Wicked from the Start: Educational Impediments to Teaching about Climate Change (and How Geography Education Can Help)

Abstract

Climate change is a wicked problem, defying simple resolution. Education in various forms and at various levels has sought to improve understanding and stimulate climate change action in young people. There exists, however, a certain wickedness in education systems as well that makes climate change education difficult to enact successfully. These include an unsupportive education environment where academic standards related to climate change are missing, the lack of an inquiry-based pedagogy that can be well-suited to investigating topics like climate change with no easy answers, and ill-prepared teachers who do not fully know both the physical science and social aspects of the topic. A review of education standards in the United States and the literature on the latter two issues is used to make the argument that it is the geography classroom that can serve as the best unifying space that is most supportive of holistic and meaningful climate change education. This future is possible should we be successful in amending standards, pedagogy, and teacher preparation.

1. Introduction

Though originally entering the planning and policy academic literature in 1973, the term “wicked problem” has seen more recent and broader usage across several fields, including design, sustainable development, management, agriculture, environmental studies, and education. As described by Rittel and Webber, wicked problems are “a class of problems that are complex, contentious, defy complete definition and resolution, and for which there is no single solution, since any resolution generates further issues” [1] (p. 4). Several issues, following this characterization, have been styled as wicked, including antibiotic resistance, food insecurity, poverty, terrorism, environmental degradation, drug trafficking, and climate change (on this last example, see Favier et al. [2]). All are complex and not easily resolved. Clearly, the small set of examples given here can even be connected to each other (e.g., food insecurity, poverty, environmental degradation, climate change).

Rittel and Webber [1] maintain that uncertainty, complexity, and conflict mark the ten characteristics of wicked problems:

• They do not have a definitive formulation, meaning that the problem can be framed in multiple ways (with differing solutions).
• They do not have a “stopping rule.” There are no clear signals indicating when or if the problem has been solved.
• Their solutions are not true or false, only good or bad. Solutions are subject to a host of interests and ideologies.
• There is no way to test the solution to a wicked problem. Implemented solutions can have far-reaching and unintended consequences.
• They cannot be studied through trial and error. Solutions are irreversible so every trial counts.
• There is no end to the number of solutions or approaches to a wicked problem and no way to know.
• All wicked problems are essentially unique. A solution that has been tried before or somewhere else is likely irrelevant.
• Wicked problems can always be described as the symptom of other problems. Solutions often hit symptoms and not the underlying condition as a result.
• The way a wicked problem is described determines its possible solutions. A problem framed in economic terms will likely have economic solutions proposed.
• Planners have no right to be wrong. As solution proposers and implementers, planners are held responsible for the consequences of their solutions.

As introduced earlier, wicked problems transcend several fields from planning to healthcare and management and have been appropriated by other fields such as education and geography as used in this paper. Of these academic traditions, geography as a discipline is well-equipped as a physical and social science to explore wicked problems like climate change, and by its very nature is arguably the best place for effective education on the subject in a K–12 classroom. Training in weather and climate and other Earth physical systems is the norm in geography preparation programs, as is coursework in social systems including politics, culture, and economics. The subject’s study is a broad-based exposure to Earth’s human and natural workings that well-positions a geographer for engaging in climate change as a subject. Accordingly, geography educators can serve as the bridge for students tackling an uncertain (e.g., wicked) topic like climate change. In addition, geographers readily find within the characteristics of wicked problems a familiarity from work in their own field. Places—both their physical and social manifestations—are unique (see wicked problem characteristic #7) and demand a suite of responses that match the uniqueness of the people and local conditions there. Environmental solutions to problems are often neither right nor wrong (see characteristic #3); Earth as an open laboratory precludes some methods used in other sciences (see characteristic #5); the complexity of Earth’s physical and social systems makes it difficult to know the range of solutions (see characteristic #6); and so on. Consider for example the question of how to tease out economic recovery following 2005’s Hurricane Katrina along the Mississippi coast: which mitigation, adjustment, or adaptation strategies should be chosen for that place, and how can we know what was successful (and in whose interests) especially after the Great Recession of 2008 and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010 wreaked additional social and environmental havoc there?

Education would seem to be a useful strategy for dealing with wicked problems to, at a minimum, create awareness of where solutions are possibly ineffective. There is, however, as noted previously, no way to really know (see characteristic #6). Complicating the teaching about wicked problems is an additional “wickedness”: the educational systems themselves. When pairing a wicked problem (e.g., climate change) within a wicked environment (e.g., education systems), K–12 climate change education becomes a “super-wicked” [3] endeavor, doubly difficult to achieve well with the problematic issues both bring with them. This paper’s discussion is premised on three proposed axioms and questions that can drive effective climate change education:

• The Education Environment Matters
• To what degree is climate change present within science and social studies academic standards?
• The Use of Inquiry Matters
• To what degree is inquiry as a pedagogic strategy employed with climate change academic standards?
• The Preparation of Teachers Matters
• To what degree are we sufficiently preparing teachers for climate change education?

These three issues—when performed poorly or when ignored—introduce an education wickedness that further confounds the wickedness of climate change. For the Education Environment, the emphasis is on the curricular structures that guide topical instruction. In this paper, a subset of academic learning standards that vary by U.S. state are explored for their potentiality in facilitating climate change education. A rigidity, inapplicability, or absence of some academic standards can mis-guide climate change teaching opportunities. The Use of Inquiry means the effective use of instruction that allows for students to generate questions, engage in research, present their findings, and reflect on their learning. This varies from a traditional learning environment more focused on having the student acquire facts. An instructional mindset that over-emphasizes low-level learning outcomes (e.g., fact learning) over skills development limits what is possible in engaging students with wicked problems. Regarding the Preparation of Teachers, an argument is made that it is the well-prepared geography teacher that, when paired with the Use of Inquiry in a supporting Education Environment, can lead successful climate change learning. Poor teacher preparation in geography and its pedagogy does more than stunt global awareness. Also missing is the teacher’s ability to engage their students with the physical and social sciences so necessary for confronting the complexity of climate change.

2. Climate Change—A Wicked Problem for Earth and Education

There is no shortage of novel materials or strategies on how to introduce students to climate change. One early entry in the U.S., published by the National Council for Geographic Education, was Climatic Change and Variation: A Primer for Teachers [4]. A more recent book, Teaching Climate Change in Primary Schools [5], well-illustrates instructional opportunities for teachers with chapters on utilizing art, drama, climate justice, and even religious traditions in the early classroom. Le [6] gives yet another example that engages climate change and the Next Generation Science Standards for older students with Teaching Climate Change for Grades 6–12. While the focus of this article is on K–12 education, the literature is replete with climate change education examples that range from preschool [7] to higher education [8,9,10]. Key to many of these studies is the recognition of the importance of accurate content and appropriate pedagogical strategies.

Climate change education research has generally fallen into two areas: (1) investigating student awareness and willingness to act or engage with the issue personally, and (2) various classroom interventions that include testing different pedagogical strategies or materials. Both areas are obviously related with the second (interventions) focused on improving the first (awareness, action, etc.).

Among these findings, Gal [11] reports climate change education as improving attitudes toward environmental activism and positive personal behavior change among sixth grade students. Turner and Wilks also share improved learning enjoyment by 6- and 7-year-old students regarding climate change in an outdoor and local classroom setting [12]. There, students went beyond thinking about the subject to experiencing it. Other studies looking at student awareness, attitudes, and action are abundant [13,14,15,16,17,18,19] and contain similar outcomes.

Teaching strategies have included using geospatial technology (Google Earth) and sea ice to examine climate change [20], creating online modules to bring up-to-date climate science to in-service and pre-service teachers [21], and constructing digital maps to combine “natural scientific research on climate change (CO₂ emissions, sea level rise, species extinction, etc.) with social scientific research on the human impacts of climate change (e.g., forced migration, political conflict, economic disparities)” [22] (p. 169). Others have reported on using refutation-oriented instruction to correct students’ misconceptions about climate change [23], having middle and high school students produce videos about locally relevant climate change issues [24], and integrating geography with math and science curriculum to successfully improve student performance in STEM knowledge [25]. Additional work exists that has looked at out of the classroom education and elevating student voices as researchers [26] and how students’ interest in the topic, and their personal activism, can lead to a rethinking by teachers about the role of education beyond classroom walls [27].

As useful as these materials or strategies might be, substantive consideration must be placed on the education environment as to their transferability to other places. Regarding that education environment, fundamental questions can include: is there room (time) in a full syllabus for the topic (especially with a reduction in science and social studies coverage to clear the path for reading and math [28])?; is the topic explicitly a part of the curriculum (and possibly assessed), demanding its inclusion?; and is the topic included in a way to explore all its dimensions (i.e., both the physical and social components of climate change—climate science, policy, economy, culture, place, etc.)? It is these final two questions that drive the next section by exploring one aspect of the educational environment: academic standards. The best materials and strategies are for naught in a non-inclusive climate education environment (see Hestness et al. on the importance of standards-aligned curricular resources [29]).

3. Academic Standards—Openings for Learning Missed?

The environment in which education is enacted is shaped by a variety of factors. This can include the political context, funding levels, and the school climate and leadership, among others. For the purposes of this paper, one factor of the education environment—academic standards—is highlighted by asking to what degree is climate change present within science and social studies academic standards?

Many countries have national academic standards that drive curriculum. These standards prescribe what is to be taught and when. In the United States, advisory but not compulsory national standards exist (e.g., Geography for Life [30]; C3 Framework for Social Studies [31]; Next Generation Science [32]) that are used by its states in some form to create their own state-level academic standards. These standards are often obligatory in the sense that the content and skills they dictate are assessed through end of course examinations. As a result, these standards can form the basis of what is taught—and what is not. Wise [33] found that teachers in Colorado cited standards (having them or not) as a primary reason for their teaching about climate change. It stands to reason then to expect that climate change education will be most effective when it is explicitly a part of the curriculum precisely because the academic standards and learning outcomes demand its inclusion as opposed to happenstance where an educator might choose to use the topic in their teaching. Dawson et al. [34], sensing this issue, reviewed the science and geography curriculums across six countries and found considerable unevenness among places and the disciplinary perspectives, with climate change being primarily present in the science curriculum. As a result, they argue—in support of Mochizuki and Bryan [35]—that scientific knowledge alone is insufficient to learning about climate change and that geography is well suited for the study of global environmental challenges given its intersection between physical Earth systems and human dimensions. A curriculum that spans both is one solution.

In contrast to the previous study contrasting six curriculums (Australia, Israel, Finland, Indonesia, Canada, England), to take the pulse of where climate change education might occur in U.S. state curriculums, here a selection of science and social studies academic standards were randomly selected from each of eight U.S. Census regions. These states are Connecticut, New Jersey, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Oregon. The last state chosen from the ninth and final Census region was South Carolina, the author’s home state. This was done for comparative purposes and because the author was a part of the writing team for the social studies standards and able to witness first-hand the construction process.

For both the science and social studies standards in these nine states, a keyword search was employed for the terms “weather”, “climate”, and “climate change”. The full range for standards from kindergarten through grade 12 were searched. The focus here is not on how often these terms appeared, but rather if they did at all and in what context.

Table 1. “Weather”, “Climate”, and “Climate Change” in select U.S. state science standards.

State	Weather	Climate	Climate Change
Arizona	E M H	E H	H *#
Connecticut	E M H	E M H	M H
Michigan	E M	E H	H #
Missouri	E M H	E M H	H
New Jersey	E M H	E M H	E *# M H
Oklahoma	E	E M	E #
Oregon	E M H	E M H	E * H #
South Carolina	E M H	E M H	H #
Tennessee	E M H	E M H	H

* Not part of standard or assessment; # environment influences human activities; bold = humans influencing climate.

highlights the grade levels—elementary (E), middle (M), high (H)—where the terms were found in the science standards.

Regarding the science standards, both “weather” and “climate” are specifically referenced for elementary students in each state. With a few exceptions—Arizona, Michigan, Oklahoma—both terms form the basis of at least one standard for middle and high school levels as well. Typically, the context for this language is to have students understand physical systems. For example, fourth grade students in Arizona are to “collect, analyze, and interpret data to explain weather and climate patterns” [36]. Missouri [37] is similar with third grade students needing to “obtain and combine information to describe climates in different regions of the world”.

“Climate change” as a topic diverges in four important ways. First, the subject is primarily taught at the high school level (all nine states), but fewer than half approach the topic in lower grades and only one state has a mention at all grade levels (New Jersey). Second, there are three states (Arizona, New Jersey, Oregon) where “climate change” is not really in the standard per se, but rather mentioned as a sidebar explicitly stating that the topic will not be assessed at the state level (e.g., end of course exam or similar). No other topic appears to have a similar disclaimer. Third, in six of the states the standard specifically refers to how climate influences human activity, but not the other direction. For example, Oregon high school students are to “construct an explanation based on evidence for how the availability of natural resources, occurrence of natural hazards, and changes in climate have influenced human activity” [38]. Fourth and finally, there are only three states whose standards reverse the previous and call for students to study how human activity can influence climate. Tennessee high school students in ecology coursework “engage in argument from evidence regarding the impacts of human activity on climate change” [39].

The trends evident in this subset of states is that climate change education occurs primarily late in schooling, is focused mainly on understanding how physical Earth systems “work”, and when humans are mentioned, the emphasis remains on the environment as being something that acts upon humans and not the other direction. This, then, is an incomplete look at a wicked problem from a curricular standpoint. Without explicit standards direction, an educator is unlikely to take on this topical task.

The social studies standards paint a bleaker picture.

Table 2. “Weather”, “Climate”, and “Climate Change” in select U.S. state social studies standards.

State	Weather	Climate	Climate Change
Arizona	E	E H	E
Connecticut	E	E H	-
Michigan	-	E M	M
Missouri	-	-	-
New Jersey	M	M	M
Oklahoma	E M	E M	M H
Oregon	-	-	E H #
South Carolina	-	E M	-
Tennessee	H	E M H	-

# Environment influences human activities; bold = humans influencing climate.

showcases the social studies standards. For all “weather”, “climate”, and “climate change” terms, the grade levels with any mention drop to less than half of those in the science standards. As one might expect from social studies, the mentions reference basic geographic environmental features or historic events of importance to that state. In Oklahoma, third grade students “describe the climate and various vegetation zones found in Oklahoma” (e.g., basic geographic physical landscapes) and “summarize how the weather and the environment have impacted the economy of Oklahoma in events such as the Dust Bowl” (e.g., locally important history) [40]. There are three states—Arizona, Michigan, and Oklahoma—that do emphasize the role of human actions on climate; these three states are different than the three emphasizing the same but in their science standards. In Michigan, the standards document suggests that regarding human environmental impacts, educators should directly engage students with “how use of fossil fuels leads to climate change” [41].

In general, the social studies standards focus on general geographic descriptions of climate regions, how climate variability influenced historic migration patterns, settlement choices, housing styles, agricultural practices, and so on. Understandably, the focus is on humans and their responses, not the physical systems themselves as would be covered in the science curriculum. Here then is one example of wickedness within the educational system—the siloing of different disciplines (especially as a student works their way into higher grades and levels of instruction).

Wicked problems themselves demand a holistic view and the fragmentation within how we teach limits those possibilities. The bridge lies in having a robust geography course of study where the physical and social sciences are brought together. Unfortunately, in the United States this can still be missing as the most popular geography offering, the AP Human Geography course, is at the high school level and focuses on human geography and not Earth’s physical/environmental systems. A further complication is local politics, which can “affect the extent to which climate change appears in the school curriculum” [34] (p. 1393). South Carolina, which has a high school course separate from AP Human Geography, demonstrates that even in the presence of a broad and topically open geography curriculum, climate change may escape instruction. To pass a set of social studies standards by the state Board of Education in 2019, writers necessarily had to avoid terms such as “climate change” lest local politics upset the whole process (see wicked point #3).

The variations shown here state by state are like the country level findings described earlier [34]. Where these climate change specific standards are missing, educators are unlikely to engage with the topic. While important in setting the stage for climate education, standards themselves are not the end point, nor are they the curriculum. Even in Singapore, with a centralized and standardized national education system that is supportive of accurate climate change science, pedagogical choices can result in different student learning experiences [42]. Arguably, one pedagogical choice well-suited to wicked problem investigations is inquiry. The standards can be met, but with the script flipped to better engage with students interests.

4. Inquiry—Wicked Problems Require Open-ended Learning Opportunities

Traditional learning environments have been teacher-centric, focused on knowledge transmission, and centered on finding the “right” answer. With no “right” answer readily available for wicked problems, a traditional pedagogy reinforces the wickedness. An inquiry-based learning strategy embraces complexity and uncertainty, and places students’ curiosity and their desire to learn more about their world, for which climate change will certainly impact. Inquiry places students and teachers side by side, making progress together without the expectation that the teacher has “the” answer. Following their systematic literature review of climate change education, Rousell and Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles [43] (p. 203) conclude that making climate change meaningful for students requires participatory engagement “to actively empower [them] to mitigate climate change.” Verlie and Blom further critique the status of much climate change education, arguing for greater attunement to student experiences to not distance climate change from their lives via a disengaged classroom environment [44]. An inquiry and problem-based approach can be a solution toward leading educators in this direction.

Multiple variations on inquiry-based learning exist, but the Geo-Inquiry process illustrated here shows how both the general method and how a geographic approach would be used to investigate climate change. Developed by the National Geographic Society with several education partners [45], the Geo-Inquiry process contains five action-oriented steps: Ask, Collect, Visualize, Create, and Act. Oberle [46] found that the process was successful for student improvement in creating maps and other geographic representations, reinforcing its utility as a classroom learning strategy.

In the Ask phase, students pose a question of personal interest related to the topic. In this case, the question might be “How will rising temperatures impact agricultural production in our local region?” In the Collect phase, students would conduct background research on specific crops in their area, gather historic and contemporary climate data, read historic primary source materials, and possibly interview farmers on their practices and experiences. To Visualize, crop and climate data may be mapped to see if there are local differences expected in impacts. This step would necessitate proper instruction on mapping techniques and spatial analysis. Finally, students would Create visuals to share their findings and engage themselves and others to Act. This creative process could include paper or digital posters, pamphlets, plays, or video to convince other actors to take up their cause.

An important question here is to what degree is inquiry as a pedagogic strategy employed with climate change academic standards? The answer for this nine-state subset is few. However, three standard examples highlight in varying ways what is possible when inquiry is used to support climate change investigations:

South Carolina Social Studies 7.1.6.AG:

Gather evidence and construct a map or model to investigate a significant contemporary cul-tural, economic, or political issue facing [region] at the local, regional, or global scale.

Tennessee Science ESS.ESS2:

Construct an argument based on evidence about how global and regional climate is impacted by interactions among the Sun’s energy output … and human activities.

New Jersey Science MS-ESS3-5:

Ask questions to clarify evidence of the factors that have caused climate change over the past century … examples of factors include human activities (such as fossil fuel combustion…) and natural processes.

In the South Carolina example, from a middle level geography course, the standard is topically agnostic while also inviting inquiry in a manner that the Geo-Inquiry process could support. This is a skill standard (e.g., “gather evidence and construct a map”) that could be paired with a content standard on climate (e.g., “identify climate and vegetation patterns”). However, given that a specific climate change standard does not exist for this grade level in South Carolina, it would likely take a teacher who is personally committed to the topic to use climate change as an example to engage their students. Inquiry alone without the standard support may not lead to the desired result. Improvement in the South Carolina case would be pairing the specific content—climate change—with this strong activity and inquiry-based standard. Both the Tennessee and New Jersey standards call out climate change and require inquiry via argumentation construction and evidence gathering, creating an environment with a greater chance of success. Of note, these two state standards identify both the physical and human elements of climate change. However, these standards both exist within the science curriculum where the teachers may not have the necessary background to be comfortable with the ambiguity and value choices that teaching the social aspect would require. To be truly successful, inquiry-based and content rich standards require educators with a teaching background that many teachers unfortunately do not have due to the siloed nature of teacher training programs (and the lack of geography as a core course program requirement).

5. Content Excellence—Teacher Preparation Is Key

Favier et al., while referring to climate change as a wicked problem, argue that “Teachers need to have extensive knowledge to design high-quality education that addresses the wickedness and contributes to wicked problem-solving” [2]. In addition to this design competency, a thorough knowledge by educators of the physical science and the social realm in which wicked problems manifest should be expected. This blended subject expertise is lacking (as is also true for climate science more generally [47,48] for some emerging educators). Accordingly, to what degree are we sufficiently preparing teachers for climate change education?

Teacher preparation can take many forms, and Sullivan et al. [49] have reported on the role of informal and self-directed climate science learning by teachers in addition to formal avenues such as district or school-led professional development. However, instruction on climate change and environmental education broadly in teacher preparation programs is decidedly lacking [50,51] (see Berger et al. for a rare example [52]). Beach [53] makes the call, among other suggestions, to help teachers teach the climate crisis, for transdisciplinary teacher preparation.

The argument made in this paper is that where this joint physical/social focus on climate change has the greatest potential for transformative learning is in a geography classroom where the two domains are anchored in specific places. Although geography is not explicitly mentioned, Wise [33] makes this same basic case when suggesting that an interdisciplinary instructional approach inclusive of the physical sciences and social sciences is best for climate change education. Onuhoa et al. [54] found in their study that it was geography students who possessed the highest climate change awareness level, lending support for the geography classroom as the most ideal learning space for the topic. This paper asserts that including geography education in teacher preparation programs can be the ground on which Beach’s transdisciplinary preparation is built.

Unfortunately, the long-standing problem of geography teacher preparation is well-documented [55], even though some successful strategies have been shared [56]. Embedding geography teacher preparation into these programs requires allyship with the education faculty. Though often sympathetic, these faculty are faced with a difficult task in supporting geography when teacher certification may not require the subject and education programs are already heavy with other content and practice coursework competing for time. Where geography is lacking in pre-service programs, professional development for in-service teachers is another possibility, but these opportunities are generally voluntary and fleeting. Nonetheless, it is arguable that, when performed well, teacher preparation in geography that is paired with inquiry and an education environment (e.g., standards) that supports climate change learning should have greater potential for more effective and durable outcomes for students.

6. Conclusions

Where can we expect to find a quality education environment where wicked problem learning about climate change can take place? This paper has argued that it is where those well-prepared in content (teachers) are engaged in active learning (inquiry) in a place where the curriculum supports its inclusion (standards).

Teachers are integral to bringing about a new generation of students that are capable of understanding and moving us toward possible solutions for mitigating or adapting to climate change. Morote et al. [57] make this point clear in their investigation of teacher preparation for flood risk in the context of climate change. There, Spanish pre-service teachers were shown to have minimal training or understanding of flood risk perception. Accordingly, the expectation that students will learn about flood risk in the absence of a well-trained teacher corps is illusory. This, too, is true for climate change education. Beyond preparation in teacher training programs on the “science” of climate change, an understanding of social systems and the people and places impacted by climate change is also necessary. In-service teachers must also be engaged in new learning themselves to properly instruct on the topic.

Further, the teaching strategies that are employed must engage students in terms of their attention and personal desires for learning. An inquiry-based, and problem-focused, teaching pedagogy can work well in the hands of a knowledgeable teacher both in the subject matter of climate change and the techniques of inquiry. Brumann el at. [58] are among researchers that make this case not only for the ability of this pedagogical strategy to better illuminate the full array of social and physical science complexity that is climate change, but also because the strategy can develop student skills such as creativity, innovativeness, collaboration, communication, and decision-making, among others. A classroom that is student-driven is empowering compared to one that is teacher-centered with a top-down focus on information transmission. When students themselves are asked to grapple with questions such as “what would happen if the ocean’s pH level changed?” or “what impacts might we see in our local coastlines if the sea level rose 2 cm?”—and importantly a teacher guides these students to generate these questions themselves—we can create student interest and agency that is later well-suited to personal action.

The curricular environment is a last, key piece. Academic standards exist to keep instruction focused on learning outcomes that are desirable at a certain time and for a particular place. Standards can be explicit in their content coverage, helping to drive learning in a prescribed direction (as recommended here for climate change). Mitchell [59] cautions, however, that even standards specificity can lead to instruction that seems incongruous for some locations (e.g., teaching about volcanoes in Florida not for hazards understanding but as a part of plate tectonics instruction), demonstrating in another way some of the drawbacks of standards. In other cases, standards are deliberately indefinite to allow for concepts to drive instruction as opposed to a particular topic.

In current times, a focus on assessment has led instruction away from topics that may not be tested as specified in the standards. It is imperative in this case to have climate change teaching embedded explicitly—and carefully—within the standards. Standards are not, of course, the curriculum, and the chosen instructional method will vary from classroom to classroom. But where climate change education is centered in the learning expectations, this hurdle is at least overcome to a degree. The key, then, is to find the middle spot where teacher preparation, inquiry-based instruction, and standards/topical expectation overlap.

Chang [60] (p. 182) boldly declares that it is “the geography classroom [that] is the best place to teach about climate change as it affords both the space and time for students to…connect related concepts of the human–environment interaction”. This is the middle spot, and the arguments made in this paper are supportive of this position under the conditions that the geography teacher is well-prepared to teach the topic, is engaged in a problem-focused (real-world) curriculum with an inquiry focus and has a supportive educational environment where the curriculum and standards welcome and insist upon climate change education rather than rely on educator whim or happenstance.

Climate change may be the wicked problem of our time. If we allow the wicked nature of educational systems and structures to shape our approach to learning about it, we will indeed be faced with a “super wicked” problem. The modification of the education environment, pedagogy, and teacher preparation are achievable, and when satisfied can lead to climate change education that is meaningful and ultimately actionable by those we teach.