16.11.2013 Views

Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge - GEES Subject ...

Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge - GEES Subject ...

Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge - GEES Subject ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Chapter 3<br />

<strong>Threshold</strong> <strong>Concepts</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Troublesome</strong><br />

<strong>Knowledge</strong>: Towards a ‘Pedagogy of<br />

Climate Change’?<br />

Brendan M. Hall<br />

University of Gloucestershire<br />

Correspondence: bhall@glos.ac.uk<br />

Abstract<br />

This paper is intended as an initial attempt to identify a ‘pedagogy of climate change’ through<br />

examination of key concepts within the subject area using the theoretical frameworks of<br />

‘troublesome knowledge’ (Perkins, 1999) <strong>and</strong> ‘threshold concepts’ (Meyer <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2003; 2005).<br />

The frameworks themselves are discussed in turn <strong>and</strong> applied to concepts identified through<br />

interviews with academics teaching climate change on Geography programmes at universities in<br />

Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales. This provides potential c<strong>and</strong>idates for concepts that may be used centrally<br />

within a curriculum designed for teaching <strong>and</strong> learning climate change. Aligned with constructivist<br />

teaching methods these concepts may provide a starting point for the development of a specific<br />

pedagogy of climate change.<br />

Introduction<br />

Teaching about climate change presents many challenges, owing to the complex nature of the<br />

physical climate system (Holbrook <strong>and</strong> Devonshire, 2005), the many human factors affecting the<br />

system itself, <strong>and</strong> the various human responses to climate change (Rebich <strong>and</strong> Gautier, 2005).<br />

Nevertheless, climate change is widely acknowledged as being an important subject area for<br />

students to explore in their learning (Devine-Wright et al., 2004), not least to ensure quality decisionmaking<br />

about climate change in the future (Ulph <strong>and</strong> Ulph, 1995).<br />

The complexity of climate change means that it is a relevant subject area across a variety of<br />

disciplines; students therefore encounter climate change in a wide range of educational contexts,<br />

which may make learning about an already complex subject even more difficult. The frameworks of<br />

troublesome knowledge (Perkins, 1999) <strong>and</strong> threshold concepts (Meyer <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2003; 2005) help<br />

to reduce some of this complexity by encouraging educators to reflect <strong>and</strong> discuss what concepts<br />

students find difficult <strong>and</strong> what, to put it simply, are the ‘big ideas’ within a subject area. This paper<br />

will introduce the frameworks of troublesome knowledge <strong>and</strong> threshold concepts, discuss some<br />

potential examples of concepts that fit the frameworks (from discussions with academics involved<br />

in teaching climate change) <strong>and</strong> ask whether these provide potential frameworks <strong>and</strong> a useful<br />

starting point for the discussion <strong>and</strong> development of a ‘pedagogy of climate change’.<br />

In: Haslett, France & Gedye (Eds) 2011, Pedagogy of Climate Change<br />

25


Chapter 3 <strong>Threshold</strong> <strong>Concepts</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Troublesome</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong>:<br />

Towards a ‘Pedagogy of Climate Change’?<br />

The Research<br />

Much of this paper is based on ten interviews conducted by the author with academics teaching<br />

about some aspect of climate change within Geography programmes at universities in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

Wales. The academics involved represented a wide range of academic backgrounds <strong>and</strong> interests<br />

<strong>and</strong> were drawn from institutions across the higher education sector, from newer, more teachingfocused<br />

universities to older, more research-oriented institutions. As part of the interviews the<br />

academics were asked to reflect on their teaching of climate change <strong>and</strong> identify concepts that they<br />

felt students found particularly troublesome in this context <strong>and</strong> concepts that they felt to be ‘key’ in<br />

terms of progressing students’ underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the subject. This, in turn, has led to the<br />

identification of potential examples of troublesome knowledge <strong>and</strong> threshold concepts within<br />

climate change.<br />

<strong>Troublesome</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong><br />

The term ‘troublesome knowledge’ refers to several distinct types of knowledge initially identified<br />

by Perkins (1999) that may be potentially troublesome in some way for a learner. A focus on what<br />

students find troublesome, <strong>and</strong> why this may be, can provide an enlightening new perspective for<br />

teachers in considering their approach to their subject. The forms of troublesome knowledge<br />

identified by Perkins are detailed below:<br />

• Ritual <strong>Knowledge</strong> – is knowledge that has a “routine <strong>and</strong> rather meaningless character” (Perkins,<br />

1999, p. 8). Ritual knowledge is that knowledge that is routinely called upon when asked a<br />

certain question or when seeking a particular result. Names <strong>and</strong> dates may be considered to be<br />

of this nature, as may basic arithmetic. <strong>Concepts</strong> that become ‘ritualised’ in this way may be<br />

troublesome as they lose meaning <strong>and</strong> students fail to make connections between related ideas.<br />

• Inert <strong>Knowledge</strong> – is knowledge that “sits in the minds attic, unpacked only when specifically called<br />

for by a quiz or a direct prompt” (Perkins, 1999, p. 8). Simply put, inert knowledge is that which is<br />

learned but not used actively. <strong>Knowledge</strong> becomes inert in this way through students failing to<br />

make links between what they are learning in the classroom <strong>and</strong> their experiences of the real<br />

world.<br />

• Conceptually Difficult <strong>Knowledge</strong> – is knowledge that students find difficult to grasp <strong>and</strong><br />

may arise as a result of a combination of factors such as misimpressions gained from everyday<br />

experiences, pre-existing misconceptions or expectations <strong>and</strong> the complexity of the concepts<br />

themselves. Often, the response to conceptually difficult knowledge is a form of mimicry using<br />

ritual knowledge where students learn responses to definitional questions but their intuitive<br />

beliefs remain unchanged, thus making it difficult to apply these concepts in the real world<br />

(Perkins, 1999).<br />

• Foreign/Alien <strong>Knowledge</strong> – is knowledge that “comes from a perspective that conflicts with our<br />

own” (Perkins, 1999, p. 10). Students may struggle to engage with ideas that have arisen in<br />

social, cultural <strong>and</strong> historical contexts that are different or opposed to their own beliefs. This<br />

26 Pedagogy of Climate Change


may be extended to include concepts that are seen to ‘belong’ to different disciplinary cultures<br />

to the one students see themselves as ‘belonging’ to. The knowledge may also be regarded as<br />

‘foreign’ if it is in some way counter-intuitive, that is to say, concepts that are contrary to<br />

students’ own experiences or views of the world.<br />

• Tacit <strong>Knowledge</strong> – is that knowledge which exists implicitly either at a personal level (Polanyi,<br />

1958) or within a specific community of practice (Wenger, 1998). In building on the work of<br />

Perkins, it is perhaps related to the idea of ‘belonging’ outlined above <strong>and</strong> identified by Meyer<br />

<strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong> (2003). This knowledge may be described as forming the ‘background’ knowledge of<br />

a discipline or subject area, important for underst<strong>and</strong>ing (<strong>and</strong> potentially complex or counterintuitive)<br />

but not dealt with explicitly (Hall, 2006). Most students will, therefore, fail to<br />

recognise the significance of tacit knowledge, thus making broad underst<strong>and</strong>ing within their<br />

subject area, <strong>and</strong> the underst<strong>and</strong>ing of other troublesome concepts, more difficult.<br />

Examples of the types of knowledge described above may be identified in any subject area.<br />

However, it should be noted that troublesome knowledge can also create barriers to educators both<br />

in terms of curriculum design <strong>and</strong> teaching practice. It is easy to see the difficulty in teaching<br />

conceptually difficult or complex ideas, or addressing alien or counter-intuitive concepts. Tacit<br />

knowledge, however, may prove to be the biggest pitfall. Owing to its implicit <strong>and</strong> habitual nature,<br />

tacit knowledge is likely to take on an inert or ritual character for an individual researching or<br />

teaching within a subject area. As a result of this the meaning or relevance of concepts may be ‘lost<br />

in translation’ or not conveyed at all, leading to a shortfall in student learning. Recognising tacit<br />

knowledge may be a difficult or uncomfortable process for a teacher but could provide an<br />

interesting insight to their underst<strong>and</strong>ing of their subject <strong>and</strong>, hence, their teaching. Perkins (1999)<br />

suggests adopting constructivist, active <strong>and</strong> student-centred approaches when dealing with<br />

troublesome knowledge; these will be discussed in more detail later in the context of teaching about<br />

climate change.<br />

<strong>Troublesome</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong> <strong>and</strong> Climate Change<br />

Many examples of concepts that may be considered troublesome in some way have emerged from<br />

the interviews with academics involved in teaching climate change. As one may expect, complex<br />

<strong>and</strong> conceptually difficult knowledge featured strongly in these discussions, with the academics<br />

being quick to identify those concepts that students acknowledge as being ‘hard’ <strong>and</strong> which may<br />

lead to a ritualised response that mimics true underst<strong>and</strong>ing. Interestingly, troublesome knowledge<br />

was also identified in concepts or approaches that students considered ‘alien’ in some way, in that<br />

they did not meet with students’ expectations of their university course or were seen to belong to<br />

another discipline. Furthermore, it was also noted that some of the academics’ awareness of<br />

troublesome knowledge was emergent from the discussion itself. It may be that much of this was<br />

tacit knowledge previous to the discussion <strong>and</strong> that the troublesome nature of the concepts<br />

themselves may have been exacerbated by the implications of tacit knowledge outlined above.<br />

Geography, Earth <strong>and</strong> Environmental Sciences <strong>Subject</strong> Centre<br />

27


Chapter 3 <strong>Threshold</strong> <strong>Concepts</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Troublesome</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong>:<br />

Towards a ‘Pedagogy of Climate Change’?<br />

Some examples of troublesome knowledge in climate change, which have emerged from these<br />

discussions with academics, are outlined below:<br />

• The Natural Variability of Climate – It was noted that students may have a particularly<br />

anthropocentric perception of climate change <strong>and</strong> that this may lead to a skewed underst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />

of the dynamic nature of climate. The fact that climate has changed throughout the Earth’s<br />

history (over vast <strong>and</strong> varying timescales – which in themselves may be described as<br />

troublesome) was described as being troublesome because it did not fit with students current<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing of climate in the light of human-influenced climate change. Perkins (1999) gives<br />

the example of ‘presentism’ in historical underst<strong>and</strong>ing as an example of foreign knowledge:<br />

“students tend to view past events through current knowledge <strong>and</strong> values”. If we extend this to<br />

geological thinking we can see how students may find the concept of climate constantly<br />

changing over time without human influence challenging.<br />

• The Earth System – Perhaps related to the concept of natural variability is the concept of the<br />

Earth as a complex system with a vast array of intricately linked components. The complexity<br />

of the system itself is troublesome as is the effective value of each of the components in terms of<br />

the overall effect they have on climate. The carbon cycle was identified as one element of this<br />

<strong>and</strong> a good example in that students may have a ‘low-level’ underst<strong>and</strong>ing gained from the<br />

media or school science but as they begin to encounter more elements of the cycle they struggle<br />

to integrate them into an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the complex whole. The implications of complexity<br />

for designing climate models <strong>and</strong> students’ perceptions of their effectiveness were also noted as<br />

being troublesome.<br />

• Scientific/Mathematical Methods <strong>and</strong> Approaches – The use of what may be described as<br />

high-level scientific <strong>and</strong> mathematical methods used for underst<strong>and</strong>ing climate <strong>and</strong> climate<br />

change was identified as being troublesome within the context of this research. There was a<br />

feeling from several of the participants that students tended to have “an aversion to anything that<br />

they perceive to be too deeply scientific”. Examples of this included the use of equations to calculate<br />

radiation balance, geochronological techniques <strong>and</strong> the integration of geophysics. It was<br />

interesting to note in this last case that the participant felt that this was a result of students not<br />

expecting to encounter these types of concepts as part of a Geography degree, characterising<br />

them as foreign knowledge.<br />

• Uncertainty – Many participants identified that their students struggled with the concept of<br />

uncertainty in a variety of different contexts. Uncertainty stemming from the complexity of the<br />

climate system (Rind, 1999), uncertainty related to proxy-climate records <strong>and</strong> dating techniques,<br />

uncertainty related to the parameterisation of climate models <strong>and</strong> uncertainty about future<br />

climate prediction <strong>and</strong> projections of human-influenced change were all identified as being<br />

troublesome. More about uncertainty as troublesome knowledge in the context of teaching<br />

about climate change can be read in Hall (2006).<br />

28 Pedagogy of Climate Change


Above are just some examples of troublesome knowledge as identified by the participants in this<br />

particular study. This paper is not designed to be exhaustive in terms of assessing troublesome<br />

knowledge in the climate change subject area. What troublesome knowledge provides is a good<br />

starting point for considering what students find difficult <strong>and</strong>, therefore, how this may be addressed<br />

in teaching. This will be discussed in more detail later in the paper. Interestingly, many of the<br />

concepts that were identified as being troublesome in some way were also viewed as being<br />

fundamental to the discipline, which leads into the next section on threshold concepts.<br />

<strong>Threshold</strong> <strong>Concepts</strong><br />

Related to the framework of troublesome knowledge is that of threshold concepts. The basic<br />

principle of the threshold concept theory is that “within certain disciplines there are certain ‘conceptual<br />

gateways’ or ‘portals’ that lead to a previously inaccessible, <strong>and</strong> initially perhaps ‘troublesome’, way of<br />

thinking about something” (Meyer <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2005, p. 1). The ‘troublesomeness’ of a concept forms<br />

part of the criteria that define it as a threshold concept i.e. students should experience difficulty <strong>and</strong><br />

discomfort when faced with the concept but they must overcome this as progress within their<br />

discipline will be all but impossible without an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the concept (Meyer <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2003).<br />

As well as troublesome knowledge there are six other main criteria that define a threshold concept.<br />

They are:<br />

• Transformative – occasioning a significant shift in the perception of a subject. In other words,<br />

learners now view their subject area in a new way. In certain powerful instances this may also<br />

occasion a significant shift in the identity of a learner <strong>and</strong> a repositioning of subjectivity (Meyer<br />

<strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2003). This may have a performative aspect, allowing the learner to ‘do’ something<br />

they were not able to ‘do’ before (Meyer <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2003).<br />

• Irreversible – unlikely to be forgotten, or unlearned only through particular effort. Though this<br />

may be difficult to prove, the transformation undergone by the learner is so profound that it is<br />

unlikely they will regress to previously held conceptions.<br />

• Integrative – exposing the previously hidden interrelatedness of something. Underst<strong>and</strong>ing of<br />

a threshold concept allows the learner to make connections between concepts that were<br />

previously ‘hidden’ to them (Cousin, 2006).<br />

• Bounded – the new ‘conceptual space’ opened up by the ‘transfigured thought’ of the learner is,<br />

in turn, bounded by thresholds opening into new conceptual spaces (Meyer <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2005).<br />

• Reconstitutive – this relates to the repositioning of subjectivity mentioned above; students<br />

connect their learning with the world around them <strong>and</strong> re-evaluate their thoughts <strong>and</strong> beliefs in<br />

response (Meyer <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>, 2005).<br />

• Discursive – the shift in perspective <strong>and</strong> identity is accompanied by a concordant shift in the<br />

language used by the learner. New ways of thinking are expressed through a new vocabulary;<br />

this vocabulary may be self-generated or related to a specific discipline or community of<br />

practice (Meyer <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2005). “It may involve natural language, formal language or symbolic<br />

language” (Meyer <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2005).<br />

Geography, Earth <strong>and</strong> Environmental Sciences <strong>Subject</strong> Centre<br />

29


Chapter 3 <strong>Threshold</strong> <strong>Concepts</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Troublesome</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong>:<br />

Towards a ‘Pedagogy of Climate Change’?<br />

In addition, threshold concepts provoke a state of ‘liminality’ – a metaphorical space of ‘stuckness’<br />

that must be passed through by the learner on their journey through the ‘portal’, analogous with<br />

rites of passage in anthropology (Meyer <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2005).<br />

The criteria listed above help us to define concepts that may be considered as threshold concepts;<br />

however, the definition of threshold concepts is likely only to emerge through discourse among<br />

colleagues within a discipline or subject area. Similarly to troublesome knowledge, threshold<br />

concepts offer an excellent starting point for developing an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the pedagogy of a<br />

subject area <strong>and</strong> encouraging a ‘less is more’ approach to curriculum design (Cousin, 2006). This will<br />

be explored in more detail in the final section of this paper.<br />

One implication of the threshold concept theory is that “describing conceptions as a relationship between<br />

an individual <strong>and</strong> a phenomenon is insufficient to capture the full extent of learning” (Meyer et al., 2006,<br />

p. 7). Learning is socially situated <strong>and</strong> the acquisition of new ways of underst<strong>and</strong>ing leads to social<br />

re-positioning on the part of the learner. This social re-positioning naturally leads to the creation of<br />

communities made up of like-minded individuals; this may inhibit or facilitate learners in their<br />

approach to thresholds (Meyer et al., 2006). That is not to say that learners cannot integrate threshold<br />

concepts from other disciplinary areas or that interdisciplinary threshold concepts cannot exist.<br />

Higgs <strong>and</strong> Hall (2008) note the similarities between models of integrative learning <strong>and</strong> threshold<br />

concepts <strong>and</strong> that threshold concept theory may offer a good approach to designing opportunities<br />

for learners to integrate knowledge from diverse disciplines as well as approaches to<br />

interdisciplinary learning.<br />

<strong>Threshold</strong> <strong>Concepts</strong> <strong>and</strong> Climate Change<br />

As mentioned in the section above on troublesome knowledge <strong>and</strong> climate change, many<br />

participants in the study identified troublesome concepts as also being integral to the discipline <strong>and</strong>,<br />

similarly, the concepts that were seen as central to an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the subject were also viewed<br />

as potentially the most troublesome. These may include concepts such as natural variability, the<br />

Earth as a system <strong>and</strong> uncertainty. There is considerable overlap, therefore, between troublesome<br />

knowledge in climate change <strong>and</strong> potential threshold concepts. This is only natural given the fact<br />

that ‘troublesomeness’ is one of the key facets of a threshold concept. It is, therefore, relevant to<br />

examine further the concepts identified above through the threshold concepts framework.<br />

Uncertainty may be used as a good example to illustrate a potential c<strong>and</strong>idate for a threshold<br />

concept in climate change. It is reasonable to assume that an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of uncertainty may have<br />

a transformative effect upon a learner. Uncertainty challenges conceptions of truth <strong>and</strong> the existence<br />

of definitive answers. It also reveals the complexity of knowledge <strong>and</strong> how we rationalise our<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the world – likely to be an eye-opening experience for any learner. In this<br />

particular context it not only reveals the complexity of the climate change subject area but it also has<br />

30 Pedagogy of Climate Change


the potential to redefine how we think about all areas of climate change. In this sense it is also<br />

integrative - uncertainty being prevalent across the board in terms of underst<strong>and</strong>ing the climate <strong>and</strong><br />

how humans relate to it. It is, therefore, one of few commonalities shared by the diverse range of<br />

concepts <strong>and</strong> discipline-situated knowledge that make up the climate change subject area <strong>and</strong>,<br />

therefore, has the power to link underst<strong>and</strong>ing of all these concepts <strong>and</strong>, by extension, the subject as<br />

a whole. Irreversibility is more difficult to assess. However, it is not unreasonable, when one<br />

considers the profound nature of uncertainty as a concept, that it would be unlikely to be<br />

‘unlearned’ (Hall, 2006). It is also difficult to think of uncertainty in terms of being bounded, given<br />

its ubiquity <strong>and</strong> somewhat abstract nature. It does, however, open up new avenues for inquiry <strong>and</strong><br />

may be considered bounded in this sense.<br />

Uncertainty in climate change has a language all of its own that is likely to have an effect on how<br />

students think <strong>and</strong> talk about the subject. Terms such as ‘confidence’, ‘probability’ <strong>and</strong> ‘risk’ have a<br />

distinctive meaning in this context <strong>and</strong> they all imply uncertainty. It is likely that an underst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />

of uncertainty will be accompanied by an extension of a student’s language through using these<br />

terms, so uncertainty may be said to have a discursive impact. As alluded to above, it is also<br />

probable that the transformation associated with gaining an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of uncertainty is likely<br />

to be of a profound nature. If we also consider the potentially counter-intuitive nature of a<br />

conceptual underst<strong>and</strong>ing of uncertainty <strong>and</strong> the conflict with students’ conceptions of seeking a<br />

‘right’ answer, it is possible to see how uncertainty as a concept may provoke a state of liminality for<br />

the student leading them to a ‘space of stuckness’ <strong>and</strong> a feeling of a loss of power <strong>and</strong> control over<br />

their learning. There is little doubt, however, that once that underst<strong>and</strong>ing of uncertainty has been<br />

achieved the student will emerge with a new underst<strong>and</strong>ing of climate change <strong>and</strong> a new way of<br />

thinking about the subject. Uncertainty would then seem to be a good c<strong>and</strong>idate for a threshold<br />

concept in this particular context (<strong>and</strong> perhaps in other contexts as well). It is not unreasonable to<br />

attribute many of the same characteristics to ‘natural variability’ <strong>and</strong> the ‘Earth system’ <strong>and</strong> say that<br />

they too may be considered as threshold concepts. It is important to qualify this, however, <strong>and</strong> state<br />

once again that these suggestions are based on the study in question <strong>and</strong> are designed as a starting<br />

point <strong>and</strong> should not be considered definitive.<br />

The question of whether the remaining example of troublesome knowledge listed above - scientific/<br />

mathematical methods <strong>and</strong> approaches - may be defined as a threshold concept is a little more<br />

debatable. This may not be something which is applicable across the subject at large <strong>and</strong> may be<br />

limited to certain disciplinary contexts where it is linked to students’ expectations <strong>and</strong> abilities.<br />

However, it is important nevertheless – given the frequency that the point was raised - it would<br />

appear that a difficulty with these kinds of methods <strong>and</strong> approaches is a significant issue <strong>and</strong> not<br />

confined to teaching about climate change. Meyer <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong> (2003) do note that a performative<br />

aspect may be involved in grasping a threshold concept, so this may represent a kind of ‘practical<br />

threshold’ which stops some students progressing in their underst<strong>and</strong>ing of climate change.<br />

Geography, Earth <strong>and</strong> Environmental Sciences <strong>Subject</strong> Centre<br />

31


Chapter 3 <strong>Threshold</strong> <strong>Concepts</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Troublesome</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong>:<br />

Towards a ‘Pedagogy of Climate Change’?<br />

Other potential examples of threshold concepts identified by the participants in the study are listed<br />

briefly below:<br />

• Geological Perspective – Perhaps linked to an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of natural climate variability is<br />

an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of how climate has varied in the past <strong>and</strong> the implications of this for<br />

predicting future climate. This also includes an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the timescales that these<br />

climate processes operate over, which, as noted above, may be troublesome in their own right.<br />

• The ‘Palaeoclimate Toolbox’ – Many participants identified that a priority for their teaching<br />

was giving students an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of how <strong>and</strong> why palaeoclimatic proxies are used in<br />

predicting future climate change, although they also admitted that this was closely linked to<br />

their own research interests.<br />

• The Fundamentals of Climate Science – Several participants also identified that, in order for<br />

students to have an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of climate change, it is important for them to also have a<br />

fundamental underst<strong>and</strong>ing of how climate works. This included underst<strong>and</strong>ing atmospheric<br />

composition <strong>and</strong> the principles of radiative forcing, energy balance <strong>and</strong> radiation balance <strong>and</strong><br />

their effect on climate.<br />

• Modelling <strong>and</strong> Scenarios – Many of the participants felt it important that their students had an<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing of how climate models are constructed <strong>and</strong> how they are then used to predict<br />

climate change. In some cases this was linked to the human dimension of future climate<br />

scenarios, how these are constructed <strong>and</strong> how they affect our underst<strong>and</strong>ing.<br />

Again, the above synopsis is not representative of all the views captured by the study <strong>and</strong> it would<br />

also be premature to label the above ideas as threshold concepts. Potentially, however, it does<br />

provide a starting point for considering what concepts are integral to climate change as a subject<br />

area <strong>and</strong>, therefore, what the pedagogy of climate change may look like.<br />

Pedagogy of Climate Change?<br />

The question of what a pedagogy of climate change may look like is not a simple one to answer.<br />

Shulman (2005, p. 52) describes the existence of ‘signature pedagogies’: “these are the forms of<br />

instruction that leap to mind when we think about the preparation of members of particular professions”. The<br />

pedagogies in this case tend to have a strongly vocational dimension, coming from law, medicine<br />

<strong>and</strong> the like; but it is not unreasonable to draw parallels with teaching in other disciplines. In<br />

teaching climate change however, it is more difficult to define pedagogy owing to the complex <strong>and</strong><br />

multidisciplinary character of the subject. As noted above, this may prove troublesome for students.<br />

It is also likely to prove troublesome for educators in designing a curriculum.<br />

How then might we approach the design of a curriculum for teaching climate change? The sections<br />

above may have gone some way towards tentatively mapping out the ‘conceptual terrain’ of the<br />

subject, identifying potentially troublesome concepts <strong>and</strong> the concepts that are integral to an<br />

32 Pedagogy of Climate Change


underst<strong>and</strong>ing of climate change. Continuing in this spirit it may be worthwhile considering a ‘less<br />

is more’ approach to curriculum design, striving to avoid ‘stuffing’ the curriculum with too much<br />

content (Cousin, 2006) <strong>and</strong> allowing students to explore the complexities of climate science<br />

themselves. This brings us on to discussions of approaches to teaching: what are the best methods<br />

for achieving quality teaching <strong>and</strong> learning about climate change?<br />

Perkins (1999) advocates the adoption of constructivist approaches when dealing with troublesome<br />

concepts. Allowing students to take a central role in exploring ideas whilst relating them to their<br />

own experiences <strong>and</strong> being creative is seen as central to creating meaningful learning experiences<br />

<strong>and</strong>, therefore, quality learning outcomes. This was echoed by the participants in the study where a<br />

strong emphasis was placed on participation <strong>and</strong> getting students ‘involved’ in practical climate<br />

science <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ing climate change. Exercises involving h<strong>and</strong>s-on use of climate models,<br />

fieldwork <strong>and</strong> even mock climate summits were all described as valuable in enhancing students’<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing of climate <strong>and</strong> climate change. This is a view borne out by the literature on teaching<br />

<strong>and</strong> learning about climate change. Holbrook <strong>and</strong> Devonshire (2005) describe a research-led,<br />

interdisciplinary approach using climate models to stimulate students’ thinking about climate<br />

science <strong>and</strong> abstract concepts associated with the climate system. Gautier <strong>and</strong> Rebich (2005) <strong>and</strong><br />

Rebich <strong>and</strong> Gautier (2005) describe a mock climate summit combined with concept mapping as a<br />

good method of engaging students with the complexities of climate change. Schweizer <strong>and</strong> Kelly<br />

(2005, p. 83) note that students ‘became scientists’ over the course of a debate on climate change<br />

with “the importance of using large scale data-sets to solve problems in science <strong>and</strong> society becoming<br />

apparent.”<br />

Conclusion<br />

A curriculum for teaching about climate change may then involve some or all of the concepts <strong>and</strong><br />

ideas above being explored through student-centred, active <strong>and</strong> creative pedagogies. However, this<br />

is far from definitive. Curriculum design for a complex world presents many challenges (Barnett,<br />

2000) <strong>and</strong> climate change is an excellent example of this. The aim of this paper is to identify some<br />

potential frameworks for designing pedagogy for teaching about climate change; some tentative<br />

suggestions have been made for the kind of concepts that may act as stimuli to this process <strong>and</strong><br />

some suggestions of how learning outcomes may be achieved. However, <strong>and</strong> to reiterate, the best<br />

method for designing quality teaching <strong>and</strong> learning is often through discussion with colleagues<br />

working in the same subject area. In the case of climate change there is great potential for new ideas<br />

<strong>and</strong> strategies to emerge from the fertile ground of interdisciplinary discussion. Different<br />

disciplinary perspectives are welcomed, as are innovative ideas on approaches <strong>and</strong> experiences of<br />

teaching <strong>and</strong> learning. Perhaps in time we will then move towards a clearer view of a pedagogy of<br />

climate change.<br />

Geography, Earth <strong>and</strong> Environmental Sciences <strong>Subject</strong> Centre<br />

33


Chapter 3 <strong>Threshold</strong> <strong>Concepts</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Troublesome</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong>:<br />

Towards a ‘Pedagogy of Climate Change’?<br />

References<br />

Barnett, R. (2000) Supercomplexity <strong>and</strong> the curriculum, Studies in Higher Education, 25 (3), pp.<br />

255–265.<br />

Cousin, G. (2006) An introduction to threshold concepts, Planet, 17, pp 4-5.<br />

Devine-Wright, P., Devine-Wright, <strong>and</strong> H., Fleming P. (2004) Situational influences upon children’s<br />

beliefs about global warming <strong>and</strong> energy, Environmental Education Research, 10 (4), pp. 493-505<br />

Gautier, C., <strong>and</strong> Rebich, S. (2005) The use of a mock environment summit to support learning about<br />

global climate change, Journal of Geoscience Education, 53 (1), pp. 5-16.<br />

Hall, B. (2006) Teaching <strong>and</strong> learning uncertainty in science: the case of climate change, Planet, 17,<br />

pp. 48-49.<br />

Higgs, B., <strong>and</strong> Hall, B. (2008) Integrating concepts of integrative learning in Emerging Issues II. In<br />

Higgs, B., <strong>and</strong> McCarthy, M. (eds). The Changing Roles <strong>and</strong> Identities of Teachers <strong>and</strong> Learners in Higher<br />

Education, pp. 63-74, Cork, NAIRTL.<br />

Holbrook, N.J., <strong>and</strong> Devonshire, E. (2005) Simulating scientific thinking online: an example of<br />

research-led teaching, Higher Education Research <strong>and</strong> Development, 24 (3), pp. 201-213.<br />

Meyer J. H. F., <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong> R. (2003) <strong>Threshold</strong> <strong>Concepts</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Troublesome</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong> 1 – Linkages to<br />

Ways of Thinking <strong>and</strong> Practising. In Rust, C. (Ed) Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On, Oxford<br />

OCSLD.<br />

Meyer, J. H. F., <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, R. (2005) <strong>Threshold</strong> concepts <strong>and</strong> troublesome knowledge (2):<br />

Epistemological considerations <strong>and</strong> a conceptual framework for teaching <strong>and</strong> learning, Higher<br />

Education, 49, pp. 273-288.<br />

Meyer J. H. F., L<strong>and</strong> R., <strong>and</strong> Davies, P. (2006) <strong>Threshold</strong> concepts <strong>and</strong> troublesome knowledge (4):<br />

issues of variation <strong>and</strong> variability in <strong>Threshold</strong> concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam, Sense.<br />

Perkins, D. (1999) The many faces of constructivism, Educational Leadership, 57 (3), pp. 6-11.<br />

Polanyi, M. (1958) Personal <strong>Knowledge</strong>, London, Routledge.<br />

34 Pedagogy of Climate Change


Rebich, S., <strong>and</strong> Gautier, C. (2005) Concept mapping to reveal prior knowledge <strong>and</strong> conceptual<br />

change in a mock summit course on global climate change, Journal of Geoscience Education, 53 (4),<br />

pp. 355-365.<br />

Rind, D. (1999) Complexity <strong>and</strong> Climate, Science, 284, pp. 105-107.<br />

Schweizer, D. M., <strong>and</strong> Kelly, G. J. (2005) An investigation of student engagement in a global<br />

warming debate, Journal of Geoscience Education, 53 (1), pp. 75-84.<br />

Shulman, L. S. (2005) Signature pedagogies in the professions, Daedalus, 134 (3), pp. 52-59.<br />

Ulph, A., <strong>and</strong> Ulph, D. (1995) Global warming, irreversibility <strong>and</strong> learning, The Economic Journal.<br />

Online at: ftp://all.repec.org/RePEc/els/esrcls/sect01.pdf, (accessed 28th February 2011).<br />

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning <strong>and</strong> identity. Cambridge, Cambridge<br />

University Press.<br />

Geography, Earth <strong>and</strong> Environmental Sciences <strong>Subject</strong> Centre<br />

35

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!