Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pretests Posttests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adjustment (to Environment)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Misconceptions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Citizenship Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coding
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Middle and High School Students' Conceptions of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bofferding, Laura
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kloser, Matthew
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1350-4622
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Environmental Education Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1