Political ideology

Creating climate change education programs is particularly challenging owing to the complexity of the controversy regarding the ethics and values associated with this issue (Monroe et al. 2019). Previous studies in the US and Australia have shown that political party affiliation/ideology, which also affects politics of school boards and curriculum development, is a powerful predictor of climate change perception (Fielding et al. 2012; Hess and Maki 2019). Teachers who perceive this as a real issue will better shape students’ beliefs about the reality of climate change (Stevenson et al. 2016). Learning about climate change may be a powerful tool to weaken the relationship between ideology and climate change beliefs.

Misconceptions

One of the factors most negatively affecting teachers’ instruction about climate change is lack of prior knowledge about the topic (Seroussi et al. 2019). This lack of knowledge is evident when most of the teachers think that “there is substantial disagreement between scientists about this topic” or that “the ozone layer causes warming” or that they “somewhat disagree with the fact that global warming is caused by humans” (Wise 2010). Liu et al. (2015) described that even after attending a professional development program about climate change, secondary school science teachers still conflated global warming with problems caused by ozone layer depletion, a very common misconception.

Curriculum

A primary barrier for educators to teach about climate change is that this topic often does not fit in their established curriculum (Wise 2010). The introduction of non-curricular topics disrupts the planned learning sequence and creates time constraints to prepare students for state exams. It may burden teachers with additional preparation, in addition to students’ resistance to learning non-curricular material.

Participation in active research

Participation in active research is a powerful mechanism to enhance teachers’ experiences when learning about climate change. McNeal et al. (2017) described how active research provides teachers with a sense of expertise and motivation to teach the subject. Collecting their own data and creating their own representations of climatic processes can increase teachers’ “metarepresentational competence,” (MRC) which may be crucial for their learning and motivation (diSessa 2004). It is usually through universities’ outreach programs that teachers can connect with researchers. Currently, the NSF has a funding program that supports teachers to get involved in real research taking place at different universities, colleges, national laboratories, and botanic gardens. However, some of these programs are not hands-on experiences and most are not related to climate change.

Citizen science encompasses the active involvement of the public in scientific research activities, generating new insights and knowledge for the betterment of both science and society (Haklay et al. 2021). Active participation in citizen science projects has shown to be effective in the conceptual learning of science, with high knowledge retention rates and the development of the participants’ critical thinking and communication skills (Araújo et al. 2022). The effectiveness of these programs in the field of ecology has been demonstrated by an increase not only in content knowledge, but also in the awareness of the human impact on nature (Branchini et al. 2015). Furthermore, the socio-emotional development and working memory of individuals is improved by their participation in citizen science (Hirschenhauser et al. 2023). Educators recognize the value of participating in these projects and the impact they have on learning (Aristeidou et al. 2021). Engaging in interactions with active scientists and participating in research-based professional development programs can serve as effective strategies to promote engagement in climate change education and enhance teachers’ pedagogical skills in this domain.

Many of the experienced teachers who are equipped with the pedagogic tools to incentivize students’ learning about climate change completed their education when climate change was not a conspicuous and pressing topic (McNeal 2017). Therefore, these teachers have not been trained on how to effectively address the topic of climate change with their students. Teachers in the McNeal (2017) study indicated that they learned about climate change from the internet/newspapers/books, workshops, personal science/research background, and collaboration with other teachers and scientists. Collaborations with other teachers and scientists was also described to be an effective method to encourage less motivated teachers (McNeal et al. 2017), and accordingly, more motivated teachers often describe themselves as scientists as well as educators. This teaching philosophy, which is enhanced by the interaction with active scientists, promotes student/teacher engagement in climate change research (McNeal et al. 2017). Hestness et al. (2014) also identified research-based professional development as an effective approach for climate change education. They highlighted the importance of the collaboration among teachers and climate scientists, news outlets, and education researchers.

One problem that arises from this idea is how to engage less motivated teachers in authentic research. Usually, those that participate in universities’ outreach activities or citizen science programs are already motivated teachers that purposely want to increase their knowledge on the subject. We also need to reach those teachers who, because of exhaustion, lack of confidence, time, experience, or political affiliations do not volunteer to participate in programs that are crucial for their training and motivation.

Complementary educational curricula using state science standards that teachers can use with their students, facilitating the instruction instead of creating more work for them, could help new as well as veteran teachers to engage in climate change education. Our target should be to support, engage, and motivate teachers to pursue this knowledge and pass it on to several generations of students.

Research shows that citizen science activities are highly engaging for participants (Schuttler et al. 2019). Considering this, we can anticipate that citizen science could serve as an effective tool for training teachers in climate change–related topics. Taken together, these factors suggest that we must focus on teachers’ learning and engagement as part of the comprehensive evaluation of any citizen science program.

In response to this need, we have created the Shade our Schools—Leaves are Cool! citizen science project to collect data for ongoing climate change research and to engage teachers and students in scientific research. In this study, we used data from the Shade our Schools—Leaves are Cool! project to test the hypothesis that participation in a citizen science activity increases teachers’ scientific knowledge, specifically in the conceptual understanding of plant physiology/impacts of climate change. We also describe here the strengths and barriers to participation in these kinds of projects, as well as teachers’ motivations to get involved.

Overview

In order to measure the content knowledge gain of teachers, we created pre- and post-questionnaires that were administered during our teacher training workshop. We describe these surveys in more detail in the section entitled “Workshop questionnaire surveys.” These questionnaires were analyzed using quantitative statistical methods. This allowed us to answer our first research question: “How does participation in a citizen science program impact teacher knowledge about plant physiology/climate change in the context of Miami?”

We employed qualitative methods, specifically a deductive thematic analysis approach, guided by the theoretical frameworks described by McNeal et al. (2017) regarding teachers’ motivations and Monroe et al.’s (2019) successful strategies for teaching climate change to collect and analyze data. We designed end-of-the-year questionnaires with relevant questions to address these points. The end-of-the-year questionnaires also provided valuable insights into the strengths and challenges associated with the program. End-of-the year questionnaires are described in more detail in the eponymous section. These qualitative methods served to answer our second and third research question: “What are the challenges and best practices associated with implementing citizen science programs within the K–12 educational system in Miami?” and “Can a citizen science program motivate teachers to learn about climate change?”

For content knowledge questions (quantitative analysis), we primarily used multiple-choice questions because they are better suited for collecting and analyzing numerical data, reducing ambiguity and subjectivity, and allowing respondents to answer more quickly.

For our qualitative analyses, we mostly used open-ended questions that are capable of eliciting more detailed and diverse responses. These types of answers work better with a deductive thematic approach. We used a deductive thematic approach with a thematic framework from McNeal et al. (2017) and Monroe et al. (2019) and aim to validate or extend these theories.

Workshop questionnaires

To answer our first research question, “How does participation in a citizen science program impact teacher knowledge about plant physiology/climate change in the context of Miami?” we collected data at the beginning and at the end of the workshop. Data were collected via Mentimeter (Year 1 and 2) and Qualtrics (Year 3). Mentimeter and Qualtrics are platforms that allow creating and distributing surveys. We used Mentimeter because it is ideal for real-time interaction and engagement. We later switched to Qualtrics since it is a more comprehensive tool for analyzing structured survey and research data. Supplemental File 7: Year 1 Workshop questionnaire, Supplemental File 8: Year 2 Workshop questionnaire, and Supplemental File 9: Year 3 Workshop questionnaire, show the pre- and post-workshop questionnaires.

The workshop’s pre- and post-questionnaires allowed for statistical analysis to determine whether or not teachers increased their content knowledge in the area of climate change. We hypothesized that our training significantly increased teachers’ knowledge in that area.

We electronically sent the same content questions to evaluate knowledge at the end of the year, but we received very few responses. This limited the possibility for further analysis. While we were able to administer end-of-the-year questionnaires during teacher workshops held at FTBG, we were unable to include content questions in them due to time constraints.

End-of-the-year questionnaires

The end-of-the-year questionnaires allowed us to gauge the perception of teachers about their learning, while also enabling us to address our second research question: “What are the challenges and best practices associated with implementing citizen science programs within the K–12 educational system in Miami?” In all three years of the program, the final surveys asked about the strengths and challenges of the program (Supplemental File 10: End-of-the-year questionnaires). During Year 3, we added questions regarding teacher collaboration, student learning, participation in active research, and motivations (Supplemental File 10: End of the year questionnaires). These helped us to answer our third question: “Can a citizen science program motivate teachers to learn about climate change?

The questionnaires and content question keys were formulated by researchers from the Jungle Biology laboratory at UM and subsequently refined by educational department staff from FTBG. In conjunction with the primary author of this manuscript, an auxiliary evaluator from the FTBG Education department participated in the assessment of the questionnaires. This individual underwent comprehensive training, consisting of two instructional sessions conducted by experts from both UM and FTBG.

Quantitative

To answer our first research question, “How does participation in a citizen science program impact teacher knowledge about plant physiology/climate change in the context of Miami?” we used content questions. For the content questions evaluated in the annual teacher training workshops (Year 2 and 3), we calculated the total score for each teacher for the pre and post questionnaires. We were able to match pre and post responses for 12 teachers in Year 2 and 12 teachers in Year 3, based on the type of school they represent, the subject area they teach, and how many years they have been teaching. Combinations of these answers created unique identifiers that allowed us to match pre and post test scores. For future studies, we recommend asking participants to create a unique identifier that allows for confident tracking and matching of their pre-assessment responses with their corresponding post-assessment results. We proceeded with a one-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare the 2 sets (pre and post test scores). However, these results should be interpreted with caution given our small sample size. We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test since it is most robust with small sample sizes than other parametric analyses. However, we recognize that small sample sizes may reduce our capacity to detect meaningful relationships within our data and, at the same time, limit the generalizability of our results.

Qualitative

We used a deductive thematic approach where we already had a predefined thematic framework from McNeal et al. (2017) and Monroe et al. (2019), and aimed to validate these theories. We added questions about teacher collaboration and thoughts about participating in citizen science, which align with McNeal’s (2017) motivations to teach climate change. We also included questions about engagement and relevance, which are the main focuses related to Monroe’s (2019) strategies for success while learning about climate change. These, as well as other questions, allowed us not only to corroborate both McNeal’s (2017) and Monroe’s (2019) theories but also to create a comprehensive list of strengths and challenges in the program (see the second research question, “What are the challenges and best practices associated with implementing citizen science programs within the K-12 educational system in Miami?”) and to understand if a citizen science program is a good way of engaging teachers in climate change education (see the third research question, “Can a citizen science program motivate teachers to learn about climate change?”

Fall teacher training workshop (from questionnaires)

Our teacher training workshop was held annually in the fall and was found to be one of the main strengths of this project. Teachers were required to attend this workshop to participate in this project. Additional workshops were offered on a case-by-case basis if teachers were unable to attend the first workshop. Teachers are encouraged to participate in as many challenges as they can to accrue points and win prizes at the end of the year. We have had high participation numbers during our fall workshop each year (Year 1 = 61, Year 2 = 21, and Year 3 = 48 teachers from elementary schools and 28 from middle schools). However, not all the teachers answered our questionnaire, and we are presenting here only the results gathered in the surveys. Most of the teachers that have participated in our teacher training workshop are from public schools, and as expected, most of them teach in areas classified as science (Supplemental File 5: Participants background). However, an interesting result is that teachers from other areas (e.g., family and consumer sciences and intensive reading) attended the workshop. The Shade our Schools—Leaves are Cool! project does include elements of writing and arts, which may attract these teachers to participate. We have planned the workshops under the assumption that teachers from different areas may be interested in citizen science programs. In addition, we also show that most of the participating teachers have several years of experience. This may be due to the challenges that early-career teachers face, which may prevent them from participating in voluntary programs like this one.

Evaluation of teacher training workshop (post questionnaire)

In general, each year, teachers reported that the training workshop met their expectations and gave good reviews in all areas (Supplemental File 11: Workshop evaluation). If teachers left the workshop thinking that the information they learned was useful and was presented in a clear manner, and also were willing to come back to a similar event, that may indicate that they feel more confident about the content. If they increased their comfort for teaching this subject, that may be linked to a deeper instruction (National Research Council 2007).

Most of the teachers in Years 1 and 3 expressed that the most helpful part of the workshop was the hands-on experiences, with answers like:

• “Learning from the UM research scientists and going outside to practice doing the actual challenge.”
• “The most helpful part was when everyone went outside to see the data collection first hand.”
• “Being able to do the experiment myself.”

To observe COVID-19 safety measures during Year 2, we carried out the fall training workshop fully online. Protocols were demonstrated using a previously recorded video and images. In this case, teachers found that providing a video with the protocols was very useful, with answers like:

• “The presentation of the workshop was very informative, but the video that explained the experiment was very helpful.”

Content learning from teacher training workshop (pre and post questionnaire)

During Year 2, seven out of nine content questions showed an improvement in their mean score (Supplemental File 12: Pre and post questionnaire scores Year 2 workshop). During Year 3, four out of six questions showed an increase in the mean score (Supplemental File 13: Pre and post questionnaire scores Year 3 workshop). The interrater reliability was over 70% for all questions but one. In addition, total scores for individual teachers significantly increased for the post questionnaires in Years 2 and 3 (Supplemental File 14: Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test), with a few challenging questions. This is an extremely complex topic that will have to be better explained in future editions of the workshop. During our third year, open-ended questions like what is climate change, the greenhouse effect, or thermoregulation in plants did not show an improvement between pre/post questionnaires. We believe that teachers were rushing by the end of the workshop and answered the post questionnaire very quickly. Teachers took an average of 729.2s to answer the pre questionnaire with 13 questions, while they took an average of 369.4s to answer 19 questions from the post questionnaire. We recommend that in the future, teachers take the survey in their own time within one week of the workshop.

In Year 3, we asked whether teachers had prior participation in the program, and a subset of teachers responded affirmatively. The analysis of their pre-questionnaire mean scores showed a higher value, although it did not reach statistical significance according to the Mann-Whitney U Test (p = 0.1), when compared with scores of other teachers who had not participated before. This observation aligns with Liu et al.’s (2015) findings, which highlight that teachers might continue to face challenges in grasping climate change concepts even after receiving professional training. Based on these insights, we propose that extending the program could yield additional benefits for these experienced teachers.

The positive outcomes of our workshop enabled us to effectively tackle the “expectancies of success” and the “cost-value” components of McNeal et al.’s (2017) framework. By equipping teachers with the confidence to discuss the subject and implement enhanced instructional practices, we successfully boosted student motivation.

Strengths

One of the main strengths of the program is our annual teacher training workshop. During this workshop, teachers get the chance to learn about climate change and practice data collection.

Another strength is participation from teachers across different subject areas (science, art, language, etc.), which is critical because several schools conduct the study as an interdisciplinary project that summarizes and analyzes results within an artistically displayed journal. In the end-of-the-year questionnaire (Year 3), we asked the teachers: “Did you collaborate with teachers of other areas to complete the challenge?” and 26 out of 40 participants responded positively (12/18 in elementary school preK–2, 8/11 in elementary school 3–5 and 6/11 in middle school). Teachers learn very effectively from other teachers (McNeal, 2017), and our data suggests that this may be a strength of the program, since most of the teachers collaborated. This touches on the “expectancies of success” and the “cost-value” aspects of McNeal et al.’s (2017) framework, as we have prepared teachers to speak confidently about the subject and implement improved instructional practices that enhance student motivation.

Also, the inclusion of state benchmarks in the challenge helps teachers to adapt the program to their curriculum. This helps with the most important barrier to teach about climate, which is that it usually does not fit in teachers’ curriculum (Wise 2010). Furthermore, the interaction with the scientists at UM who are working on Shade our School—Leaves are Cool! seems to be beneficial for both teachers and students. This is in accordance with McNeal et al.’s (2017) framework on teachers’ motivations regarding “utility value” because we provided state benchmarks they can use to accommodate the study in their curriculum.

Teachers also indicated that the project was a fun and engaging for their students; thus, we were able to verify one of Monroe et al.’s (2019) strategies to ensure success in climate change education: “intervention should engage the participants.” When Fairchild staff asked teachers about their favorite challenge during the first year, some replied with answers such as:

• “Shade Our Schools. We had fun never having measuring the temperature of leaves!”
• “My favorite was Shade our Schools. I thought it was thrilling to be a part of a real research project. The students felt vital to a real study”
• “Shade our school. Because I love to plant trees and teach about its importance in our planet.”
• “We worked with the leaves. The students enjoyed working with thermometer and drawing the leaves. The enjoyed counting the boxes to get the area of the leaf. Learned a lot and had fun.”

Monroe et al. (2019) also described how the experience should be relevant to the learners and relate to their lives. The way the program was created, incorporating native species and using Miami as context, along with answers such as the following, ensured that our strategies align with Monroe’s views. Students learned about how climate change is impacting Miami, the city where they live, so they could connect what they learned to their context:

• “To connect what they are learning in the classroom to real life situations, and help them see how science can apply to their everyday lives.”

At the annual Teachers’ Forum Workshop (a meeting that we held each year at the end of the program to get feedback), end-of-the-year questionnaires revealed that most of the teachers are interested in the FC program to increase their students’ interests in science and plants. All the teachers surveyed during Year 3 responded “yes” to the question: “Do you think your students learned with the project?” The following are a representative sample of survey comments during all 3 years:

• “Citizen science projects give our students hands on experiences with scientific methodologies actually used by scientists.”
• “Students tend to have a limited view of the importance of plants. Exposing them to exciting projects that can affect their lives tend to make it more personal, and elicit more interest.”
• “Citizen science is the most valuable science learning for students.”
• “Lack of activities at my school – I need ways to enrich.”
• “Students loved everything: taking the leaf temperature & measuring & illustrating them.”

Some teachers mention that student’s experience a sensation of being “authentic scientists” while engaged in the process of collecting and analyzing data for ongoing research. This is similar to what Perron (2021) described, where educators state that they have engaged their students in this citizen science initiative to provide them with the opportunity to engage in real-life scientific practices. These activities not only facilitate learning for both students and teachers regarding concepts like climate change, but also cultivate a sense of ownership and curiosity toward the subject. This can lead to the development of a more profound understanding of scientific exploration and a heightened motivation to engage with intricate topics. These are some examples of these answers:

• “Extremely interesting, I really enjoyed the field research and so the kids and I quote ‘Miss, I feel like a real scientist.’”
• “I love teaching about climate change and allowing students to feel like real scientists. Students like knowing they are real scientists contributing to real research to save the world.”
• “It was amazing to know that their research mattered. They [students] were real scientists.”

The end-of-the-year survey (Year 3) revealed that most teachers think that participation in the challenge actually improved their instruction in the field of climate change and plant physiology (11/14 in elementary school preK–2, 9/11 in elementary school 3–5 and, 13/14 in middle school). In addition, most of them think that participating in ongoing current research is a good idea (14/14 in elementary school preK–2, 13/13 in elementary school 3–5, and 10/11 in middle school).

However, a couple of teachers mentioned their own desire or need to participate in the program and how it can directly benefit them. This aligns with the “teaching philosophy of teachers” (McNeal et al. 2017), as we emphasized their role as both scientists and educators. Here are some relevant examples of their answers:

• “It’s my dream as a science lover and a hands on science teacher.”
• “Obviously from the answers to the quiz I need to learn more about this topic.”

We successfully addressed four of the five aspects described by McNeal et al. (2017) to increase teachers’ motivation: (1) expectancies of success, because in our workshops we prepared teachers to talk about the subject; (2) teaching philosophy, because we emphasized their role as scientists; and (4) utility value, because we provided state benchmarks they can use to accommodate the study in their curriculum; and (5) “cost-value aspect,” as well-prepared teachers can offer improved instructional practices that enhance student motivation. According to Monroe et al. (2019) there are two strategies to ensure success in climate change education: (1) The information should be personally relevant to learners, and (2) intervention should engage them. Because the teachers involved in the project are conducting a local study, usually analyzing native endemic plant species and debating about the threats of climate change for Miami, we have also addressed these points. Based on the answers to our end-of-the-year questionnaires, teachers and students find our study exciting and engaging.

Challenges

One of the focal questions of our research pertains to the examination of barriers and strengths associated with the participation of teachers and students in citizen science programs. The end-of-the-year questionnaires from Year 1 identified some challenges related to the participation in our program. This list was compiled from teachers who expressed that the Shade our Schools—Leaves are Cool! project was their least favorite, and from the question regarding barriers found while doing this challenge. We identified challenges related to resources and preparation that highlighted the importance of access to equipment and training. Some examples are:

• Insufficient access to equipment.
• Protocols were confusing to some teachers, especially those that did not participate in our workshop.
• Plant identification.
• Teacher did not have enough background to perform it.

We also identified the need to take into account the importance of having age-appropriate activities that match students’ development.

• Some schools were preK–1st grade, and teachers stated the challenge was too complex for their students’ age

There were logistical challenges, as well:

• Time constraints.
• Lack of trees in some schools.
• ESE (exceptional student education) students.

Working with exceptional student education students require additional considerations and adaptations.

All these issues were addressed in Year 2 by:

• reducing the amount of materials needed for the completion of our protocol;
• providing a detailed video with all the steps of our protocol (English and Spanish);
• designing experiments that could be done at home, parks, etc.;
• directing the challenge toward middle school students; and
• allowing for at-home experiments if there is not enough time in school.

During Year 3 we identified further logistical and preparation challenges such as:

• Teachers do not like trainings on Saturday.
• Teachers would like us to train students directly.
• Due dates cannot be close to state testing dates because teachers do not want to lose instructional time during that period.
• Mandatory workshops should provide master plan points required for teacher certification renewal in Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
• The challenge works better with small groups.

We expect these points are taken into consideration when creating other initiatives like ours. Our experiences can contribute to create effective guidelines for citizen science projects and workshops that will not only generate real data, but can also train students and teachers in crucial subjects like climate change.