414
Int. J. Global Warming, Vol. 12, Nos. 3/4, 2017
Climate literacy: a systematic review and model
integration
José Azevedo* and Margarida Marques
Faculty of Arts,
University of Porto,
Via Panorâmica, s/n,
4150-564 Porto, Portugal
Email: azevedo@letras.up.pt
Email: margmmarq@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
Abstract: Snow’s division between cultures is visible in scientific literacy (SL)
research: there is a gap between the science education and the science
communication fields. We reflect on a way to end this critical disparity. The
case of climate change was used as a situational prototype that helps to unite
broad communication issues and established knowledge. The choice of
this case is justified by the current international interest and calls for
the development of a climate-literate public. Research has shown that
misunderstandings about climate change can persist even after instruction and
that some scepticism emerged in several developed countries. A literature
review of climate literacy was conducted. The analysis resulted in a new
integrative model for understanding literacy. We hope that the proposed model
can be the basis for the re-emergence of science literacy as a key concept, of
well-grounded practices and of accurate measurement tools.
Keywords: science literacy; science education; science communication;
climate literacy; literature review.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Azevedo, J. and
Marques, M. (2017) ‘Climate literacy: a systematic review and model
integration’, Int. J. Global Warming, Vol. 12, Nos. 3/4, pp.414–430.
Biographical notes: José Azevedo is an Associate Professor of the Faculty of
Arts of the University of Porto and the Vice-Director of the Digital Media
Doctoral Program. His primary research interests include public understanding
of science, science literacy, science documentary and digital divide. He
coordinated the project Science 2.0 (http://www.ciencia20.up.pt) funded by
Compete/Ciência Viva (2011 to 2013), which received the 2013 National
Award for Best Multimedia Content in Education. The two most recent
projects he has been coordinating are Nutriscience – play, cook, learn
(http://nutriciencia.pt/) and Clima@EduMedia – Climate Change: learning
through the school media (http://www.climaedumedia.com/), both funded by
EEA grants (2014 to 2016).
Margarida Marques received her PhD in Didactics and Formation. She is a
Research Fellow of the project Clima@EduMedia of the Faculty of Arts of the
University of Porto. Her current research interests are science literacy, science
education and teacher professional development. Previously, she analysed a
science teachers’ community of practice, particularly their dynamics of
interaction, science teaching strategies developed, innovative features of their
work, and mobilised principles of curricular development.
Copyright © 2017 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Climate literacy: a systematic review and model integration
1
415
Introduction
A science literate public has been highlighted as a precondition for developing and
implementing effective social responses to the new challenges posed by the
post-industrial society. As a direct consequence of globalisation and knowledge
explosion, the educational system must be revised in order to meet the new demands of
the labour market and, additionally, to create conscious and emancipated citizens. In fact,
the level of scientific knowledge of the general population is of great concern to
academic scholars and governmental decision makers. In most developed countries, there
is a substantial consensus about the importance of a scientifically literate population for
democratic processes in a society that is more and more technologically demanding (e.g.,
Bybee, 2012; Lewenstein, 2015).
As interest in science literacy (SL) has grown, particularly in the fields of science
education and science communication (Lewenstein, 2015), definitions have widened and,
as a result, have become confused with similar concepts. For example, numerous scholars
have argued that the terms SL and scientific culture have been used in so many different
ways that they remain somewhat contested and opened to multiple interpretations (e.g.,
Bybee, 1997; Lewenstein, 2015). This creates difficulties in communicating the
phenomenon, in evaluating its strengths and weaknesses, as well as in assessing its
unique nature.
Despite the widespread, and at times, indiscriminate use of these terms, efforts1 have
been made to firmly anchor their characterisations in broad theoretical frameworks. Such
theories are built on a concept of SL and yet it is acknowledged that confusion still exists
around it, thus, providing a poor basis for theory. This is then a crucial time to
systematically and rigorously analyse the concept itself to enable the emergence of
appropriate theory, of well-grounded practice and of accurate measurement tools.
Literacy researchers have tended to stay within traditional discipline boundaries either
of science education or science communication. In 1956, Snow characterised a division
between two cultures – the culture of humanists and the one of scientists and technicians
– as well as the communication problems between them. “The separation between the
two cultures”, he wrote, “has been getting deeper under our eyes, there is precious little
communication between them; little but different kinds of incomprehension and dislike”
[Snow, (1956), p.413].
Snow’s essay has generated much discussion on whether this deep division really
exists. In this paper, it is argued that the division between two cultures is indeed real in
literacy studies. There is a gap within the field of literacy studies, in other words, between
those who approach literacy with a practice governed by cause-effect relationships and
those who see literacy as a human event of communication, meaning making and
interpretation. In the science education field, the focus seems to be the transmission and
acquisition of something – knowledge, skills, and dispositions – helping someone to
become qualified to live in our complex modern societies. On the other hand, in the
science communication area the emphasis is now on the person, as subject of action and
responsibility, practices, ways of doing and being – such as cultural practices, political
practices, professional practices, and so on.
416
J. Azevedo and M. Marques
Bearing this in mind, this article’s aim is to present a reflection on a path to end this
critical disparity when deciding the type of general knowledge every educated person
should possess in relation to all areas of human thought. So, we chose climate change as a
situational prototype that helps to unite broad communication issues and established
knowledge. To this effect, we will show a series of dimensions that may help to
overcome the debate of the two cultures alluded to by Snow.
In order to bolster the utility of ‘literacy’ as a conceptual tool for science promotion,
the following requirements need to be met: first, climate literacy (CL) has to be clearly
defined and its constituent domains identified; second, it should go beyond traditional
discipline boundaries, either of education or communication, and it should take into
consideration some important work not automatically associated with the literacy field
that has been written by researchers whose concerns overlap with the issues raised by the
literacy concept.
This paper examines the concept of CL in peer-reviewed work, published in the last
decade. As we will see, this new term (Miler and Sladek, 2011) has been submitted to
several efforts of conceptualisation. Its meaning, however, is still subject to debate
(Dupigny-Giroux, 2010; Miler and Sladek, 2011). In this line, the next section presents a
CL literature review. Firstly, the collection method of published works and the analysis
focus are described. Secondly, a synthesis of the conceptualisation of CL, in the
considered literature, is discussed. The most relevant literature recommendations
regarding the promotion of CL are also highlighted. Finally, this paper proposes a new
integrative, inter/transdisciplinary and epistemological model to approach the centrality
of SL.
2
Literature review of CL
The scientific community has been accumulating a body of evidence supporting the
existence of climate change and of the human responsibility in the changing climate
system (IPCC, 2014). However, some scepticism regarding climate change remains
strong in some developed countries, particularly in the USA (e.g., Capstick et al., 2015;
Schuldt et al., 2011). Additionally, recent research has shown a low climate change
knowledge among lay people (Carvalho, 2011; Leiserowitz et al., 2011; McCaffrey and
Buhr, 2008) and stressed that even in university students, taking science related courses,
misunderstandings can persist after instruction (Lambert et al., 2012). This may be
associated with a low adoption of proactive behaviours by today’s citizens related to
climate issues (Capstick et al., 2015; Pidgeon and Fischhoff, 2011; Powers et al., 2013),
which justifies the present international interest and calls for the development of a
climate-literate public (Arndt and Ladue, 2008; McCaffrey, 2015; Niepold et al., 2007),
including this special issue. However, correlation between scientific knowledge and
positive attitudes, about science and technology, seems to be small (Bauer et al., 2007),
so we need to be cautious as a high CL may not directly translate into adaptation to
climate change’s unavoidable effects or mitigation of its causes (Carvalho, 2011;
Stevenson et al., 2014).
Climate literacy: a systematic review and model integration
417
In line with the literature (Bybee, 2012; Fauville et al., 2015; McCaffrey and Buhr,
2008; USGCRP, 2009), we consider CL connected with SL. More specifically, we
consider it to be a context of application in SL. In recent years, several science-related
concepts of literacy have been proposed as relevant for a literate citizen, such as Earth
science literacy (e.g., Reis et al., 2014), ocean literacy (e.g., Fauville et al., 2015), energy
literacy (e.g., Gold et al., 2015), atmospheric science literacy (Johnson et al., 2008),
weather literacy (e.g., Arndt and LaDue, 2008), CL (e.g., Miler and Sladek, 2011;
Niepold et al., 2007), among others. This was also noted in the literature, namely by
Dupigny-Giroux
et al. (2012). Figure 1 aims to visually represent the interrelation and scope of the
aforementioned science-related concepts of literacy.
Figure 1
Visual representation of the interrelation and scope of several science-related concepts
of literacy
SCIENCE LITERACY
Earth science
literacy
Ocean literacy
Climate literacy
Environmental
literacy
Weather literacy
Energy literacy
…
Other science
related literacy
Peer-reviewed studies may refer to ‘CL’, ‘climate change literacy’ or ‘climate science
literacy’. For the purposes of this paper, we consider these three expressions synonyms.
They all refer to a context of SL where the knowledge, competences and attitudes are
revealed within the climate science area. Having emerged in the literature in the
mid-2000s, CL is a new term.
The interest in the promotion of CL is justified with the advancement of climate
change science (McNeal et al., 2014), the relevance of laypeople being able to critically
analyse the media information about climate change (Cooper, 2011; Niepold et al., 2007)
and the urgency to address the challenges of climate change (Bodzin et al., 2014; Garfin
et al., 2011; Ledley et al., 2014; Lohr, 2014; Niepold et al., 2007; Stevenson et al., 2014;
418
J. Azevedo and M. Marques
Uherek and Schupbach, 2008). In sum, CL is considered to be relevant to all citizens, so
they can be “able to make informed and responsible decisions with regard to actions that
may affect climate” [USGCRP, (2009), p.4]. Hence, there is a need to analyse relevant
CL literature, and so the next two subsections describe the collection and analysis
methods used.
2.1 Data retrieving method
Altogether, the data corpus is composed by peer-reviewed documents resulting from two
identical searches for the terms ‘CL’, ‘climate change literacy’, or ‘climate science
literacy’ in the title, keywords or abstract. The first search was performed in some of the
most referred databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete,
among others. 147 papers were retrieved from that search, with the articles published in a
2008 special issue of the periodic physical geography being the oldest, and covering a
wide range of topics.
On the second search, we used Google Scholar, retrieving us 187 papers. The earliest
paper found was authored by Seacrest et al. (2000). In fact, the expression ‘climate
change literacy’ was used a single time in their paper on public perception of climate
change. Yet, the authors seem to include in that concept the understanding, attitudes
towards and awareness/concern about climate change. We highlight that long before this
study, the literature was already studying public perceptions and ‘misleading models’ of
climate change, for example, Kempton (1991).
After removing the duplicate results and the works with no CL definition, our corpus
of documents to analyse was reduced to only 22 papers, published between 2007 and
2015, almost a decade. The exclusion of studies without a clear conceptualisation of CL
was due to the fact that we focused on comparing definitional treatments of this concept.
That is, we focused on the contributions that explicitly attempted to provide or refine a
definition to CL. Our focus on definitions served to set practical limits on the scope of
our study.
2.2 Content analysis method
The considered papers were analysed in accordance with the adaptation of the PISA 2015
science framework (OECD/PISA, 2013), synthesised in Table 1.2
The PISA 2015 science framework was developed to assess “the knowledge that
15-year-old students can reasonably be expected to have” [OECD/PISA, (2013), p.7]. As
we intend to conceptualise CL for a broader public, including adult laypeople, we
considered in the competences’ component additional ones, mentioned in the analysed
literature, such as “communicates about climate and climate change in a meaningful
way” [USGCRP, (2009), p.4]. Another feature of this framework is its fluid nature, in
other words, it considers the use of a set of competences in different contexts, which
require content, procedural and epistemic knowledge to be mobilised, and is influenced
by the individual’s attitudes towards science and technology.
Climate literacy: a systematic review and model integration
Table 1
Dimension
Context
419
2015 PISA’s science literacy framework, adapted from OECD/PISA (2013), with
examples of citations from the reviewed literature, whenever possible
Description
Personal: situations relating to the self, family
and peer groups.
Local/national: situations relating to the
community.
Example of citations from the
reviewed literature
All the reviewed literature is
included in the context of
climate change, particularly at
a global level.
Global: situations relating to the world.
Includes both current and historical issues,
which demand some understanding of science
and technology. The areas of application are:
health and disease, natural resources,
environmental quality, hazards, and the
frontiers of science and technology
[OECD/PISA, (2013), p.11, pp.13–14].
Scientific
knowledge
Content knowledge: knowledge of the facts,
concepts and explanatory theories about the
natural world and of the technological
artefacts [OECD/PISA, (2013), p.11, p.17].
• “Climate Science Literacy is
an understanding of your
influence on climate and
climate’s influence on
you and society. A
climate-literate person: •
understands the essential
principles of Earth’s climate
system” [USGCRP, (2009),
p.4].
Procedural knowledge: knowledge of how
such ideas are produced [OECD/PISA,
(2013), p.11, p.19].
• “we propose that climate
science – literate citizens
should understand three
basic concepts: (…) (3)
climate scientists’
assessments of the past and
present state of Earth’s
climate system rely upon
empirical evidence –
observations and
measurements that can be
reproduced and validated
through peer review”
[Niepold et al., (2008),
p.534].
Epistemic knowledge: an understanding of the
underlying rationale for these procedures and
the justification for their use [OECD/PISA,
(2013), p.11, pp.20–21].
• “People who are climate
science literate (…) have the
ability to assess the validity
of scientific arguments about
climate” [Dupigny-Giroux,
(2010), p.1204].
420
J. Azevedo and M. Marques
Table 1
2015 PISA’s science literacy framework, adapted from OECD/PISA (2013), with
examples of citations from the reviewed literature, whenever possible (continued)
Dimension
Scientific
competence
Description
Example of citations from the
reviewed literature
The ability to explain phenomena
scientifically, for example, by recalling and
applying appropriate scientific knowledge
[OECD/PISA, (2013), p.11, pp.14–15].
The ability to evaluate and design scientific
enquiry, for example, by identifying the
question explored in a given scientific study
[OECD/PISA, (2013), p.11, pp.15–16].
Attitude
The ability to interpret data and evidence
scientifically, for example, by transforming
data from one representation to another
[OECD/PISA, (2013), p.11, p.16–17].
• “to be literate in climate
science, one needs to (…)
know how to assess
scientifically credible
information about climate”
[Liu et al., (2014), p.31].
The ability to communicate in a meaningful
way, for example, by conveying one’s ideas to
others.
• “A climate-literate person:
(…) communicates about
climate and climate change
in a meaningful way”
[Ledley et al., (2014), p.309].
The ability to solve problems, for example, by
considering alterative possible solutions.
• “climate literacy education
programs should address
(…) problem solving skills”
[Powers et al., (2013),
p.23.928.3].
Interest in science and technology, indicated
by, for example, a curiosity in science and
science-related issues and endeavours
[OECD/PISA, (2013), p.11, pp.36–38].
Valuing of scientific approaches to enquiry,
where appropriate, indicated by, for example,
a commitment to evidence as the basis of
belief for explanations of the material world
[OECD/PISA, (2013), p.11, pp.36–38].
A perception and awareness of environmental
issues, indicated by, for example, a concern
for the environment and sustainable living
[OECD/PISA, (2013), p.11, pp.36–39].
Make informed and responsible decisions, for
example, by using climate science relevant
information to support one’s options.
• “The objective of educating
the next generation in climate
literacy is to provide the
knowhow and information
for informed citizens to make
responsible decisions in the
future” [Uherek and
Schupbach, (2008), p.545].
Climate literacy: a systematic review and model integration
421
Each paper was analysed according to five categories:
1
region where the study is centred (USA/Europe/other)
2
field of study (education or communication)
3
the presence/absence of the dimensions of CL, in line with the adapted PISA 2015
science framework.
Further details regarding this analysis are presented in Table 3, in the Appendix.
While neither exhaustive nor intended as a rigid categorisation, this analysis allows us
an easier examination of the multiplicity and diversity of uses of these characterisations.
In addition to describing the overall discourse, this work may provide avenues for deeper
exploration and critical analysis of each strand of discussion. It may also offer reference
points and/or sources of inspiration for planning educational strategies and may assist
educators in situating, analysing, and/or enriching their own theoretical choices and
practices.
2.3 The concept of CL in the analysed literature
The analysis of the literature included in this study is synthesised in Table 2.
Table 2
SE
SC
19
5
Synthesis of the number of studies in the literature, with a proposal of CL definition,
included in each dimension of an adaptation of the PISA 2015 science framework
Knowledge
Competences
Attitudes
CK PK EK
EPS EDSE IDES CMW SP
In
RI VSAI REA MIRD
general
22
4
5
0
3
10
11
3
2
0
0
0
16
Notes: ASE = area of science education; ASC = area of science communication;
CK = content knowledge; PK = procedural knowledge; EK= epistemic
knowledge; EPS = explain phenomena scientifically; EDSE = evaluate and
design scientific enquiry; IDES = interpret data and evidence scientifically;
CMW = communicate in a meaningful way; SP = solve problems; RI = reveal
interest; VSAI = value scientific approaches to enquiry; REA = reveal
environmental awareness; MIRD = make informed and responsible decisions
Analysing the relevant literature, the majority of the studies found was included in the
area of science education; only a few were from science communication. Additionally,
the majority of studies (19) were conducted in the USA and a few (3) were Europeans
(Switzerland, Slovenia and Czech Republic); therefore, there is a clear lack of literature
from developing countries.
One US initiative, the proposal of the essential principles of climate literacy
(USGCRP, 2009), emerged in the early discussion and conceptualisation of CL. This
research-based iterative peer-review effort (as described by McCaffrey and Buhr, 2008),
has been having an impressive impact in the US context, as it has been referred to and its
definition for CL has been accepted (e.g., Arndt and Ladue, 2008; Dupigny-Giroux et al.,
2012; Gold et al., 2015; McNeal et al., 2014; Shepardson et al., 2011).
In what concerns the PISA dimensions for SL, the analysis revealed that the content
knowledge component seems to be the most common concern in the CL studies analysed.
Moreover, content knowledge was included in the conceptualisation of CL by all authors,
422
J. Azevedo and M. Marques
thus, there seems to be a general consensus towards this component. The same is not true
for the other two components of the knowledge dimension: procedural knowledge is
acknowledged in only four studies (Dupigny-Giroux, 2008, 2010; Niepold et al., 2008;
USGCRP, 2009) and epistemic knowledge in five (idem; Niepold et al., 2007). We
consider this to be a point to discuss in future research because, being relevant elements
of SL, it is important to include these two knowledge components in CL as well.
Additionally, the literature emphasises a specific aspect of content: the
misconceptions related to climate change science. As some studies have suggested a
positive relationship between increased climate change knowledge and acceptance of
anthropogenic global warming among middle school students (Stevenson et al., 2014),
the knowledge component of CL is definitively a relevant aspect. This valorisation of the
knowledge dimension is supported by the literature. Further research should be
performed regarding climate change misconceptions, particularly their pervasiveness and
how to address them in formal and non-formal learning.
Regarding the competences, these do not seem to be particularly valued in the
analysed literature. For example, no paper included in the CL definition the competence
‘to explain phenomena scientifically’, in spite of it being part of the PISA 2015 science
framework. The other two PISA competences, ‘to evaluate and design scientific enquiry’
and ‘to interpret data and evidence scientifically’, seem to have encountered some echo in
the analysed literature, particularly in the information credibility assessment. On the other
hand, a competence not explicitly included in the PISA framework, ‘to communicate in a
meaningful way about climate and climate change’, is relatively frequent (11 occurrences
in 22 possible ones).
Finally, CL also includes attitudes, beliefs, motivational orientations, self-efficacy,
and values. In the literature, the most valued attitude is making informed and responsible
decisions, with 16 occurrences. This suggests that the analysed papers do not value only a
basic knowledge of climate per se. The main goal seems to be the possibility of acting
upon that knowledge, in the personal, professional and communal lives: “The objective of
educating the next generation in climate literacy is to provide the knowhow and
information for informed citizens to make responsible decisions in the future” [Uherek
and Schupbach, (2008), p.545]. We are aiming at the change of behaviours (e.g.,
Dupigny-Giroux, 2008; Shafer, 2008) towards the development and adoption of
adaptation and mitigation solutions (DeWaters et al., 2014), whilst acknowledging that
knowledge will not be enough (Niepold et al., 2008).
In sum, according to the analysed literature, to be climate literate, one needs to:
1
have some knowledge of climate science, in its content, procedural and epistemic
components
2
master in some degree a number of competences that allow accessing and assessing
relevant information about this theme, as well as communicate it in a meaningful
way
3
reveal a set of attitudes that lead to one’s contribution to the conception and/or
implementation of adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Climate literacy: a systematic review and model integration
3
423
Concluding remarks
Historically, the relationship between science and society has never been simple nor
unidirectional (Colucci-Gray et al., 2006). The history of science abounds with examples
of ‘societal interferences’ that shaped the formulation of important scientific theories and
made the separation of a scientist’s work from his or her society no longer tenable
(Collins, 1982). Climate change is one of the best examples of that situation.
The proposal we outline in this article is located in some discernible developments:
principally the re-thinking of CL to encompass the multiplicity of perspectives we face
when trying to understand and participate in discussions about the complex issues posed
by our contemporary post-industrial society.
We departed from Snow’s ‘two cultures’ model that depicted the fragmentation of
knowledge in two opposing directions represented, in our case, by education and
communication disciplines. Baram-Tsabari and Osborne (2015, p.135) summarise the
differences between these two approaches in this way:
Another difference is the critical view that some science communication
research adapts towards science and scientists, a result possibly of its
journalistic and sociological foundations. Science education tends to position
‘what science says’ and ‘how scientists do things’ as the truth that frames the
model for what students should learn. In contrast, many science communication
researchers position ‘what science says’ as only one of many types of
potentially relevant knowledge and ‘how scientists do things’ as an imperfect
way of making sense of the world.
Our analysis has shown that the most common papers were from the education side.
Science communication issues were mainly reported indirectly and in terms of
recommendations.
One of the most relevant recommendations found was to intentionally address your
audience (Niepold et al., 2008; Hallar et al., 2011). In Niepold et al. (2008) words, there
is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy. Similarly, Kelly et al. (2014) also proposed to adjust CL
resources to the audiences’ perspectives, grouped accordingly to the ‘Six Americas’, in
other words, the six segments acknowledged in the US public regarding global warming:
alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful, and dismissive.
On the other hand, the relevance of local, unbiased climate resources and the
monitoring of their use by the audience were also highlighted (Shafer, 2008; Uherek and
Schupbach, 2008). Some of the proposals are to provide science information within the
context of a story, with the claimed advantages of increasing its understanding and
recalling, and to use sophisticated, networked visualisation tools (Niepold et al., 2008).
Contrasting with the traditional perspective of teaching, the literature demands for a
more comprehensive approach, instead of a knowledge-focused one (Cooper, 2011;
Powers et al., 2013). In this line, offering opportunities for the development of science
competences is also valued, particularly the ones related with effective communication
(Miler and Sladek, 2011; Shafer et al., 2009) and problem-solving (McCaffrey, 2015;
Powers et al., 2013).
Finally, regardless of the area addressing the CL challenge, either education or
communication, the value of close collaboration among several stakeholders emerges, for
example, to provide scientific information compatible with the public’s cognitive
processes (Liu et al., 2014) or even to address climate change itself (Niepold et al., 2008).
424
J. Azevedo and M. Marques
CL objectives are achieved only when technoscientific and humanistic perspectives
are simultaneously and evenly considered, allowing educational and communication
communities to overcome the gap that isolates the ‘two cultures’.
The model synthesised in the Figure 1 aims to be a basis for the re-emergence of
science literacy as a key concept, for conceptualisation and bridging approaches to
research on public, science, communication and learning. The model helps to bridge the
domains of education and communication in many ways. First, like other integrated
system model approaches, it provides feedback between different variables (agents).
Second, disciplinary knowledge in the form of available theories or models can be used.
This kind of integrated modelling requires intensive discussions among the modellers
from all the relevant disciplines. Further research in other subject areas is needed to
refine and broaden this proposal.
Figure 2
Framework illustrating the role of CL in fostering education and communication for
sustainability
CLIMATE
LITERACY
SOCIETY
SCIENCE
ENVIRONMENT
TECHNOLOGY
SCIENCE EDUCATION
APPROACHES
ETHICS
TWO
CULTURES
INSTRUCTION
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
APPROACHES
ENGAGEMENT
COMPLEXITY
AND CONFLICT
EDUCATION/COMMUNICATION FOR
SUSTAINABILITY
Source: Modified from Correia et al. (2010)
Collaboration between science and society is often requested if uncertainty arises or if
fundamental changes of the natural or social environment are faced. Situations such as
the introduction of a new technology or climate change are paradigmatic cases.3
According to this model:
Climate literacy: a systematic review and model integration
425
1
Science literacy is the key concept for this new integrative, inter/transdisciplinary
epistemological approach, necessary to allow autonomous citizenship.
2
New interfaces between science, technology, society, environment and ethics are
necessary (see first frame in Figure 2). Each of these domains has been approached
accordingly to the acknowledged cultures of science education and science
communication, but we are responsible for improvements, using strategies that
promote the dialogue between traditions and critical thinking. This is required for a
holistic perspective of education/communication for sustainability.
3
Science literacy should overcome definitions and models strictly connected with
education or communication approaches and include knowledge, attitudes, contents,
as well as communication issues in complex models, providing societal capacitybuilding and bridging the growing gulf between many areas of research and the
public.
4
A holistic view of knowledge about the environment and human-environments
interactions is required. Complexity and systems theory4 should be incorporated
towards an integration of knowledge from different academic fields.
5
The focus on the transmission and acquisition of something – knowledge, skills,
dispositions – should be complemented by an emphasis on cultural practices,
political practices, professional practices, and so on. Different groups have different
perspectives and values about what should be preserved or changed in the
environment, therefore transmission and engagement should be balanced.
6
Incorporating uncertainty and conflict. Environmental problems cause conflicts
among human systems. This kind of ‘commons dilemma’ conflict between human
systems occurs on the micro and macro level. Thus, CL requires competence to
properly cope with these problems stemming from different individual, company,
and society interests. In order to accomplish that we should step into real-world cases
to gain valuable additional information from directly talking, interacting,
collaborating with, and getting first-hand information from the people and human
actors who are directly experiencing, benefiting from, and interacting with the
environment.
7
Incorporating sustainability learning. In the past 20 years, a specific form of
knowledge integration was developed in the frame of sustainable development
(UNESCO, 1997). This requires joint problem solving between science and society.
Acknowledgements
This paper is published as part of the project Clima@EduMedia, which is co-financed by
the EEA Grants at a rate of 85% and 15% by the Portuguese Environment Agency, IP
(APA, IP) through the Portuguese Carbon Fund. The authors would like to thank the
reviewers for their insightful comments on the manuscript, which led to an improvement
of the paper.
426
J. Azevedo and M. Marques
References
Arndt, D.S. and Ladue, D.S. (2008) ‘Applying concepts of adult education to improve weather and
climate literacy’, Physical Geography, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.487–499.
Baram-Tsabari, A. and Osborne, J. (2015) ‘Editorial – special number – bridging science education
and science communication research’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 52,
No. 2, pp.135–144.
Batteen, M.L., Stanton, T.P. and Maslowski, W. (2008) ‘Climate change and sustainability:
connecting atmospheric, ocean and climate science with public literacy’, Forum on Public
Policy: A Journal of the Oxford Round Table, No. 2, pp.1–13.
Bauer, M.W., Allum, N. and Miller, S. (2007) ‘What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey
research? Liberating and expanding the agenda’, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 16,
No. 1, pp.79–95.
Berbeco, M. and McCaffrey, M. (2014) ‘Infusing climate and energy literacy throughout the
curriculum’, in Drake, J.L., Kontar, Y.Y. and Rife, G.S. (Eds.): New Trends in Earth-Science
Outreach and Engagement, Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research,
pp.155–163, Springer International Publishing.
Bodzin, A.M., Peffer, T., Anastasio, D., Sahagian, D., Dempsey, C. and Steelman, R. (2014)
‘Investigating climate change understandings of urban middle-level students’, Journal of
Geoscience Education, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp.417–430.
Bogataj, L.K. (2010) ‘Climate science literacy’, XIV IOSTE.
Bybee, R. (1997) ‘Towards an understanding of scientific literacy. Scientific literacy: science
education and secondary school student’, in Graber, W. and Bolte, C. (Eds.): Scientific
Literacy: An International Symposium, pp.37–67, IPN, Kiel, Germany.
Bybee, R.W. (2012) ‘Scientific literacy in environmental and health education: towards a renewed
pedagogy for science education’, in Zeyer, A. and Kyburz-Graber, R. (Eds.): Science |
Environment | Health, pp.49–67, Springer, Dordrecht.
Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. and Upham, P. (2015) ‘International trends
in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century’, Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews-Climate Change, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.35–61.
Carvalho, A. (2011) As alterações climáticas, os media e os cidadãos, Coimbra, Grácio.
Collins, H.M. (Ed.) (1982) Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: A Sourcebook, Bath University
Press, Bath, Avon.
Colucci-Gray, L., Camino E., Barbiero, G. and Gray, D. (2006) ‘From scientific literacy to
sustainability literacy: an ecological framework for education’, Science Education, Vol. 90,
No. 2, pp.227–252.
Cooper, C.B. (2011) ‘Media literacy as a key strategy toward improving public acceptance of
climate change science’, Bioscience, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp.231–237.
Correia, P.R., Valle, B., Dazzani, M. and Infante-Malachias, M.E. (2010) ‘The importance of
scientific literacy in fostering education for sustainability’, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 18, No. 7, pp.678–685.
DeWaters, J.E., Andersen, C., Calderwood, A. and Powers, S.E. (2014) ‘Improving climate literacy
with project-based modules rich in educational rigor and relevance’, Journal of Geoscience
Education, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp.469–484.
Dupigny-Giroux, L-A. (2008) ‘Introduction – climate science literacy: a state of the art of the
knowledge overview’, Physical Geography, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.483–486.
Dupigny-Giroux, L-A. (2010) ‘Exploring the challenges of climate science literacy: lessons from
students, teachers and lifelong learners’, Geography Compass, Vol. 4, No. 9, pp.1203–1217.
Dupigny-Giroux, L-A., Toolin, R., Hogan, S. and Fortney, M.D. (2012) ‘The satellites, weather and
climate (SWAC) teacher professional development program: making the case for climate and
geospatial literacy’, Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp.133–146.
Climate literacy: a systematic review and model integration
427
Fauville, G., Dupont, S., von Thun, S. and Lundin, J. (2015) ‘Can Facebook be used to increase
scientific literacy? A case study of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Facebook
page and ocean literacy’, Computers and Education, March, Vol. 82, pp.60–73.
Garfin, G., Hartmann, H., Crescioni-Benitez, M., Ely, T., Keck, J., Kendrick, J.W., Legg, K. and
Wise, J. (2011) ‘Climate-friendly park employees: the intermountain region’s climate change
training assessment’, Park Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.34–40.
Gold, A.U., Ledley, T.S., Sullivan, S.B., Kirk, K.B. and Grogan, M. (2015) ‘Supporting energy
education online: climate literacy and energy awareness network (CLEAN)’, Journal of
Sustainability Education, January, Vol. 8.
Hallar, A.G., McCubbin, I.B. and Wright, J.M. (2011) ‘CHANGE: a place-based curriculum for
understanding climate change at Storm Peak Laboratory, Colorado’, Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, Vol. 92, No. 7, pp.909–918.
IPCC (2014) Edited by R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.
Johnson, R.M., Snow, J.T., Foster, S.Q., Maccaffery, M., Buhr, S. and Niepold, F. (2008) ‘The
atmospheric science literacy framework’, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008,
San Francisco, USA.
Kelly, L-A.D., Luebke, J.F., Clayton, S., Saunders, C.D., Matiasek, J. and Grajal, A. (2014)
‘Climate change attitudes of zoo and aquarium visitors: implications for climate literacy
education’, Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp.502–510.
Kempton, W. (1991) ‘Lay perspectives on global climate change’, Global Environmental
Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.183–208.
Lambert, J.L., Lindgren, J. and Bleicher, R. (2012) ‘Assessing elementary science methods
students’ understanding about global climate change’, International Journal of Science
Education, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp.1167–1187.
Ledley, T.S., Gold, A.U., Niepold, F. and McCaffrey, M. (2014) ‘Moving toward collective impact
in climate change literacy: the climate literacy and energy awareness network (CLEAN)’,
Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol. 62, No, 3, pp.307–318.
Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N. and Marlon, J.R. (2011) American Teens’ Knowledge of Climate
Change, Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven, CT.
Lewenstein, B.V. (2015) ‘Identifying what matters: science education, science communication, and
democracy’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp.253–262.
Liu, S., Varma, K. and Roehrig, G. (2014) ‘Climate literacy and scientific reasoning’, in
Dalbotten, D., Roehrig, G. and Hamilton, P. (Eds.): Future Earth – Advancing Civic
Understanding of the Anthropocene, pp.31–40, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Lohr, V.I. (2014) ‘Climate change literacy in postsecondary horticultural education in the
United States’, Horttechnology, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.132–137.
Lowrey, J.L., Ray, A.J. and Webb, R.S. (2009) ‘Factors influencing the use of climate information
by Colorado municipal water managers’, Climate Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp.103–119.
McCaffrey, M.S. (2015) ‘The energy-climate literacy imperative: why energy education must close
the loop on changing climate’, Journal of Sustainability Education, January, Vol. 8.
McCaffrey, M.S. and Buhr, S.M. (2008) ‘Clarifying climate confusion: addressing systemic holes,
cognitive gaps, and misconceptions through climate literacy’, Physical Geography, Vol. 29,
No. 6, pp.512–528.
McNeal, K.S., John, K. and Sullivan, S.B. (2014) ‘Introduction to the theme: outcomes of climate
literacy efforts (part 1)’, Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp.291–295.
Miler, T. and Sladek, P. (2011) ‘The climate literacy challenge’, International Conference on
Education and Educational Psychology 2010, Vol. 12, pp.150–156.
Niepold, F., Herring, D. and McConville, D. (2007) ‘The case for climate literacy in the 21st
century’, Fifth International Symposium on Digital Earth, pp.1–11, San Francisco Bay, CA.
428
J. Azevedo and M. Marques
Niepold, F., Herring, D. and McConville, D. (2008) ‘The role of narrative and geospatial
visualization in fostering climate literate citizens’, Physical Geography, Vol. 29, No. 6,
pp.529–544.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Programme for International Student
Assessment (OECD/PISA) (2001) Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills: The PISA 2000
Assessment of Reading, Mathematical and Scientific Literacy, Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Programme for International Student
Assessment (OECD/PISA) (2013) PISA 2015 Draft Science Framework, OECD, Paris.
Pidgeon, N. and Fischhoff, B. (2011) ‘The role of social and decision sciences in communicating
uncertain climate risks’, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.35–41.
Powers, S.E., Dewaters, J., Dhaniyala, S. and Small, M.M.M. (2013) ‘New project-based
instructional modules improve climate change literacy’, ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 23–26 June, 10p.
Reis, J., Povoas, L., Barriga, F., Lopes, C., Santos, V.F., Ribeiro, B., Cascalho, J. and Pinto, A.
(2014) ‘Science education in a museum: enhancing Earth sciences literacy as a way to enhance
public awareness of geological heritage’, Geoheritage, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.217–223.
Schuldt, J.P., Konrath, S.H. and Schwarz, N. (2011) ‘‘Global warming’ or ‘climate change’?
Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording’, Public Opinion Quarterly,
Vol. 75, No. 1, pp.115–124.
Seacrest, S., Kuzelka, R. and Leonard, R. (2000) ‘Global climate change and public perception: the
challenge of translation’, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 36,
No. 2, pp.253–263.
Shafer, M.A. (2008) ‘Climate literacy and a national climate service’, Physical Geography,
Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.561–574.
Shafer, M.A., James, T.E. and Giuliano, N. (2009) ‘Enhancing climate literacy’, 18th Symposium
on Education.
Shepardson, D.P., Niyogi, D., Soyoung, C. and Charusombat, U. (2011) ‘Students’ conceptions
about the greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change’, Climatic Change, Vol. 104,
Nos. 3/4, pp.481–507.
Snow, C.P. (1956) ‘The two cultures’, New Statesman & Nation, 6 October, Vol. 52, pp.413–414.
Stevenson, K., Peterson, M., Bondell, H., Moore, S. and Carrier, S. (2014) ‘Overcoming skepticism
with education: interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on
perceived climate change risk among adolescents’, Climatic Change, Vol. 126, Nos. 3/4,
pp.293–304.
Uherek, E. and Schupbach, E. (2008) ‘European efforts in Earth science and climate change
education’, Physical Geography, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.545–560.
UNESCO (1997) Educating for a Sustainable Future: A Transdisciplinary Vision for Concerted
Action. Report of the International Conference on Environment and Society: Education and
Public Awareness for Sustainability, Thessalonikki, Greece.
US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) (2009) Climate Literacy: The Essential
Principles of Climate Science, [eBook], Global Change Research Program, Washington DC,
USA.
Climate literacy: a systematic review and model integration
429
Notes
1
2
For example, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) aims to assess
15 year-old students’ reading literacy, mathematical literacy, and science literacy, each one
composed by three parallel dimensions: process skills, knowledge and understanding, and
context of application. Currently, that programme involves more than 60 countries and one of
its outputs is a country rank for each assessed literacy. PISA defines literacy as the knowledge
and skills for adult life that are acquired through formal and informal learning over a lifetime;
and SL as “The capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and draw evidencebased conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and
the changes made to it through human activity” [OECD/PISA, (2001), p.76].
This table includes three columns:
•
the first identifies the dimension of the framework
•
the second presents a description of each of the four dimensions, based on information
from the PISA framework (lines with italic text) or based on information from the
reviewed literature (remaining text)
•
3
4
the third column presents a citation from the reviewed literature that can be seen as an
example illustrating the considered dimension.
Climate literacy is used to introduce the model, but we should read it as a general pattern to all
science contents. Therefore, in our model, science literacy is equivalent to climate literacy.
Systems theory is an interdisciplinary theory about the nature of complex systems in nature,
society, and science. Its origin goes back to 1920s biology, but was very influential in the
interdisciplinary dialogue between a large number of academic fields. Some of the most
prominent authors are Von Bertalanffy (biology), Boulding (economics), Parsons and
Luhmann (sociology), Von Foerster (physics) among many other.
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2015
Bodzin et al.
Kelly et al.
DeWaters et al.
Ledley et al.
Liu et al.
McCaffrey
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
Europe (Czech
Republic)
USA
USA
USA
Europe
(Slovenia)
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
Europe
(Switzerland)
JGE
GC
PG, SIEL
FPP
SC
JGE
JGE
FE-ACUA FE-ACUA
JSE
JGE
NTEOE
ASEEACE
BAMS
CC
ICEEP
CL
18th SE
Guide
XIV
IOSTES
PG, SIEL
PG, SIEL
PG, SIEL
PG, SIEL
5th ISDE
SE
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
IDES
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
CMW
Competences
EDSE
√
√
EPS
√
√
√
√
√
√
EK
Categories of analysis
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
PK
CK
Knowledge
√
√
√
SP
√
√
In general
Attitudes
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
RI VSAI REA MIRD
Notes: SE = science education; SC = science communication; CK = content knowledge; PK = procedural knowledge; EK = epistemic knowledge; EPS = explain
phenomena scientifically; EDSE = evaluate and design scientific enquiry; IDES = interpret data and evidence scientifically; CMW = communicate in a meaningful
way; SP = solve problems; RI = reveal interest; VSAI = Value SCIENTIFIC approaches to enquiry; Rea = Reveal environmental awareness; MIRD = make
informed and responsible decisions; 5th ISDE = Fifth International Symposium on Digital Earth; FPP = forum on public policy; PG, SIEL = physical geography,
special issue environmental literacy (EL); CL = climate research; 18th SE = 18th Symposium on Education; XIV IOSTES = XIV International Organization for
Science and Technology Education Symposium; GC = geography compass; BAMS = Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society; CC = climatic change;
ICEEP = International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology; ASEEACE = American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and
Exposition; NTEOE = New Trends in Earth-Science Outreach and Engagement; JGE = Journal of Geoscience Education; FE-ACUA = future Earth – advancing
civic understanding of the anthropocene; JSE = Journal of Sustainability Education
2013
2010
2011
2011
2011
Dupigny-Giroux
Hallar et al.
Shepardson et al.
Miler and Sladek
2014
2009
2009
2009
2010
Lowrey et al.
Shafer et al.
USGCRP
Bogataj
Berbeco and
McCaffrey
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
Niepold et al.
Batteen et al.
Dupigny-Giroux
Niepold et al.
Shafer
Uherek and
Schupbach
Region
Field of study
Table 3
Powers et al.
Year
Author(s)
Paper
430
J. Azevedo and M. Marques
Appendix
Analysis of studies in the literature, with a proposal of climate literacy definition,
included in each dimension of the adaptation of the PISA 2015 science framework