Empowering Secondary Education Teachers for Sustainable Climate Action

Citation: García-Vinuesa, A. Empowering Secondary Education Teachers for Sustainable Climate Action. Sustainability 2024,16, 7941. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187941 Academic Editor: Adriana Del Borghi Received: 8 August 2024 Revised: 29 August 2024 Accepted: 6 September 2024 Published: 11 September 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). sustainability Systematic Review Empowering Secondary Education Teachers for Sustainable Climate Action Antonio García-Vinuesa SEPA-Interea Research Group, Acuatic One Health Research Center (iARCUS), Education Sciences Faculty, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15705 Santiago de Compostela, Spain; [email protected] Abstract: Climate change education plays an important role in sustainable climate action, but there is a lack of knowledge about how middle and high school teachers address it. This presents an opportunity to explore the research on these essential agents of education in promoting sustainable behaviors among adolescents. This study aims to systematically identify and analyze the existing scientific literature concerning the knowledge, perspectives, challenges, and opportunities of middle and high school teachers regarding climate change as an educational topic. The review protocol adheres to the PRISMA extension for scoping review statements. The methodology includes the establishment of eligibility criteria, consultation of Scopus and Web of Science databases, implementation of a search strategy based on a preliminary scoping exercise, and the utilization of the CADIMA online tool to facilitate the selection and data collection processes. This systematic process resulted in a sample of 41 studies, which were rigorously analyzed. Results suggest multiple factors that challenge how teachers address climate change in their classrooms. Curricular constraints, limited school time, controversy surrounding the phenomenon, and lack of training emerge as potential obstacles. However, these challenges also present opportunities to improve and promote sustainable climate action among young students. Keywords: systematic review; environmental education; teachers; sustainable climate action 1. Introduction Climate change education (CCE) has emerged as a prominent research field in the educational arena over the last decade [ 1 – 3 ]. CCE focuses on how human-caused climate change (CC) has been incorporated into educational systems as a complex socioscientific issue posing a significant challenge for contemporary societies [4,5]. As a result of its increasing importance, CCE has led to the publication of several reviews aimed at synthesizing the emerging knowledge produced in recent years. Some of these reviews focus on issues related to students’ knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, or behaviors [ 6 , 7 ]. Meanwhile, others aim to identify effective educational interventions and teaching practices [ 8 , 9 ] related to the professional development of CCE [ 10 ]. In addition, a scoping review was conducted on the sources of information from which teachers access information on CC [ 11 ]. Despite the growing interest in CCE, no reviews were found that specifically focused on secondary education teachers (both lower and upper secondary education) as the primary participants and in which CCE was the main educational topic. However, two existing reviews address similar topics and may help justify the need for the present review. Firstly, Chen and Xiao [ 12 ] conducted a systematic review focusing on science teachers and their views on teaching socioscientific topics. Given that CC is a socioscientific topic that requires considering multiple relationships of elements from social science and natural science fields [ 4 ], their work is relevant to the purpose of the current study. The authors scanned the Web of Science, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsycINFO databases and identified 25 papers that fit within the scope of their review, but only one Sustainability 2024,16, 7941. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187941 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2024,16, 7941 2 of 15 research paper focused on CC. Hence, the expectation of the presented review is to provide an additional synthesis of knowledge distinct from that of Chen and Xiao [12]. Secondly, Neprašet al. [ 13 ] conducted a literature review on CCE, identifying 43 articles published between 2001 and 2020 in the Web of Science database. Their review focused on studies targeting students and teachers at International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) levels 1 and 2, which correspond to primary and lower secondary education. However, upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary teachers were excluded from their analysis, and only 6 out of the 43 articles focused on teachers. Therefore, the current study aims to build on the work of Neprašet al. [ 13 ] by examining teachers’ perspectives on CCE across all levels of secondary education and by including articles from the Scopus database. Taking into consideration the aforementioned information, the objective of the current research is to investigate how middle and high school teachers approach CC in their daily work. By synthesizing this knowledge, the aim is to enhance the comprehension of the accomplishments and evolution of CCE from the teachers’ perspective. The findings are anticipated to provide a synthesis of knowledge about teachers’ perspectives on CCE that could be useful for curriculum creators, higher education institutions, and lifelong education stakeholders in integrating the climate crisis into middle and high schools. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that every literature review has its own limitations. Therefore, the review process has been elucidated in as much detail as possible to ensure transparency, replicability, and upgradability. Below, a detailed report is provided on the steps taken in accordance with systematic scoping review recommendations [14,15]. 2. Materials and Methods The systematic review protocol followed in this study [ 16 ] adhered to the recommendations provided for conducting scoping reviews [15] (see Supplementary Materials [17]). To systematically conduct the protocol, the open-access web-based software tool CADIMA vers. 2.2.4.2. was utilized. This tool supports and guides through all the necessary steps for protocol implementation [18]. I look forward to answering the following research question: What challenges and opportunities for promoting CCE among secondary education teachers emerged from the review? Five inclusion/exclusion criteria were established to identify documents that fit the research interests. The first three criteria relate to the PIT question type [ 19 ], while the remaining two criteria pertain to the publication type and language limitations of the authors. The inclusion criteria are as follows: 1. The primary participants must be middle and high school teachers. 2. The documents must focus on CCE. 3. The results must be related to the comprehension of CC and educational interventions. 4. Only articles are considered for inclusion. 5. Documents must be written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. Web of Science and Scopus databases were utilized for the study search and identification process. The search was conducted on 23 February 2023. Additionally, the reference list of similar reviews previously mentioned was examined to identify any studies that might have been missed during the review. The search strategy was designed to identify studies that involve middle and high school teachers as the primary participants, with a focus on ISCED levels 2, 3, and 4 (see details of the protocol [16]). The final search string is as follows: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“climate change” OR “global warming”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“teacher*” OR “professor*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“secondary” OR “school*”) AND NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY (“elementary school*” OR “pre-service teacher*”)) Prior to selecting the studies stage, three rounds of consistency checks were conducted using CADIMA software and the Kappa index for abstracts. Forty-one records (10%) Sustainability 2024,16, 7941 3 of 15 were randomly selected for this check. Three reviewers, two external reviewers (see Acknowledgments section), and the author of the study independently screened each record. It took three rounds to define clear and consensus-based eligibility criteria that achieved an appropriate inter-reviewer agreement. After the second round, the results were discussed among the three reviewers to resolve any doubts or divergences in the results, and the criteria were redefined. The third consistency check showed excellent inter-reviewer agreement (K = 0.869). 3. Results Figure 1illustrates the flowchart that represents the search and selection process carried out in accordance with the previously established protocol, following the PRISMA statement for scoping reviews. The outcome of this process led to the identification of 41 studies that satisfied the eligibility criteria. The utilization of the CADIMA tool facilitated the sequential, documented, and systematic execution of the process, thereby assisting in document identification and content analysis. Figure 1. Selection process. Flow diagram in accordance with PRISMA-ScR [15]. Table 1provides an overview of the gathered research. In 19 out of 41 of the studies, the participants consisted solely of science teachers, with two of them conducted among marine science teachers. In 14 out of 41, the participant sample included teachers from various disciplines. The remaining studies involved the participation of geography teachers in seven out of 41, and 1 study included agriculture teachers. The research topics are diverse, encompassing various cognitive elements, experiences, and instructional practices. They also involve the implementation of strategies and activities to integrate CC into the classroom or curriculum. Sustainability 2024,16, 7941 4 of 15 Table 1. Thematic data extracted. Study Year Teacher’s Specialization Educational Level Topic (Based on the Aims and Research Questions Stated by the Authors) [20] 2022 Geography teachers Secondary School Integration of CCE in classroom lessons [21] 2022 Miscellaneous High School * Teachers’ perceptions about CC [22] 2022 Marine science High School Influence of personal beliefs teaching CC and the impact of political controversy on CC instruction [23] 2022 Miscellaneous High School Teachers’ viewpoints on CC and their willingness to include CC concerns in classes [24] 2022 Miscellaneous Secondary School Teachers’ climate science literacy and its influence on expressed training needs. [25] 2022 science teachers High School Teaching CC and the implementation of epistemic activities for practice-oriented science instruction [26] 2022 science teachers Secondary School Teachers’ implementation of climate-focused curricular interventions [27] 2021 Miscellaneous Secondary School * Views of teachers about CCE in the curriculum [28] 2021 Marine science High School Teacher beliefs about CC [29] 2021 Miscellaneous High School Emotions in teaching about CC and their handling/coaching of emotional reactions in the classroom [30] 2021 Science teachers Middle School Perceptions of CC barriers and understanding of CC [31] 2021 Science teachers Secondary School CC perceptions of secondary science teachers [32] 2020 Miscellaneous Lower Secondary Teachers view CC at present and in the future and the practices that can be inserted into the school context [33] 2020 Miscellaneous Senior Secondary Awareness of CC and willingness to adopt pro-environmental behavior [34] 2020 Science teachers Middle and High Schools Time spent on CC in the classroom, use of a consensus-informed approach, and state-level curriculum standards [35] 2020 Miscellaneous Middle School Teachers practices and emotions [36] 2020 Agriculture teachers Secondary Education Teachers’ knowledge, the choice of their practices, and their beliefs about GCC [37] 2019 Science educators Miscellaneous Cultural values, worldviews, and support for the topic [38] 2019 Science teachers Secondary School * Arguments in favor of and against CC denial theories [39] 2018 Science teachers Middle and High Schools Teaching practices (time, emphasis, debates), content knowledge, and ideology regarding CC [40] 2018 Miscellaneous Secondary School Gaps and differences between risk and perceived risk and effective and sustainable adaptation strategies. Sustainability 2024,16, 7941 5 of 15 Table 1. Cont. Study Year Teacher’s Specialization Educational Level Topic (Based on the Aims and Research Questions Stated by the Authors) [41] 2018 Geography teachers Lower Secondary Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices when teaching weather formation and CC [42] 2017 Miscellaneous Lower Secondary Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards CCE [43] 2017 Geography teachers High School CC science literacy (processes and causes of CC, CC impacts, CC responses) [44] 2017 Science teachers Middle School Teachers’ experiences and motivations in teaching CC [45] 2017 Miscellaneous Secondary School Goals, knowledge, competencies, and values about CCE [46] 2017 Miscellaneous Secondary School Perceptions of risk education [47] 2017 Science teachers Secondary School CCE experiences, understanding of CC consensus and controversy, and specific practices [48] 2016 Geography teachers Lower Secondary Emotions about the consequences of CC, strategies for coping with emotions, and views on CC mitigation [49] 2016 Science teachers Middle and High Schools Aspects of teaching CC, knowledge, and beliefs [50] 2016 Science teachers Middle School * Politically driven CC beliefs [51] 2015 Miscellaneous Secondary School * Personal and professional beliefs about CC and CCE [52] 2015 Science teachers Secondary School CC science knowledge [53] 2015 Science teachers Secondary School * Social negotiation in the advancement of CCE (attitudes, opinions, and experiences) [54] 2015 Geography teachers High School Literacy regarding CC science [55] 2015 Geography teachers Secondary School Understandings of CCE [56] 2014 Miscellaneous Secondary School CC topics included across disciplines, views of CC in the curriculum, and barriers and opportunities [57] 2013 Science teachers Secondary School Willing to convey CC information, ability to address controversial topics, beliefs in policy, and economic [58] 2013 Science teachers Secondary School * Background knowledge, need for cognition, need for closure, topic emotions, and plausibility perceptions [59] 2010 Science teachers Middle and High Schools Views and practices of CC as controversial topics: Motivations and barriers [60] 2002 Science teachers Middle School CC in the British science curriculum Miscellaneous = various academic fields: Math, Foreign languages, Arts, History, Geography, etc.; CC = climate change; CCE = climate change education. * Mixed sample of teachers from different educational levels (pre-service teachers, elementary education, Higher Education Institutions, etc.) or students. Sustainability 2024,16, 7941 6 of 15 4. Discussion 4.1. Teachers’ Understanding and Perspectives of Climate Change The complexity of the climatic system poses a great challenge to its comprehension and definition by the general populace. While most teachers acknowledge the existence of CC [ 21 , 36 , 49 , 50 ] and appear to demonstrate a higher degree of expertise on the subject compared to the general population, they also grapple with comprehension hurdles [20,38,49,51]. Varying levels of knowledge regarding CC are observed within the teacher cohorts themselves, with instances where the sample is nearly evenly divided, with approximately 50% exhibiting moderate-low levels of understanding and the remainder demonstrating moderate-high levels of comprehension [ 42 , 53 ]. It is noteworthy that factors such as age, teaching experience, and specialized training exert influence on levels of climate science knowledge [23,39,42,43]. The challenge of comprehending the climatic system appears to persist even among teachers specializing in science or geography, disciplines wherein CC typically features as obligatory content. Principal challenges are identified in connection with general knowledge of climate science and with the scientific consensus surrounding its anthropogenic causation [ 22 , 24 , 30 , 31 , 42 , 47 , 49 – 53 , 55 , 59 ]. With respect to the scientific consensus on the causes of human-induced CC, Sezen-Barrie and colleagues concluded that teachers might still doubt the anthropogenic causes of climate change when teachers (a) do not have a comprehensive understanding of sea ice vs. land ice, functions of the ecosystem, solar cycles, and weather vs. climate; (b) rely on a single source; or (c) lack understanding of how climate data are collected and validated in models [38] (p. 16). In the case of teachers who struggle with comprehension, definitions of CC often focus on isolated aspects of the phenomenon, such as rising temperatures, temporal aspects, or meteorological changes. This skewed understanding, primarily in its atmospheric and meteorological dimension, fails to consider the reality of a complex system and the numerous aspects, relationships, and feedback loops that should be part of a scientifically accurate representation of the phenomenon. At other times, these representations contain misconceptions commonly shared by the general population [ 31 , 49 , 52 , 55 , 59 ]. Tautologies or denialist arguments are used to a lesser extent to define it [38,52]. Regarding knowledge of the causes, consequences, and solutions of CC, teachers appear to follow the trend observed in other research involving secondary education students as the target population. Consequently, it seems that teachers possess a stronger grasp of the processes and underlying causes of CC compared to their comprehension of its social, economic, and health repercussions, as well as potential solutions [42,53]. Concerning their knowledge of the causes, inconsistencies arise in their perspectives. Despite a great percentage of teachers confirming their agreement regarding the existence of a scientific consensus on CC causes, they harbor doubts about the nature of these causes [ 27 , 28 , 30 , 38 , 49 ]. These doubts stem from beliefs that the evidence surrounding the phenomenon is weak or flawed, that the employed methods lack reliability, or that natural forces are significant contributors to the ongoing CC [31,36,38,42,47,50,59]. Regarding solutions, teachers attribute responsibility for mitigation actions to individuals and politicians, with politicians bearing a greater burden due to their decision-making power. Additionally, economic powers are also identified as primary agents responsible for implementing mitigation policies and actions [ 48 ]. However, in the case of a unique Brazilian study, teachers do not perceive themselves as part of the solution due to the devaluation of the teaching profession in their country [32]. Furthermore, Hermans [ 48 ] analyzes the discourse of Finnish teachers and identifies two categories related to mitigation strategies. On the one hand, there are contextual strategies such as the development of climate-friendly technology, the implementation of carrot-and-stick policies, and international agreements. On the other hand, motivational strategies emerge around the relationship between knowledge, attitude, and behavior. When discussing mitigation measures at the personal level, they propose two types of Sustainability 2024,16, 7941 7 of 15 actions: those with direct impact aimed at addressing the problem and those with indirect impact intended to influence others to participate in the solution. Among direct actions, teachers suggest actions that do not require a personal sacrifice of their lifestyles (e.g., recycling, turning off lights, etc.), although some also question the impact of their lifestyles and accept other actions, such as reducing shower time or using their cars less. Finally, indirect actions are directly related to their work time through teaching [ 28 ]. These actions are further reinforced by various types of motivation, including being a role model, a sense of personal responsibility, or considerations related to health and personal finances. Despite secondary education teachers asserting a stronger grasp of CC knowledge compared to the general population, they also hold misconceptions about the phenomenon [31,32,36]. A significant portion of teachers tends to accept the existence of at least two valid explanations for the causes of CC: natural cycles and human activities [ 22 , 36 ]. This perception contrasts with the scientific reality of the phenomenon [ 4 ], and as Nicholls and Stevenson indicate this representation “does not present a realistic picture or understanding of CC” [ 51 ] (p. 26). The natural greenhouse effect, its alteration by human activities, or misunderstandings regarding the ozone layer and its depletion further contribute to the confusion surrounding the understanding of CC and are found in a small subset of the teaching staff [31,42,49,52,55,59]. Regarding the emotions triggered by the CC, teachers identify feelings of concern, anger, fear, guilt, or hopelessness when contemplating the consequences of the CC [ 28 , 48 ]. But there are also some teachers who express hopefulness in dealing with CC in school, even though they are not in the majority [ 38 ]. The concern, rated as moderate, is projected toward the future, nature, or the upcoming generations, suggesting that they do not perceive CC as a current issue that may personally affect them. However, they simultaneously hold a negative representation of the present and future state of the planet [ 32 ]. Their anger is directed at major institutions, corporations, nations, or the political establishment, attributing primary responsibility for the CC to factors beyond their day-to-day control. Additionally, emotions play a significant role in shaping perceptions of the plausibility of CC. Hopelessness appears to be positively correlated with such perceptions, whereas anger shows a negative correlation. Factors such as motivation and gender also play a role in shaping the emotions elicited by CC. For instance, among teachers who are motivated by the subject, “teaching about climate change provides important psychological benefits for them. It brings them joy and gives them hope for the future” [ 44 ] (p. 18), while women tend to express heightened concern about the issue [29]. Finally, Anyanwu and Le Grange [ 43 ] conclude that male geography teachers achieve higher knowledge scores compared to their female counterparts, a trend also identified in another study [ 42 ]. Although these findings are consistent with other research involving student populations, it is important to note that these studies are limited to the Western Cape Province in South Africa and Tehran, Iran. As the same authors acknowledge, confirming these results would require larger sample studies involving teachers from diverse countries and specializations. 4.2. Teaching Climate Change in Secondary Education The strategies employed to teach it vary, ranging from using textbooks, internet resources, epistemic practices, or lectures to practical assignments, laboratory experiments, or debates, among other approaches. These preferences appear to be more influenced by personal choices than professional ones, often stemming from past experiences, worldviews, classroom dynamics, the subject being taught, the socioeconomic and personal backgrounds of the students, as well as physical and curricular constraints. Similarly, there is a divergence of opinions regarding which discipline should take on the responsibility for its educational integration [ 26 , 34 , 36 – 38 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 55 , 59 ]. The divergence of opinions and perspectives within these communities must be taken into account while also considering internal social divisions, since, as Walshe and colleagues indicate: Sustainability 2024,16, 7941 8 of 15 While there is a general agreement that climate change is a human-induced problem and a threat to society, it is clear that there is considerable intergroup and country diversity in perceptions of climate change. This diversity is problematic to integrate into the top–down policy-led interventions, particularly those that are multi-national in scale [40] (p. 315). Moreover, the complexity and controversy surrounding the phenomenon lead to a situation where, although a portion of teachers in science-related disciplines declare feeling comfortable teaching CC, 14% express discomfort [ 57 ]. These percentages increase to 40–60% among teachers in other disciplines related to social sciences, humanities, economics, and mathematics [56]. The teaching of CC often focuses on its causes and consequences, primarily from exclusive perspectives of the natural sciences [ 21 , 25 , 29 , 36 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 51 ]. Although in some cases, teachers emphasize that “[CCE] includes social justice and participation in social action as part of the school curriculum” [ 27 ] (p. 1675), there is generally limited exploration of the social and economic causes and consequences. Two distinct perspectives emerged that differentiate how science teachers and agricultural teachers approach the content of CC [ 56 ]. Science teachers base their strategies on imparting the scientific principles that underlie the causes of climate change, while teachers in agricultural science and technology concentrate on the impacts and adaptation measures. On the other hand, business teachers argue that it is unnecessary to grasp the basic principles of climate science, leading them to incorporate CC primarily through the lens of economic impacts stemming from various extreme events. Despite teachers expressing an interest in integrating CC into their teaching practice, the time invested is limited due to various factors such as curriculum constraints, lack of knowledge, and the difficulty of aligning CC content with teaching standards, among others [34,36,49,56]. The potential and most effective solutions, both at the individual and collective levels, also appear to have a limited role in CCE. When they are addressed, the focus tends to be on technological solutions and environmentally friendly actions, often overlooking political solutions. Understanding the importance of political solutions is crucial for gaining acceptance among the broader population [ 31 ]. This curricular perspective, which confines the learning of CC to specific natural science disciplines, does not go unnoticed. Some authors argue that modern education often neglects postmodernist ideas and a diversity of perspectives [ 60 ]. This deficiency is reflected in most teaching practices, which do not actively seek to or successfully cultivate the critical thinking skills necessary for evaluating controversial situations. In this sense, science and geography teachers express the difficulty of proposing strategies and methodologies that foster students’ interest in participating, discussing, and arguing—skills that are developed in other social science subjects more closely connected to their social reality [ 45 ]. Furthermore, they emphasize working on climate-related content if it allows them to achieve other overarching objectives such as [27,45,51,55,57,60]: •Fostering responsible and informed decision-making. • Grasping the boundaries of science and the dynamic process of constructing scientific knowledge, grounding in evidence, and responsive to environmental and social challenges. •Cultivating critical awareness of social inequality and injustice. •Acknowledging the existence of intricate, global-local relationships. •Establishing connections between science and everyday life. • Nurturing the ability to discuss and negotiate in pursuit of solutions to complex and contentious socioscientific. •Developing civic competence. When it comes to discussing the climate topic in class, there are different opinions on how to include it and in what context, whether formal or informal [ 59 ]. Moreover, although educational curricula are typically centralized and prescriptive, the way CC is addressed in the classroom varies depending on the teachers [ 55 ], with political orientation Sustainability 2024,16, 7941 9 of 15 and worldviews being one of the influencing factors that could impact the teaching of CC in public schools in the US [31,37]. Among the teachers who report using specific strategies to address the topic, they highlight those related to the nature of science, involving students in data collection, analysis, and conclusion formulation [ 57 ]. Other strategies they mention include explaining scientific uncertainty, presenting the reasoning behind different interpretations of CC, discussing the pros and cons of climate-related policies [ 48 ], exploring the history of CC science, engaging in discussions about skeptical beliefs [ 59 ], spatial and temporal reasoning [38], and planning or constructing evidence-based explanations [44]. Plutzer and colleagues found out that “teachers who teach CC, 31% report sending explicitly contradictory messages, emphasizing both the scientific consensus that recent global warming is due to human activity and that many scientists believe recent increases in temperature are due to natural causes” [ 49 ] (p. 664). In this regard, various viewpoints exist regarding the proposal to present different perspectives on the origins of CC causes, with some teachers deeming it appropriate and others not [ 31 , 39 , 51 , 55 , 57 , 59 ]. In this scenario, the conflict emerges between teachers who advocate introducing students to the two primary arguments that explain the causes of the phenomenon, human vs. natural, and those who endorse the argument grounded in the scientific consensus established by the IPCC, attributing the disruption of the climate system to human activities. Wang and colleagues [ 36 ] identified this perspective among most of their participants, while Nicholls and Stevenson observed that a small subset of teachers in their sample asserted that CC is “fictitious, a politically motivated topic or biased toward a political agenda, an unsupported idea driven by media, the result of unscrupulous scientists lying for money, the unsupported popular beliefs of ignorant people, or a combination of these points” [ 51 ] (p. 25). Furthermore, this perspective may influence teaching practices, as teachers from states with standards emphasizing both sides were less inclined to adopt a consensus-informed approach to instruction [34]. Closely related to this, ideology is also a factor that influences how the topic is taught, with teachers who “display a small government ideology are more likely to encourage debate and less likely to emphasize the scientific consensus“ [ 39 ] (p. 9). The public controversy surrounding the phenomenon leads teachers to maintain neutrality when addressing the topic in the classroom and to avoid engaging in argumentative debates [22,28]. In connection with this, Plutzer and Hannah [ 39 ] highlight the risk of using debates in which there are two valid narratives, potentially causing confusion among students about the scientific reality of CC. The risks associated with CC are another area of interest in CCE among teachers. Some teachers highlighted the need to address more risk-related topics in schools [ 46 ]. They also recognized that the primary risks their students will face in the future will have a socioeconomic nature. However, their teaching practices predominantly revolve around environmental threats, often without linking them to their social and economic implications. The authors explain that this is due to the materials used in classrooms being dictated by the school curriculum, which outlines mandatory content, and unfortunately, the social and economic impacts are often omitted. In island contexts, where the threats of CC are more visibly manifested through rising sea levels and extreme weather events, teachers frequently stress the importance of the topic as a relevant educational subject that should be contextualized to address local concerns and engage the public in the climate crisis [ 36 , 40 ]. However, other studies indicate that teachers often fail to establish these connections with the local consequences of their environments in their teaching practices [22]. The risks and threats of CC generally evoke negative emotions related to concern, anger, guilt, or hopelessness [ 28 , 32 , 38 , 48 ], which can have an impact on educational practices. However, when the focus shifts to the emotions of their students, opinions vary. Some teachers perceive their students’ negative emotions as irrational and disapprove of addressing them in the classroom, while others consider concern or hopelessness as