scholarly journals Teaching a Social Science Course on Climate Change: Suggestions for Active-Learning

Author(s):  
Leslie A. Duram

AbstractPrevious research indicates the importance of interdisciplinary approaches when teaching about climate change. Specifically, social science perspectives allow students to understand the policy, economic, cultural, and personal influences that impact environmental change. This article describes one such college course that employed active-learning techniques. Course topics included: community resilience, environmental education, historical knowledge timeline, climate justice, social vulnerability, youth action, science communication, hope versus despair, misinformation, and climate refugees. To unify these concepts, engaging activities were developed that specifically address relevant individual, local, state, national, and international climate resilience themes. Students assessed their personal climate footprint, explored social/cultural influences, wrote policy requests to relevant local/state government officials, studied national policy options, and learned about previous global initiatives. The course culminated in a mock global climate summit, which was modeled on a Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This final activity required each student to prepare a policy report and represent a nation in negotiating a multilateral climate agreement. It is accepted that climate change education must include physical data on the impacts of anthropogenic emissions. It is also essential that students appreciate the interdisciplinary nature of climate adaptations, become hopeful about addressing change, and gain skills necessary to engage as informed climate citizens.

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew K. Jorgenson ◽  
Shirley Fiske ◽  
Klaus Hubacek ◽  
Jia Li ◽  
Tom McGovern ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 6-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Nelson ◽  
Timothy Finan

Climate studies have traditionally fallen within the purview of the natural sciences where cause and predictable pattern are sought for such phenomena as climate change and climate variability. In the past, social scientists had little occasion to cross disciplinary paths with atmospheric or oceanographic scientists. Not that social science has ignored climate, for anthropology and geography claim a rich literature on the impacts of climate variability, particularly drought, on human populations (e.g., Franke and Chasin 1980; Watts 1983; Langworthy and Finan 1997). New theoretical ground, fertilized by an increasing number of empirical studies, now promises to bear the fruit we call climate anthropology. The expanding social science agenda has responded to two relatively recent advances in the natural sciences. The first has been the widening scientific consensus regarding global climate change and its anthropogenic causes. Global change cannot be adequately characterized without understanding the human-environment interactions that have contributed to the phenomenon, forcing social and natural scientists to pursue common research objectives. The second influence on climate anthropology has been the improvement in scientific understanding of oceanic/atmospheric interactions, thus allowing for more refined predictability of climatic events, particularly extreme ones. It is with this advance in climate predictability that climate anthropology is beginning to reap an exceedingly bountiful harvest in both theory and application.


Author(s):  
John Besley ◽  
Anthony Dudo

Scientists who study issues such as climate change are often called on by both their colleagues and broader society to share what they know and why it matters. Many are willing to do so—and do it well—but others are either unwilling or may communicate without clear goals or in ways that may fail to achieve their goals. There are several central topics involved in the study of scientists as communicators. First, it is important to understand the evolving arguments behind why scientists are being called on to get involved in public engagement about contentious issues such as climate change. Second, it is also useful to consider the factors that social science suggests actually lead scientists to communicate about scientific issues. Last, it is important to consider what scientists are trying to achieve through their communication activities, and to consider to what extent we have evidence about whether scientists are achieving their desired goals.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 7990
Author(s):  
Christel W. van Eck ◽  
Bob C. Mulder ◽  
Sander van der Linden

The Climate Change Risk Perception Model (CCRPM, Van der Linden, 2015) has been used to characterize public risk perceptions; however, little is known about the model’s explanatory power in other (online) contexts. In this study, we extend the model and investigate the risk perceptions of a unique audience: The polarized climate change blogosphere. In total, our model explained 84% of the variance in risk perceptions by integrating socio-demographic characteristics, cognitive factors, experiential processes, socio-cultural influences, and an additional dimension: Trust in scientists and blogs. Although trust and the scientific consensus are useful additions to the model, affect remains the most important predictor of climate change risk perceptions. Surprisingly, the relative importance of social norms and value orientations is minimal. Implications for risk and science communication are discussed.


2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. Besel

ArgumentDr. James Hansen's 1988 testimony before the U.S. Senate was an important turning point in the history of global climate change. However, no studies have explained why Hansen's scientific communication in this deliberative setting was more successful than his testimonies of 1986 and 1987. This article turns to Hansen as an important case study in the rhetoric of accommodated science, illustrating how Hansen successfully accommodated his rhetoric to his non-scientist audience given his historical conditions and rhetorical constraints. This article (1) provides a richer explanation for the rhetorical/political emergence of global warming as an important public policy issue in the United States during the late 1980s and (2) contributes to scholarly understanding of the rhetoric of accommodated science in deliberative settings, an often overlooked area of science communication research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document