Res Sci Educ

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9703-1

An Investigation of Secondary Students’ Mental Models

of Climate Change and the Greenhouse Effect

Begoña Varela 1 & Vanessa Sesto 1 & Isabel García-Rodeja 1

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract There are several studies dealing with students’ conceptions on climate change, but
most of them refer to understanding before instruction. In contrast, this study investigates
students’ conceptions and describes the levels of sophistication of their mental models on
climate change and the greenhouse effect. The participants were 40 secondary students (grade
7) in Spain. As a method of data collection, a questionnaire was designed with open-ended
questions focusing on the mechanism, causes, and actions that could be useful in reducing
climate change. Students completed the same questionnaire before and after instruction. The
students’ conceptions and mental models were identified by an inductive and iterative analysis
of the participants’ explanations. With regard to the students’ conceptions, the results show
that they usually link climate change to an increase in temperature, and they tend to mention,
even after instruction, generic actions to mitigate climate change, such as not polluting. With
regard to the students’ mental models, the results show an evolution of models with little
consistency and coherence, such as the models on level 1, towards higher levels of sophisti-
cation. The paper concludes with educational implications proposed for solving learning
difficulties regarding the greenhouse effect and climate change.

Keywords Alternative conceptions . Mental models . Climate change . Greenhouse effect

Introduction

Today, climate change is one of the world’s most important problems of which virtually all the
population is aware thanks to its presence in the scientific, social, political, and economic debate in
every country. As suggested by Arto and Meira (2011), we should be aware that society’s
knowledge, opinions, and assessments of climate change feed on information from various media

* Vanessa Sesto
[email protected]

1
Department of Applied Didactics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Avenue Xoán XXIII S/N,
15782 Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain
 Res Sci Educ

sources and the information may or may not originate from the field of science. Therefore,
teaching strategies used in the classroom need to meet the objective of developing the ability of
students to take mitigation and adaptation actions for climate change. We must also remember that
students already have their own ideas, values, and representations about climate change.
In the field of science education, numerous widely documented studies have been conduct-
ed on students’ alternative ideas (e.g., Duit 2009). The studies began in the 1970s with the
investigation of students’ pre-instructional conceptions on various contents of science and, in
these four decades, it has been one of the most important domains in educational research in
this field. Since alternative conceptions are characterized by resistance to change, several
researchers in the field of science education concluded that sometimes these ideas do not exist
in the individuals’ minds as isolated ideas, but they constitute a structured and coherent set of
interconnected ideas (Chi 2008; García-Rodeja and Lima 2012; Gutiérrez 2004). Thus,
alternative conceptions can be structured in alternative explanatory models or mental models
(Gilbert and Boulter 2000) that are consistent for the individuals who uphold them, even
though in many cases, these personal representations are incompatible with or contradict
scientific models (Reinfried and Tempelmann 2014). While alternative conceptions are con-
ceived as isolated ideas, mental models are constituted by a structure of beliefs and images that
is generative, allowing individuals to explain and predict natural phenomena (Greca and
Moreira 2000; Schwarz et al. 2009). However, it is important to note that if students construct
mental models that involve many distortions, preconceptions, and alternative ideas, they might
lead to inaccurate explanations (Reinfried and Tempelmann 2014; Schraw et al. 2006).
Mental models, despite being structural analogues of the world, are incomplete due to the limited
ability of students to represent the world (Jones et al. 2011). Mental models are also dynamic, since
they are constantly subjected to a review process by students as they interact with facts and
phenomena and are exposed to new knowledge, ideas, and experiences (Greca and Moreira 2000).
Scientific or conceptual models are representations of phenomena, events, or systems that are
consistent with the knowledge accepted by the scientific community. Unlike mental models,
conceptual models are characterized by elaborated images that explain the phenomena in specific
detail, and are limited by scientific principles (Mohan et al. 2009). When students construct mental
models that differ from the conceptual models that have been presented to them during schooling,
a restructuration of existing cognitive structures must occur (Greca and Moreira 2000; Shepardson
et al. 2017). In such cases, we are faced with the dilemma of how to change students’ models
(Schraw et al. 2006). Much has been written on conceptual change since it was first mentioned in
the work of Posner et al. (1982). In the beginning, conceptual change just referred to alternative
ideas, being considered as a restructuring or replacement of these ideas when students felt
dissatisfied with them and perceived the new conception scientifically accepted as intelligible
and plausible. When the construct of mental model began to be relevant in the field of science
education, there was a change of perspective in the definition of conceptual change. Gadgil et al.
(2012) view conceptual change as the transformation of prior knowledge that conflicts with new
information. This transformation involves cognitive processes related to inference generation and
mental models’ revision with the goal of remove internal contradictions. The model’s revision
affects both the individual features of the model and the interrelationships between those features.
Schraw et al. (2006) point out that conceptual change does not occur without some degree of
intellectual conflict, although there is noanagreementon how much conflict is needed. In contrast,
learning processes such as the addition of new knowledge when students lack prior knowledge or
when they have some knowledge but incomplete are known as enrichment, and they do not
constitute conceptual change (Chi 2008). By establishing an analogy between the terms used in
Res Sci Educ

the pioneering work of Posner et al. (1982), the enrichment is comparable to the process of
assimilation, whereas during a radical change, the process of accommodation prevails (Oliva
1999).
Although the subject of climate change is one of the most important social scientific issues,
numerous studies have shown that students’ ideas and models about climate change are still
inappropriate. Students must construct appropriate mental models to be able to integrate the
functional and causal relationships of complex system like global climate (Schraw et al. 2006).
Since complex systems consist of several components that interact among them in different ways,
incorporating system thinking into the teaching of climate and climate change would result in a
better understanding of its causes, changes, and consequences (Roychoudhury et al. 2017; Sóñora
and García-Rodeja 1996). Further research is therefore necessary to gain a better understanding of
students’ ideas and models on climate change to plan the curriculum and design teaching
materials in a way that challenge students’ mental models allowing them to evolve towards those
of school science (Schraw et al. 2006; Shepardson et al. 2011a). According to Anyanwu et al.
(2015), individuals with higher levels of literacy in relation to climate change are more aware of
the relationship between climate and human lifestyle and how the latter affects climate change.
The relevance of this study is that it discusses alternative ideas and describes the levels of
sophistication of students’ models on climate change before and after instruction.
Therefore, the objectives of this study can be represented in the following research
questions:

& What are students’ alternative ideas on climate change and the greenhouse effect?
& At what levels of sophistication are their mental models on climate change and the
greenhouse effect located?
& What are the differences between the students’ mental models on climate change before
and after instruction?

Climate Change and Environmental Literacy

In the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (United Nations 1992),
climate change is defined as Ba change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to
human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to
natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods^ (p. 3).
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2014), global
warming is unequivocal and a series of unprecedented changes have been observed since
the 1950s. Man’s action is clear and unquestionable in the rapid increase in climate change that
has occurred in recent decades. Some of the changes that have taken place in the climate
system are the warming of the atmosphere and oceans, declining volumes of ice and snow and
rising sea levels. There have also been numerous impacts on natural and human systems, as
well as episodes of extreme weather events (IPCC 2014).
One of the main causes of this global environmental problem is the enhanced greenhouse
effect due to the emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG), which have increased
notably since pre-industrial times due to economic and population growth and today the levels
are higher than ever (IPCC 2014). The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon which keeps
the Earth warm enough to develop and sustain life. This occurs because some of the infrared
radiation emitted from Earth towards space is absorbed and re-radiated in all directions by
 Res Sci Educ

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous
oxide (N2O). The enhanced greenhouse effect is the additional heat trapped due to the increase
in greenhouse gases as a result of human activities. As IPCC (2014) stated, Bsince 1970,
cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels combustion, cement production and flaring have
tripled, and cumulative CO2 emissions from forestry and other land use have increased by
about 40%^ (p. 45). Concentrations of other anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as methane
or nitrous oxide have also increased since 1750 by 150 and 20%, respectively (IPCC 2014).
This paper is based on the consideration that one of the most urgent tasks of science
education is to promote environmental literacy that allows students to understand how nature
functions, why we generate negative impact with our activities, and how we can live in a more
environmentally friendly way (see, e.g. Berkowitz et al. 2005). UNESCO (1989) defines
environmental literacy as Ba basic, functional education for all people, which provides them
with the elementary knowledge, skills, and motives to cope with environmental needs and
contribute to sustainable development^ (p. 1). Roth (1992) argues that environmental literacy
involves more than cognitive skills, defining it as Bthe capacity to perceive and interpret the
relative health of environmental systems and take appropriate action to maintain, restore, or
improve the health of those systems^ (p. 10). In this way, environmental literacy includes
several components that can be grouped into cognitive, affective, and behavioral, referring the
cognitive domain to the knowledge of ecological processes that is needed for understanding
human impact and natural systems (Roth 1992). This view is shared by Mohan et al. (2009)
who also consider that one of the components of environmental literacy is specific knowledge
which means, for example, that people must be able to interpret the transformations of matter
that occurs in the carbon cycling to make responsible environmental decisions.
According to Roth (1992), environmental education is the means for developing environ-
mental literacy. Other authors introduce the concept of sustainability arguing that environ-
mental education is the means to achieve sustainable development by creating environmentally
literate citizens who are willing to make informed decisions and act in the short and long term
to maintain and enhance the environment (Goldman et al. 2014; Jickling and Wals 2008).
Sustainable development refers to patterns of development that maintain a balance between the
demand and consumption of natural resources, so that human needs are covered without
irreversibly altering the physical environment (Bybee 1993). For science educators to appro-
priately address environmental issues, they should not focus on singular problems, but they
should stablish a global perspective and develop the concepts, values, and practices related to
sustainable growth (Bybee 1993). A systemic learning approach that contributes to an
understanding of the interrelationships between social and ecological systems is crucial for
achieving sustainable development (Bybee 1993; Dyball et al. 2007).
Andersson and Wallin (2000) argue that environmental education is essential for people to
be aware of the influence of sociocultural factors on the generation of environmental problems.
These authors add that ignorance of the effects of a particular environmental problem in
various fields (social, cultural, political, economic, or institutional) generates answers not
based on evidence and of limited feasibility (Andersson and Wallin 2000). Apart from the
need to confront different disciplines, the management of environmental problems involves a
process of social learning and requires cooperation at different levels, including individual,
community, and government (Dyball et al. 2007). Other authors highlight the importance of
understanding the biogeochemical processes that transform carbon compounds in natural
systems to understand climate change (Mohan et al. 2009). These authors insist that the main
cause of climate change is the worldwide unbalance among the processes that generate organic
Res Sci Educ

carbon through photosynthesis and those that transform and oxidize organic carbon. In this
way, Miller and Anderson (2017) suggest teaching climate change from a carbon cycling
perspective. This approach is based on the consideration that tracing matter and energy are
fundamental practices for students to understand how anthropic activities lead to an increase in
the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and how this increase causes the enhancement
greenhouse effect.
Another problem revealed in numerous studies is the weak relationship between knowledge
on climate change and pro-environmental attitudes (Karpudewan et al. 2015). This may be due
to global environmental problems resulting from climate change not being perceivable by
students’ direct experience (Francis et al. 1993).

Previous Studies on Alternative Ideas and Mental Models on Climate

Change

The first studies on students’ conceptions of the greenhouse effect and climate change date
back to the 1990s. Table 1 shows some results of the studies published from 2010 to the
present day which we consider relevant to this investigation.
With the purpose of reporting a general summary which shows the diversity of students’
conceptions about the greenhouse effect and global warming, we focus the description of previous
findings in four fundamental aspects: (1) what greenhouse effect and climate change is, (2) the
causes of climate change, (3) impact of climate change on humans and the natural environment,
and (4) actions to slow down climate change. Regarding the first aspect, research has revealed that,
in general, students do not know what the greenhouse effect is, do not distinguish between global
warming and the greenhouse effect and/or link these atmospheric phenomena with the destruction
of the ozone layer (Andersson and Wallin 2000; Boyes and Stanisstreet 1993; Fisher 1998; García-
Rodeja and Lima 2012; Groves and Pugh 1999; Klosterman and Sadler 2010; Liarakou et al. 2011;
Meadows and Wiesenmayer 1999; Pruneau et al. 2001; Punter et al. 2011; Yazdanparast et al.
2013). Moreover, in some cases, this confusion of ideas between the greenhouse effect and the
ozone layer is maintained despite instruction (see, e.g., Fisher 1998; García-Rodeja and Lima
2012). Furthermore, the lack of knowledge about what the greenhouse effect and climate change
are concerns not only mid-level students. Fernández et al. (2011) noted that the knowledge
possessed by university students on climate change does not differ significantly from that of most
of the population, perceiving in their discourse an influence of the media, which was not expected,
especially among students of science-related degrees, which should be able to clarify certain
aspects such as the fact that climate change is a broader term that includes other environmental
problems besides global warming.
Regarding the causes of climate change, in addition to the destruction of the ozone layer,
Taber and Taylor (2009) found that 29 primary school students (12–13 years) considered, even
after a teaching activity on climate change, that the use of nuclear energy contributed to global
warming. Later, Punter et al. (2011) detected that students did not include energy consumed in
homes or deforestation as causes of climate change, while they did associate this environmen-
tal problem directly with emissions from factories and motor vehicles. Another noteworthy
finding in relation to the causes of climate change was that students identified carbon dioxide
as a greenhouse gas, but not other gases such as methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), nitrous
oxide, or tropospheric ozone (Bodzin et al. 2014; Fernández et al. 2011; Fisher 1998). Kilinç
et al. (2008) attributed the low proportion of students who identified tropospheric ozone as a
Table 1 Previous research on the understanding of students and pre-service teachers on climate change

Authors/year Participants/ages Method Results

Klosterman and Sadler 2010 108 students Questionnaire with open-ended and After examining social scientific issues, students reached more precise
15–16 years closed questions. levels of knowledge, although they maintained certain alternative
conceptions such as relating the destruction of the ozone layer to
global warming.
Aydin and Coşkun 2010 553 students Interviews and questionnaire with The most recurring idea among students was that human actions are
12–13 years open-ended questions. the main cause of global warming (18%).
Fernández et al. 2011 506 university students Questionnaire with open-ended Most of the students linked climate change to increasing CO2
and closed tasks. concentrations in the atmosphere, without referring to other long-term
greenhouse gases such as methane.
Liarakou et al. 2011 626 students Questionnaire with 22 closed questions. 63.26% of students claimed that the destruction of the ozone layer
13–14 and 16–17 years increases the greenhouse effect.
Punter et al. 2011 379 students Questionnaire with open-ended Participants showed a confusion of ideas between climate change
12–16 years and closed questions. and ozone depletion.
Shepardson et al. 2011a 225 students Predict-observe-explain (POE) strategy Five mental models were identified, three of which could easily be
12–13 years made to evolve towards the models of school science through
curricular content and appropriate teaching activities.
Fernández et al. 2011 506 university students Questionnaire with open-ended Most of the students linked climate change to increasing CO2
and closed tasks. concentrations in the atmosphere, without referring to other
long-term greenhouse gases such as methane.
Liarakou et al. 2011 626 students Questionnaire with 22 closed questions. 63.26% of students claimed that the destruction of the ozone layer
13–14 and 16–17 years increases the greenhouse effect.
Punter et al. 2011 379 students Questionnaire with open-ended Participants showed a confusion of ideas between climate change
12–16 years and closed questions. and ozone depletion.
Shepardson et al. 2011a 225 students Predict-observe-explain (POE) strategy Five mental models were identified, three of which could easily
12–13 years be made to evolve towards the models of school science through
curricular content and appropriate teaching activities.
Shepardson et al. 2011b 51 secondary school Questionnaire with four open-ended 45% of students did not think global warming could affect society
students questions and one drawing. because they trusted in the ability of human beings to develop
technologies that would reduce climate change or enable us to
adapt to the changes it causes.
Chhokar et al. 2011 768 students Questionnaire with 44 closed questions. It was found that Indian students show a stronger willingness to
11–16 years undertake actions pro-environmental than European or
Australian students.
García-Rodeja and Lima 2012 22 students Questionnaire with open-ended 25% of students said that the destruction of the ozone layer intensifies
15–16 years and closed questions. the greenhouse effect.
Ratinen et al. 2013 20 pre-service primary Essays writings, drawings, and Most of the participants, even after instruction, did not relate an
teachers video recordings. increase in levels of greenhouse gases to climate change.
Res Sci Educ
Table 1 (continued)

Authors/year Participants/ages Method Results

Res Sci Educ

Yazdanparast et al. 2013 1035 secondary Questionnaire with 42 open-ended 71.2% of participants thought that global warming increased the
school students. and closed questions. number of cases of skin cancer.
Karpudewan et al. 2014 73 students Questionnaire with open-ended They found that a curriculum based on constructivist principles led
16–17 years and closed questions. to a reduction of alternative ideas on environmental issues such
as global warming.
Bodzin et al. 2014 868 students Questionnaire with open-ended and 69.6% of students did not realize that water vapor contributed to
13–14 multiple-choice questions. the greenhouse effect and only 22.4% of students associated
tropospheric ozone with climate change.
Reinfried and Tempelmann 2014 14 students Drawings and interviews. Three mental models were identified: (1) isolated pieces of knowledge,
13 years (2) reduced heat input, and (3) increase in heat input.
Kroufek 2014 15 pre-service Conceptual maps. The most common alternative conceptions were the destruction of
teachers the ozone layer as a prerequisite for the emergence of climate
change and the link between this environmental problem and the
release of water vapor from the melting icecaps.
Anyanwu et al. 2015 194 secondary teachers Questionnaire with 15 multiple- Despite a high level of literacy in the causes and mechanism of
of Geography choice questions. climate change, they did not readily recognize water vapor as
the main contributor to the natural greenhouse effect or understand
the concept of carbon sink.
Karpudewan et al. 2015 115 students Questionnaire with closed questions It was found that the 5E learning approach improves students’
11 years and interviews. knowledge of climate change and causes a change in attitude towards
more correct forms from an environmental perspective.
Bofferding and Kloser 2015 387 students Questionnaire with open-ended After instruction, only 10% of students proposed measures to
11–18 years questions. reduce CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change.
Dawson 2015 438 students Questionnaire with open-ended 20% of students said that climate change was related to the greenhouse
14–15 years questions and interviews. effect.
Christensen and Knezek 2015 1576 students Climate Change Attitude Survey (CCAS) A relationship was found between students’ beliefs about the climate
10–14 years and their ability to take action to mitigate climate change.
Chang and Pascua 2016 27 students Semi-structured interviews. Some participants exhibited a hybrid model in which climate change
14–15 years is caused due to an interaction between the ozone layer and
greenhouse gases.
Harris and Gold 2017 164 college students Sketches of the greenhouse effect They identified seven mental models on greenhouse effect and found
before and after a 30-min lesson. that an approach based on learning about molecular-scale greenhouse
gases behavior allows an evolution of non-expertise models towards
the scientific model.
 Res Sci Educ

greenhouse gas to students’ difficulty in differentiating between stratospheric and tropospheric

ozone, where this gas has always been considered beneficial thanks to the fact that it offers
protection from ultraviolet radiation.
With regard to the consequences of climate change, several studies have showed that a
significant proportion of students mistakenly believed that global warming could have a
negative influence on the number of people diagnosed with skin cancer (Boyes and
Stanisstreet 1993; Groves and Pugh 1999; Liarakou et al. 2011; Pruneau et al. 2003;
Yazdanparast et al. 2013). There have also been studies in which it was found that certain
students do not understand the immediate or future impact global warming may have on
society (Pruneau et al. 2001; Shepardson et al. 2011b). Kilinç et al. (2008) found that fewer
than half of the secondary school students (15–16 years) who participated in their study
acknowledged that an increase in temperatures due to global warming could lead to an
expansion of the geographical distribution of certain living beings, such as insects.
In general, students seem to have a better understanding of the actions that could be taken to
slow down climate change than of its causes and consequences (Groves and Pugh 1999) and
although they lack specific knowledge about the actions that could be undertaken to curb
climate change, students also show great concern for the environment and are aware of their
important role as citizens in combating environmental problems in general and climate change
in particular (Papadimitriou 2004). For example, Bodzin et al. (2014) noted that most of the
students were able to cite several personal and social actions to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions into the atmosphere, including changing transport habits, reducing electricity
consumption, using renewable energy sources or planting trees.
Other authors went further in studying students’ understanding of climate change, inferring the
mental models in which students’ ideas of climate change were structured (e.g., Andersson and
Wallin 2000; Chang and Pascua 2016; García-Rodeja and Lima 2012; Harris and Gold 2017;
Koulaidis and Christidou 1999; Reinfried and Tempelmann 2014; Shepardson et al. 2011a).
García-Rodeja and Lima (2012) noted that the initial models with strong internal coherence for
students were used as structures to accommodate new information, but the alternative models
were not modified in any substantial way. Shepardson et al. (2011a) identified five mental models
on climate change and found that three of them are likely to be easily modified through
appropriate teaching activities and curriculum. These authors claimed that the most difficult
models to modify are the most coherent. Such is the case of the model that considers that
greenhouse gases cause ozone depletion or formation which allows more of the sun’s rays to
reach the Earth or causes the sun’s rays to be trapped. Therefore, what inhibits the development of
students’ mental models is the existence of ideas that, although they may be alternatives, are
interconnected in a way that provide a high coherence to the model. Instead, the descriptive
models or those constituted by ideas close to the ideas that integrate the model of school science
are easy to change. Other authors such as Reinfried and Tempelmann (2014) identified three
alternative conceptions of the greenhouse effect, each describing a different initial mental model.
These authors found that the learning pathway followed in the evolution of students’ models to
those of school science depends on their previous knowledge. These authors also claimed that
representations with greater explanatory power are more difficult to change because students
must transform their subjective coherent models to construct a totally different model. On the
other hand, McGinnis et al. (2017) developed a learning progression for three consequences of
climate change: enhanced urban heat island effect, extreme weather, and sea level rise. These
authors observed that when students describe the causes and mechanisms of sea level rise, they
advance from macroscopic to microscopic explanations.
Res Sci Educ

Methodology

In this paper, a qualitative methodological approach is used and it constitutes a case study. This
approach allows investigating a phenomenon in its real context (Yin 2003), deepening its
knowledge through a study of a small group of students (Taylor and Bodgan 1998). It is clear
that this type of study does not seek to generalize results and conclusions to other studies, but it
does allow for comparisons with other studies of similar nature. The coincidence of results, or
common patterns, is what allows a certain degree of generalization.

Participants and Context

This research was conducted at a secondary school in Santiago de Compostela, a city in north-
western Spain. The participants were 40 seventh grade students (12–13 years) who received
specific instruction about climate change. This topic was addressed in a teaching unit on the
atmosphere. This unit lasted five 50-min sessions and included the following contents:
structure, composition, and functions of the atmosphere; impact of human activities on the
atmosphere; air pollution and associated environmental problems; the natural and the enhanced
greenhouse effect. As showed in Table 2, the first activity of the unit was the pre-test. In the
second activity, participants watched a 20-min video, answered a series of questions individ-
ually, and discussed about these questions in large group. The video content addressed the
structure, the composition, and the major environmental problems in the atmosphere, identi-
fying causes, effects, and possible solutions regarding climate change. After watching the
video, the teacher projected different slides to explain what the atmosphere is and its different
stages (troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere, and exosphere). She also de-
scribed the functions of the atmosphere, among them the regulation of the temperature,
distinguishing between the natural greenhouse effect and the enhanced greenhouse effect,
and explained the greenhouse gases. Besides these explanations, she showed students different
diagrams of the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect and addressed different actions to slow
down climate change, among them planting trees. The third activity was a negotiation table in
which students prepared a series of arguments for or against the construction of a thermal
power plant in their city. For this, they were provided with different materials with data from
which they could prepare their arguments. It is important to note that the teaching unit was
designed by the teacher, without the intervention of the researchers. It means that she did
during the classes what she used to do, without any patterns established by the research.

Table 2 Sequence of activities related to climate change implemented in the classroom

No. of Activity Objectives for students Content

activity

1 Pre-test (1st session) Express and learn about their –

initial ideas.
2 The atmosphere and Identify the major environmental Structure, composition, and
climate change problems in the atmosphere major environmental
(2nd and 3rd sessions) and their causes. problems in the atmosphere.
3 Negotiation table In a practical way, relate human activities Impact of human activities
(4th and 5th sessions) to their impact on the atmosphere. on the atmosphere.
Propose agreed solutions. Greenhouse gases.
 Res Sci Educ

On the other hand, the textbook used by the students in their daily classes included a
teaching unit dedicated to the atmosphere and its major environmental problems. Although the
purpose of this study is not to do a systematic analysis of textbooks to see how the topic of
climate change is addressed, it is worth mentioning for a further discussion of the results that
the students’ textbook included some elements that may lead to common misconceptions. For
example, there were diagrams to explain the mechanism of the greenhouse effect that show the
existence of a greenhouse layer above the Earth’s that traps and reflects the sun’s rays. These
diagrams also included factories discharging air pollutants into the atmosphere as if pollution
in general increases the greenhouse effect. In addition, the textbook presented the environ-
mental problems in the atmosphere under the same title as if they were the same thing.

Data Collection

The participants responded individually to the same questionnaire before and after instruction.
Thus, from this point on, we will refer to the questionnaire as pre-test and post-test to
differentiate the moment when it was completed. The questionnaire (Table 3) used as a data
collection instrument is inspired by previous papers (Boyes and Stanisstreet 1993; Dawson
2015; Dove 1996; García-Rodeja and Lima 2012; Karpudewan et al. 2015; Klosterman and
Sadler 2010; Punter et al. 2011). Open-ended questions were preferred since they left room for
a more accurate description of students’ conceptions and mental models than closed questions.
Table 3 shows the items of the questionnaire. In order to justify why this instrument was
created, we describe below the purpose of each question. The first question aims to make
explicit the students’ ideas about what is climate change. The second question was taken
from the questionnaire of Dawson (2015) and aims to indicate what causes climate change.
The third question was adapted from the questionnaire of Klosterman and Sadler (2010)
and aims to know to what extent students distinguish between the greenhouse effect and
climate change. The fourth question was taken from the questionnaire of Dove (1996) and
its purpose is for students to represent their ideas about the greenhouse effect. The
students’ drawings might be considered representations of their mental models and show
characteristics of these models that are inaccessible though other procedures (Shepardson
et al. 2011a; White and Gunstone 1992). The purpose of the fifth question is for students to
suggest actions to slow down climate change.

Data Analysis

The students’ answers were subjected to two types of analysis. The first analysis was aimed to
identify the conceptions held by students, and the second one to identify their mental models
before and after instruction. During the first analysis (reading and preliminary interpretation of
the answers to each question), categories were generated describing the key ideas or elements
of explanation to which students referred in their answers (Fisher 1998). In order to provide a
degree of triangulation and increase the validity of the qualitative analysis, the process of
generating categories was carried out by the researchers independently (Patton 2002). To
ensure the coding was consistent, an inter-rater reliability coefficient was calculated by
comparing the authors’ coding. An 80% level of inter-rater reliability was achieved. The
discrepant categories were reviewed several times by the researchers until a consensus was
reached. In this inductive and iterative process, meanings were constructed from data (Patton
2002). When we refer to the data analysis as inductive, we want to express that categories were
Res Sci Educ

Table 3 Questionnaire items

1 What is climate change? Explain it in your own words.
2 What are the causes of climate change?
3 Are the greenhouse effect and climate change the same thing? Why?
4 Try to illustrate the greenhouse effect using this diagram.

5 What actions do you suggest to slow down climate change?

inferred in interaction with data. However, when the students’ responses were similar to those
described in previous studies on climate change, categories used in these studies were adapted.
This first analysis made it possible to describe the frequency of certain elements of
explanation, both before and after instruction. In a second stage, each questionnaire was
analyzed globally, incorporating each student’s conceptions in broader constructs, to
which we refer as the students’ explanatory models or mental models (García-Rodeja
and Lima 2012; Reinfried and Tempelmann 2014; Shepardson et al. 2011a). The pre-test
was used to infer an initial model and the post-test was used for a final model, which made
it possible to examine the evolution of each student’s model by comparing the two. In
addition, as mental models are idiosyncratic in nature, it was decided to go one step further
in the analysis by setting different levels of sophistication in the inferred mental models so
that each level groups together the models that have several characteristics in common.

Findings and Discussion

In order to clarify the presentation of data, this section is divided into two subsections. The
first subsection includes a description of students’ conceptions on climate change. For
each question, we first present the results obtained in this study, together with the
categories used for the analysis. Secondly, the findings that support or refute previous
research on climate change are discussed. Regarding categories, each one is accompanied
by a number representing the frequency with which each element of explanation appears in
the participants’ answers. It is important to note that, as they are open-ended questions, a
student can refer to several elements of explanation in the same answer. For this reason,
the sum of the frequencies of all the categories may be higher than the number of
participants. Moreover, in some questions, each category is illustrated by the students’
written work. In the second subsection, a description is given of the levels established for
the mental models regarding the greenhouse effect and an analysis is made of their
evolution in each participant after instruction. In any case, to protect the students’
identities, they were assigned codes.
 Res Sci Educ

Results and Discussion of the First Analysis: Conceptions on Climate Change

Question 1: What Is Climate Change? The analysis of the students’ answers to this
question identified six main categories (Table 4). The answers considered correct or partially
correct were grouped together in four of the categories and they were obtained by adapting
some of the categories used by Klosterman and Sadler (2010) and Dawson (2015) in their
studies. The other answers were grouped into the two remaining categories, classified as wrong
answer or no answer.
From the results obtained in this study, it is noted that most answers corresponded to the
category that mentions only the increase in temperature, both before (40%) and after (43%)
instruction. Moreover, when comparing the pre-test and the post-test results, the proportion of
students who included in their descriptions of climate change the increase in the temperature
due to the influence of the enhanced greenhouse effect increased by 15%.
Regarding previous research, it is observed that, in contrast to Dawson’s study (Dawson
2015) in which a small proportion of students gave responses noting that climate change was a
change in weather patterns, students’ answers in our study frequently linked climate change to
a change in climate.

Question 2: What Are the Causes of Climate Change? The categorization of the
answers to this question is given in Table 5. Of the 16 categories defined in this study, some
of them grouped together the wrong answers, showing the students’ alternative ideas regarding
the causes of climate change. The categories named as increase in the greenhouse effect,
greenhouse effect, GHG emissions, CO2 emissions, CFC emissions, aerosols, pollution or
pollutant gases, human activities, deforestation, acid rain, and destruction of ozone layer were
adapted in interaction with data from other studies (García-Rodeja and Lima 2012; Kilinç et al.
2008; Papadimitriou 2004; Punter et al. 2011).
As shown in Table 5, the results of this study indicate that the categories most often cited in
the pre-test by 7th grade students were referred to pollution (50%) and carbon dioxide
emissions (18%). Pollution was interpreted as a generic answer because, although there are
multiple pollutants, they do not all contribute to climate change. It is also worth mentioning
that some students showed confusion between causes and effects or consequences, since they
referred to rising temperatures and the melting icecaps as causes of climate change.
When comparing the pre-test and post-test results, an increase of 30% is observed in the use
of the element of explanation, whereby the cause of climate change is the increase in the
greenhouse effect. Moreover, deforestation continued to be one of the anthropic causes less
related to climate change. This may be because students tend not to conceive trees as carbon
sinks. In addition, after instruction, more students referred to other environmental problems not
directly related to climate change as causes, such as acid rain or the destruction of the ozone
layer. This might be because when the teacher addressed the major environmental problems in
the atmosphere, she did not stress enough to distinguish the enhanced greenhouse effect, the
ozone depletion, and the acid rain. Moreover, the textbook helped to reinforce these miscon-
ceptions by presenting these environmental problems under the same heading as a whole.
As far as previous research is concerned, it is observed that the finding regarding pollution in
general as a cause of climate change is aligned with the results of other studies (Andersson and
Wallin 2000; García-Rodeja and Lima 2012; Punter et al. 2011). In the students’ textbook, the
enhanced greenhouse effect was represented by images that included factories discharging air
pollutants into the atmosphere. We agree with Shepardson et al. (2011a) that this implies that air
 Res Sci Educ

Table 4 Frequency and percentage of references to the different elements of explanation in the answers to the question: What is climate change? (N = 40)

Categories Examples 7th grade (12–13 years) 7th grade (12–13 years)
pre-test post-test

Climate change is associated with a change in climate and/or It is a consequence of the increase in the greenhouse 3 (8%) 9 (23%)
an increase in temperature as a result of the greenhouse effect, in which the temperature of the Earth increases
effect or the accumulation of greenhouse gases (right answer). (post-test, student 9).
Links climate change to an increase in temperature with the It is the increase in global temperature, causing damage 3 (8%) 0 (0%)
associated consequences (partially right answer). such as melting icecaps and rising sea levels
(pre-test, student 26).
Links climate change to an increase in temperature It is the increase in temperature (pre-test, student 23). 16 (40%) 17 (43%)
(partially right answer).
Links climate change to a change in climate. When the climate changes (pre-test, student 4). 13 (33%) 10 (25%)
Wrong answer. It is the reaction that occurs when one of the factors 4 (10%) 1 (3%)
and the ecosystems are not regulated
(pre-test, student 19).
No answer. – 1 (3%) 3 (8%)
 Res Sci Educ

Table 5 Frequency and percentage of references to different elements of explanation in the answers to the
question: What are the causes of climate change? (N = 40)

Categories 7th grade 7th grade

(12–13 years) (12–13 years)
pre-test post-test

Increase in the greenhouse effect 0 (0%) 12 (30%)

Greenhouse effect 2 (5%) 3 (10%)
GHG emissions 3 (8%) 8 (20%)
CO2 emissions 7 (18%) 1 (3%)
CFC emissions 0 (0%) 1 (3%)
Aerosols 0 (0%) 1 (3%)
Pollution or pollutant gases 20 (50%) 12 (30%)
Human activities 5 (13%) 8 (20%)
Natural causes 0 (0%) 2 (5%)
Deforestation 1 (3%) 0 (0%)
Overexploitation of natural resources 2 (5%) 0 (0%)
Effects Melting icecaps 3 (8%) 0 (0%)
Temperature rise 3 (8%) 2 (5%)
Other problems Acid rain 0 (0%) 3 (8%)
Destruction of the ozone layer 1 (3%) 7 (18%)
Don’t know/no answer 2 (5%) 2 (5%)

pollution in general is considered as the main cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Our
results also support the findings of Chang and Pascua (2016), since other activities with a high
weight in greenhouse gases emissions, such as livestock, were not mentioned by the students.

Question 3: Are the Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change the Same Thing? From
the students’ answers, we have generated three main categories: no, yes, and don’t know/no
answer (Table 6). The no category was divided into several subcategories since some students’
answers contain only the adverb no, while other students’ answers contained more or less
appropriate explanations.
Table 6 shows that only 10% of 7th grade students (12–13 years) gave answers in the pre-
test in which they correctly related the enhanced greenhouse effect to climate change. This
percentage rose to 33% after instruction, while the percentage of students who stated that
climate change is caused by the greenhouse effect decreased by 18%. This fact suggests that
the instruction helped students to understand the greenhouse effect as a natural phenomenon
essential for maintaining life on the planet. Some students, both before and after instruction,
wrongly related the greenhouse effect to the destruction of the ozone layer.

Question 4: Diagram of the Greenhouse Effect Table 7 shows the elements of explana-
tion used by students for their diagrams of the greenhouse effect. With the exception of the
category labeled as water vapor, all others were taken or adapted in interaction with data from
previous studies (García-Rodeja and Lima 2012; Shepardson et al. 2011a).
From the results obtained in this study, it is observed that in the pre-test, 88% of students
represented solar radiation, 25% included an unidentified layer, 40% drew a layer explicitly
identified with a layer of gases, 38% represented retained heat, and 38% included the radiation
emitted back towards the Earth.
In the post-test, some participants included infrared radiation in their drawings (40%) and
there was a significant increase in the explanation that involved the idea whereby part of the
Table 6 Frequency and percentage of references to the different elements of explanation in the answers to the question: Are the greenhouse effect and climate change the same thing?
Res Sci Educ

(N = 40)

Categories Examples 7th grade 7th grade

(12–13 years) (12–13 years)
pre-test post-test

No. – 38 (95%) 36 (90%)

Relationship between the enhanced No, the greenhouse effect is a natural cause and its increase is 4 (10%) 13 (33%)
greenhouse effect and climate change causing climate change (post-test, student 6).
(right answer).
Partial definition of the natural greenhouse No, the greenhouse effect is the Earth’s ability to retain part of 10 (25%) 10 (25%)
effect, but it is not related to climate the radiation, whereas climate change is the
change correctly (partially right answer). change in temperature, rainfall... (pre-test,
student 27).
Wrong answer. The greenhouse effect causes No, because the greenhouse effect is what creates 9 (23%) 2 (5%)
climate change. climate change (pre-test, student 10).
The greenhouse effect is No, because the greenhouse effect is caused by 2 (5%) 2 (5%)
caused by climate change. climate change (pre-test, student 21).
The greenhouse effect is No, because climate change is when the temperature 1 (3%) 2 (5%)
related to the ozone layer. rises or falls and the greenhouse effect is caused
by pollution, which makes holes in the ozone
layer and causes more solar radiation
(pre-test, student 1).
The greenhouse effect is No, the greenhouse effect is what prevents ultraviolet 1 (3%) 1 (3%)
related to UV radiation. rays from colliding with the Earth
(pre-test, student 37).
Others. . 6 (15%) 6 (15%)
No explanation given. – 5 (13%) 1 (3%)
Yes – 2 (5%) 1 (3%)
Don’t know/no – 0 2 (5%)
answer
 Res Sci Educ

Table 7 Frequency and percentage of references to different elements of explanation in the answers to the
question: drawing of the greenhouse effect (N = 40)

Categories 7th grade 7th grade

(12–13 years) (12–13 years)
pre-test post-test

No answer 2 (5%) 0 (3%)

Sun rays 35 (88%) 39 (98%)
Infrared radiation 0 (0%) 16 (40%)
Ultraviolet radiation 3 (8%) 2 (5%)
Radiation emitted back into space 9 (23%) 35 (88%)
Radiation emitted back towards the planet 15 (38%) 33 (83%)
Retained heat 15 (38%) 11 (13%)
Ozone layer 4 (10%) 4 (10%)
Layer of gases 16 (40%) 6 (15%)
Layer 10 (25%) 17 (43%)
GHG 0 (0%) 7 (18%)
CO2 2 (5%) 2 (5%)
Water vapor 0 (0%) 2 (5%)

radiation emitted back from the surface managed to get through the atmosphere and was lost in
space. This improvement after instruction might be due to the fact that the teacher used during
her classes a video that included several diagrams about the mechanism of the greenhouse
effect in which a distinction was made between infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation and
visible light. Moreover, in the post-test, some students referred explicitly to greenhouse gases
(18%). However, a relatively high percentage of students (43%) continued to incorporate a
layer in their drawings of the greenhouse effect. Although the teacher mentioned during the
classes that the greenhouse gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere rather than forming
a layer, it seems that the diagrams included in the video and textbook showing the existence of
a greenhouse gas layer above the Earth’s surface that traps and reflects the sun’s energy might
reinforce the students’ misconceptions about this phenomenon (Harris and Gold 2017;
Shepardson et al. 2011a).
Comparing the results of this study with those of previous research on climate change, it is
worth mentioning that the idea of a layer of gases that traps solar radiation also appears
frequently in other papers (Andersson and Wallin 2000; Koulaidis and Christidou 1999;
Pruneau et al. 2003). In addition, similar to previous studies (Andersson and Wallin 2000;
Kilinç et al. 2008; Shepardson et al. 2011a), before instruction, few student distinguished
between types of solar energy, with most referring only to the sun’s rays.

Question 5: What Actions Do You Suggest to Slow Down Climate Change? Table 8
shows the categories generated from the analysis of the answers regarding the actions proposed
by students to mitigate climate change. With the exception of the categories labeled as
reducing production in factories, not throwing rubbish into rivers and seas, and reduce
CGC emissions, all the others were taken or adapted in interaction with data from previous
studies (Boyes et al. 2009; Chhokar et al. 2011; García-Rodeja and Lima 2012; Papadimitriou
2004). From the results obtained in this study, it is noted that a large proportion of students in
the pre-test and post-test suggested a reduction of vehicle use and proposed increasing the use
of public transport and cycling or walking short distances (45%). A high percentage of
students (30%) also mentioned more generic actions, such as not polluting the environment.
Res Sci Educ

Table 8 Frequency and percentage of references to different elements of explanation in the answers to the
question: What actions do you suggest to slow down climate change? (N = 40)

Categories 7th grade 7th grade

(12–13 years) (12–13 years)
pre-test post-test

No answer. 2 (5%) 3 (8%)

Gases Reduce CO2 emissions. 3 (8%) 3 (8%)
Reduce GHG emissions. 0 (0%) 1 (3%)
Reduce gas emissions. 5 (13%) 2 (5%)
Reduce CFC emissions and aerosols. 1 (3%) 8 (20%)
Energy Reduce consumption of fossil fuels. 4 (10%) 0 (0%)
Increase consumption of renewable energy. 3 (8%) 3 (8%)
Reduce the use of cars (using public transport, bicycles, 18 (45%) 25 (63%)
electric cars, walking).
Save energy, responsible and efficient consumption. 2 (5%) 20 (50%)
Others Generic actions, such as not polluting the environment or 12 (30%) 4 (10%)
being more careful with the environment.
Not cutting down trees. Planting trees. 4 (10%) 6 (15%)
Not throwing rubbish into rivers and seas. 2 (5%) 1 (3%)
Recycling. 5 (13%) 5 (13%)
Reducing the use of or not using products that damage 1 (3%) 0 (0%)
the ozone layer.
Reducing production in factories. 3 (8%) 3 (8%)

The suggestion of this action is coherent with the results obtained from the other questions in
the questionnaire, where the 7th graders referred mainly to pollution as a cause of climate
change. After instruction, we also observed a significant increase in the number of references
to energy-saving measures in the home and responsible energy consumption, 50% compared
to the 5% of the pre-test. However, actions such as not cutting down trees were hardly
mentioned because, as we saw in the analysis of the third question, deforestation is poorly
related to climate change.
As for previous research, the finding referred to a reduction of vehicle use as the main action
to slow down climate change is consistent with the literature (Bodzin et al. 2014). However,
unlike other studies (García-Rodeja and Lima 2012; Punter et al. 2011), there were few students
who suggested reducing gases emissions such as CO2, the main anthropogenic greenhouse gas.

Results and Discussion of the Second Analysis: Mental Models

The following describes the four levels taken from the students’ mental models on the greenhouse
effect. The levels are constructions that aim to represent the most important characteristics of the
models. As in the Koulaidis and Christidou (1999) study, the description of each level in Table 9 is
accompanied by a diagram representing graphically the main elements of the models in the level.
The levels have been numbered 1 to 4 in increasing order of sophistication, with a view to showing
a progression in students’ learning on the greenhouse effect.
The models in level 1 are purely descriptive and similar to what Reinfried and Tempelmann
(2014) called isolated pieces of knowledge. The models in levels 2 and 3 include a mechanism
that is consistent with the causes and effects of and strategies for mitigating climate change,
even though they are alternative explanatory models to the conceptual model of the green-
house effect. According to level 2, pollution causes ozone depletion or formation which allows
 Res Sci Educ

Table 9 Description of the levels

in the mental models of the 7th
grade students on the greenhouse
effect
Description of the level Diagram

This level groups descriptive models in which no operating

mechanisms are shown. For this reason, it is considered the
lowest level of sophistication. Climate change is related to the
increase in temperature of the Earth, but no reference is made to
1 what the greenhouse effect is. This level also includes the models
in which students present the idea that the greenhouse effect
causes changes to the weather and the mechanism that regulates
daytime and night-time temperatures.

This level includes the models that offer the idea whereby the
destruction of the ozone layer and the ozone hole caused by
2 pollution let more solar radiation reach the Earth and heat it up,
or whereby pollution thickens the ozone layer, preventing solar
radiation from being emitted back into space.

This level includes the models with the idea that there are
greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere and trap
heat. It also includes the idea of a layer of gases that surrounds
the Earth. To reduce climate change, students suggest reducing
3 gas emissions. The models grouped at this level are more
sophisticated than those included in Level 2 because students
recognise the existence of greenhouse gases, claiming they are
the culprits of global warming.

This level grouped together the models including the idea that
greenhouse gases absorb part of the radiation emitted by the
Earth, preventing it from being completely emitted into space.
Unlike the models on Level 3, the models on this level include
4 the idea that greenhouse gases are evenly distributed in the
atmosphere, rather than being concentrated in one layer. This is
considered the highest level of sophistication because it groups
models very close to the school science model of the greenhouse
effect.

more of the sun’s rays to reach the Earth or causes the sun’s rays to be trapped. Models in level
2 are comparable to the model 2 identified by Shepardson et al. (2011a, 2017) and the model
described by Reinfried and Tempelmann (2014) as Bincreasing heat input.^ The model E
reported in the study of Koulaidis and Christidou (1999) and the Ozone model described by
Harris and Gold (2017) also adapt to level 2. As far as level 3 is concerned, greenhouse gases
trap the sun’s rays, heating the Earth’s surface. This level also includes the idea of a layer of
gases that surrounds the Earth. Models in this level are similar to the model 4 described by
Res Sci Educ

Shepardson et al. (2011a, 2017). The mental models in level 4 are the ones closer to the school
science model of the greenhouse effect.
Table 10 shows the frequencies of each level of sophistication in the students’ mental models in
the pre-test and post-test. We observe that before instruction, the most frequent level was level 1
(48%) students in level 1 refer to pollution as the cause of climate change and the measures they give
to slow down climate change include reducing the use of private cars and not polluting. Eighteen
percent of students held models in level 2 before instruction. Students with models in level 2 confuse
and fuse ideas related to the ozone depletion and greenhouse effect, so to reduce climate change they
suggest reducing emissions of gases that affect the ozone layer. Twenty-three percent of students run
models in level 3 before instruction. Students with models in level 3 assume that greenhouse gases
cause greenhouse effect, but they do not understand that these gases are evenly distributed in the
atmosphere. Only 5% of students held models in level 4 before instruction. Students with models in
level 4 tend to more easily distinguish the visible radiation from the Sun and the infrared radiation
emitted by the Earth. Students with models in level 4 also tend to recognize that not all the radiation is
emitted back to Earth, but that part of it is emitted into space. After instruction, the most represen-
tative level was level 3 (38%). The highest level of sophistication held the second place, with a
quarter of students exhibiting models in level 4 after the teaching unit.
Figure 1 shows a chart representing shifts in students’ mental models on the greenhouse effect
before and after instruction. This type of chart provides more information than a conventional one,
indicating students who shifted their models on the greenhouse effect after instruction and reflecting
towards which new model the change occurred (Harris and Gold 2017). For example, eight students
remainedat level 1both the pre andpost-test, and two students who held a model in level 1 shifted to a
model in level 2 after instruction.Thecircles below the diagonal represent the students who fall down
from a higher level to a lower one. As it can be seen in Fig. 1, there are only two cases. One student fell
down from level 2 to level 1. Another student who had shown an initial model in level 4 moved to the
immediately lower level after instruction.
From Fig. 1, we can see that 22 students (55%) remained at the same level before and after
instruction. This might be because during instruction, insufficient emphasis was placed on
students being aware of their initial models and there were few opportunities to confront these
models with the models of school science. Seven students (18%) evolved from level 1 to level
3. Two participants (5%) evolved from level 1 to level 4, moving on from a level grouping
together merely descriptive models to the highest level of sophistication. The data also show
that four students who used models assigned to level 2, which associate the greenhouse effect
with the ozone layer, do not change model despite important conceptual errors. This is
probably because, as already stated in numerous studies, they are extremely practical for
students, allowing them to explain the causes and consequences of climate change (García-
Rodeja and Lima 2012; Reinfried and Tempelmann 2014).

Table 10 Ratio of 7th grade students associated with each level in the mental models and frequency of each
level (N = 40)

Level of sophistication Number of students Number of students

pre-test post-test

1 19 (48%) 9 (23%)
2 7 (18%) 6 (15%)
3 9 (23%) 15 (38%)
4 5 (13%) 10 (25%)
 Res Sci Educ

Post-test

Level 4 n=2 n=1 n=3 n=4

Level 3 n=7 n=1 n=6 n=1

Level 2 n=2 n=4

Level 1 n=8 n=1

0
0 1 2 3 4
Level Level Level Level

Pre-test
Fig. 1 Evolution of the levels in the mental models of 7th grade students on climate change before and after
instruction. Each circle represents the level of the mental model before (horizontal axis) and after (vertical axis)
the teaching activity. The circles on the diagonal represent the students who, to interpret the greenhouse effect,
applied a model on the same level of sophistication throughout the study. The size of the circles indicates in each
case the number of students whose model is on that level

Conclusions and Implications for Education

Most of the previous studies which address the important topic of students’ mental models of
climate change and the greenhouse effect refer to understanding before instruction. Authors
such as Rickinson (2001) noted that there are few studies dealing with students’ mental
models, and Shepardson et al. (2009) insisted on the need to conduct more researchers to gain
a better understanding of how students develop their models on climate change. Therefore, this
study represents a new contribution to the area of science education, describing the ideas and
levels of sophistication of students’ mental models on the greenhouse effect and climate
change, both before and after instruction.
With regard to the first research question that refers to students’ alternative ideas on climate change
and greenhouse effect, the explanations offered showed that after instruction, some of the students
wrongly associated this environmental problem with the reduction of the ozone layer, an idea already
discussed in previous studies (Andersson and Wallin 2000; Boyes and Stanisstreet 1993; Francis et al.
1993; García-Rodeja and Lima 2012; Punter et al. 2011). From the results of our study, we observed
that this type of alternative ideas might be reinforced by textbooks or teachers’ explanations that deal
with different environmental problems such as the acid rain, ozone depletion, and the enhanced
greenhouseeffectasasingleset.Whentacklingenvironmentalproblems,agreateremphasisshouldbe
placed on clarifying the causes and the mechanism of ozone depletion and global warming.
As causes of climate change, students gave, even after instruction, generic answers, mostly
using pollution as an element of explanation, where these results coincide with those of
Gómez-Granell and Cervera-March (1993). This finding can be attributed to the fact that
students know that this phenomenon takes places in the atmosphere, but they do not under-
stand the mechanism. Moreover, according to Shepardson et al. (2011a), the factories included
in the diagrams found in textbooks that represent the mechanism of the greenhouse effect
might contribute to the idea that pollution in general causes climate change.
Res Sci Educ

In addition, the answers students gave to suggest actions to mitigate climate change
revealed that they do not have a clear understanding of the prevention and correction measures
for solving this environmental problem. Indeed, in the pre-test, certain apparently obvious
measures, such as energy-saving in homes or reducing GHG emissions, were hardly men-
tioned or not mentioned at all. However, measures such as recycling waste have been
mentioned, both before and after instruction. This leads us to consider the reflection made
previously by Punter et al. (2011) whereby it is necessary to consider whether students are
really knowledgeable about the emission of greenhouse gases associated with the management
of solid waste or simply confuse this environmental problem with climate change.
With regard to the second research question that seeks to know at what levels of sophistication
are the students’ mental models on climate change and the greenhouse effect, we observed that
most students (48%) held models in level 1 before instruction. In this level that corresponds with
the lowest level of sophistication, there is no mechanism to explain the greenhouse effect. Almost
a quarter of the students (23%) showed models in level 3 before instruction. Students in this level
claim that greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere and trap heat, but they consider that
these gases are concentrated forming a layer in the atmosphere.
With regard to the third research question that refers to the differences between the students’
mental models on climate change before and after instruction, we observed a certain evolution
to other more sophisticated models after instruction. After instruction and for the first time, a
high percentage of students included the infrared radiation in their representations of the
greenhouse effect’s mechanism, and some of them distinguished between this radiation and
ultraviolet radiation. This demonstrates that a distinction between sunlight and terrestrial
radiation helps students to conceptualize the wave model, essential for students to construct
a scientific model of the greenhouse effect (Harris and Gold 2017; Ratinen et al. 2013).
From the results of this study, we can conclude that the descriptive models associated with
level 1 are likely to be modified and evolve towards the models of school science. Moreover,
as we note in the introduction of the paper when we describe conceptual change from the
perspective of mental mode ls, this evolution would not constitute a conceptual change in
terms of Chi (2008). Students who exhibit models assigned to level 1 have a very limited
previous knowledge concerning greenhouse effect. As a consequence, they reconstruct their
mental models by assimilating new information into the existing knowledge structures.
Something similar happens in the evolution of the models in level 3 towards the highest level
of sophistication. Models in which greenhouse gases are concentrated in a layer in the
atmosphere seem to be easily modified (Harris and Gold 2017). The idea of greenhouse gases
as the culprits of the greenhouse effect already exists and students simply have to learn that
these gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere rather than forming a layer. As Chi (2008)
state, adding and gap-filling a mental model constitute enrichment. However, the evolution of
models assigned to level 2 towards the models of school science would constitute a conceptual
change considering the ideas of Chi (2008). The existing differences between their previous
conceptions and the new information are so profound that students have to construct a
completely different mental model in order to understand greenhouse effect (Reinfried and
Tempelmann 2014). This change is apparently more difficult to achieve due to it implies a
modification in its highly coherent and extremely functional initial mental model (Francis et al.
1993; García-Rodeja and Lima 2012; Reinfried and Tempelmann 2014).
Therefore, a mental model can be descriptive, similar to what Reinfried and Tempelmann
(2014) call isolated pieces of knowledge. These types of models that correspond to the lowest
level of sophistication are constituted by single ideas and are easier to transform towards the
 Res Sci Educ

model of school science. In other cases, models are identified in which these single ideas or
Bisolated pieces of knowledge^ are interconnected with other ideas. Some of these ideas might
be alternative ideas, so that when students mentally run their models to predict and explain
phenomena, inappropriate conclusions and new alternative ideas are generated. When these
alternative models are extremely coherent and have a high personal explanatory value, their
change towards the model of school science is difficult to achieve (García-Rodeja and Lima
2012; Reinfried and Tempelmann 2014).
Another aspect that is important to note is that 55% of students remained at the same level
before and after instruction, with many students at the lowest level of sophistication. This
might be because during instruction the teacher presented the correct knowledge, but the
alternative models were not addressed correctly. During the teaching unit, insufficient empha-
sis was placed on students being aware of their initial models and there were few opportunities
to confront their models with the model of school science. The students just covered the pre-
test individually and then handed it to the teacher, without discussing the students’ answers.
Thus, the students could not be aware of their alternative models on climate change.
According to Chang and Pascua (2016), an appropriate understanding of the processes involved
in climate change constitute a key factor for students intelligently take actions in response to the
challenges posed by global warming. By this reason, it is highly necessary to students have an
accurate understanding about climate change and construct mental models as close to the model of
school science as possible. Given the above, we consider it recommendable for teachers to bear in
mind students’ mental models and alternative ideas to improve teaching and learning processes. As
Dawson (2015) points out, knowledge of students’ models makes it possible to use teaching
strategies and develop appropriate teaching resources to remove persistent misconceptions from
students’ representations.Forexample, if awidelyspreadidea amongourstudents is that greenhouse
gases constitute a layer in the atmosphere, we should avoid the use of teaching materials that
reinforce models such as type 3 and address the distribution of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
(Harris and Gold 2017). Strickhouser et al. (2017) suggest that using experiments and simulations in
which the mechanism of greenhouse gases is visible also help students to better understand climate
change. It is therefore necessary to create situations in the classroom that allow students to make
explicit their ideas and mental models, and compare their validity through discussion with teachers
and other students. Strickhouser et al. (2017) claim that guided discussions where the teacher
interacts with students help them to construct more scientific explanations on climate change. As
Gutiérrez (1994) reiterate, students will not modify their models unless they perceive that their
mental representations do not satisfy the conditions of consistency, robustness, and correspondence.
The development of mental models requires instruction and curricular materials that stimulate
students’ use of conceptual and physical models as tools for refining their mental models
(Shepardson et al. 2017). It is important to bear in mind that changing students’ mental models is
typically a long, nonlinear, and complex process that involves steps forwards and backwards and it is
strongly determined by emotional and social issues (Duit and Treagust 2003).
As the limitations of the study, it must be made clear that it does not seek to generalize
results to other cases due to the qualitative nature of the research involving a small sample size.
However, this study does allow for comparisons with other studies of a similar nature,
contributing to the knowledge of students’ conceptions and mental models on climate change
and the educational implications proposed to solve the difficulties in learning about this
environmental problem.
In the twenty-first century, environmental education is crucial for students and public at
large to understand why the greenhouse effect and climate change occur. This is the first step to
Res Sci Educ

understand what kind of things we can do or stop doing in order to slow down climate change.
We hope that this work will help to get a better understanding of students’ mental models
about these environmental issues with the aim of bringing students’ models closer to the
models of school science.

Funding Information This study was funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness
(EDU2012-38022-C02-01 and EDU2015-66643-C2-2-P).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have not conflict of interest.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical Standard All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with
the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

Andersson, B., & Wallin, A. (2000). Students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect, the societal consequences of
reducing CO2 emissions and the problem of ozone layer depletion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
37(10), 1096–1111. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1096::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-8.
Anyanwu, R., Le Grange, L., & Beets, P. (2015). Climate change science: the literacy of geography teachers in
the Western Cape province, South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 35(3), 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.15700/SAJE.V35N3A1160.
Arto, M., & Meira, P. A. (2011). Cuéntaselo a Gurb. El cambio climático y las ideas previas [Tell it to Gurb.
Climate change and previous ideas]. In P.A. Meira (Ed.), Conoce y valora el cambio climático. Propuestas
para trabajar en grupo (pp. 17–23). Santiago de Compostela: Mapfre.
Aydin, F., & Coşkun, M. (2010). Global warming’ perceptions of primary education 7th grade students in
Turkey. World Applied Sciences Journal, 10(4), 426–432.
Berkowitz, A. R., Ford, M. F., & Brewer, C. A. (2005). A framework for integrating ecological literacy, civics
literacy and environmental citizenship in environmental education. In E. A. Johnson & M. J. Mappin (Eds.),
Environmental education and advocacy: changing perspectives of ecology and education (pp. 227–266).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bodzin, A. M., Anastasio, D., Sahagian, D., Peffer, T., Dempsey, C., & Steelman, R. (2014). Investigating
climate change understandings of urban middle-level students. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3),
417–430. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-042.1.
Bofferding, L., & Kloser, M. (2015). Middle and high school students’ conceptions of climate change
mitigation and adaptation strategies. Environmental Education Research, 21(2), 275–294.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.888401.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1993). The greenhouse effect: children’s perception of causes, consequences and
cures. International Journal of Science Education, 15(5), 531–552.
Boyes, E., Skamp, K., & Stanisstreet, M. (2009). Australian secondary students’ views about global warming:
Beliefs about actions, and willingness to act. Research in Science Education, 39(5), 661–680.
Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming Science Education. Social Perspectives & Personal Reflections. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Chang, C., & Pascua, L. (2016). Singapore students’ misconceptions of climate change. International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, 25(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2015.1106206.
Chhokar, K., Dua, S., Taylor, N., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2011). Indian secondary students’ views about
global warming: beliefs about the usefulness of actions and willingness to act. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1167–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9254-z.
Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: belief revision, mental models transformation, and
categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
 Res Sci Educ

Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2015). The climate change attitude survey: measuring middle school student
beliefs and intentions to enact positive environmental change. International Journal of Environmental and
Science Education, 10(5), 773–788.
Dawson, V. (2015). Western Australian high school students’ understandings about the socioscientific
issue of climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1024–1043.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1015181.
Dove, J. (1996). Student teacher understanding of the greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion and acid rain.
Environmental Education Research, 2(1), 89–100.
Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography STCSE: students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Kiel:
University of Kiel.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. P. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science
teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09500690305016.
Dyball, R., Brown, V. A., & Kenn, M. (2007). Towards sustainability: five strands of social learning. In A. E. J.
Wals (Ed.), Social learning towards a sustainable world (pp. 181–194). Wageningen: Wageningen
Academic Publishers.
Fernández, G., González, G., & Molina, J. L. (2011). El cambio climático y el agua: Lo que piensan los
universitarios [Climate change and water: what undergraduates think]. Enseñanza de las ciencias: Revista de
investigación y experiencias didácticas, 29(3), 427–438.
Fisher, B. (1998). Australian students’ appreciation of the greenhouse effect and the ozone hole. Australian
Science Teachers Journal, 44(3), 46–55.
Francis, C., Boyes, E., Qualter, A., & Stanisstreet, M. (1993). Ideas of elementary students about reducing the
Bgreenhouse effect^. Science Education, 77(4), 375–392.
Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in
driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 47–61.
García-Rodeja, I., & Lima, G. (2012). Sobre el cambio climático y el cambio de los modelos de pensamiento de
los alumnos [On climate change and the change of models of students’ thinking]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias,
30(3), 195–218.
Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Goldman, D., Yavetz, B., & Pe’er, S. (2014). Student teachers’ attainment of environmental literacy in relation to
their discipline major during undergraduate studies. International Journal of Environmental & Science
Education, 9(4), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2014.222a.
Gómez-Granell, C., & Cervera-March, S. (1993). Development of conceptual knowledge and attitudes about
energy and environment. International Journal of Science Education, 5(15), 553–565. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0950069930150508.
Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal
of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289976.
Groves, F. H., & Pugh, A. F. (1999). Elementary pre-service teacher perceptions of the greenhouse effect. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009433705790.
Gutiérrez, R. (1994). Coherencia del pensamiento espontáneo y causalidad. El caso de la dinámica elemental
[Coherency of spontaneous thinking and causality. The case of elemental dynamics] (Doctoral thesis).
Madrid: Complutense University of Madrid.
Gutiérrez, R. (2004). La modelización y los procesos de enseñanza/aprendizaje [Modelling and teaching/learning
processes]. Alambique: Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, 10(42), 8–18.
Harris, S. E., & Gold, A. U. (2017). Learning molecular behavior may improve student explanatory
models of the greenhouse effect. Environmental Education Research, 1–18. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1280448.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). 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: IPCC.
Jickling, B., & Wals, E. J. (2008). Globalization and environmental education: looking beyond sustainable
development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270701684667.
Jones, N. A., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P., & Leitch, A. (2011). Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of
theory and methods. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 46.
Karpudewan, M., Roth, W. M., & Chandrakesan, K. (2014). Remediating misconception on climate change
among secondary school students in Malaysia. Environmental Education Research, 21(4), 631–648.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.891004.
Karpudewan, M., Roth, W. M., & Abdullah, M. N. S. B. (2015). Enhancing primary school students’ knowledge
about global warming and environmental attitude using climate change activities. International Journal of
Science Education, 37(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.958600.
Res Sci Educ

Kilinç, A., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. (2008). Turkish students’ ideas about global warming. International
Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 3(2), 89–98.
Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains
associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8),
1017–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902894512.
Koulaidis, V., & Christidou, V. (1999). Models of students’ thinking concerning the greenhouse effect and
teaching implications. Science Education, 83(5), 559–576.
Kroufek, R. (2014). Pre-service primary teachers’ misconceptions about the greenhouse effect. In L. Gómez, A.
López, I. Candel (Eds.), ICERI 2014 proceedings (pp. 4069–4074). Seville: IATED Academy.
Liarakou, G., Athanasiadis, I., & Gavrilakis, C. (2011). What Greek secondary school students believe about
climate change? International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6(1), 79–98.
McGinnis, J. R., Breslyn, W., McDonald, R. C., & Hestness, E. (2017). Supporting the inclusion of climate
change in U.S. science education curricula by use of learning progressions. In D. P. Shepardson, A.
Roychoudhury, & A. S. Hirsch (Eds.), Teaching and learning about climate change (pp. 135–152). New
York: Routledge.
Meadows, G., & Wiesenmayer, R. L. (1999). Identifying and addressing students’ alternative conceptions of the
causes of global warming: the need for cognitive conflict. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
8(3), 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009412414470.
Miller, H. K., & Anderson, C. W. (2017). Using next generation science standards’ crosscutting concepts as a tool
for climate change and citizenship education. In D. P. Shepardson, A. Roychoudhury, & A. S. Hirsch (Eds.),
Teaching and learning about climate change (pp. 181–193). New York: Routledge.
Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling
in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675–698. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tea.20314.
Oliva, J. M. (1999). Algunas reflexiones sobre las concepciones alternativas y el cambio conceptual [Some
reflections on alternative conceptions and conceptual change]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 17(1), 93–107.
Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Prospective primary teachers’ understanding of climate change, greenhouse effect, and
ozone layer depletion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 299–307. https://doi.
org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000031268.72848.6d.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accomodation of a scientific conception:
toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Pruneau, D., Liboiron, L., Vrain, E., Gravel, H., Bourque, W., & Langis, J. (2001). People’s ideas about climate
change: a source of inspiration for the creation of educational programs. Canadian Journal of Environmental
Education, 6, 121–138.
Pruneau, D., Gravel, H., Bourque, W., & Langis, J. (2003). Experimentation with a socio-
constructivist process for climate change education. Environmental Education Research, 9(4),
429–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462032000126096.
Punter, P., Ochando-Pardo, M., & García, J. (2011). Spanish secondary students’ notions on the causes and
consequences of climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 447–464. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09500693.2010.492253.
Ratinen, I., Viiri, J., & Lehesvuori, S. (2013). Primary school student teachers’ understanding of climate change:
comparing the results given by concept map and communication analysis. Research in Science Education,
43(5), 1801–1823. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.587845.
Reinfried, S., & Tempelmann, S. (2014). The impact of secondary school students’ preconceptions on the
evolution of their mental models of the greenhouse effect and global warming. International Journal of
Science Education, 36(2), 304–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.773598.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: a critical review of the evidence.
Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 207–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620120065230.
Roth, C. (1992). Environmental literacy: its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s. Columbus: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Roychoudhury, A., Shepardson, D. P., & Hirsch, A. S. (2017). System thinking and teaching in the context of
climate system and climate change. In D. P. Shepardson, A. Roychoudhury, & A. S. Hirsch (Eds.), Teaching
and learning about climate change (pp. 29–42). New York: Routledge.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition
as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 111–139. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J.
(2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible
and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.
 Res Sci Educ

Shepardson, D. P., Niyogi, D., Choi, S., & Charusombat, U. (2009). Seventh grade students’ conceptions of
global warming and climate change. Environmental Education Research, 15(5), 549–570. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13504620903114592.
Shepardson, D. P., Choi, S., Niyogi, D., & Charusombat, U. (2011a). Seventh grade students’ mental
models of the greenhouse effect. Environmental Education Research, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13504620903564549.
Shepardson, D. P., Niyogi, D., Choi, S., & Charusombat, U. (2011b). Students’ conceptions about the
greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change. Climatic Change, 104(3–4), 481–507.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9786-9.
Shepardson, D. P., Roychoudhury, A., & Hirsch, A. S. (2017). Using conceptual and physical models to develop
students’ mental models of the greenhouse effect. In D. P. Shepardson, A. Roychoudhury, & A. S. Hirsch
(Eds.), Teaching and learning about climate change (pp. 85–105). New York: Routledge.
Sóñora, F., & García-Rodeja, I. (1996). Ideas dos alumnos de 2º ciclo da E.S.O. sobre o efecto invernadoiro
[Students’ ideas in the 2nd cycle of E.S.O. on the greenhouse effect]. Boletín das Ciencias, 28, 75–84.
Strickhouser, N., Roychoudhury, A., Hirsch, A. S., & Mehta, J. V. (2017). Teaching informed by conceptual
difficulties with understanding the greenhouse effect. In D. P. Shepardson, A. Roychoudhury, & A. S. Hirsch
(Eds.), Teaching and learning about climate change (pp. 203–214). New York: Routledge.
Taber, F., & Taylor, N. (2009). Climate of concern—a search for effective strategies for teaching children about
global warming. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(2), 97–116.
Taylor, S. J., & Bodgan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: a guidebook and resource. New
York: Wiley.
UNESCO. (1989). Environmental literacy for all. Connect, 14(2), 1–8.
United Nations. (1992). United Nations framework convention on climate change: text. Geneva: United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP)/ World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
Yazdanparast, T., Salehpour, S., Masjedi, M. R., Seyedmehdi, S. M., Boyes, E., Stanisstreet, M., & Attarchi, M.
(2013). Global warming: knowledge and views of Iranian students. Acta Medica Iranica, 51(3), 178.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Design and methods. California: Sage Publications.