1 Introduction
A changing world create new challenges for teacher education and for continuous professional development of teachers. The focus in this chapter, is the
As a phenomenon, climate change is complex, all-encompassing and urgent. It involves subject content and concepts from various scientific fields. In an educational context, however, climate change also entails ethical reasoning, normative and political values, economic and social justice, emotions and dealing with a constant information and news feed. Climate change issues can be highly debatable. Altogether, climate change is a challenging and difficult topic to teach.
As an educational content, climate change has a prominent place within Geography education. The school subject Geography combines knowledge traditions from both physical and human geography. This means that geographical knowledge and perspectives may offer explanatory power to teaching and learning about climate change. Teaching climate change places demands on the teacher’s subject knowledge and teaching skills. This also requires transformation of content and connecting it with the students’ everyday lives as well as with global and planetary perspectives. With this in mind, it is interesting to explore teaching climate change teaching from a subject-specific perspective, when it comes to what geographical content teachers choose and how teachers transform knowledge about climate change into Geography teaching. Moreover, it is of interest to explore how geographical perspectives and geographical thinking help teachers develop their climate change teaching. Geographical
This study includes lower secondary school teachers’ reflection on their selection of content and challenges in planning climate change teaching. The teachers’ statements then formed a basis for the design of a workshop where the teachers were able to develop their teaching further. In the process when teachers select and transform geographical knowledge into situations for teaching and learning, they are viewed as curriculum makers (see Bladh, 2020). By using geographical concepts and perspectives such as time, place, space, and scale in their lesson plans, teachers engage in geographical thinking (Nilsson & Bladh, 2022). In relation to teaching, this also means transforming geographical perspectives and disciplinary knowledge into an appropriate teaching content in a local school context.
The aim of this study is to explore how teachers plan climate change teaching in the context of Geography education and how teachers’ curriculum making can be enhanced through a professional development workshop. The following research questions have been formulated:
- –In the process of selecting and transforming climate change into Geography teaching, what didactical choices do teachers make and what didactical challenges do they encounter?
- –What aspects of geographical thinking emerge when teachers engage in curriculum making in a professional development workshop?
2 Climate Change – a Curriculum Content
In an educational context, climate change is a broad thematic curriculum content, placed within many school subjects and constituted of many concepts and perspectives. According to Hermans (2016), it includes scientific facts, such as causes and consequences, and socio-political, economical and health related perspectives, to mention some. This explains why climate change is a complex teaching content that requires both multiple dimensions of knowledge and the ability to deal with the climate issue as a conflict of values (see Ojala, 2019).
In the Swedish lower secondary school, climate change is a subject matter in several school subjects, including Geography (SNAE, 2022b). Since Geography connects to a range of scientific fields within physical and human geography, the school subject is characterised by a synthetic, or interdisciplinary, character. At the same time, this also makes geographical knowledge content vulnerable to an overly simplified integration with other school subjects
Hence, within Geography education research, climate change is a common theme. For example, there is an interest in the students’ understanding and misconceptions of climate change (Feldbacher et al., 2023; Hermans & Korhonen, 2017). There is research on how climate change is brought up, and pictured, in textbooks (Schauss et al., 2023) and research discussing the connection of geographical concepts and perspectives to curricular content, such as sustainable development (Maude, 2023). From a Swedish perspective, Kramming (2017) and Torbjörnsson (2014) have investigated teaching and understanding climate change and sustainable development in upper secondary school. Further, Dessen Jankell (2023) related system thinking to climate change issues in upper secondary geography education. However, planning and teaching climate change in lower secondary Geography education is less documented.
A fruitful way to deal with complex geographical content and issues in teaching, is to take a GeoCapabilities approach (Lambert, 2015). This means focusing on key geographical perspectives and concepts to develop geographical thinking. Geographical thinking opens up for a range of explanatory options and enables students “to learn about, and reflect on, aspects of the world” (Lambert & Morgan, 2010, p. 4). Altogether, in a teaching situation where geographical concepts, perspectives, methods and tools are integrated, a geographical language develops and geographical thinking emerges (see Lambert, 2018; Nilsson & Bladh, 2022; Walshe et al., 2022). Given the explanatory power of geographical thinking, there is a research interest in how Geography teaching develops when such thinking is introduced and implemented in teaching, specifically when teaching complex content such as climate change. In relation to that, Geography education research highlights a need to support teachers’ professional development in the subject.
3 Theoretical Perspectives
In this study, climate change is considered through a subject-specific geographical lens. Subject-specific education and the idea of curriculum making, here connected to the GeoCapabilities approach (see Lambert & Morgan, 2010), will form the theoretical points of departure.
GeoCapabilities is a theoretical approach developed by a Geography education research community which draws on the capabilities approach (see Nussbaum & Sen, 1993). GeoCapabilities seeks to combine the theoretical discussion in Geography education (e.g., curriculum making) with perspectives from the sociology of knowledge, emphasising the importance of specialised knowledge as a resource for curriculum thinking (see Lambert, 2015; Bustin, 2019; Bladh, 2020). GeoCapabilities focuses on teachers as curriculum makers. This implies generating developing arenas for collegial collaboration and professional development. Teachers’ curriculum making, here visualised in the Curriculum making model below (Figure 7.1), describes the process when planning lessons (curriculum thinking), and teaching (curriculum enactment). During curriculum thinking, the content knowledge undergoes a selection and transformation process. Curriculum making also includes teachers’ reflection on their performed teaching. Together, these ideas formed a basis for the development workshop used in this study.
Research discussions have pointed to parallels between curriculum making and the Bildung theoretical didactic tradition (Bladh, 2020), where Klafki’s didactical analysis and the didactical choices that teachers make have a close connection to curriculum thinking (represented as teacher choices in Figure 7.1). As visualised in the curriculum making model, the conditions for geographical thinking occur in the interaction with the different aspects of the model. The relation between content, student, and teacher is similar to that of the didactic triangle.
The curriculum making model refers to ideas of powerful knowledge (see Young & Muller, 2015). Such a knowledge can develop students’ understanding beyond everyday experiences and enhance their potential as young citizens. In this context, geographical thinking is considered as a fruitful way to engage with powerful geographical knowledge. Lambert (2015, p. 404) summarises
An adaption of the curriculum making model in geography based on Lambert (2015) and Lambert and Morgan (2010)
4 Method
This study explored how teachers plan climate change teaching in the context of geography education and how teachers’ curriculum making could be enhanced through a professional development workshop. Four Social Science teachers in lower secondary school (grade 7–9) from two schools took part
The study included four phases (see Figure 7.2) and was inspired by educational design research. This means that the study had intervening elements in the pre-planning phase and in the workshop phase. In line with the GeoCapabilities approach, this study sought to establish opportunities for teachers to collaborate in the planning of climate education and participate in local curriculum work as part of continuous professional development.
The workshop was designed to further engage teachers in curriculum making, here by involving the teachers with geographical perspectives and geographical thinking. To establish a platform for mutual understanding of geographical concepts and geographical thinking, a didactical model was used (see Figure 7.3), both as a tool to provide teachers with a common professional language for collegial discussions and a tool to analyse and design teaching (Wickman et al., 2018).
Data was collected through recorded semi-structured interviews which were transcribed. The data collection and analysis were both carried out in two steps. First, individual interviews were conducted in relation to the second and third phase of the study, which meant a focus on planning climate change teaching and reflection on the realised teaching (eight interviews in total). The results from the first analysis were used as a foundation for the development workshop design.
A didactical model of geographical thinking, from Nilsson and Bladh (2022)
The material was analysed with thematic content analysis (Bryman, 2018) and by applying an analytical tool to specify teachers’ geographical curriculum making and geographical thinking in relation to climate change (Table 7.1). First, the teachers’ content selection and didactical challenges in relation to planning and teaching climate change were analysed. Data from the individual interviews were the focus of this part of the analysis. To capture the content selection, the analytic tool was used. The didactical challenges also relate to Klafki’s didactical analysis, but here represented by difficulties or problems related to planning and teaching about climate change.
In the second analysis, data from the focus group interviews were used. Again, the analytical tool to specify teachers’ geographical curriculum making in relation to climate change was used (see Table 7.1). The tool enabled the identification of geographical thinking in the curriculum making process (for a more detailed description, see Nilsson & Bladh, 2022). The tool combines aspects from the GeoCapabilities perspective (Lambert, 2015) and the spatial thinking approach (Jo & Bednarz, 2014). Here, geographical thinking includes different kinds of geographical knowledge, propositional and procedural knowledge, and elements from Taylor’s (2008) discussion on organising concepts. In this context, these aspects are interpreted as central for geographical reasoning processes.
When combining geographical thinking with teaching resources, geographical knowledge may be applied in more abstract educational processes such
An analytical tool to specify teachers’ geographical curriculum making and geographical thinking (see also Nilsson & Bladh, 2022)
| Geographical thinking | Resources used | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| World knowledge | Geographical concepts | Reasoning process | Representations | |
| Knowledge of places and regions | Key concepts
Place, space, scale, time, environment, landscape |
Substantial
concepts (physical and tangible) |
Organising abstract concepts
E.g. interaction, comparison, change |
Subject-specific digital tools (SSDT) and other educational resources available, such as maps, books, news programmes and articles, films, study visits |
All citations were translated by the author from Swedish into English.
5 Findings
The findings are presented in three sections. The first two sections present findings concerning teachers’ didactic choices and didactic challenges related to lesson planning and climate change teaching (RQ1). The third section focuses on results from the professional development workshop and aspects of geographical thinking (RQ2).
5.1 Didactical Choices
In the first and second phase of the study (see Figure 7.2) the teachers planned climate change teaching with input from the pre-project meetings. The teachers decided themselves how many lessons to spend on the theme and what geographical content would be related to the theme. Teachers A and TB worked
The teachers jointly expressed the importance of providing their students with a geographical knowledge base, or substantive concepts, that can further be built upon (see Figure 7.4). TD states that “Geography is about giving the student the basic facts” and on these facts the students can build their reasoning. This means explaining climate change as a whole, and “the task of geography may not then be to delve precisely into the greenhouse effect with all its components”.
A majority of the teachers’ selected content (Figure 7.4) were examples of substantive content concepts (see Table 7.1) and how these relate to climate change and sustainable development. Here the teachers link concepts from physical and human geography; nature and society, and according to TA “they are such central concepts”. Also, the teachers clearly connect climate change
Teachers’ selection of geographical concepts in relation to climate change and sustainable development. The coloured lines exemplify connections the teachers made in their discussions
The teachers covered many different areas of knowledge, which were represented by a breadth of substantive concepts (Figure 7.4). However, these were not concretised or specified. Geographical key concepts and perspectives were seldom used. These were not clearly visible in the plans or in the student tasks. The teachers also found it difficult to connect global climate change issues to the students’ everyday lives and geographical surroundings. Herein lies a spatial scale bridging problem of climate change as possible perceived from local, regional, global or planetary perspectives. Teachers AB s’ lesson plan included an idea of engaging students with the local community, as they conducted interviews about climate change. However, when reflecting on the lesson plans and realised teaching, the interview task did not engage the students in subject-specific knowledge. Hence, traces of geographical thinking are there, but not explicitly expressed. Viewing this from a GeoCapabilities perspective (Lambert, 2015), the results points to the need for subject-specific professional development in relation to complex teaching content.
The teachers justified their didactic choices by the importance and relevance of climate change, now and in the future. However, when meeting the students in the classroom, the teachers’ conceptions of climate change as a relevant teaching content were challenged.
5.2 Didactical Challenges
In the teachers’ discussions on didactical choices one aspect clearly emerges. The teachers spent considerable time discussing the relevance and significance (Klafki, 1995) of teaching climate change in relation to the students. This implied there are didactical challenges in relation to planning and teaching climate change. The characteristics of didactical challenges are partly similar to didactic dilemmas. Rydberg (2018) uses “didactic dilemmas to describe the dilemmas teachers experience when planning, implementing and evaluating reflexive teaching”. These appear when the students interact with climate change teaching, and are closely linked to the didactical relations between content, teacher and students. Through the thematic content analysis (Bryman, 2018), dilemmas connected to aspects of values and emotions, became visible.
Climate change is a value-based content which also involves value conflicts. TC brought up the challenge of acknowledging the severity of the issue without causing fear or distress, since a teacher has the overall responsibility for students’ well-being in a teaching situation. TB defined climate change as an “emotional content … that can evoke both positive and negative emotions and must be balanced carefully”. TC brought up climate anxiety and the
they have solid knowledge about it, factual knowledge that is, but then they drive their mopeds and their EPA s1 and long for lower petrol and diesel prices. … they know how to discuss this [climate change] in tasks and provide great answers, but getting them to understand that this affects them and the next generation is a bit more difficult.
Moreover, the teachers find themselves in situations where their own values and interests clash with those of their students. TD discussed the difficulties of combining an important teaching matter and with the classroom situation where the students’ minds are mostly set on getting good grades. “They are not that committed … it is difficult perhaps to get them to accept this, to learn for the future. Unfortunately, they learn for their grades”. Clearly, there is a conflict between the teachers’ aims and values and the students’ short-term values, such as grades and EPA s. The teachers express a wish for their teaching to influence the students to make changes in their lives and become capable of making better choices in the future. This connects to the ideas proposed by the GeoCapabilities approach (Lambert, 2015). TA connected the importance of understanding Greta Thunberg’s commitment to the capability of making well-founded decisions in the future. TA expressed that: “They have difficulties connecting to Greta Thunberg’s engagement in these issues. They find her annoying”. TA continued: “my interpretation is that they lack a connection to the issue [climate change] and I have to try to connect them to the issue and get them to understand why she is so committed”. TC also talked about raising the students’ commitment: “You do want to raise their engagement and you do want them to feel this is important, therefore opening start of this project teaching climate change needs to be intriguing”.
A way forward to deal with this type of didactic dilemmas in education is to plan teaching that involves and engages students with in-depth subject-specific knowledge and thereby giving them the opportunities to go beyond their everyday knowledge. When selecting and transforming climate change
5.3 Developing Geographical Thinking through a Workshop on Planning Climate Change Teaching
Based on the results presented above, the need for further continuous professional development was clear. The results were used as a point of departure when designing a workshop. In short, this meant that the professional development design included lesson planning with a systematic use of geographical concepts and perspectives. In relation to the didactic dilemmas concerning values and emotions, creating climate change teaching that can stimulate motivation was also important. This as a way to awoke the students’ interests, create engagement and intrigue the students to learn more about the climate change issue. Here, the teachers’ curriculum thinking was structured based on the didactical model of geographical thinking (Figure 7.3) to clarify the perspectives and deepened the quality of curriculum thinking. The model was used as a prompt to highlight key geographical concepts and perspectives in their curriculum thinking and planning process.
During the workshop/s, the teachers were given a task to create a lesson instruction where the students investigate climate change connected to two places, in different climate zones. Both workshop groups had grade nine students in mind when planning activities. They created tasks where the nearest city was included, here pseudonymised C1.
The teachers in workshop AB decided on a lesson plan where the students were to compare two cities and their vulnerability to climate change. Due to the hot temperatures of last summer, they chose a southern European city, Rome, and the Swedish city (C1).
that is what I learned from the previous [student] task as well, … why do we want them to do this? … it’s because we want them to acquire knowledge, facts to able to influence and change.
TA also reflected on the task as a whole: “We have created an assignment that requires … a great deal of preparations for the teacher beforehand. But that is also perhaps what is missing sometimes”. The teachers concluded by discussing what the task could lead to. TB would like for the students to get involved and write citizens’ proposals based on the information about C1. In this way, the school activity is related to the community and “we want you [the student] to look outside the classroom”. TA find this a robust final assignment for grade nine.
Table 7.2 summarises teacher AB’s curriculum making as they relate the different concept levels and connect them to a reasoning process. Here the student task involves comparing two cities and the vulnerability. The teachers engage in geographical thinking during the workshop by using a more differentiated conceptual geographical language, connecting the task to geographical substantive knowledge and procedural knowledge.
The discussion in workshop CD also started in southern Europe but built on conflict of interest as a theme. They chose a place in Spain since the students probably had some familiarity with a European country. They intended to compare the place with the Swedish city (C1).
After information searching, they ended up finding an article that described threats to vegetable and strawberry farming in Alicante, Murcia and Almeria, this due to the Tajo plan. TC stated “Spain is usually called the green-house of Europe”. The water in Tajo is scarce. The teachers then decided to let their students compare two places near rivers, (C1) and Alicante near Tajo. They planned to design a task where students compare vulnerability and conflicts of interest caused by the changes in the water levels in the respective rivers. Furthermore, the students were to study the surrounding areas, and how the living conditions of local people were affected, and looking into how floodings and draught affected food production at a larger scale. Similar to teachers AB, teachers CD divided the theme in three parts: what problems do the two places
Curriculum making workshop AB (teachers AB)
| Geographical thinking | Resources used | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| World knowledge | Geographical concepts | Reasoning process | Representations | |
| Knowledge of places and regions | Key concepts
Place, space, scale, time, environment, landscape |
Substantial
concepts (physical and tangible) |
Organising abstract concepts
E.g. interaction, comparison, change |
Subject-specific digital tools (SSDT) and other educational resources available, such as maps, books, news programmes and articles, films, study visits |
| Vulnerable places: (C1) and Rome | Place (place comparisons)
Scale (size, relational scale) Time |
Geographical descriptions
Examples of climate change, and preparations, from the cities, substantial concepts like extreme heat, draught, flood, tourism |
Comparing the cities (change, patterns), the level of vulnerability, draw conclusions.
Student Interaction with the community |
Geomedia (e.g. Gapminder), statistics, maps of city planning, websites provided by the municipalities and the EU |
Similarly to the activities in workshop AB, the lesson plan in workshop CD underwent a subject specific transformation as the teachers clearly connected the climate change theme, vulnerable places, to geographical perspectives and concepts, and geographical thinking (see Table 7.3). In CD s’ lesson plan, different concept levels are integrated and a examples of reasoning processes are built in the lesson plan. They also include space related issues, connecting the places, rivers and their surrounding areas to conflicts of interests, such as cultivation facilities.
Curriculum making workshop CD (teachers CD)
| Geographical thinking | Resources used | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| World knowledge | Geographical concepts | Reasoning process | Representations | |
| Knowledge of places and regions | Key concepts
Place, space, scale, time, environment, landscape |
Substantial
concepts (physical and tangible) |
Organising abstract concepts
E.g. interaction, comparison, change |
Subject-specific digital tools (SSDT) and other educational resources available, such as maps, books, news programmes and articles, films, study visits |
| Vulnerable places: cities near rivers, Alicante Tajo and (C1) | Time Space
Place Scale (size, relational scale) examples of Time |
Geographical descriptions
Examples of climate change, substantial concepts like temperature, draught, flood, tourism, water supply, drainage area, water scarcity, conflicts of interest, cultivation facilities |
Spatial comparisons, the areas around the rivers, place comparisons (two cities), connection and interaction, causes and consequences | News articles, statistics, textbooks, maps |
In terms of teachers’ didactic choices, here as geographical content selections and transformation processes, the results show that the teachers have clear intentions and objectives with their teaching. They want their students to obtain a geographical knowledge base, of substantive, factual knowledge
When teachers make didactical choices, they also encounter didactical challenges, here described as dilemmas (see Rydberg, 2018). These can be considered as dilemmas in or through the didactic relation, and specifically when the teachers’ objectives and aims for teaching are not met by the students’ values or ideas. The teachers’ have altruistic ideas and values which are reflected in their strong will to influence their students to make wise and climate friendly choices now and in the future. This can be linked to teachers’ views of the relevance and significance of education (Klafki, 1995) and teaching epoch-typical issues (Klafki, 1997). In addition, the result of the study includes traces of impact from the local and social environment of the students. The teachers argue that students show qualitative knowledge of climate change in the classroom, but at the same time they are more committed to issues such as lower petrol prices and their grades. Students’ talk (and behaviour) outside the classroom do not reflect their factual knowledge of climate change. In this context, climate change turns into a constructed school issue only, here in the words of TA: “They know what sustainable development is, but they don’t care”. Hence, there is a conflict of values between the aims of teaching and the students’ interests and commitment. This connects to Ojala’s (2019) idea of promoting a discussion on emotions and learning processes both in the classroom and in teacher education.
The results pinpoint the complexity of climate change teaching. Placing climate change teaching in a geography-didactic context means the curriculum making process involves addressing geographical perspectives and concepts (Lambert, 2015). The results show that the teachers struggle with the geographical content. Their overall lesson designs, described in the first and second interviews, had geographical thinking potential, but organising concepts and geographical key concepts and perspectives were only implicit in the teachers’ lesson plans. Most likely, the students would probably not have developed the geographical language (the grammar of Geography, see Lambert, 2015) or engaged with the concept levels (see Taylor, 2008) required to engage in geographical thinking. Subject-specific complex issues that includes emotional, ethical and political dimensions (see Hermans, 2016) place high
7 Conclusions and Implications for Teachers and Teacher Education
The aim was to explore how teachers plan climate change teaching in the context of Geography education and how teachers’ curriculum making could be enhanced through a professional development workshop. This included teachers’ reflections and arguments concerning their didactical choices when selecting and transforming climate change content for teaching and learning.
A geographical point of departure provides powerful perspectives and concepts to understand complex issues that relates to both human and nature. The professional development workshop used in this study, formed a context where the teachers could develop their Geography teaching about climate change in a community of practice. Here, the didactic model of geographical thinking (Figure 7.3) was essential, for teachers to deepen their geographical knowledge and develop their lesson plans.
The results of this study reveal that thinking geographically can help teachers develop their lesson plans on climate change by approaching it with geographical perspectives, concepts and procedural knowledge aspects. However, there are also additional challenging aspects of climate change teaching, such as emotional, ethical and political aspects. The age of the students and their socio-cultural environment, also have an impact of climate change teaching. In this study, these teaching challenges boiled down to didactic dilemmas.
Dealing with complex teaching issues will also be faced by future teachers. The workshop idea used in this study may serve as a model of professional development that can be implemented in teacher education and in-service training. Here, student teachers can jointly develop teaching about climate change based on geographic perspectives and geographical thinking. Didactic dilemmas also need to be considered. By developing effective models for in-service training and for teacher education, teachers may be better equipped for a changing anthropogenic future. However, conditions for teachers to actually have scheduled time for professional development, such as using teaching models, is limited (Nordgren et al., 2021). This calls for more understanding of how disciplinary knowledge can be brought together with professionals’ reflective practice and practical theorising in communities of practice to produce powerful professional knowledge and learning (Furlong & Whitty, 2017).
There are limitations to this study, like the small participant group. This calls for further research. Here, the GeoCapabilities perspectives and geographical thinking may offer fruitful guidance in preparing teachers and teacher students for educational work in a changing world. Taking various aspects of subject-specific perspectives, concepts and ways of viewing the world into consideration when planning teaching, additional integrative approaches to climate change teaching may become possible. In times of change, new ways of thinking and teaching are necessary, where both the world and the planet matters.
Note
A full-size car, limit speed of 30 km per hour.
References
Bladh, G. (2020). GeoCapabilities, Didaktical analysis and curriculum thinking – furthering the dialogue between Didaktik and curriculum. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 29(3), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2020.1749766
Bustin, R. (2019). Geography education’s potential and the capability approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25642-5
Crutzen, P. J. (2016). Geology of mankind. P. J. Crutzen (Ed.), A pioneer on atmospheric chemistry and climate change in the Anthropocene (pp. 211–215). Springer.
Dessen Jankell, L. (2023). Förstå verkligheten som system: Att utveckla gymnasieelevers systemgeografiska kunnande genom geografiundervisning [Doctoral dissertation]. Stockholm University.
Feldbacher, E., Waberer, M., Campostrini, L., & Weigelhofer, G. (2023). Identifying gaps in climate change education-a case study in Austrian schools. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 33(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2023.2214042
Furlong, J., & Whitty, G. (2017). Knowledge traditions in the study of education. G. Whitty & J. Furlong (Ed.), Knowledge and the study of education: An international exploration (pp. 13–57). Symposium Books.
Hermans, M. (2016). Från förståelse till agerande: Niondeklassares och geografilärares syn på klimatförändringen och undervisningen om klimatförändringen [Doctoral dissertation]. Åbo Akademi University.
Hermans, M., & Korhonen, J. (2017). Ninth graders and climate change: Attitudes towards consequences, views on mitigation, and predictors of willingness to act. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 26(3), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2017.1330035
Horn, E., & Bergthaller, H. (2019). The Anthropocene: Key issues for the humanities. Routledge.
Jo, I., & Bednarz, S. W. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching spatial thinking through geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 38(2), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2014.911828
Klafki, W. (1995). Didactic analysis as the core of preparation of instruction (Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung). Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027950270103
Klafki, W. (1997). Kritisk-konstruktiv didaktik. M. Uljens (Ed.), Didaktik: teori, reflektion och praktik (pp. 215–228). Studentlitteratur.
Kramming, K. (2017). Miljökollaps eller hållbar framtid?: Hur gymnasieungdomar uttrycker sig om miljöfrågor [Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University].
Lambert, D. (2015). Geography. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandya (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 391–407). Sage publication Ltd.
Lambert, D. (2018). Teaching as a research-engaged profession: Uncovering a blind spot and revealing new possibilities. London Review of Education, 16(3), 357–370.
Lambert, D., & Morgan, J. (2010). Teaching geography 11–18: A conceptual approach. McGraw-Hill Education.
Maude, A. (2023). Using geography’s conceptual ways of thinking to teach about sustainable development. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 32(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2022.2079407
Mitchell, D. (2022). GeoCapabilities 3—knowledge and values in education for the Anthropocene. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 31(4), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2022.2133353
Nilsson, S., & Bladh, G. (2022). Thinking geographically? Secondary teachers’ curriculum thinking when using subject-specific digital tools. Nordidactica: Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education, 12(3), 171–203. https://journals.lub.lu.se/nordidactica/article/view/23789
Nordgren, K., Kristiansson, M., Liljekvist, Y., & Bergh, D. (2021). Collegial collaboration when planning and preparing lessons: A large-scale study exploring the conditions and infrastructure for teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 108, 103513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103513
Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (1993). The quality of life. Clarendon Press.
Ojala, M. (2019). Känslor, värden och utbildning för en hållbar framtid: Att främja en kritisk känslokompetens i klimatundervisning. Acta Didactica Norge-tidsskrift for fagdidaktisk forsknings-og utviklingsarbeid i Norge, 13(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.6440
Rydberg, C. (2018). Didaktiska dilemman i undervisning utifrån samhällsdilemman [Licenciate theses, Malmö University].
Schauss, M., Nöthen, E., Ottosander, M.-P., & Sprenger, S. (2023). Visuals of climate change in school textbooks. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 33(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2023.2298557
Taylor, L. (2008). Key concepts and medium term planning. Teaching Geography, 33(2), 50–54.
The Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE]. (2022a). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare: Lgr22.
The Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE]. (2022b). Geography curriculum. Curriculum for the cumpulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare 2022.
Torbjörnsson, T. (2014). Solidaritet och utbildning för hållbar utveckling: En studie av förväntningar på och förutsättningar för miljömoraliskt lärande i den svenska gymnasieskolan [Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University].
Walshe, N., Healy, G., Hammond, L., & Puttick, S. (2022). Introduction: Mentoring matters in and for geography education. In G. Healy, L. Hammond, S. Puttick, & N. Walshe (Eds.), Mentoring geography teachers in the secondary school: A practical guide. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003157120
Wickman, P.-O., Hamza, K., & Lundegård, I. (2018). Didaktik och didaktiska modeller för undervisning i naturvetenskapliga ämnen. NorDiNa: Nordic Studies in Science Education, 14(3), 239–249.
Young, M., & Muller, J. (2015). Curriculum and the specialisation of knowledge: Studies in the sociology of education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747132