Next Article in Journal
Thai SMEs’ Response in the Digital Economy Age: A Case Study of Community-Based Tourism Policy Implementation
Next Article in Special Issue
Educating in History: Thinking Historically through Historical Reenactment
Previous Article in Journal
Parental Digital Mediation According to the Age of Minors: From Restraint and Control to Active Mediation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Who Are the Protagonists of History? Exploratory Study on Historical Relevance after Completing Compulsory Secondary Education in Spain
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/socsci11040179
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

What Do School Children Know about Climate Change? A Social Sciences Approach

by
Álvaro-Francisco Morote
1,* and
María Hernández
2
1
Department of Experimental and Social Sciences Education, Faculty Teaching Training, University of Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain
2
Department of Regional Geographical Analysis and Physical Geography, University of Alicante, 03080 Alicante, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11(4), 179; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11040179
Submission received: 13 January 2022 / Revised: 28 March 2022 / Accepted: 11 April 2022 / Published: 13 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Sciences Teaching in the Face of the Global Challenges of the 21st Century)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
One of the subject areas that is currently most prominent in the field of education (Social Science) is climate change, given its implications for raising awareness and training the present and future society. The objectives of this study, focused on school children (Primary Education—10 to 12 years old; third cycle, Secondary Education—12–16 years old; and pre-university, Baccalaureate—17–18 years old) in the Region of Valencia (Spain), are to analyse the following: the main information channels through which children receive information on climate change; the causes and consequences that they identify with respect to this phenomenon; and the main greenhouse gas that they believe is in the atmosphere. Based on the 575 students surveyed during the academic year 2020–2021, the results indicate that the three main information media are digital (TV—82.8%, Internet—56.2% and social networks—49.4%). With respect to the causes of the phenomenon identified by the students, particularly noteworthy was pollution (70.1%) and, in terms of the effects, the increase and changes in temperature (61.7%) were of particular note. Finally, with reference to greenhouse gases, the majority responded CO2 (63.5%). This is incorrect, as the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour. To sum up, we can highlight the role played by schools in training the future society and the risk arising from an increase in the information received from digital media by children as they grow older, due to the danger of misinformation.

1. Introduction

One of the main challenges faced by the society of the twenty-first century is global warming, as expressed in the Sixth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2022). This report highlights the importance of adapting to this phenomenon due to its effects, such as the increase in temperature, the loss of climate comfort or the intensification and greater frequency of extreme weather phenomena (floods and droughts). Therefore, raising awareness and rigorously teaching about climate change is in everyone’s interest, but is of particular concern for the educational environment (Jeong et al. 2021; Masters 2020; Nelles and Serrer 2020; Verlie and Blom 2021), as, in part, the future of society depends on increasing our knowledge about this serious problem (Borhaug 2021; Ferrari et al. 2019; Kurup et al. 2021; Morote and Olcina 2021a). The latter authors consider that the challenge of addressing global warming and climate change in education (Social Sciences) should be focused on by including informed decision making in classroom practices.
Regarding the research problem addressed here (teaching and climate change), for decades, different authors (Benejam 1997; Fien 1992) have described the urgent need to discuss world problems in schools (including climate change issues) through the Didactics of Social Sciences, in its different scales. Furthermore, the content of climate change is among of the most controversial that must be explained in social science classes (Ho and Seow 2015; Morote et al. 2021b). Thus, Benejam (1997) explains that “training our students as citizens of a democratic and alternative system” (p. 47) is necessary, among other purposes, “to preserve and value the natural and cultural heritage that we have received as legacy” (p. 48). As many authors affirm, this is based on the inclusion of Relevant Social Problems (RSP) in social science classrooms, a methodology that comes from the Anglo-Saxon sphere (Fien 1992; Evans et al. 1996). Although in Francophone literature, as López and Oller (2019) explain, the same approach is described, it is called Socially Alive Issues (SAI) (Legardez 2006; Legardez and Simonneaux 2006; Tutiaux-Guillón 2011). In Spain, this approach has also been incorporated from different research (Benejam 1997; García and Porlán 2000; García and De Alba 2003; Pagès and Santisteban 2011; Pagès 2007; López 2011; Canals and González 2011; Santisteban et al. 2014; Díaz and Felices 2017).
With respect to the interest in teaching about climate change, some authors (Morote and Olcina 2020, 2021a; Rausell et al. 2021) have pointed out that education is one of the most important non-structural factors for adapting to and addressing this phenomenon. However, these researchers also indicate that it is one of the variables that is least frequently taken into account, with priority given to structural and political mitigation measures. The importance of climate change has also been indicated by different international bodies. In its Fifth Report (IPCC 2014), the IPCC pointed out that education was one of the main actions necessary for adapting societies to this phenomenon. In addition, the United Nations (UN 2015) identifies this variable “education” as one of the most important elements in mitigating the effects of climate change (Sustainable Development Goal nº13 “Climate action”). Similarly, the European Environmental Agency (EEA 2017) indicated the importance of the vulnerability factor, highlighting education as a way to mitigate the effects of global warming. This issue has also been a point of interest with respect to educational laws, on both an international and a national (Spain) level (Morote and Olcina 2021b). Hence, in Spain (the present study case), the Climate Change Act was published (May 2021), which, for the first time, included a section on teaching: Title VIII (“Education, Research and Innovation in the fight against climate change and energy transition”).
Initially, the issue of environmental and climate change constituted a controversial topic from a scientific point of view, as the extent to which human action altered the natural conditions of climate evolution was questioned (Ho and Seow 2015). Currently, the majority of researchers back these facts with evidence (Roussel and Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles 2020) and it has now become a conceptual topic taught in the subjects of Geography and Social Sciences (Morote and Olcina 2020, 2021a). In Spain, explanations for climate change carry more weight in the educational setting due to the requirement to address these topics in classrooms, as established both for Primary Education (Royal Decree 126/2014, 28 February; Social Sciences subject) and Secondary Education and the Baccalaureate (Royal Decree 1105/2014, 26 December; Geography subject).
Another issue to consider with respect to the teaching of climate change is the influence that the media has on both teachers’ and students’ understanding of the issue (Morote et al. 2021a; Wu and Otsuka 2021). One of the consequences of this is the dissemination of fake news and stereotypes that have arisen in the social representation of the youngest cohorts (Ferrari et al. 2019). In fact, Morote et al. (2021a) have analysed how the information that the majority of trainee teachers receive is drawn from the Internet, television and social networks. Kažys (2018), Brisman (2018) and Lutzke et al. (2021) explain the danger that this could have in the case of information that is unreliable or lacks rigour, or when the news is false or manipulated. This fact (false information lacking in rigour) has even been transferred to the contents in Social Science textbooks, as confirmed by Morote and Olcina (2020), where there is: (1) a predominance of information with scientific errors; and (2) an excessive influence of the media and a catastrophic view of climate change. In the case of these resources (school textbooks), this problem is even more serious since, currently, in Social Sciences classes, they continue to be the main resource used (Bel et al. 2019). This is also reflected in the social attitudes of future teachers with respect to this phenomenon, in which human action is viewed as the main cause and natural disasters its main effects (Morote 2020). As this author explains, it is true that the majority of trainee teachers have received training on this subject matter, but only 13.4% of this training is based on academic studies. Therefore, as indicated by Morote et al. (2021a), the information received is similar to that presented by the media (86.2%) and constitutes a superfluous approach to the phenomenon, which fosters the creation of stereotypes.
In Spain, there is a consolidated line of study related to the teaching of climate change in the educational sphere (Caride and Meira 2019; Escoz-Roldan et al. 2020) and also in the field of the natural sciences (Calixto 2015; Domènech 2014). However, the same cannot be said for Social Science and/or Geography. It is true that these sciences have produced extensive literature on the teaching of climatology (Martínez-Fernández and Olcina 2019; Morote and Moltó 2017; Sebastiá and Tonda 2018), but not on climate change, except for some recent publications. In this respect, over the last few years, recent studies have been carried out on the teaching of this phenomenon from three perspectives: (1) the social attitudes of trainee teachers (Morote and Hernández 2020; Morote and Moreno 2021; Morote et al. 2021a); (2) the analysis of the contents of school textbooks (Morote and Olcina 2020, 2021a); and (3) didactic proposals (Morote and Olcina 2021b). In fact, the former president of the Spanish Association of Geography expressed the need for a greater dedication and interest in this subject matter similar to that of other scientific fields and on the international scene (Olcina 2017). On an international level, many works have been published on the teaching of climate change, such as those in Central and North America (McWhirter and Shealy 2018; Li et al. 2021; Sezen-Barrie and Marbach-Ad 2021), South America (Da Rocha et al. 2020), Europe (Jeong et al. 2021; Kovacs et al. 2017; Kurup et al. 2021), Africa (Anyanwu and Le Grange 2017) and Asia and Oceania (Ahmad and Numan 2015; Li and Liu 2021; Verlie and Blom 2021).
The objectives of this research are to analyse the following, using a case study of Primary Education (10–12 years old; third cycle), Secondary Education (12–16 years old) and Baccalaureate (17–18 years old) students of the Region of Valencia (Spain): (1) the main information channels through which students receive information on climate change; (2) the causes and consequences of this phenomenon that are identified by the students and whether these involve differences between these three educational levels; and (3) the main greenhouse gas that students believe is present in the atmosphere. With respect to the starting hypothesis, it was believed that the students would claim to receive information about this phenomenon mainly through audio-visual media (TV, Internet, social networks). Regarding the causes, it was expected that the students would respond that they are related to human action (mainly pollution), while the effects cited by the students were expected be the increase in temperature, sea level, glacier melting, etc. (second hypothesis). In terms of the main greenhouse gas present in the atmosphere, it was expected that the response of the majority of the students would be CO2 (third hypothesis). Significant differences were expected to be found between the three educational stages. The cognitive age of the students, a priori, was expected to influence the answers (fourth hypothesis). For this reason, we would expect the responses of the Baccalaureate students to be more elaborate and self-critical and with fewer errors in their content (for example, in relation to greenhouse gases). This study, therefore, will help to reveal the social attitudes of school children with respect to climate change and whether their understanding coincides with that of their teachers and with the information that is printed in their school textbooks. These latter considerations are addressed in the Discussion section.

2. Methods

2.1. Design of the Research

This study is based on a correlational study (non-experimental). Regarding the type of didactic research, it is characterized by its presentation of a socio-critical approach (see López and Oller 2019). As numerous authors affirm (Benejam 1997; Díaz and Felices 2017), these works are based on the inclusion of Relevant Social Problems (RSP) in Social Science classrooms. This methodology originated in the Anglo-Saxon sphere (Fien 1992; Evans et al. 1996; Ochoa 1996). It has also been developed in the Francophone literature, although it is called Socially Alive Issues (SAI) in this field (Legardez 2006; Legardez and Simonneaux 2006; Tutiaux-Guillón 2011). The research design is explanatory and transversal, as the information analysed was gathered at a specific moment (academic year of 2020–2021) and refers to a case study (eight public educational centres in the Region of Valencia, Spain): four centres of Primary Education and four centres of Secondary Education and Baccalaureate.

2.2. Context and Respondents

With regard to the context and the respondents, the selection procedure was conducted through non-probability sampling (availability or convenience sampling). The participants in this study were Primary Education students (third cycle; fifth and sixth; 10–12 years old), Secondary Education students (first and third; 12–16 years old) and Baccalaureate students (second year of Baccalaureate; 17–18 years old). The total number of students enrolled in these years was 605: Primary Education (n = 180), Secondary Education (n = 300) and Baccalaureate (n = 125). With respect to the representativeness of the sample and taking into account the total number of students enrolled (n = 605), a minimum of 318 students would be required to obtain a representative sample so as to achieve a confidence interval of 99% and a margin of error of 5%. Finally, since the total number of respondents was 575, a representative number was achieved (see Table 1). With respect to the socio-demographic characteristics (gender and age), the figures are similar from the point of view of gender: male (45.7%; n = 263); female (53.7%; n = 309). The average age in the whole sample was 13.8 years.

2.3. Questionnaire

The instrument designed to carry out the research was based on a questionnaire to obtain the data needed to achieve the aims proposed. It was a questionnaire prepared expressly for this research, following the model of other works about social attitudes (see López and Oller 2019; Morote and Hernández 2020; Morote and Moreno 2021; Morote et al. 2021a, 2021b). In this study, this questionnaire was adapted to the non-university school stage (12-item questionnaire—see Appendix A). The questionnaire was also validated by three researchers from: the Department of Experimental and Social Sciences Education at the University of Valencia (Spain), the Department of Mathematics and Social Sciences Education at the University of Murcia (Spain) and the Department of Regional Geographic Analysis and Physical Geography of the University of Alicante (Spain). For this study (in accordance with the aims proposed), the results were obtained from parts 1 (Item 4) and 2 (Items 7, 8 and 9) (see Table 2).
Item 9, “What is the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?”, was included because most of the population is unaware that this is the main greenhouse gas. The prevailing idea, influenced by the media (Morote et al. 2021a) and also replicated in the school textbooks (Morote and Olcina 2020) is that the main greenhouse gas is CO2, which is incorrect.
In order to assess the construct validity of the questionnaire, several procedures were carried out. First, a statistical analysis of the ordinal variables (Items 11 and 12) was conducted. For these variables, it was found that there was an acceptable standard deviation, as the value obtained was between 0 > 1. Second, the construct was subjected to the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) validity test, which indicates whether the factor analysis of the instrument is acceptable. The KMO test gave a positive result of 0.376, which, according to other factor reliability studies, is considered to be an acceptable level (Pérez-Gil et al. 2000). Third, being a mixed questionnaire (quantitative and qualitative), the Friedman chi-squared test (Friedman’s X²) was carried out. It generated a positive value of 303.067 (p = 0.001), which indicated that there was no discrepancy between the variables. Therefore, the variables were dependent on one another (Satorra and Bentler 2010; Sharpe 2015). The results obtained through these procedures render the research reliable, as in the case of other studies on the teaching of Social Science (Moreno-Vera et al. 2020; Morote et al. 2021b).

2.4. Procedure

The questionnaire was administered in a mid-term session (first four-month period) during the second semester (2021), with a response time of 10 minutes. It should also be noted that the questionnaire was administered prior to the teaching of sessions related to climate and natural hazards so as not to influence the answers (subject of Social Science and/or Geography). Finally, the respondents’ anonymity was preserved during the entire procedure and confidentiality was guaranteed in writing.

2.5. Data Analysis

For the data analysis procedure, the program SPSS v26 (IBM, New York, NY, USA) was used to carry out a statistical–inferential analysis (non-parametric tests) of the frequencies and percentages. In the data analysis, the chi-squared test was carried out for the nominal variables (Items 4, 7, 8 and 9). Furthermore, the school stage and the opinions in the open responses (qualitative information) of Items 7 and 8 were coded (see Table 3 and Table 4).

3. Results

3.1. Where Do School Children Receive Information about Climate Change from?

In the first item analysed (Item 4, “Of the following information media, choose the top three where you receive information on climate change”), the sources of information about climate global warming are examined. The overall data (a total of 1725 responses) reveal that the main media are digital (TV, Internet and social networks). Of the 575 participants, 82.8% (n = 475) responded that they receive information from television, while 56.2% (n = 323) responded that they receive information from the Internet and 49.4% (n = 284) from social networks (Table 5).
When analysing these media in accordance with the stage of education (Primary Education, Secondary Education and Baccalaureate), significant differences may be observed. With a total of 528 responses, the three main media for Primary Education students (10–12 years old) are: (1) TV (80.7%; n = 142); (2) school (54.0%; n = 95); and (3) Internet (47.2%; n = 83) (Figure 1). In Primary Education, the Chi-Squared test revealed that the association between these two variables (information media and schooling period) was significant (Pearson’s Chi-Squared = 62.243; p = 0.001). They were associated significantly (p < 0.05), so they were dependent variables.
For the Secondary Education students (12–16 years old), with a total of 855 responses, the main media were: (1) TV (86.5%; n = 246); (2) Internet (58.2%; n =166); and (3) social networks (49.8%; n = 142) (see Figure 1). The Chi-Squared test reveals that the association between these two variables (information media and schooling period) is significant (Pearson’s Chi-Squared = 50.976; p = 0.001). There was a significant association between them (p < 0.05), so they were dependent variables.
With respect to the Baccalaureate students (17–18 years old), with a total of 342 responses, the main media were: (1) social networks (81.6%; n = 93); (2) TV (76.3%; n = 87); and (3) Internet (64.1%; n = 74). For this educational stage, the Chi-Squared test revealed that the association between these two variables (information media and school period) was significant (Pearson’s Chi-Squared = 44.390; p = 0.001). Since they were associated significantly (p < 0.05), they were dependent variables.
The differences (in percentages) in the information sources used depending on the educational stage reveal that, as students progresses through the educational process, information from social networks and the Internet gain more relevance compared with the information received from school (Figure 1). In this respect, the response “school centre” is only relevant in the Primary Education stage. The responses related to schools fell from 54.0% (second position) in Primary Education to 42.5% (fourth position) in secondary education and to 35.1% among Baccalaureate students (fourth position). Meanwhile, social networks increased in relevance from 27.8% in Primary Education to 49.8% in Secondary Education and 81.6% in Baccalaureate. A similar trend can be observed for the responses related to the Internet: in Primary Education it represented 47.2% as opposed to 64.9% in the Baccalaureate. It should also be noted that Primary Education was the stage when the “family” variable had the greatest relevance (43.2%).

3.2. What Are the Causes and Consequences of Climate Change Identified by the Students?

Second, the causes (Item 7) and consequences (Item 8) of climate change according to the opinion of the school children were analysed. This serves to establish relationships between what they know and perceive about this phenomenon. With respect to the causes, if we take into account the overall data (575 responses), the results revealed that the main cause of this phenomenon was perceived thought to be pollution (70.1%; n = 403) (see Table 6) and, second, “no responses” (9.9%; n = 57). The Chi-Squared test revealed that the association between these two variables (causes and school period) was significant (Pearson’s Chi-Squared= 48.516; p = 0.001). Since the association between them was significant (p < 0.05), they were dependent variables.
When these data were analysed in accordance with the educational stages, it was observed that the percentage for the item “pollution” increased as the age of the students increased, while that of “no responses” decreased. Some of the responses of the students on these causes (“pollution”) were: “car pollution” (student nº57 in Primary Education); “fuel, smoke, rubbish” (student nº65 in Secondary Education); and “excessive use of transport” (student nº14 in Baccalaureate). Another distinctive factor was that, in the case of the Baccalaureate students, the second category of responses was related to “human action” (13.2%; n = 15) as: “consumerism” (student nº1 in Baccalaureate); “lack of awareness” (student nº68 in Baccalaureate); “low level of social awareness” (student nº104 in Baccalaureate). These responses were related to a greater sense of responsibility and a more critical perspective of the impact of society on the environment.
With respect to the consequences, if the overall data are considered (575 responses), the participants indicated that the main effects of climate change were the increase and changes in temperature (61.7%; n = 355) (see Table 7). The Chi-Squared test revealed that the association between these two variables (effects and school period) was significant (Pearson’s Chi-Squared = 55.004; p = 0.001). Since the association between them was significant (p < 0.05), they were dependent variables. Similarly to the causes, the item “Nr/Dk” appeared (11.5%; n = 66). This percentage decreased as the age of the students increased and there was an increase in the percentage of responses related to the increase in temperature (in Secondary Education) and “melting” (in Baccalaureate). Among the Primary Education students, these factors represented 50.0% (n = 88), as opposed to the 63.9% (n = 182) in Secondary Education and 74.6% (n = 85) in Baccalaureate. Some of the opinions on temperatures were: “it is getting increasingly hotter; in Alicante, in winter, it is practically spring” (student nº2 in Primary Education); “it is 30° in winter” (student nº163 in Primary Education); “in winter it is warmer than before” (student nº176 in Primary Education); “in summer, sometimes it can get cold and in winter hot” (student nº74 in secondary education); “in summer the temperatures go above 40°” (student nº96 in secondary education); “the weather is crazy (student nº132 in Secondary Education); “strange temperatures” (student nº243 in Secondary Education); “the temperatures vary a lot from one day to the next” (student nº33 in Baccalaureate); “there is hardly a spring or autumn any more” (student nº80 in Baccalaureate).

3.3. What Is the Main Greenhouse Gas in the Atmosphere, According to the Students?

Third, Item 9 (“What is the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?”) was analysed. The overall results obtained indicate that the majority of the responses were related to carbon dioxide (CO2) (63.5%; n = 365) and, second, albeit with considerably lower figures, the ozone (O3) (14.8%; n = 85) (Figure 2). The Chi-Squared test revealed that the association between these two variables (greenhouse gases and school period) was significant (Pearson’s Chi-Squared= 30.354; p = 0.001). Since the association between them was significant (p < 0.05), they were dependent variables.
These data were directly related to the causes identified as “pollution” and were, therefore, expected. However, it should be noted that the majority of the students did not respond correctly. The question in Item 9 is related to the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (the correct answer is water vapour). This is different from asking about “the main greenhouse gas that is accelerating the climate change process due to anthropic causes” (the correct answer would be carbon dioxide). The correct response would be water vapour, which represents 4% of greenhouse gases, as opposed to CO2, which accounts for 0.04%. This is important to point out as we expected that as the children progressed through the educational stages, the correct response would be higher. However, this was not the case, as no students in the Baccalaureate stage marked water vapour. By contrast, the Primary Education students (although the data were still low with respect to the main answer) are those who gave the highest percentage of correct answers (water vapour), 5.7% (n = 10) (see Figure 2). Moreover, a relationship could be established between the responses obtained and the information received from the information media. In this respect, we can confirm that a higher percentage of the students who received more information from school responded correctly to this question. Nevertheless, overall, the data are worrying, due to the low percentage of correct answers in all of the educational stages.

4. Discussion

The results obtained in this study highlight the importance that social networks and digital media acquire as the ages of students increase with respect to information on climate change. The first hypothesis established that “students receive information about this phenomenon mainly through audio-visual media (TV, Internet, social networks)”. With respect to the media, this hypothesis was fulfilled. The response regarding “school centre” is only relevant in the Primary Education stage. In this respect, the responses related to school centres decreased from 54.0% in the primary stage to 42.5% in Secondary Sducation and to 35.1% in Baccalaureate. Meanwhile, social networks increased in relevance from 27.8% in Primary Education to 49.8% in Secondary Education and 81.6% in Baccalaureate. A similar trend can be observed for the responses related to the Internet: in Primary Education, it represented 47.2%, as opposed to 64.9% in Baccalaureate. Therefore, as students progress through the educational stages, the school centre loses its relevance and digital media gains in influence (TV, Internet and social networks), which entails risk.
Taking into account these results, we should ask whether the data obtained in this study coincide with the understanding of trainee teachers and the contents of school textbooks (the main resource used in Social Science classrooms) (Bel et al. 2019). For example, in the study by Morote (2020), the data indicated that future Primary Education teachers receive this information mainly from digital media (68.2%), distributed as follows: social networks (28.7%), television (23.1%) and Internet (16.2%). The responses related to academic studies (university training) accounted for only 13.4%. Furthermore, according to Morote et al. (2021a), 86.2% of the information about climate change received by Primary Education trainee teachers is derived from the media. In another study on Secondary Education and Baccalaureate teachers (comparing University of Valencia, UV and Murcia, UMU, Spain), the percentages of information received from digital media were 67.7% (UV) and 54.2% (UMU) (Morote and Moreno 2021). Furthermore, in Chile (University of Concepción), a predominance of the media (52.0%) was found in the social attitudes of students in three different academic fields (science and mathematics, biology and social education) (Parra et al. 2013).
Therefore, the training of future teachers is based on digital media, which leads to a low level of development in generic and transversal competencies in these topics, as acknowledged by Parra et al. (2013). Other authors also indicate the risk that could ensue if the majority of this information is drawn from media, characterised by the consumption of untruthful information that sometimes lacks scientific rigour and is overly sensationalist (Allen et al. 2018; Brisman 2018; Kažys 2018; Lutzke et al. 2021). Morote (2020) explains that the media also provide truthful information, although the majority report information that lacks rigour in order to attract audiences, using false news and/or apocalyptic headlines. This author has also researched the perceptions of this type of news by trainee teachers. The results reveal that 56.2% agree that this type of news has a manipulative objective and/or presents false information: “highly agree” (25.3%) and “agree” (30.9%). However, there is a high percentage of participants who are “indifferent” to this type of news (29.5%). Other studies have also found that the training of active teachers is deficient. A study carried out by Gallego and Castro (2020) among university lecturers (Colombia) to identify the understanding acquired in the teacher training process regarding climate change reveals that there are gaps in this training. Specifically, trainee teachers have a vague idea about the scientific model of climate change and their preparation in this area is the fruit of the popularisation of the topic, which, in many cases, is obtained from television programmes and websites. Therefore, they contribute to the transmission of implicit theories of climate change and, moreover, conceptual errors which, due to their role as teachers, will be transmitted to the future generations.
This deficient training may lead teachers to use school textbooks excessively (Morote and Souto 2020). This has been confirmed in subjects characterised by activities based on memorisation and the reproduction of content at a low cognitive level, as in the case of Geography (Kidman 2018). Furthermore, this teaching resource also lacks scientific rigour (Morote and Olcina 2020). This could mean that this topic is not taught in the classroom or is taught very loosely (Olcina 2017). In relation to climate change, the most common mistakes include the almost complete absence of discussion of the human influence (vulnerability) when referring, for example, to natural hazards (Morote and Olcina 2020). This is fundamental, as acknowledged in different reports on the effects of climate change (IPCC 2022), since it is necessary to address the vulnerability factor to adapt to this phenomenon (EEA 2017).
The second hypothesis (causes: “it is expected that the students will respond that they are related to human action –mainly pollution –”; consequences: “would be the increase in temperature, sea level, glacier melting, etc.”), was confirmed. The results revealed that the phenomenon of climate change is seen by students as an issue of “pollution” and an “increase in temperatures”. Furthermore, we observed that these responses became more important as the children grew older. This may have been due to the greater influence of digital information media (Internet, social networks, and TV) as the age of the students increased. In these media, there is a predominance of news identifying pollution as the cause and the increase in temperature as the effect.
Different studies carried out from the social attitudes of trainee teachers generated results similar to those of this study. For the case of Secondary Education teachers, Morote and Moreno (2021) indicate that the causes identified are human action (pollution, deforestation, and overexploitation of resources) and that the consequences are related to catastrophic effects (natural disasters). A similar result was obtained by Escoz-Roldan et al. (2020), who analysed the social attitudes of undergraduate students with respect to the risk of climate change and its relationship with water in three Spanish cities. In total, 85.0% of the respondents believed that climate change was “mainly due to human causes”. Furthermore, the study conducted in two secondary schools in the United Kingdom by Kurup et al. (2021) revealed a strong understanding of the causes and effects of global warming. This was corroborated, in turn, by Chang and Pascua (2016) for Asia, who found that students’ understanding of the causes of climate change was limited to the belief that the recorded changes are solely due to anthropogenic reasons. Gaps in training in terms of content can also be observed in students’ difficulty in establishing relationships between the different elements and processes that intervene in the climate change process beyond associating them with processes that they consider to be “good” or “bad”. In other words, they also lack the specific vocabulary to explain these processes. Furthermore, Wu and Otsuka (2021) found that, based on a sample of 657 Secondary Education students in Shanghai (China), erroneous concepts and a biased comprehension of climate change persist. The authors highlight the need to expand climate literacy and education from a conceptual and geographical perspective. If we compare this study with other works, the students always maintain the same discourse pattern: the greenhouse effect is harmful for society, it is caused by human action and global warming has disastrous effects (Da Silva and Boveloni 2009).
These gaps are associated both with the sources from which the information is obtained (the media) and the school textbooks, in which there is a predominance of catastrophic messages and, often, images taken out of context (Morote and Olcina 2020). Although this lack of scientific rigour is the dominant feature, it should also be noted that publications are emerging that address the current process of climate change simply and rigorously. An example is the study by Nelles and Serrer (2020) which, with abundant and clear graphic material, explains the different elements that comprise this complex process affecting the entire environment (the earth’s climate, climate change, oceans, extreme events, ecosystems and human beings). Scharmacher-Schreiber and Stephanie (2020), using a question–answer method (is the climate becoming warmer and warmer? Can a difference of one degree be felt?), have elaborated materials on climate change directed at basic educational levels.
Furthermore, in the training on natural risks as effects of climate change, it is important to focus on how these processes are perceived by children. As indicated by Zhong et al. (2021), in a study on disaster education and its impact on children’s perceptions of flooding in China, this enables us to explore its impact effectiveness and pathways. In turn, this furthers knowledge of the management of the consequences (effects) of climate change. In other words, it is important to know the effects of climate change and, using this knowledge, to implement actions aimed at managing these risks and to learn how society adapts through education, based on social representations and the perceptions of students.
The third hypothesis was also confirmed: with respect to the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, “it is expected that the response of the majority of the students will be CO2”. The results generated from analysing the sources from which the children obtained their information on climate change or their causes and consequences were reiterated. Chang and Pascua (2016), through semi-structured interviews with secondary students from Singapore, found “that the students’ knowledge of climate change is composed of incomplete and incorrect elements” (p. 84). This was corroborated by analysing the role played by gases in the greenhouse effect. For example, the students considered that CFCs are the major greenhouse gases (19.7%); 6.6% even believed that “climate change is linked with tectonic activities (tsunami, earthquakes)”. Both of these assertions are incorrect. In the first case, this was because water vapour was not taken into account; there were even students who did not consider it as an element that affects climate change. Furthermore, an even more serious mistake was relating geological processes with atmospheric processes, as Olcina (2017) has observed in Secondary Education textbooks.
This conceptual confusion coincides with the results obtained in this study, where water vapour was an “unknown” element for the respondents. These results are similar to those obtained from analysing the contents of textbooks. For example, the aforementioned study by Morote and Olcina (2020) confirms that only three out of every ten books refer to water vapour as a greenhouse gas. However, none of the textbooks indicate that it is the principal greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, this fact, as expressed by the authors, is not completely negative, as 33.3% of textbooks at least mention it. Moreover, it should be explained that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas that is increasing due to anthropic reasons (0.04%), but its presence in the atmosphere continues to be much lower than that of water vapour (4.0%).
The fourth hypothesis established that “significant differences are expected to be found between the three educational stages. The cognitive age of the students, a priori, should influence the answers. For this reason, we would expect the responses of the Baccalaureate students to be more elaborate, self-critical and with less error in their content (for example, in relation to the greenhouse gases)”. This was partially confirmed. We can confirm that as the age of the students increased, the number of errors related to their responses on greenhouse gases also rose. In the case of the Baccalaureate stage, none of the students responded correctly. Again, the influence of the media could be the cause of this error.
Teaching the topic of climate change based on a holistic and integrated approach would constitute an opportunity to promote critical thought in society and among citizens. Only in this way will the current and future society be able to interpret its surrounding territory. In this respect, we can refer to the initiative in the United Kingdom that has recently incorporated teachers specialising in climate change into primary and secondary education centres (Ecoinventos 2019). Furthermore, it is also worth highlighting case study analyses that examine studies on natural risks (Aspin 2018), such as global warming (Greenwood 2018), carried out for several decades by the Geographical Association (United Kingdom) in Primary Education. The acquisition of the competencies required to face challenges in the future should be one of the objectives of future teachers. This will enable them to understand people’s perspectives, social processes and human–environment interactions and to connect local and global geographical concepts. These concepts include climate change in terms of space, place, scale, physical and human processes, environmental and cultural diversity and interdependence (Chang and Wi 2018). This would enable future teachers to educate a new generation of critical thinkers about climate change, supported by a good curriculum (Kagawa and Selby 2012).

5. Conclusions

The research carried out revealed that school children mainly obtain their information from digital media (TV, Internet, and social networks). One element that is particularly noteworthy is the relevance of schools in these contents: it was found that as the students progressed through the educational stages, the information received from their schools become less relevant compared with information from the media. This is a risk for the critical-thinking training of citizens, due to the need to confirm information and news from false sources, or news that lacks scientific rigour (Lutzke et al. 2021). Therefore, there is a risk that students take this information to be reliable. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning the work being carried out from the earliest educational stages (particularly primary education) in many schools and the importance given to “family” by these students. However, the relevance of digital media is also significant in very early ages (TV and Internet).
This research goes a step further and, taking into account previous studies, highlights that this knowledge on climate change is shared by trainee teachers and even the content included in school textbooks. Therefore, we are faced with a vicious circle, as the teacher has gaps in his or her training that are passed on to the student who, in turn, will do the same in the future. Taking these training deficiencies and the need to break this vicious circle into account, future research needs to continue using surveys, but also, in particular, to analyse what is really taught in classrooms. The main limitation of this study is that what and how teachers teach climate change in Social Science classes was not analysed. This constitutes a challenge for future research. To achieve this, it is necessary to interview active teachers. In this way, the whole of the educational sphere will be completed, including schools, training at university level and even the resources used in the classroom which, in the case of Social Sciences, continues to be predominant.
As educators, we should underline the importance of raising awareness among the youngest cohort about climate change. Undoubtedly, the education factor is one of the most important pillars for the present and future adaptation to this phenomenon and its associated risks. The accurate communication of climate change to society is a key element in mitigation and adaptation policies and, as argued by Romero and Olcina (2021), “the academic world and the public powers must continue transferring the greatest amount of information possible based on proven facts” (p. 329). Therefore, teacher training should be improved with: (1) an explanation of the main issues in climate change, based on information and data provided by different scientific studies and comparing it with, for example, news stories that appear in the media or even the information provided by school textbooks; and (2) the fostering of “IOL” proposals (“Imagination + Originality + Local”) (Morote and Olcina 2021a). An improvement in training is required as teaching is a huge responsibility. Finally, there is a need, each day, to reinforce concepts that students find difficult to understand. Educators must be committed to implementing methodologies that continuously enhance teaching practices in order to ensure a sound geographical education, generating critically thinking citizens who know how to interpret the environment in which they live.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Á.-F.M. and M.H.; methodology, Á.-F.M. and M.H.; formal review, Á.-F.M. and M.H.; and investigation, Á.-F.M. and M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Items of the questionnaire.
Table A1. Items of the questionnaire.
General Information
Item (n°)Response Type/Variable
Item 1. What course are you studying?Open question.
Item 2. How old are you?Open question.
Item 3. GenderClosed-ended question: Male/Female/Other
Part 1. Training on Climate Change
Item (n°)Response Type/Variable
Item 4. Of the following information media, choose the top three where you receive information on climate change: Closed-ended question: Do not know/Do not answer/Family/Social Networks/TV/Newspapers/Radio/Internet/School-High School
Item 5. What is climate change?Open question
Part 2. Perception of Climate Change
Item (n°)Response Type/Variable
Item 6. Do you think that climate is changing? (mark with an X). Answer from 1 to 5, with 1 being least agree and 5 being most agree:Likert scale: 1/2/3/4/5
Item 7. What are the main causes of climate change?Open question
Item 8. What are the main consequences of climate change?Open question
Item 9. What is the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Closed-ended question: Do not know/Do not answer/Methane (CH4)/Ozone (O3)/Carbon Dioxide (CO2)/Water Vapour (H2O)/Nitrous Oxide (NOx)
Part 3. Solutions and Proposals for Adapting to Global Warming
Item (nº)Response Type/Variable
Item 10. What do you do in your daily life to solve climate change?Open question.
Item 11. Will climate change a problem for humanity in the future? (mark with an X). Please answer from 1 to 5, with 1 being less agree and 5 being more agree.Likert scale: 1/2/3/4/5
Item 12. Will climate change pose a problem for humanity in the future? (mark with an X). Please answer from 1 to 5, with 1 being less agree and 5 being more agree.Likert scale: 1/2/3/4/5
Source: Own elaboration.

References

  1. Ahmad, Saima, and Sharker Md Numan. 2015. Potentiality of disaster management education through open and distance learning system in Bangladesh open university. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 16: 249–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Allen, David E., Michel McAleer, and David McHardy-Reid. 2018. Fake news and indifference to scientific fact: President Trump’s confused tweets on global warming, climate change and weather. Scientometrics 117: 625–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Anyanwu, Raymond, and Lesley Le Grange. 2017. The influence of teacher variables on climate change science literacy of Geography teachers in the Western Cape, South Africa. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 26: 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aspin, Victoria. 2018. A week of rain…. Primary Geography 96: 24–25. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bel, Juan Carlos, Juan Carlos Colomer, and Rafael Valls. 2019. Alfabetización visual y desarrollo del pensamiento histórico: Actividades con imágenes en manuales escolares. Educación XX1 22: 353–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Benejam, Pilar. 1997. La selección y secuenciación de los contenidos sociales. In Enseñar y Aprender Ciencias Sociales, Geografía e Historia. Edited by Pilar Benejam and Joan Pagès. Barcelona: ICE Universidad de Barcelona/Horsori, pp. 71–95. [Google Scholar]
  7. Borhaug, Frédérique. 2021. Missing links between intercultural education and anthropogenic climate change? Intercultural Education 32: 386–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brisman, Avi. 2018. Representing the “invisible crime” of climate change in an age of post-truth. Theoretical Criminology 22: 468–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Calixto, Raúl. 2015. Propuesta en educación ambiental para la enseñanza del cambio climático. Revista Electrónica Diálogos Educativos 15: 54–68. [Google Scholar]
  10. Canals, Roser, and Neus González. 2011. El currículo de Conocimiento del Medio Social y Cultural, y la formación de competencias. In Didáctica del Conocimiento del Medio Social y Cultural en la Educación Primaria. Ciencias Sociales para Aprender, pensar y Actuar. Edited by Antoni Santisteban and Joan Pagès. Madrid: Ed. Síntesis, pp. 41–62. [Google Scholar]
  11. Caride, José Antonio, and Pablo Ángel Meira. 2019. Educación, ética y cambio climático. Innovación Educativa 29: 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Chang, Chew-Hung, and Andy Wi. 2018. Why the World Needs Geography Knowledge in Global Understanding: An Evaluation from a Climate Change Perspective. In Geography Education for Global Understanding, International Perspectives on Geographical Education. Edited by A. Ali Demirci, R. Miguel González and S. Bednarz. Cham: Springer, pp. 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chang, Chew-Hung, and Liberty Pascua. 2016. Singapore students’ misconceptions of climate change. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 25: 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Da Rocha, Vanessa Tibola, Luciana Brandli, Jana Mazuti, Leila Dal Moro, Liane Dalla Gasperina, and Rosa Maria Kalil. 2020. Teacher’s Approach on Climate Change Education a Case Study. World Sustainability Series, 617–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Da Silva, Henrique, and Daliane Boveloni. 2009. Los temas “cambios climáticos” y “calentamiento global” en los libros de texto: La falta de la mirada geológica. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra 17: 190–95. [Google Scholar]
  16. Díaz, Naira, and María del Mar Felices. 2017. Problemas sociales relevantes en el aula de primaria: La “cartografía de la controversia” como método. REIDICS, Revista de Investigación en Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales 1: 24–38. [Google Scholar]
  17. Domènech, Jordi. 2014. Contextos de indagación y controversias socio-científicas para la enseñanza del cambio climático. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra 22: 287–96. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ecoinventos. 2019. Reino Unido Incorpora a sus Colegios a Profesores Especialistas en el Cambio Climático. Available online: https://ecoinventos.com/reino-unido-incorpora-a-sus-colegios-a-profesores-especialistas-en-el-cambio-climatico/?fbclid=IwAR1bsdJD3MwOIFc0g4wYK9JRMZmVp3xPSeos9U-57iWDI3JNWk0GAkCH1WI (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  19. Escoz-Roldan, Amor, José Gutiérrez-Pérez, and Pablo Ángel Meira. 2020. Water and climate change, two key objectives in the agenda 2030: Assessment of climate literacy levels and social representations in academics from three climate contexts. Water 12: 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. European Environment Agency (EEA). 2017. Climate Change, Impacts and Vulnerability in Europe 2016. An Indicator-Based Repor. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-change-impacts-and-vulnerability-2016 (accessed on 1 November 2021).
  21. Evans, Ronald W., Fred M. Newmann, and David W. Saxe. 1996. Defining issues-centered education. In Handbook on Teaching Social Issues. Edited by Ronald W. Evans and David W. Saxe. Washington: National Council for the Social Studies, pp. 2–5. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ferrari, Enzo, Anne-Marie Ballegeer, Miguel Ángel Fuertes, Pablo Herrero, Laura Delgado, Diego Corrochano, Santiago Andrés-Sánchez, Kylian Marc Bisquert, Antonio Garcia-Vinuesa, Pablo Ángel Meira, and et al. 2019. Improvement on Social Representation of Climate Change through a Knowledge-Based MOOC in Spanish. Sustainability 11: 6317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Fien, John. 1992. Geografía, sociedad y vida cotidiana. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica 21: 73–92. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gallego, Adriana Patricia, and Jhonn Edgar Castro. 2020. Estudio de las representaciones sociales de los docentes sobre el cambio climático antropogénico. Revista Científica 38: 229–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. García, Francisco F., and Nicolás De Alba. 2003. El patrimonio urbano como ámbito para tratamiento escolar de problemas sociales y ambientales. In El patrimonio y la didáctica de las ciencias sociales. Edited by Ernesto Ballesteros, Cristina Fernández, José Antonio Molina and Pilar Moreno. Cuenca: Asociación Universitaria de Profesorado de Didáctica en las Ciencias Sociales (AUPDCS), pp. 81–89. [Google Scholar]
  26. García, Francisco, and Rafael Porlán 2000. El proyecto IRES (Investigación y renovación escolar). Biblio 3W. Revista Bibliográfica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales. 205. Available online: http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/b3w-205.htm (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  27. Greenwood, Henry. 2018. A climate change assembley. Primary Geography 96: 22–23. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ho, Li-Ching, and Tricia Seow. 2015. Teaching controversial issues in Geography: Climate change education in Singaporean Schools. Theory and Research in Social Education 43: 314–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2013 and Climate Change 2014. 3 vols. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/ (accessed on 13 April 2021).
  30. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2022. Climate Change 2021. The Physical Science Basis. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2022).
  31. Jeong, Jin Su, David González-Gómez, María Carmen Conde-Núñez, José Samuel Sánchez-Cepeda, and Félix Yllana-Prieto. 2021. Improving climate change awareness of preservice teachers (Psts) through a university science learning environment. Education Sciences 11: 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kagawa, Fumiyo, and David Selby. 2012. Ready for the storm: Education for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and mitigation. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 6: 207–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kažys, Justa. 2018. Climate change information on internet by different Baltic Sea Region languages: Risks of disinformation & misinterpretation. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 7: 685–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kidman, Gillian. 2018. School geography: What interests students, what interests teacher? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 27: 311–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kovacs, Alexandra, Horatiu Ştefănie, Carmelia Botezan, Iulia Crăciun, and Alexandru Ozunu. 2017. Assesment of natural hazards in european countries with impact on young people. Paper presented at the International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM 2017, Albena, Bulgaria, June 29; vol. 17, pp. 73–80. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kurup, Premnadh M., Ralph Levinson, Xia Li, and Ralph Levinson. 2021. Informed-Decision Regarding Global Warming and Climate Change Among High School Students in the United Kingdom. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 21: 166–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Legardez, Alain, and Laurence Simonneaux. 2006. L’école à l’Épreuve de l’Actualité. Enseigner les Questions Vives. París: Esf. [Google Scholar]
  38. Legardez, Alain. 2006. L’enseignement des questions sociales et historiques, socialement vives. Le cartable de Clio 3: 245–53. [Google Scholar]
  39. Li, Christine Jie, Martha C. Monroe, Annie Oxarart, and Tracy Ritchie. 2021. Building teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching about climate change through educative curriculum and professional development. Applied Environmental Education and Communication 20: 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, Yuh-Yuh, and Shu-Chiu Liu. 2021. Examining Taiwanese students’ views on climate change and the teaching of climate change in the context of higher education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1–14. Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02635143.2020.1830268?journalCode=crst20 (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  41. López, José Antonio, and Montserrat Oller. 2019. Los problemas medioambientales en la formación del profesorado de educación primaria. REIDICS: Revista de Investigación en Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales 4: 93–109. [Google Scholar]
  42. López, Ramón. 2011. Conflictos sociales candentes en el aula. In Les Questions Socialment Vives i l’Ensenyament de les Ciències Socials. Edited by Joan Pagès and Antoni Santisteban. Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de la UniversitatAutònoma de Barcelona, pp. 65–76. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lutzke, Lauren, Caitlin Drummond, and Joseph Arvai. 2021. Priming critical thinking: Simple interventions limit the influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook. Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 5: 101964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Martínez-Fernández, Luis Carlos, and Jorge Olcina. 2019. La enseñanza escolar del tiempo atmosférico y del clima en España: Currículo educativo y propuestas didácticas. Anales de Geografía de la Universidad Complutense 39: 125–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Masters, Mathilda. 2020. 123 Curiosidades que Todo el Mundo Debería Conocer Sobre el Clima. Geoplaneta: Barcelona. [Google Scholar]
  46. McWhirter, Nathan, and Tripp Shealy. 2018. Case-based flipped classroom approach to teach sustainable infrastructure and decision-making. International Journal of Construction Education and Research 16: 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Moreno-Vera, Juan Ramón, Santiago Ponsoda, José Antonio López-Fernández, and Rubén Blanes-Mora. 2020. Holistic or traditional conceptions of heritage among early-childhood and primary trainee teachers. Sustanability 12: 8921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Morote, Álvaro-Francisco, and Enrique Moltó. 2017. El Museo del Clima de Beniarrés (Alicante). Propuesta de un recurso didáctico para la enseñanza de la Climatología. Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales 32: 109–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Morote, Álvaro-Francisco, and Jorge Olcina. 2020. El estudio del cambio climático en la Educación Primaria: Una exploración a partir de los manuales escolares de Ciencias Sociales de la Comunidad Valenciana. Cuadernos Geográficos 59: 158–77. [Google Scholar]
  50. Morote, Álvaro-Francisco, and Jorge Olcina. 2021a. Cambio climático y sostenibilidad en la Educación Primaria. Problemática y soluciones que proponen los manuales escolares de Ciencias Sociales. Sostenibilidad: Económica, Social y Ambiental 3: 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Morote, Álvaro-Francisco, and Jorge Olcina. 2021b. Riesgos atmosféricos y cambio climático: Propuestas didácticas para la región mediterránea en la enseñanza secundaria. Investigaciones Geográficas 76: 195–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Morote, Álvaro-Francisco, and Juan Ramón Moreno. 2021. La percepción de los futuros docentes de Educación Secundaria sobre las implicaciones territoriales del cambio climático en destinos turísticos del litoral mediterráneo. Grand Tour. Revista de Investigaciones Turísticas 23: 261–82. [Google Scholar]
  53. Morote, Álvaro-Francisco, and María Hernández. 2020. Social Representations of Flooding of Future Teachers of Primary Education (Social Sciences): A Geographical Approach in the Spanish Mediterranean Region. Sustainability 12: 6065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Morote, Álvaro-Francisco, and Xosé Manuel Souto. 2020. Educar para convivir con el riesgo de inundación. Estudios Geográficos 81: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Morote, Álvaro-Francisco, Benito Campo, and Juan Carlos Colomer. 2021a. Percepción del cambio climático en alumnado de 4º del Grado en Educación Primaria (Universidad de Valencia, España) a partir de la información de los medios de comunicación. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado 24: 131–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Morote, Álvaro-Francisco, María Hernández, and Jorge Olcina. 2021b. Are Future School Teachers Qualified to Teach Flood Risk? An Approach from the Geography Discipline in the Context of Climate Change. Sustainability 13: 8560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Morote, Álvaro-Francisco. 2020. El papel de los medios de comunicación y las redes sociales en la sensibilización y educación del cambio climático. In Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua (FNCA), XI Congreso Ibérico de Gestión y Planificación del Agua. Zaragoza: Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua (FNCA), pp. 933–43. [Google Scholar]
  58. Nelles, David, and Christian Serrer. 2020. El pequeño Manual del Cambio Climático. Grijalbo: Barcelona. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ochoa, Anna S. 1996. Building a rationale for issue-centered education. In Handbook on Teaching Social Issues. Edited by Ronald Evans and David Saxe. Washington: National Council for the Social Studies, pp. 6–12. [Google Scholar]
  60. Olcina, Jorge. 2017. La enseñanza del tiempo atmosférico y del clima en los niveles educativos no universitarios. Propuestas didácticas. In Enseñanza y Aprendizaje de la Geografía para el Siglo XXI. Edited by Rafael Sebastiá and Emilia María Tonda. Alicante: University of Alicante, pp. 119–48. [Google Scholar]
  61. Pagès, Joan, and Antoni Santisteban. 2011. Les Qüestionssocialment Vives i l’Ensenyament de les Ciències Socials. Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, pp. 121–28. [Google Scholar]
  62. Pagès, Joan. 2007. La enseñanza de las ciencias sociales y la educación para la ciudadanía. Didáctica Geográfica 9: 205–14. [Google Scholar]
  63. Parra, Elizabeth, Claudia Castillo, and Miriam Vallejo. 2013. Representaciones sociales sobre desarrollo sostenible y cambio climático en estudiantes universitarios. Perspectivas de la Comunicación 6: 108–19. [Google Scholar]
  64. Pérez-Gil, José Antonio, Salvador Moscoso, and Rafael Moreno. 2000. Validez de constructo: El uso del análisis factorial exploratorio-confirmatorio para obtener evidencia de validez. Psicothema 12: 442–46. [Google Scholar]
  65. Rausell, Helena, Álvaro-Francisco Morote, Rafael Valls, and Moisés Domingos. 2021. Social representations and teaching of cross-cutting topics for history and geography teachers in training: Gender and climate change. In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in History and Geography. Edited by Cosme Jesús Gómez-Carrasco, Pedro Martínez-Miralles and Ramón López-Facal. Berlín: Peter Lang Publishing, pp. 221–40. [Google Scholar]
  66. Romero, Joan, and Jorge Olcina. 2021. Cambio Climático en el Mediterráneo: Procesos, Riesgos y Políticas. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades. [Google Scholar]
  67. Roussel, David, and Amy Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles. 2020. A systematic review of climate change education: Giving children and Young people a voice and a hand in redressing climate change. Children’s Geography 18: 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Santisteban, Antoni, Neus González, Joan Pagès, and Montserrat Oller. 2014. La introducción de temas controvertidos en el currículo de ciencias sociales: Investigación e innovación en la práctica. In Historia e identidades culturales. V Simpósio Internacional de Didáctica de LasCiencias Sociales en el Ámbito Iberoamericano. Edited by Joaquim Prats, Barca Isabel and López Ramón. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 310–22. [Google Scholar]
  69. Satorra, Albert, and Peter M. Bentler. 2010. Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference Chi-Square test statistic. Psychometrika 75: 243–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Scharmacher-Schreiber, Kristina, and Marian Stephanie. 2020. ¿Cuánto Calor es 1 Grado Más? ¿Qué pasa con el Cambio Climático? Salamanca: Lóguez Ediciones. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sebastiá, Rafael, and Emilia María Tonda. 2018. Enseñar y aprender el tiempo atmosférico y clima. In Reflexiones sobre educación geográfica: Revisión disciplinar e innovación didáctica. Edited by Alfonso García de la Vega. Madrid: Asociación Española de Geografía, pp. 153–76. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sezen-Barrie, Asli, and Gili Marbach-Ad. 2021. Cultural-Historical Analysis of Feedback from Experts to Novice Science Teachers on Climate Change Lessons. International Journal of Science Education 43: 497–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sharpe, Donald. 2015. Chi-Square test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 20: 8. [Google Scholar]
  74. Tutiaux-Guillón, Nicole. 2011. ¿Les qüestions socialment vives, un repte per a la història i la geografía escolars? In Les Qüestions Socialment Vives i l’Ensenyament de les Ciències Socials. Edited by Joan Pagès and Antoni Santisteban. Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de la UniversitatAutònoma de Barcelona, pp. 25–39. [Google Scholar]
  75. United Nations (UN). 2015. Sustainable Development Goals. UNDP, Sustainable Development Agenda. Available online: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/es/home/sustainable-developmentgoals/resources.html (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  76. Verlie, Blanche, and Simone Miranda Blom. 2021. Education in a changing climate: Reconceptualising school and classroom climate through the fiery atmos-fears of Australia’s Black summer. Childrens Geographies, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wu, Jing, and Yoshiki Otsuka. 2021. Exploring the climate literacy of high school students for better climate change education. International Journal of Global Warming 23: 151–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhong, Shuang, Qiu Cheng, Shuwei Zhang, Cunrui Huang, and Zhe Wang. 2021. An impact assessment of disaster education on children’s flood risk perceptions in China: Policy implications for adaptation to climate extremes. Science of the Total Environment 757: 143761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socsci 11 00179 g001 550
Figure 1. Channels of information through which the school children received information on climate change. Source: survey results. Own elaboration.
Figure 1. Channels of information through which the school children received information on climate change. Source: survey results. Own elaboration.
Socsci 11 00179 g001
Socsci 11 00179 g002 550
Figure 2. “What is the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?” (Item 9). Source: survey results. Own elaboration.
Figure 2. “What is the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?” (Item 9). Source: survey results. Own elaboration.
Socsci 11 00179 g002
Table
Table 1. Students who took part in the research.
Table 1. Students who took part in the research.
Educational StagesEnrolled (n)Respondents (n)Average AgeGender
Primary Education18017611.0Male (55.7%; n = 98); Female (43.8%; n = 77)
Secondary Education30028513.4Male (44.6%; n = 127); Female (55.1%; n = 157)
Baccalaureate12511417.2Male (33.8%; n = 38); Female (65.8%; n = 75)
Total60557513.8Male (45.7%; n = 263); Female (53.7%; n = 309)
Source: Survey results. Own elaboration.
Table
Table 2. Items of the questionnaire used for this research.
Table 2. Items of the questionnaire used for this research.
Part 1. Training on Climate Change
Item (n°)Response Type/Variable
Item 4. Of the following information media, choose the top three where you receive information on climate change:Closed-ended question: Do not know/Do not answer/Family/Social Networks/TV/Newspapers/Radio/Internet/School-High School
Part 2. Perception of Climate Change
Item (n°)Response Type/Variable
Item 7. What are the main causes of climate change?Open question
Item 8. What are the main consequences of climate change?Open question
Item 9. What is the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?Closed-ended question: Do not know/Do not answer/Methane (CH4)/Ozone (O3)/Carbon Dioxide (CO2)/Water Vapour (H2O)/Nitrous Oxide (NOx)
Source: own elaboration.
Table
Table 3. Coding of answers to Item 7.
Table 3. Coding of answers to Item 7.
Response TypeCode
Do not know/Do not answer0
Human factor1
Pollution2
Deforestation3
Use of plastics4
Overexploitation of resources5
Natural causes6
Mistakes7
Source: own elaboration. Note: in “mistakes”, the answers in which the students confused “causes” with “consequences” were grouped.
Table
Table 4. Coding of answers to Item 8.
Table 4. Coding of answers to Item 8.
Response TypeCode
Do not know/Do not answer0
Temperature increase1
Rising sea level2
Melting3
Increase of natural hazards4
More diseases5
Extinction of species6
None7
Mistakes8
Source: own elaboration. Note: (1) for “temperature increase”, the responses related to sudden climate changes or in seasons, etc., were grouped together; (2) in “mistakes”, the answers in which the students confused “causes” with “consequences” were grouped.
Table
Table 5. Information media from where school students receive information on climate change (Item 4).
Table 5. Information media from where school students receive information on climate change (Item 4).
Information Median%
Do not know/Do not answer7813.6
Family21537.4
Social Networks28449.4
TV47582.6
Newspapers447.7
Radio508.7
Internet32356.2
School–High School25644.5
Note: the % refers to the total number of respondents (n = 575).
Table
Table 6. “What are the main causes of climate change?” (Item 7).
Table 6. “What are the main causes of climate change?” (Item 7).
Educational Stage01234567Total
Primary Educationn2441086111913176
%13.6%2.3%61.4%3.4%6.3%0.6%5.1%7.4%100.0%
Secondary Educationn2813205381621285
%9.8%4.6%71.9%1.1%2.8%0.4%2.1%7.4%100.0%
Baccalaureaten5159012010114
%4.4%13.2%78.9%0.9%1.8%0.0%0.9%0.0%100.0%
Totaln5732403102121634575
%9.9%5.6%70.1%1.7%3.7%0.3%2.8%5.9%100.0%
Source: survey results. Own elaboration. Note: Do not know/Do not answer (0)/Human factor (1)/Pollution (2)/Deforestation (3)/Use of plastics (4)/Overexploitation of resources (5)/Natural causes (6)/Mistakes (7).
Table
Table 7. “What are the main consequences of climate change?” (Item 8).
Table 7. “What are the main consequences of climate change?” (Item 8).
Educational Stages012345678Total
Primary Educationn2588791632719176
%14.2%50.0%4.0%5.1%9.1%1.7%1.1%4.0%10.8%100.0%
Secondary Educationn371827241424312285
%13.0%63.9%2.5%8.4%4.9%0.7%1.4%1.1%4.2%100.0%
Baccalaureaten48521720202114
%3.5%74.6%1.8%14.9%1.8%0.0%1.8%0.0%1.8%100.0%
Totaln66355165032581033575
%11.5%61.7%2.8%8.7%5.6%0.9%1.4%1.7%5.8%100.0%
Source: survey results. Own elaboration. Note: Do not know/Do not answer (0)/Temperature increase (1)/Rising sea level (2)/Melting (3)/Increase of natural hazards (4)/More diseases (5)/Extinction of species (6)/None (7)/Mistakes (8).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Morote, Á.-F.; Hernández, M. What Do School Children Know about Climate Change? A Social Sciences Approach. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11040179

AMA Style

Morote Á-F, Hernández M. What Do School Children Know about Climate Change? A Social Sciences Approach. Social Sciences. 2022; 11(4):179. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11040179

Chicago/Turabian Style

Morote, Álvaro-Francisco, and María Hernández. 2022. "What Do School Children Know about Climate Change? A Social Sciences Approach" Social Sciences 11, no. 4: 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11040179

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop