The What, Why, and How of Climate Change Education: Strengthening Teacher Education for Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers content priorities, justifications, and pedagogical approaches for the integration of climate change education into the training of teachers, and thus into public schooling. To meet urgent imperatives presented by the polycrisis of the Anthropocene, climate change education must be inclusive, comprehensive, flexible, and regionally responsive. Climate change education can be achieved by adapting regional programs for teacher education to meet those requirements. An example is the Climate Education in Teacher Education (CETE) project in northern British Columbia, Canada. Using the Education Design-Based Research methodology, the project addresses critical questions for curricular and pedagogical development of teachers to address the following three questions: (a) what content and outcomes to prioritize, (b) why these elements matter, and (c) how to implement them effectively. Over two years, CETE engaged pre-service and in-service teachers through workshops, reflective practices, and consultations with Indigenous communities. Our tentative answers emphasize the importance of adapting curriculum and pedagogy to foster community resilience, address climate anxiety, and promote an ethical renewal toward sustainability. The iterative development of objectives as “High-Level Conjectures” provides flexibility and reflexivity in the design process in the face of rapid contextual change. CETE developed practical pedagogical tools and workshop strategies that align educational priorities with local and global needs. This study offers a replicable framework to empower educators and communities in diverse locations to navigate the complexities of the climate crisis in their quest for a more secure and sustainable future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".