1. Introducing the Research
There is no doubt that environmental challenges, such as climate change and sustainability issues, are among the most complex and pressing problems in today’s world. In 2023, Canada, where the study described in this paper took place, faced the most destructive year of wildfires in recorded history, and the increase in wildfire severity and duration has been linked to climate change. For example, more recently, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that “there are currently 92 wildfires burning in the forest protection area according to Alberta Wildfire. Of those, 29 are classified as out of control” [1]. In British Columbia and Alberta, where the Rocky Mountains and boreal forests are located, wildfires have been some of the biggest and most urgent environmental disasters in the current decade [2]. Wildfires have been destroying forests, natural habitats, and people’s homes in these areas. There have been many communities suffering from evacuations and health-related concerns from poor air quality. These issues have been discussed in relation to concerns about climate change and a sustainable future.
Our work was occasioned and inspired by our collaboration with an elementary school dedicated to STEM and sustainability. We focused on the role of visualization and collaboration, two processes we consider essential for fostering students’ epistemic agency—an important factor in addressing these challenges. Through collaborative 3D modeling activities with grade 6 students, we explored how to enhance students’ awareness, engagement, and collaboration in thinking critically, discussing, and making decisions on climate change and sustainability issues. Our study addresses the following questions:
How do students visualize their understanding of climate change and sustainability issues?
How do students negotiate and reconcile their ideas during the visualization process?
2. Conceptual Underpinnings
This study was developed based on the following conceptual underpinnings.
2.1. Student Epistemic Agency in STEM Classrooms
STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) approaches have gained significant attention and support in science education over the past decades. This has, at least in part, been a response to the need to change educational practice to address students’ interests, develop competencies in problem solving, and attend to real-world phenomena in the classroom. Given such broad aims, and the interdisciplinary nature of STEM-related problems, STEM-focused learning experiences vary considerably across subjects and grade levels and are consequently difficult to define [3]. Moreover, some researchers have suggested that STEM approaches may function as vocational training to funnel students into related careers [4]. Despite this, researchers have acknowledged that STEM education can enhance students’ curiosity and interests, knowledge application, and problem solving competences in real life contexts [5,6,7].
STEM problems are often intricately intertwined with every day, scientific, technological, environmental, economic, and sociocultural contexts, and they often bring together diverse knowledge, skills, and values in decision making and problem solving. In classroom settings, students are often tasked to learn how to identify problems, understand the context and goals of problem solving, design methods, and apply knowledge and skills to solve such problems in different contexts [5,8]. In a STEM approach, which is often augmented by design labs and makerspace activities, students engage in diverse activities, from technical device-making, such as building a toy car, to complex problem solving, such as evaluating the possibilities and limitations of nuclear power for meeting sustainability goals, e.g., [9,10,11]. To tackle these complex problems, students are often required to learn to use diverse problem-solving tools, from those used in traditional classrooms (e.g., pen and pencil, popsicle sticks, etc.) to digital technologies or coding in STEM makerspace classrooms.
Epistemic agency is crucial for learning, reasoning, and decision making in complex STEM problem solving, including challenges related to sustainability issues. However, students’ agentic engagement is often questioned in science classrooms, where scientific knowledge is disconnected from students’ everyday experiences and framed by a normalized process of the scientific method in scientific communities [12,13]. When science is taught as objective and absolute knowledge, disconnected from real-world experiences, the epistemic nature of knowledge becomes focused primarily on conceptual, cognitive, and linguistically oriented modes within scientific culture. Students are expected to think and speak like scientists by using scientific language, signs, and symbols. In this approach, students whose epistemic backgrounds are not in the normative discourse of science are often silenced and become disengaged in learning science [14,15,16]. In classrooms, students learn and develop meaning-making skills through different modes or representations (i.e., linguistic-verbal or written, visual, actions, etc.); however, a language-oriented mode of teaching, learning, and assessment further marginalizes students whose learning is not linguistically oriented or proficient with the norms of the classroom languages of science. This raises concerns about students’ engagement in learning and problem-solving opportunities, particularly in addressing complex issues, like sustainability, which require collaborative decision making and effective communication. Considering that learning takes place through interacting with others, resources, and learning environments, students’ isolation and disconnection from these learning opportunities raises critical concerns about the lack of opportunities to engage with learning and knowledge development in STEM education.
2.2. Visualziation in STEM Problem Solving
To foster students’ agency as learners and problem solvers, researchers have emphasized the importance of recognizing students’ epistemic diversity and the multimodal nature of learning in science classrooms [16,17]. Visualization plays a vital role in engaging students in reasoning and problem solving through multiple epistemologies, thereby promoting their epistemic agency [18,19]. In science classrooms, both teachers and students use, adapt, and create visual representations to explore complex concepts and phenomena that cannot be fully understood or addressed through verbal or written language alone [20,21]. For example, Prian and Tytler [22] highlighted that students construct and interpret their own visual representations to develop a deeper understanding of abstract and challenging science concepts.
Traditionally, visualization in science and mathematics education has been viewed primarily as a product of individual thought and knowledge. The focus has been on interpreting and learning from expert-generated visual materials, such as scientific models, diagrams, and graphs, which are used to help students grasp intricate concepts. Similarly, student-generated visualizations have historically been regarded as external expressions of their existing knowledge, primarily serving as tools for assessment and evaluation of their conceptual understanding. However, recent studies highlight that visualization is not merely a product but a dynamic process of thinking and problem solving that actively enhances students’ cognitive competencies. For instance, in the study of students’ drawing activities, Tytler et al. [23] noticed that students monitored, justified, modified, and re-created knowledge to explain certain phenomena through visualization. Students’ drawing acts presented the process of their thinking and reasoning. In this regards, a student’s visualization is not only a representation of their knowledge but also the methods they use to process and develop critical thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving skills [23]. This evolving perspective on visualization highlights its dynamic role in supporting meaning-making processes and fostering a deeper engagement with scientific reasoning and problem solving.
Visualization also entails communication, whether it be describing mental imagery or explaining a physical model. When students interact and explain their understanding through visual representations, their knowledge building becomes social and collective in classrooms [23,24,25]. When students encounter a challenge of explaining a concept through language, they often choose to draw and/or gesture to explain their thoughts in classroom discussions [26]. In collaborative problem-solving situations, effective communication is essential for fostering shared understanding, facilitating decision making, and engaging in discussions, enabling problem solvers to arrive at solutions [27].
Visualization plays a vital role in supporting cognitive, participatory, and sociocultural meaning-making processes in collaborative problem solving. STEM makerspaces offer opportunities for visualization that encourage students to engage in thinking, imagining, reasoning, and communicating with one another [28,29]. When students design, build, and craft 3D objects as part of collaborative STEM problem solving, their meaning-making, reasoning, and communication naturally rely on visualization. Through this process, students’ imaginations, thoughts, questions, and knowledge evolve and codevelop. Based on these ideas, this study focuses on students’ 3D modeling as both a process and a product of cognitive and social engagement, aiming to foster active participation in learning and problem solving. It also seeks to develop students’ epistemic agency in knowledge building and decision making within collaborative contexts.
2.3. STEM Education and Climate Change
Recognizing the urgency of climate change and sustainability issues in today’s society, we aimed to enhance students’ learning and problem-solving experiences by integrating collaborative visualization in STEM makerspaces centered on these critical topics. While climate change and sustainability can be two distinct fields of study, both topics are closely interconnected in one’s understanding, reasoning, and problem solving. They are multifaceted, encompassing diverse knowledge systems, socioeconomic issues, values, and beliefs. In essence, issues related to climate change and sustainability mirror the complexity and diversity of life on our planet. Addressing problems related to these topics require diverse cognitive, sociocultural, and ethical reasoning and actions [30]. Researchers have noted that climate change literacy includes knowledge, awareness, and readiness to address the issues of climate change and sustainability issues [31]. Climate change literacy also requires willingness to make changes in actions [32,33]. However, climate change education has been challenged by a discipline-focused curriculum, a lack of pedagogical support and teacher beliefs, and gaps between knowledge and action [34,35,36,37]. For instance, a systematic literature review revealed that most studies on climate change education (40 out of 49 studies) concentrated on students’ scientific understanding and/or (mis)conceptions in science classrooms [38]. Because of the intensive focus on disciplinary knowledge, teaching climate change and sustainability issues in science classrooms has caused teacher dilemmas where sociocultural and ethical dimensions have long been limited or resisted in science education [39,40,41]. However, research shows that scientific knowledge alone is insufficient for climate change literacy. Students need to understand the connections between knowing, action, and outcomes [36]. In this way, the integrated approach to climate change and sustainability education is more effective, as opposed to a purely science-based or strictly emotion-based approach [42].
To address complex problems related to climate change and sustainability, we argue that students need to experience the complexity of diverse knowledge systems, perspectives, and values in their decision making and problem solving. This means that classroom learning experiences and curricula need to address the complexity of climate change literacy, including the roles of knowledge, values, attitudes, and possible actions [43,44]. Communication and collaboration skills are crucial for students’ problem solving in classrooms [45,46], as environmental and sustainability issues are inherently complex and multifaceted, posing significant challenges to everyday decision-making processes. In the study design, we aim to capture the complexity of the issues through students’ visualization tasks using a STEM makerspace approach.
3. Material and Methods
3.1. Study Participants and Contexts
This study took an exploratory and descriptive approach where we attempted to understand how students make 3D models based on their thoughts and discussion on climate change and sustainability issues. The study was conducted over 12 weeks (April–June 2024) in the second term of the school year at an elementary school in a large city in Western Canada. The participants included 18 grade 6 students (9 boys and 9 girls) in STEM classrooms. When the project was introduced at the school, the principal and a STEM teacher expressed strong interest in participating. The teacher, who taught STEM subjects to students from kindergarten through to grade 6, agreed to join the study and recommended involving her grade 6 students, as climate change was one of the grade 6 science units in the curriculum.
The school was located in an ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse residential neighborhood. About half of the grade 6 students in our study were visible minorities and first- or second-generation immigrants. According to the teacher, some students were still in the process of developing their English language and communication skills, particularly in terms of writing. This aligned well with our aim to support students’ epistemic agency through multimodal learning approaches and engagement in learning and problem solving through visualization and collaboration.
The school had an ongoing interest and emphasis on sustainability awareness. For example, the school had received support from a local non-governmental organization (NGO) to install air quality monitors around the school and had also facilitated a school-wide project to improve waste management strategies, including recycling. The school also devoted considerable resources to STEM education, including a STEM-focused makerspace classroom with a designated teacher, whom we worked with closely to implement our study. The school’s STEM makerspace classroom had a smartboard at the front and eight large makerspace tables with chairs. Along the sidewalls, plastic containers of materials, tools, equipment, and resources, such as hot glue guns, scissors, knives, wood sticks, rulers, and paints, were neatly organized. There was hydroponic equipment for growing plants, as well as 3D printers, which students used with the teacher’s help to design and build different objects. By the time our study began, the students who participated had been attending weekly STEM makerspace classes, engaging in various makerspace activities. Many students displayed confidence, interest, and hands-on skills in using and managing the tools for their projects.
3.2. Curriculum Design
This study reports on one project that we had students complete as part of a 12-week unit on sustainability and climate changes issues. The project asked students to imagine, draw, and then construct a 3D model of a sustainable city. To encourage students to examine and reason about climate change and sustainability issues in the 3D model project, we developed lessons prior to the project’s start.
In the beginning of the study (weeks 1–5), grade 6 students were engaged in various lessons that encouraged them to think about the complexity of environmental problem solving and climate change as follows (Table 1). The flow of the curriculum and lesson activities were codesigned by the teacher and two researchers (the first and second authors) and were mainly taught by the teacher. The teacher and researchers met at the school one month before the study began in order to discuss potential lesson topics. Since then, we continuously shared teaching ideas and resources via a shared Google Drive. During the curriculum design period, the two researchers also visited the makerspace classroom and school library to collaborate on the details of specific lessons. The first three lesson topics (weeks 1–3, and week 5) were initiated and led by the teacher, while the topic for week 4 was developed by the researchers. These lessons were designed to engage students in the topics of climate change and sustainability issues.
There were 2 lessons each week and each lesson took 60–90 min (a 60 min lesson on Tue and a 90 min lesson on Thursday). During the final week of the students’ 3D project, the teacher allocated an additional class session to help students complete their models. The researchers (all authors) attended all of the classes associated with the study and were active participants in the lessons, which we describe in more detail below.
These classroom activities were designed to engage students in exploring, developing, and discussing ideas on climate change and sustainability. After these activities and discussions, the teacher introduced a project: building a sustainable city (weeks 6–11).
Before constructing the 3D models, the teacher divided the students into seven groups and asked them to brainstorm what a sustainable city would look like and to create a list of items they would include in their models. Students discussed their everyday experiences, such as how to get to school (transportation), what people would need in a city (hospitals, police stations, etc.) as well as concepts from previous lessons, including energy and waste management, greenhouse gases, etc. This list guided their model-building process.
To support their work, the teacher provided familiar and easily manipulable materials, like egg cartons, wooden sticks, cardboard boxes, paper cups, etc. Each group received a 22″ × 32″ piece of cardboard as the base for their city. The materials were displayed at the front of the classroom, and students were encouraged to use any of them. The teacher also reminded them about additional makerspace supplies, such as scissors, glues, glue guns, pens, etc., available in their classroom. She also emphasized that each group needed to decide which items to include, how to design them, what materials to use, and where to place them in their models.
Before beginning construction, the teacher emphasized the importance of collaboration to complete their project. She asked students to think about what good collaboration looked like. She also asked what students would need to do when they had different ideas and could not reach an agreement. Students came up with their collaboration strategies, such as sharing ideas, encouraging others to share ideas, listening to others, and resolving conflicts when they had different ideas and disagreements. Students wrote down their strategies in their science journals, and everyone in the group confirmed they would follow them throughout the project.
There were two regular STEM makerspace classes, each week during weeks 6–11 (six 70 min lessons and six 90 min lessons). However, due to unexpected school events that partially overlapped with class time, some sessions were shortened. To compensate, the teacher allocated additional lesson time in the final week to help students complete their tasks.
During their makerspace activities, the classroom teacher and researchers assisted students with their construction, provided materials, and reminded them of the purpose of the project (building a sustainable place that addressed climate change issues). In the final week (week 12) students presented their 3D models to the whole class. In the presentation, students were asked to share their reasoning of why their city was sustainable and climate friendly and how they collaborated during the makerspace-based problem solving. Throughout the students’ makerspace project, the researchers played the role of participant observers, interacting with students through questioning, assisting, and participating in their discussions.
3.3. Data Collection and Analysis
We collected classroom video data, students’ science journals, 3D models, and researcher observation notes, and subsequently conducted semi-structured interviews. To collect video data of classroom interactions during lessons, there were 3 video cameras in the classroom. One camera was located in the back or front depending on class activities to record the entire classroom. Two video cameras with microphones attached were recording two groups of students. These two groups of students were recommended by the teacher because they were most likely and willing to articulate their thinking. Those students also participated in semi-structured group interviews at the end of the study to share their understandings of climate change and sustainability and experiences of collaborative problem solving. Each interview took approximately 30 min. During the interviews, students explained their 3D models, justified why their town was a sustainable place, and shared their decision making and collaboration experiences within their groups. We kept observation notes and discussed their observations and reflections throughout the data collection and analysis process. At the end of the study, we collected and scanned students’ science journals. We also took several pictures of students’ 3D models from different angles so that we could compare their models with the data of students’ presentations and interviews.
Figure 1 depicts the process we undertook to analyze our data. We cross-checked classroom videos, students’ science journals, their 3D models, interview transcripts, and our observation notes. We looked at students’ interactions in the video data, and these data were cross-checked with students’ science journals and visual representations, as well as with our observation notes. For their 3D models, we looked into what items students included in their city and how they justified their visualization, which was cross-checked with their verbal and written presentations and interviews. For students’ experiences of collaboration and the decision-making process, we examined the classroom videos, presentations, and interview responses.
Going back and forth between the different data sources, we individually examined and coded with a focus on students’ understanding of climate change and sustainability, as well as their decision-making processes (Step 1). In this step, we also investigated the specific elements that students highlighted as sustainability decisions in their 3D models. For example, while students included hospitals and police stations in their 3D models, they did not reference these features when explaining how their designs related to sustainability. However, they did emphasize windmills or solar panels in their models. Some data, such as students’ 3D models, provided clear evidence of their understanding and emphasis on what would be helpful for climate change and a sustainable future. Other data, such as video recordings, captured their decision-making processes, while certain data, such as students’ presentations, reflected both aspects. Based on the initial coding and discussion, we got together to share initial coding and identified preliminary key ideas (Step 2). The key ideas were then discussed in relation to the data, prompting us to revisit certain datasets to reexamine and refine the key ideas (Step 3). This iterative process continued until we felt confident in finalizing the key ideas. Once the key ideas were finalized, we organized them into two overarching themes: how students visualize their understanding of climate change and sustainability, and how they negotiate their ideas during makerspace tasks (Step 4).
4. Research Findings
The students’ visualization process showcased how they built knowledge of climate change and sustainability, while actively engaging in discussions and negotiating ideas for decision making. In this section, we present selected data from multiple sources to highlight key findings on how students used visualization to support their reasoning and learning about climate change and sustainability.
4.1. Interpreting Students’ Understanding of Sustainability Through Their 3D Models
Analyzing what they visualized in their 3D models and what they emphasized in their models was essential for us to examine students’ understanding of climate change and sustainability issues. When students completed their 3D models, we asked them to explain what parts of their 3D models were helpful for climate change and sustainability issues. Students emphasized certain elements, such as greenery, renewable energy (e.g., solar, wind power), local food sources, alternative fuels for transportation, and waste management. Table 2 shows the details of the items that the students emphasized to address sustainability in their visualization.
The details and designs of the categories manifested differently in students’ 3D models. For instance, some groups put solar panels on the roofs of houses, while other groups built solar energy farms or windmills on the outskirts of their city, which were wired to buildings in the town. Students included green areas, such as parks, trees, or forests. There were roads and/or sidewalks built to connect places in the communities. To explain their 3D models, students pointed out which items were particularly related to climate change and sustainable lives and justified why they needed those items, as follows:
Greenery helps climate change. It gives better air for the atmosphere.
(Ros)
When the gas or fossils are going up in the air… It weakens our atmosphere to and then the world will get hotter because of the atmosphere. Because when people want money…The more burns they do, which get up into the air and then make it all bad.
(Kevin)
A large problem with climate change is there is too much gas and emissions being released into the air so we tried to solve it by starting to use scooters and getting rid of cars.
(Kerry)
The 3D modeling process encouraged students to think, make decisions, and explain their understanding of sustainability and climate change concepts. Students’ understanding of climate change and sustainability were present in their visualization, and was also justified through interviews, as follows:
Climate change is related to the increase in the Earth’s temperature and causes environmental destruction.
Climate change is worsened by using more oil and gas.
Developing renewable energy and using less or no gas are critical.
Solar and wind power are renewable energy sources.
Transportation methods which use no gas, such as walking, biking, kickboards, or electric cars, are helpful.
Nature and greenery (trees, bushes, rivers, lakes, etc.) are important.
Gardening is helpful for sustainability
Recycling, reducing, and reusing helps to combat climate change and ensure sustainability.
4.2. Visualizing to Talk About Sustainability
Students’ visualization processes helped us understand how students developed their understandings of climate change and sustainability throughout their project. We introduce the following episode to demonstrate how students’ reasoning and understanding were intertwined with their visualizing acts.
Two students, Ayden and Ali, worked together throughout the classroom activities (e.g., learning about climate change, the Paris Agreement, variables that influence air quality, and researching other countries’ efforts to address climate change). When they began their 3D modeling, they discussed what elements would help develop a sustainable place. In their science journal, they wrote “solar panels, electric cars, bikes/electric bikes, sidewalks, health care, education, recycling, trees, wildlife, compost, fertilizer, garden, rec center, EMS (police station, hospital, fire station), transportation, windmill, houses, river/lake” and then put a bracket around them and wrote “eco-friendly”. Using the cardboard footprint, they then discussed how to design the space with those elements. They were moving and hovering their hands over the footprint to share ideas and suggestions. For example, Ayden put a pencil around the bottom right corner and said, “we can put solar panels around here and wire to houses and apartments” (Figure 2a). He started to map other things (a rec center, trees over the city, etc.) out with a pencil on the cardboard panel. After that, Ali said, “we work on solar panels first, and trees and water sources...Water could be around the center of the town and trees around the water” (Figure 2b). When a researcher came by and asked about their plan, Ayden said “water around here, it’s a town center. We could put a water fountain” and Ali was drawing a circle around the center (Figure 2c).
Ayden had to leave the classroom for approximately 15 min. During Ayden’s absence, Ali began constructing a fireplace in the spot originally designated for the water fountain. When Ayden came back to their workstation and noticed that Ali was making something different, Ayden said, “you are making a fireplace, not water fountain”, and Ali explained, “it goes like this… Trust me, it [fireplace] will be way better”. He showed his idea by placing small wood sticks around the circle (Figure 2d) and Ayden, without challenging Ali further, joined Ali in constructing the fireplace (Figure 2e). They then made trees and forests, as they had originally planned (Figure 2f).
As they worked, Ayden and Ali added other elements, such as solar panels, houses, a recreation center, a hospital, and so on, following the pencil-drawn map they had originally drawn on the cardboard footprint (Figure 2g). As they visualized their ideas, they consistently discussed and refined their understanding, justifying their decisions with a focus on sustainability. The resulting 3D model (Figure 2h) illustrates the development of their thinking about the key elements necessary for a sustainable future.
In this episode, students’ ideas and designs evolved through the process of collaborative visualization. For example, the location of the solar panels was adjusted, and features, like the water fountain and fireplace, which were not part of their original design emerged during their collaboration. The water fountain’s location was moved closer to the forest as the group decided to place the fireplace at the city’s center (Figure 2c,d). The changes made by one student were not always negotiated or challenged by the other. For instance, Ayden did not challenge Ali regarding the decision to create the fireplace during his absence. He did not ask Ali about why the fireplace was preferable to the water fountain. Instead, Ayden accepted Ali’s suggestion and proceeded to help complete the fireplace. Later, Ayden provided his reasoning for supporting the inclusion of the fireplace to the researchers. He explained, “the campfire [fireplace] is cozy, warm and also gives natural light at night”. In their final model, solar panels were built on house roofs instead of collected in one corner of the town, as per their original design. Ayden also explained that they might choose not to have transportation; thus, they would not need roads for cars and could exclusively have sidewalks instead. However, they finally decided to put in a main road for accessibility to the town and the EMS center (Figure 2h). Through drawing, gesturing, and manipulating the materials, students discussed, evaluated, revised, and refined their ideas on sustainability and strategies to address climate change and sustainability.
4.3. Students’ Collaborative Decision Making
In this study, students were asked to develop one model per group; thus, students’ collaboration skills were critical to completing their tasks. Students needed to determine which elements to include in the limited space, how to arrange items, and how to divide responsibilities for different tasks. Students also needed to understand how to work with different ideas and manage disagreements. Throughout the project, we explicitly explained the importance of collaboration to students. In the beginning of the project, the teacher asked the students to ponder how to work with others effectively and what to do when they had different ideas and could not reach an agreement. Students suggested various strategies to cope with disagreement, such as “discuss, listen and respect, compromise, meet in the middle, take a moment to calm down and discuss again, take everyone’s ideas, and do rock-paper-scissors”. The teacher encouraged students to think about which strategies they as a group would take in order to respect each other and make decisions for their project. Students together wrote their strategies in their science journals.
While the students worked in small groups, the researchers observed students’ interactions and decision making on their designs and kept observation notes. Most of the time, students were actively engaged in discussing, decision making, and model making. When they encountered different ideas, students sometimes accepted each other’s’ ideas without further questions, but there were also instances in which there was tension during decision making. The ways students negotiated their ideas, tension, and disagreements differed among groups. Some groups of students reported that they did not have difficulties in decision making. For instance, video data showed that Ayden and Ali oftentimes agreed with each other without challenges. Ayden also reflected during the interview that they were good friends and that they knew each other well, so they did not have to argue. They explained:
We got along during the design of our city although we did face some challenges like we had to decide on how many fish would be in the river. To solve this problem, we did rock paper scissors.
Some groups experienced difficulties in reaching an agreement. For instance, one group of three students, Adam, Kerry, and David, started to discuss transportation, such as electric cars. Adam explained electric cars would not use gas; thus, they would be a great solution to climate change, to which the others agreed. While developing their town, they discussed where to put roads to connect places in town. Later, they found that houses, stores, schools, etc., could be closely located so they would not need cars in their town. In one exchange, a researcher joined the group, pointed at the roads, and said, “I see you put the main roads here”. Then David answered, “they are not roads. They are paths. There will be no cars in our city”. This seemed to be an in-the-moment response occasioned by the visual representation of the town, specifically with respect to the density of its structures, and was not an element of their original design. Subsequent to this exchange, the group could not immediately reach an agreement on transportation methods. Later, they explained how they compromised to find a solution:
We disagreed on what we would use to replace gas powered vehicles. Some of us wanted bikes, and others wanted a walking-only city. To solve this problem, we compromised and decided scooters[kickboard] were a good mix between walking and biking. We also made sure to take a moment to calm down before talking through our problems.
(Adam, Kerry, and David)
Instead of permitting both walking and biking, they proposed an alternative solution, namely kickboard scooters, as a compromise. We noted that no single student in this group had originally advocated kickboard scooters. Instead, the group determined after the fact that kickboard scooters were the best option in terms of the affordances of their 3D model (Figure 3). The design, visualization, and construction processes each gave rise to unique challenges and opportunities for compromise.
Other groups also reflected on their tension during collaborative visualization, as follows. Another group explained that they took the time and carried out patient discussions. While typically working quietly, Kris and Alan showcased their knowledge and technical problem-solving skills in developing their 3D model (Figure 4). When a researcher visited their table, they were focused on connecting the power source. However, they were not communicating with each other, and there was noticeable tension. Despite the researcher’s efforts to encourage dialogue, they refused to engage. Later, Kris shared that they had different ideas about bridge design. In their later reflection, they acknowledged having disagreements during the process:
To help solve this problem [tension], we stopped and took a few minutes to calm down, before talking through the problem and listening to each other’s sides. We made sure to try and include ideas from both of us.
(Kris and Alan)
In contrast, collaboration between Kevin, Miriam, and Holly was not always smooth. Initially, Kevin had been assigned to work with a different student, but then it was necessary for Miriam and Holly to join Kevin to form a new group. As Miriam and Holly proposed different designs and details for various items, they challenged Kevin to modify his initial design. The group struggled to agree on specific design details, such as building designs and locations. As their design progressed, they decided to take responsibility for one item each and to construct it in a designated area of the town, ensuring that everyone’s ideas were incorporated. Figure 5 depicts Kevin, Miriam, and Holly’s 3D model. After they completed their model, Holly and Kevin shared the following comments during their presentation.
Holly: Someone [Kevin] didn’t want details in this group so we [Holly and Miriam] argued about it. So we did our own things.
Kevin: I think [the city] needs more details so we would do that next time and we need more solar power.
In their presentation script, they wrote Kevin’s name beside “someone” but in their presentation, they did not say Kevin’s name. Kevin responded that he would provide more details next time. They recognized the source of their tension and proposed a way to resolve their disagreement.
With differing ideas and opinions about items, designs, and materials, students had to find ways to negotiate and reach agreements. Without doing this, they would not have been able to complete their visualization tasks. While the negotiation and decision-making processes varied among groups, all completed their 3D models and actively participated in reflecting on and explaining their visual projects.
5. Discussion
5.1. Affordances of Visualization: A Means to Learn, Reason, and Collaborate
The study findings suggest certain possibilities and challenges of collaborative visualization in STEM makerspace environments. Researchers have identified visualization as helpful for students to understand how knowledge and phenomena are connected and to explain and communicate their understanding of natural phenomena with others [23,47,48]. In other words, visualization aids students’ reasoning, communication, and knowledge development. In this study, students’ visualization, particularly through collaborative 3D modeling, served as a tool to help them reason, explain, and negotiate their understanding, knowledge, and skills of problem solving on complex issues of climate change and sustainability. For some students who were less inclined toward linguistic communication or writing in English, verbal and written language might not always have been the most effective tools for active participation in the learning and problem solving process. Nevertheless, these students were actively engaged in sharing, explaining, and negotiating through visualization tools and acts. According to the teacher, students were often challenged by verbal and written presentations as their language skills were in development, and some were reluctant to share their ideas publicly. However, during the visualization process in the makerspace, students’ engagement was active, expressive, and interactive. They continued to share and demonstrate their ideas through visualization. Students further reflected during the interview that visualizing tasks were engaging “because you get to make stuff and have fun, learn stuff at the same time while you are having fun”. The classroom video data also showed that students continuously interacted with each other through visualization to express their ideas and complete the group task. Visualization supported the students’ agency by affording them an additional means of thinking through and communicating their ideas. Students’ understanding of climate change and sustainability was reflected and presented via this visualization. Some ideas in their 3D modeling were sophisticated and showed complex knowledge. Students understood that climate change was related to using oil and gas and, thus, suggested electric vehicles or no cars as a solution even though some could not fully articulate how those methods were related to the Earth’s temperature in detail. Some ideas were not very realistic. For instance, students made donkey stables as they would have horses for transportation, a river for drinking water, or campfires as a natural light source. Students did not explore the impact of making their town scooter-only when there was a big hospital. Students did not explore the impact of transitioning their town to scooter-only transportation, particularly considering the presence of a large hospital. Students did not investigate wildfire incidents in the province in relation to the presence of a fireplace in the middle of town as a potential risk factor when proper caution was not taken. These insights allowed us to reflect on the gaps in sustainability thinking within students’ understanding. The varying levels of students’ understanding toward climate change and sustainability was anticipated, as previous research has indicated that even high school students and adults often have misconceptions and confusion about the causes and effects of climate change [49,50]. However, recognizing these differences in students’ conceptual understanding through their visualizations can offer teachers valuable opportunities to reflect on their pedagogical approaches. This reflection can help support students’ reasoning and conceptual development, enabling them to envision potential strategies for combating climate change and promoting sustainability.
The visualization activity in collective problem solving also provided students with opportunities to collaborate and reflect on their decision-making process. To achieve the goals of the visualization task, students were required to share, discuss, and negotiate ideas for decision making. They had to learn how to work with diverse ideas, perspectives, and priorities. While some ideas focused on climate change and sustainability, others emphasized the importance of communication and collaboration skills in working with others. Some prioritized details of design and some focused on item selections. They recognized differences or disagreements that needed to be reconciled. Students clearly experienced different degrees of tension, but they also found ways to solve the disagreement to continue their work. We believe that students’ eagerness and enthusiasm for expressing ideas through crafting and modeling and the task design for group collaboration allowed students to experience the complexities and difficulties of problem solving. Furthermore, students’ acknowledgment of these tensions and their actions to address them suggest that they were deeply engaged and actively contributed to reasoning and visualizing their thoughts on sustainability. In interviews, students also expressed appreciation for the opportunity to think critically about climate change and propose potential plans for a sustainable future.
This study affirms that collaborative visualization and 3D model-making served as effective tools to encourage students to reason and communicate, fostering active participation in problem-solving processes [17,51]. Students’ epistemic and decision-making agency did not always arise from verbal interactions, as some chose not to speak or write in their science journals. Normative language-focused learning environments could silence some students’ voices and actions and, thus, discourage students’ agency [14,15,17]. Instead, through their acts of visualization in the STEM makerspace, students were motivated to set goals and actively design and carry out plans in complex problem-solving contexts with diverse knowledge, ideas, and skills. Visualization became a powerful tool for developing epistemic agency, allowing students to grapple with complex issues of climate change and sustainability.
These findings prompt us to reflect on pedagogical practices for climate change and sustainability education, particularly through collaborative visualization in makerspace settings. While the traditional disciplinary approach, focusing on science concepts, has been dominant in science classrooms, it does not fully address the complexity of sustainability issues. Authentic, real-world, and open-ended problem-solving activities in collective settings foster students’ agency by engaging them in reasoning, discussion, negotiation of ideas, and experiencing the challenges of working with diverse perspectives, and this is critical for making informed sustainability decisions in everyday social contexts [52,53]. An interdisciplinary and hands-on makerspace approach encouraged students to actively participate in reasoning and collaborative problem solving, highlighting its potential to enhance engagement and understanding in these contexts.
5.2. Pedagogical Challenges in Visualization in Makerspace
There are also pedagogical challenges in this study. Students’ 3D modeling activities are time-consuming, as students spend a lot of time on crafting as part of the problem-solving process. At times, this challenges teachers to question the impact of students’ hands-on and cognitive development on curriculum outcomes. During the study, we also encountered this challenge, questioning the effectiveness of time, materials, and efforts in terms of the expected learning outcomes in science curriculum. Once students were engaged in model building, their discussion was often on designing and making, rather than discussing the implications for climate change and sustainability. At times, it challenged us as educators and researchers to ponder on how students’ bodily engagements in visualization were connected to their thinking and reasoning about climate change and sustainability. Thus, we constantly encouraged students to reflect and explain the reasons for their decisions and actions during their visualization. In the same vein, as students’ 3D models do not capture the process of their reasoning and decision making when viewed solely as the outcome of problem solving, this approach challenges teachers to pay close attention to students’ interactions during makerspace activities to interpret their visualizations as part of an ongoing process of conceptual development.
The level and depth of knowledge demonstrated in visualization tasks within makerspaces remains an open question for us. Upon analyzing students’ 3D models, we observed that their knowledge of climate change and a sustainable future was primarily represented at the level of identification, such as listing elements related to climate change. However, reasoning-based knowledge, such as explaining how solar panels mitigate climate change or how driving cars contributes to rising global temperatures, was less evident. In hindsight, we recognize the importance of careful curriculum design and structured visualization techniques to help students effectively connect their knowledge of climate change and sustainability into 3D models. This observation led us to consider several critical questions: How do teachers set the purpose of students’ visualization tasks in makerspaces to foster climate change and sustainability literacy? How do teachers assess the knowledge embedded in students’ visual representations? Which dimensions of interdisciplinary knowledge and skills are intended to develop? When and why do teachers opt for visualization, given the possibilities and challenges of a multimodal approach in makerspaces? Makerspaces serve diverse roles, including enhancing knowledge, technical skills, problem-solving competencies, creativity, and affective domains [14]. Within this broad spectrum of learning objectives, teachers must carefully design activities and monitor students’ learning outcomes in alignment with the specific goals of makerspace activities. For instance, visualization activities designed as individual or collective tasks can lead to different learning processes and outcomes for developing sustainability literacy. The broad integration of curricula, incorporating learning outcomes from the arts, social studies, and computer technology, will broaden problem-solving competencies. As STEM makerspace initiatives continue to expand, further research into teachers’ perceptions and reflections on the goals of STEM makerspaces and their impact on student learning for a sustainable future will provide valuable insights. In our future study, we will continue to explore how visualization activities in STEM makerspaces help students envision their roles and actions within lifeworld contexts to develop enactive sustainability literacy.
6. Conclusions
This study found that students’ visualization through 3D modeling in a STEM makerspace was an effective approach to develop students’ engagement in and development of knowledge building and decision-making skills. Students in this study were actively engaged in sharing and developing their understanding of climate change and sustainability while making a 3D model of a climate-forward city in groups. Visualization in makerspace as a means of reasoning, learning, and collaborating supported students’ understanding and communication about sustainability. In their visualization, students emphasized renewable energy, alternative transportation to reduce fuel emissions, local food security, waste management, and natural elements (e.g., greenery, rivers). Visualization supported students’ engagement in discussing, compromising, and negotiating different ideas, thus enhancing epistemic agency and participation in collaborative contexts. Their decision making process was diverse, yet students reflected on the complexity of decision making in groups and how they strived to resolve tension and disagreements among themselves. This study suggests further questions on affordances of visualization in collaborating and in understanding climate and sustainability issues, connections between students’ visualization and conceptual understanding of complex issues, and teacher perceptions and curriculum goals in the makerspace approach in schools.
Conceptualization, M.K. and J.M.; data collection and analysis, M.K., J.M., Q.J. and K.A; writing—original draft preparation, M.K. and J.M.; writing—review and editing, M.K., J.M., Q.J. and K.A.; funding acquisition, M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Boards of the University of Alberta (protocol code no. Pro00054632).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The datasets collected and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
We extend our heartfelt thanks to the teacher and students for sharing their ideas and enthusiasm for learning with the research team.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Students’ visualizing process (a–h). * The lines on (f) were traced and added by the researcher to increase the visibility of the data as they were not clearly seen on the screenshot of the video data.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Students’ visualizing process (a–h). * The lines on (f) were traced and added by the researcher to increase the visibility of the data as they were not clearly seen on the screenshot of the video data.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Adam, Kerry, and David’s 3D model *. * They indicated three scooter parking locations (cabin, houses, and hospital). Arrows are added.
Curriculum and lessons in classrooms.
| Weeks | Lesson Titles | Student Activities |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Thinking of our place now and in the future |
|
| Diverse perspectives on forests and land |
| |
| 2 | Climate change and the Paris Agreement |
|
| 3 | Air quality |
|
| 4 | Graph analysis on temperature change |
|
| 5 | International efforts on climate change |
|
Sustainable items in 3D models that were emphasized by students.
| Category | Items Mentioned by Students (Verbatim) | No. of Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Greenery (6) * | Greenery, trees, forests | 6 |
| Renewable energy (11) | Solar | 6 |
| Windmill | 4 | |
| Renewable energy | 1 | |
| Local food (8) | Drinking water sources (rivers, lakes, ponds) | 3 |
| Organic | 2 | |
| Big garden, farmland | 2 | |
| River (for fish to live and for fishing) | 1 | |
| Transportation with no gas (7) | No gas | 1 |
| Electric cars | 1 | |
| Walking (no vehicles with gas) | 1 | |
| Biking | 1 | |
| Scooters | 1 | |
| Horses | 1 | |
| Donkey stables | 1 | |
| Waste management (7) | Paperless | 2 |
| No use of disposables | 1 | |
| Reusable materials | 1 | |
| Recycling bins | 1 | |
| Composters | 1 | |
| Little waste | 1 | |
| Light sources (1) | Campfire (for light at night) | 1 |
* We analyzed and coded the content of the students’ presentations. Based on the coding, there were more mentions of renewable energy than greenery. However, despite the higher count for renewable energy, the proportion of greenery was significantly more prominent in their 3D models. For example, large portions of students’ 3D models were dominated by green spaces, indicating a strong emphasis on green areas in their visual representations.
References
1. Canadian Broadcasting Company News. Available online: https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.7260810 (accessed on 12 July 2024).
2. Derworiz, C. Alberta Wildfires Linked to Climate Change, Scientist Says. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). Available online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-wildfires-climate-change-1.5168355 (accessed on 9 June 2019).
3. Hallström, J.; Schönborn, K.J. Models and modelling for authentic STEM education: Reinforcing the argument. Int. J. STEM Educ.; 2019; 6, 22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0178-z]
4. Pitt, J. Blurring the boundaries—STEM education and education for sustainable development. Des. Technol. Educ. Int. J.; 2009; 14, pp. 37-48.
5. Lin, K.-Y.; Yeh, Y.-F.; Hsu, Y.-S.; Wu, J.-Y.; Yang, K.-L.; Wu, H.-K. STEM education goals in the twenty-first century: Teachers’ perceptions and experiences. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ.; 2023; 33, pp. 479-496. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09737-2]
6. Kendall, A.L.M.; Wendell, K.B. Understanding the Beliefs and Perceptions of Teachers Who Choose to Implement Engineering-Based Science Instruction. Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition; San Antonio, TX, USA, 10–13 June 2012.
7. Wang, H.H.; Charoenmuang, M.; Knobloch, N.A.; Tormoehlen, R.L. Defining interdisciplinary collaboration based on high school teachers’ beliefs and practices of STEM integration using a complex designed system. Int. J. STEM Educ.; 2020; 7, 3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0201-4]
8. Bybee, R.W. Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technol. Eng. Teach.; 2010; 70, pp. 30-35.
9. Abanoz, T.; Yabaş, D. My world of machines: An integrated STEM education curriculum for early childhood teachers. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J.; 2022; 31, pp. 470-487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2127822]
10. Cunningham, C. Engineering in Elementary STEM Education; Teacher College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
11. Fakaruddin, F.J.; Shahali, E.H.M.; Saat, R.M. Creative thinking patterns in primary school students’ hands-on science activities involving robotic as learning tools. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev.; 2024; 25, pp. 171-186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09825-5]
12. Aikenhead, G.S. Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Stud. Sci. Educ.; 1996; 27, pp. 1-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057269608560077]
13. Philip, T.M.; Azevedo, F.S. Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested terrain. Sci. Educ.; 2017; 101, pp. 526-532. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21286]
14. Andrews, M.E.; Boklage, A. Alleviating barriers facing students on the boundaries of STEM Makerspaces. Educ. Sci.; 2024; 14, 772. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070772]
15. Bang, M.; Medin, D. Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Sci. Educ.; 2010; 94, pp. 1008-1026. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20392]
16. Tan, E.; Calabrese Barton, A.; Benavides, A. Engineering for sustainable communities: Epistemic tools in support of equitable and consequential middle school engineering. Sci. Educ.; 2019; 103, pp. 1011-1046. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21515]
17. Miller, E.; Manz, E.; Russ, R.; Stroupe, D.; Berland, L. Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. J. Res. Sci. Teach.; 2018; 55, pp. 1053-1075. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21459]
18. Disessa, A. Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cogn. Instr.; 2004; 22, pp. 293-331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2]
19. Lemke, J.L. The literacies of science. Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice; Saul, E.W. International Reading Association & National Science Teachers Association: Newark, DE, USA, 2004; pp. 33-47.
20. Ainsworth, S. The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. Visualization: Framework and Practice in Science Education; Gilbert, J.K.; Reiner, M.M.; Nakhle, M. Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 191-208.
21. Ainsworth, S.; Prain, V.; Tytler, R. Drawing to learn in science. Science; 2011; 333, pp. 1096-1097. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21868658]
22. Prain, V.; Tytler, R. Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. Int. J. Sci. Educ.; 2012; 34, pp. 2751-2773. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.626462]
23. Tytler, R.; Prain, V.; Aranda, G.; Ferguson, J.; Gorur, R. Drawing to reason and learn in science. J. Res. Sci. Teach.; 2020; 57, pp. 209-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21590]
24. Scardamalia, M. Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society; Smith, B. Open Court: Chicago, IL, USA, 2002; pp. 67-98.
25. Scardamalia, M.; Bereiter, C. Knowledge building. Encyclopedia of Education; 2nd ed. Guthrie, J.W. Macmillan Reference: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
26. Yoon, H.-G.; Kim, M.; Lee, E.A. Visual representation construction for collective reasoning in elementary science classrooms. Educ. Sci.; 2021; 11, 246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050246]
27. Markle, J. Tentativeness as a strategy and affordance in spatial visualization. Learn. Math.; 2022; 42, pp. 20-24.
28. Hope, G. Thinking and Learning Through Drawing: In Primary Classrooms [Electronic Resource]; SAGE: London, UK, 2008; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446220641]
29. Wu, Y.; Ma, Z. The power of makerspaces: Heterotopia and innovation. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 629. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15010629]
30. Audley, S.; Ginsburg, J.L.; Furlong, C. “We don’t always have to be talking about it”: Moral reasoning in US early childhood education for sustainable development. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 7774. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16177774]
31. Suhaimi, N.; Mahmud, S.N.D. A bibliometric analysis of climate change literacy between 2001 and 2021. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 11940. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su141911940]
32. Skamp, K.; Boyes, E.; Stannistreet, M. Global warming responses at the primary secondary interface 1: Students’ beliefs and willingness to act. Aust. J. Environ. Educ.; 2009; 25, pp. 15-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0814062600000379]
33. Skamp, K.; Boyes, E.; Stannistreet, M. Global warming responses at the primary secondary interface 2: Potential effectiveness of education. Aust. J. Environ. Educ.; 2009; 25, pp. 31-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0814062600000380]
34. Gelmez Burakgazi, S.; Reiss, M.J. Perceptions of sustainability among children and teachers: Problems revealed via the lenses of science communication and transformative learning. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 4742. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16114742]
35. Kollmus, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour?. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2002; 8, pp. 239-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401]
36. Rodríguez, M.; Boyes, E.; Stanisstreet, M.; Skamp, K.R.; Malandrakis, G.; Fortner, R.; Kim, M. Can science education help to reduce global warming? An international study of the links between students’ beliefs and their willingness to act. Int. J. Sci. Soc.; 2011; 2, pp. 89-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18848/1836-6236/CGP/v02i03/51256]
37. Rousell, D.; Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. A systematic review of climate change education: Giving children and young people a ‘voice’ and a ‘hand’ in redressing climate change. Child. Geogr.; 2020; 18, pp. 191-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1614532]
38. Monroe, M.C.; Plate, R.R.; Oxarart, A.; Bowers, A.; Chaves, W.A. Identifying effective climate change education strategies: A systematic review of the research. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2019; 25, pp. 791-812. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1360842]
39. Hughes, G. Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implication for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. J. Res. Sci. Teach.; 2000; 37, pp. 426-440. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200005)37:5<426::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-U]
40. Pedretti, E. Teaching science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education: Preservice teachers’ philosophical and pedagogical landscapes. The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education; Zeidler, D.L. Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 219-239.
41. Pedretti, E.; Bellomo, K. A time for change: Advocating for STSE education through professional learning communities. Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ.; 2013; 13, pp. 415-437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2012.679996]
42. Hoydis, J.; Bartosch, R.; Gurr, J.M. Climate Change Literacy; Cambridge University Press & Assessment: Cambridge, UK, 2023; Available online: https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/climate-change-literacy/D256FE812AD61E90B6B5286B8F472580 (accessed on 28 July 2024).
43. Kalaycı Alas, D.; Korutürk, K. Exploring the impact of values education on sustainable environmental awareness and behavior among eighth-grade students. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 9302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16219302]
44. Kumar, P.; Sahani, J.; Rawat, N.; Debele, S.; Tiwari, A.; Emygdio, A.; Abhijith, K.; Kukadia, V.; Holmes, K.; Pfautsch, S. Using empirical science education in schools to improve climate change literacy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2023; 178, 113232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113232]
45. Reeves, A. Classroom collaborations: Enabling sustainability education via student-community co-learning. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.; 2019; 20, pp. 1376-1392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2018-0220]
46. Bestelmeyer, S.V.; Elser, M.M.; Spellman, K.V.; Sparrow, E.B.; Haan-Amato, S.S.; Keener, A. Collaboration, interdisciplinary thinking, and communication: New approaches to K–12 ecology education. Front. Ecol. Environ.; 2015; 13, pp. 37-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1890/140130]
47. Buck Bracey, Z. Students from non-dominant linguistic backgrounds making sense of cosmology visualizations. J. Res. Sci. Teach.; 2017; 54, pp. 29-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21337]
48. Oh, P.S.; Oh, S.J. What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. Int. J. Sci. Educ.; 2011; 33, pp. 1109-1130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.502191]
49. Huxster, J.; Uribe-Zarain, X.; Kempton, W. Undergraduate understanding of climate change: The influences of college major and environmental group membership on survey knowledge scores. J. Environ. Educ.; 2015; 46, pp. 149-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1021661]
50. García Vinuesa, A.; Rui Mucova, S.A.; Azeiteiro, U.M.; Meira Cartea, P.Á.; Pereira, M. Mozambican students’ knowledge and perceptions about climate change: An exploratory study in Pemba City. Int. Res. Geogr. Environ. Educ.; 2020; 31, pp. 5-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2020.1863671]
51. Holmes, N.G.; Keep, B.; Wieman, C.E. Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.; 2020; 16, 010109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010109]
52. Maspul, K.A. Exploring STEM education for real-world climate change concerns to empower students as change agents. J. Phys. Educ. Sci.; 2024; 1, 12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47134/physics.v1i2.249]
53. Tang, K.-S.; McLure, F.; Williams, J.; Donnelly, C. Investigating the role of self-selected STEM projects in fostering student autonomy and self-directed learning. Aust. Educ. Res.; 2024; 51, pp. 2355-2379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00696-2]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Markle, Josh 1
; Jin, Qingna 2
; Akdemir, Kadriye 1
1 Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G5, Canada;
2 Education Department, Cape Breton University, Sydney, NS B1M 1A2, Canada;