The Effect of Participating in Climate 	Change Education Programs on Youth Self-Efficacy and Related Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Megan Crichton; Brianna Palmer; Arianna Doolan; Donna Pendergast

The Effect of Participating in Climate Change Education Programs on Youth Self-Efficacy and Related Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Megan Crichton^*,** , Brianna Palmer^*, Arianna Doolan^*, & Donna Pendergast^*

^*Griffith University, Australia

^**Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Education Thinking, ISSN 2778-777X – Volume 4, Issue 1 – 2024, pp. 61–90. Date of publication: 28 May 2024.

Download full-text PDF

Cite: Crichton, M., Palmer, B., Doolan, A., & Pendergast, D. (2024). The effect of participating in climate change education programs on youth self-efficacy and related outcomes: A systematic review. Education Thinking, 4(1), 61–90. https://pub.analytrics.org/article/18/

Declaration of interests: The authors declare to have no conflict of interest.

Authors’ notes: Megan Crichton, Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia, and School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, Queensland, 4122, Australia. Corresponding author: megan.crichton@qut.edu.au. Brianna Palmer, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, 4000, Australia: brianna.palmer@griffithuni.edu.au. Arianna Doolan, Griffith University, Bris- bane, Queensland, 4000, Australia: ariana.doolan@gmail.com. Donna Pendergast, School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, Queensland, 4122, Australia: d.pendergast@griffith.edu.au

Copyright notice: The authors of this article retain all their rights as protected by copyright laws. However, sharing this article – although not in adapted form and not for commercial purposes – is permitted unde r the ter ms of the Cre a ti ve C omm ons Attribut i on –NonCom mer – c ial –NoD e riva ti ve s BY –NC –ND 4.0 Inte rn a ti ona l li c e nse , provided that the article’s reference (including author names and Education Thinking) is cited.

J ournal’s ar e a s of r e se ar c h addre ssed by the artic le : 26-Environmental Education; 57-Sci- ence Education.

Abstract

Building self-efficacy is important in climate change education due to self-efficacy being a key determinant of pro-environmental engagement and behaviour change in youth. However, there is a lack of evidence synthesis to determine whether climate change education increases self-efficacy. Seven databases were searched to October 2022 to locate intervention studies examining the effect of participating in a climate change education program, compared to any comparator, on self-efficacy and related outcomes in youth (<25 years of age). Nine studies were included (n=2318 participants, age range:11-24 years). Most studies (78%) met 40% of study quality criteria. Consistent evidence was found for the positive effect of participating in climate change education programs on youth self-efficacy (n=8/9 studies with a significant positive effect; n=2047 participants; effect size: small-to-very large), knowledge (n=5/6 studies with a significant positive effect; n=1727 participants; effect size: medium-to-large), and measures of climate-related affect (perceived importance of climate change [n=3/3 studies with a significant positive effect; n=1198 participants; effect size: small-to-medium], and interest in climate change [n=2/2 studies with a significant positive effect; n=684 participants; effect size: small-to-medium]). Preliminary evidence, supported by one study only, found climate change education programs improved locus of control (the degree to which an individual believes he or she can control phenomena) and measures of affect (belief in climate change and political awareness). Mixed results were found for the effects on climate friendly behaviours and measures of affect (intention to act, perceived threat/severity of climate change, and personal relevance /responsibility of climate change). According to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method, confidence in the findings for all outcomes ranged from very low to low. This review found participatory climate change education programs were effective in improving youth self-efficacy, knowledge, and measures of climate-related affect. However, Confidence in the body of evidence to support these conclusions was mostly very low, warranting future rigorous trials with clearly defined youth education programs, consideration of secondary outcomes related to self-efficacy, and valid outcome measures.

Keywords

Climate change education, Self-efficacy, Youth.

Education is believed to be pivotal in overcoming the deleterious environmental, social, and economic effects of climate change (Leal Filho & Hemstock, 2019; UNESCO & UNFCCC, 2016). Education enhances individuals’ understanding of and capacity to address climate change, promotes community and stakeholder engagement to respond collectively to climate change, and accelerates social and policy change (Feinstein & Mach, 2020; UNESCO & UNFCCC, 2016). Of particular importance is educating youth, who will suffer the most consequences from climate change in the years to come (Rousell & Cutter- Mackenzie-Knowles, 2020). Many aspects of their lives, including security, physical well- being, and mental health, will be negatively impacted by climate change (Ma et al., 2022; Sanson et al., 2019). Thus, optimising climate change education for youth is a key priority in addressing climate change.

Although self-efficacy has been acknowledged as an important attribute of scientifically educated individuals in the draft PISA 2025 Science Framework (OECD, 2023), numerous guidelines and frameworks specifically addressing climate change education (Gibb & UNESCO, 2016; Molthan-Hill et al., 2019; Schweizer et al., 2013) do not acknowledge the emerging importance of self-efficacy in learning. Self-efficacy refers to a person’s perceived skill or capability to conduct an action or task and thus influences thoughts, feelings, behaviour, and actions (Bandura, 1977; Zulkosky, 2009). In education, higher self-efficacy has been found to lead to improved student learning, motivation, and academic performance (Hayat et al., 2020; Ingvarson et al., 2005). Building self-efficacy is particularly important in climate change education because it is a key determinant of pro- environmental engagement and behavioural change in youth (Corner et al., 2015; Ung et al., 2016). Despite its importance, there is a lack of evidence synthesis to determine whether climate change education increases self-efficacy. Therefore, this systematic review was conducted to examine the effect of participating in a climate change education program, compared with any comparator, on self-efficacy and related outcomes in youth (<25 years of age).

Method

This review was prospectively registered with the Open Science Framework Preregistration and reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) statement (Page et al., 2021).

Search Strategy

Proquest Education, ERIC, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to 13 October 2022. The search strategy used a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary based on the following: climate change AND self-efficacy AND youth (See Table S1 in the Appendix for the complete search strategy). The first 100 references sorted by relevance were obtained from Google Scholar on 13 October 2022 (Bramer et al., 2017). Reference lists of pertinent literature were assessed until 25 October 2022 to identify any additional studies that were not located in the search strategies.

Selection of Studies

One investigator conducted the automated deduplication of articles using Endnote 20.2 software. Screening of remaining titles and abstracts then full texts was completed by two investigators independently using Covidence software. Screening conflicts were resolved through discussion between the investigators.

Intervention studies examining the effect of participating in a climate-change education program on youth self-efficacy were included. Eligible climate change education programs involved active youth participation, whereby youth were involved in the design and/or implementation and/or evaluation of the program. Programs that did not actively engage youth were excluded, such as social media campaigns or advertisements targeting youth while not involving them in the design, implementation, or evaluation. Education programs were not eligible for inclusion if they did not integrate the global issue of climate change, for example, if they focused only on energy consumption, water-saving, extreme

weather events, or natural disasters. For inclusion, studies had to measure and report self- efficacy, not just markers of self-efficacy such as confidence or competence. A complete description of the eligibility criteria is provided in Table 1.

The primary outcome was any measure of self-efficacy that was assessed using any tool. Secondary outcomes were chosen based on the existing literature on the factors related to self-efficacy, including markers of self-efficacy (e.g., confidence and competence), group/collective efficacy, affect (attitudes, values, interests, and emotions), locus of control, knowledge, skills, self-regulation, agency, and behaviours (Baldwin et al., 2023).

Quality Appraisal

Two investigators independently assessed the quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (Hong et al., 2019). Five items were rated as yes (meets criteria), no (does not meet criteria), or cannot tell (insufficient information provided), with each criterion assessed individually rather than creating an overall score (Hong et al., 2019). For mixed-methods studies, only the MMAT questions pertaining to the quantitative study design were assessed, as qualitative data were not included in this review. Conflicts were resolved through discussions among the investigators.

Based on the GRADEpro GDT software, one investigator used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework (Guyatt et al., 2011) to determine the certainty in the estimated effect of each outcome. GRADE generates four levels of certainty for the estimated effect: very low (very little confidence), low (limited confidence), moderate confidence, and high confidence (Guyatt et al., 2011).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data extracted by one investigator were author and year, participant characteristics, intervention description, comparator description, outcome measurement time points and tools, and outcome data (measures of central tendency, variance, and statistical significance between groups or from baseline only). Statistical significance was set at p-value<0.05. The results were synthesised in tabular and narrative formats.

More Details on the Method

Further information on the data search strategy and the studies reviewed is available in the Appendix, Tables S2 and S3, here.

Results

Search Results and Study Quality

Of the 1497 de-duplicated records identified, nine studies were eligible for inclusion (see Figure 1 below and Table S2 in the Appendix). One study met 60% of the quality appraisal criteria (Kolenaty et al., 2022). Seven studies met 40% of the criteria (Carman et al., 2021; Deisenrieder et al., 2020; DeWaters et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2009, 2013; Petersen et al., 2020; Schrot et al., 2021). The ninth study (Gorr, 2014) met 20% of the criteria. Of the eight quasi-experimental studies (Carman et al., 2021; Deisenrieder et al., 2020; DeWaters et al., 2014; Claudia Gorr, 2014; Johnson et al., 2009, 2013; Kolenaty et al., 2022; Schrot et al., 2021), most did not use validated outcome tools or account for confounding variables in the study design or statistical analyses and did not provide adequate information to determine whether the intervention was administered as intended. In addition, one study failed to report on missing data (Gorr, 2014), and in four studies, complete outcome data was only available for 30-74% of participants with no intention-to-treat analyses conducted (Carman et al., 2021; Johnson et al., 2009, 2013; Kolenaty et al., 2022). The remaining randomized trial that used an active control did not provide sufficient detail regarding randomization procedures or adherence to assigned intervention and did not use blinding; however, the lack of personnel blinding is an acknowledged limitation in most social science research (Deaton & Cartwright, 2018). The GRADE ratings were very low to low for all outcomes, whereby certainty in the evidence was mostly downgraded due to non-randomised study design and risk of bias.

Population and Study Characteristics

Five studies were from Europe (Deisenrieder et al., 2020; Gorr, 2014; Kolenaty et al., 2022; Petersen et al., 2020; Schrot et al., 2021), three from North America (Carman et al., 2021; DeWaters et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2009), and one from Africa (Johnson et al., 2013), representing a total of 2,318 participants aged 11 to 24, 55% of whom were women (see details in Tables 2 and S2). All climate change education programs were based on general climate change concepts; however, two studies had a particular focus on the melting ice caps (Gorr, 2014; Petersen et al., 2020) and one study focussed on the effects of climate change on forests (Carman et al., 2021). In addition, three studies included a research project component in their programs (Deisenrieder et al., 2020; Petersen et al., 2020; Schrot et al., 2021). All climate change education programs were based on workshops lasting from one day (Petersen et al., 2020) to one year (Deisenrieder et al., 2020; DeWaters et al., 2014; Kolenaty et al., 2022; Schrot et al., 2021). Educational workshops had varied designs, including two implemented alone (DeWaters et al., 2014; Kolenaty et al., 2022), two in conjunction with in-person field trips to local forests (Carman et al., 2021; Johnson et al., 2013), an exhibition replicating a scenario of what would happen if the polar ice caps melted (Gorr, 2014), a virtual reality field trip to the melting Greenland ice sheet (Petersen et al., 2020), and two involving participation in a local research conference (Deisenrieder et al., 2020; Schrot et al., 2021). Of the six studies that reported theories underpinning climate change education programs, all used a moderate constructivist approach with inquiry-based learning (Carman et al., 2021; Deisenrieder et al., 2020; DeWaters et al., 2014; Kolenaty et al., 2022; Petersen et al., 2020; Schrot et al., 2021).

Most programs required both individual and group participation (Carman et al., 2021; Deisenrieder et al., 2020; DeWaters et al., 2014; Gorr, 2014; Johnson et al., 2009, 2013; Petersen et al., 2020), one involved only group participation (Kolenaty et al., 2022), and one only required individual participation without group work (Schrot et al., 2021). Most programs were administered in schools, five of which were compulsory (Carman et al., 2021; Deisenrieder et al., 2020; DeWaters et al., 2014; Gorr, 2014; Petersen et al., 2020), and one involved voluntary participation (Schrot et al., 2021). The remaining programs were administered as a voluntary after-school program (Kolenaty et al., 2022) or external to the school (Johnson et al., 2009, 2013). Three studies (Carman et al., 2021; Gorr, 2014; Schrot et al., 2021) used a standard school curriculum without climate change education as the comparator, one study (Petersen et al., 2020) used an active control, and five studies used preintervention data (Deisenrieder et al., 2020; DeWaters et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2009, 2013; Kolenaty et al., 2022). One study (Johnson et al., 2013) assessed self-efficacy using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), another study (Johnson et al., 2009) used the Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale (CSSES), and the remaining seven studies used unvalidated researcher-developed tools that comprised one to seven items.

Effect of Climate Change Education Programs on Self-Efficacy

Due to the high heterogeneity among the included studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Therefore, the data were reported via narrative synthesis, text, and tables. All the findings are summarized in Table 2 and are presented in depth in Table S2. Explanations for the GRADE assessments are presented in Table S3.

Eight studies (89%) found a statistically significant positive effect of participating in climate change education programs on youth self-efficacy in comparison to the standard school curriculum or pre-intervention data (n=2047 participants; effect size: small to very large; GRADE level: very low). These were those by Carman et al. (2021), Deisenrieder et al. (2020), DeWaters et al. (2014), Gorr (2014), Johnson et al. (2009, 2013), Kolenaty et al. (2022), and Petersen et al. (2020).

Effect of Climate Change Education Programs on Secondary Outcomes

Studies reported on locus of control, affect, knowledge, skills, and behaviour. None of the selected studies reported on markers of self-efficacy (e.g., confidence, competence), group/collective efficacy, self-regulation, or agency.

Locus of Control

One study (Deisenrieder et al., 2020, n=187 participants) measured locus of control,

which these authors define as “the degree of which an individual is convinced to be able to

control phenomena”. This compulsory in-school climate change education program with a research project component and group/individual participation had a statistically significant positive effect on locus of control when compared to the pre-intervention data (effect size: medium; GRADE level: very low).

Climate-Related Affect

Seven of the eight studies (88%, n=1929) that measured climate-related affect outcomes (Carman et al., 2021; Deisenrieder et al., 2020; DeWaters et al., 2014; Gorr, 2014; Johnson et al., 2013; Kolenaty et al., 2022; Petersen et al., 2020) found a statistically significant positive effect of participation in climate change education programs.

Three studies (Carman et al., 2021; Deisenrieder et al., 2020; Kolenaty et al., 2022) observed a statistically significant increase in the perceived importance of or concern for climate change following participation in compulsory in-school or voluntary after-school programs compared to the standard school curriculum or pre-intervention data (n=1198 participants; effect size: small to medium; GRADE level: very low). One study (Johnson et al., 2013) found a statistically significant positive effect of a voluntary community program on political awareness of climate change when comparing pre- and post-intervention data (n=133 participants; effect size: medium; GRADE level: very low). One study (Gorr, 2014) observed a statistically significant increase in belief in climate change following participation in a compulsory in-school workshop and exhibition visit (n=87 participants; effect size: small; GRADE level: very low).

The results for perceived threat/severity and personal relevance/responsibility for climate change were mixed. One study (Carman et al., 2021) found a statistically significant increase in the perceived threat of climate change with a compulsory in-school program with both individual and group participation (n=582 participants; effect size: small; GRADE level: very low), while another study (Schrot et al., 2021) observed no change in the perceived severity of climate change effects with a voluntary in-school program with only individual participation (n=271 participants). One study (Gorr, 2014) found a statistically significant decrease in the personal relevance of climate change with a compulsory in-school workshop and exhibition visit (n=87 participants; effect size: medium; GRADE level: very low), while another study (Deisenrieder et al., 2020) observed no change in personal responsibility for climate change with compulsory in-school workshops only (n=187 participants).

The results for interest in climate change and intention to act were also mixed. Two studies (Carman et al., 2021; Petersen et al., 2020) observed a statistically significant increase in climate change interest and desire to learn more following participation in compulsory in-school workshops with either an in-person field trip or a virtual field trip (n=684 participants; effect size: small to medium; GRADE level: very low). Two studies (Kolenaty et al., 2022; Petersen et al., 2020) found a statistically significant increase in willingness to act on climate change or intention to pursue further climate change-related studies (n=531 participants; effect size: small; GRADE level: very low), whereas two other studies (Gorr, 2014; Johnson et al., 2013) observed no change in climate change action intention (n=120 participants).

Knowledge and Skills

Five of the six studies (83%; n=1727) that measured the climate change knowledge of participants (Carman et al., 2021; Deisenrieder et al., 2020; DeWaters et al., 2014; Kolenaty et al., 2022; Petersen et al., 2020) found a statistically significant positive effect of participating in compulsory in-school or voluntary after-school climate change education programs when compared to standard school curriculum or pre-intervention data (effect size: medium to large; GRADE level: low). Studies that measured interpersonal and problem -solving skills (Johnson et al., 2013, n=133 participants) and leadership skills (Johnson et al., 2009, n=100 participants) found no significant effect of the intervention when comparing pre- and post-intervention data.

Behaviour

One of the two studies (Deisenrieder et al., 2020, n=187 participants) that measured changes in climate-friendly behaviour found a statistically significant positive effect of compulsory in-school workshops compared with pre-intervention data (effect size: large; GRADE level: very low). The other study, which found no significant effect on behaviour, differed in not containing a research project component (DeWaters et al., 2014, n=427 participants).

Discussion

This systematic review is the first to synthesise evidence on the effect of participating in climate-change education programs, finding consistent evidence for improved self- efficacy, knowledge, and measures of climate-related affect (perceived importance of and interest in climate change). Preliminary evidence, supported by one study only though, found that climate change education programs improve locus of control as well as measures of affect (belief in climate change and political awareness). Mixed results were found for the effects on climate-friendly behaviour and measures of affect (intention to act, perceived threat or severity of climate change, and personal relevance/responsibility for climate change). However, the certainty in all results was low to very low due to a limited body of heterogeneous evidence that lacks standardised methodology.

The positive effect on self-efficacy is pleasing, considering that it can be challenging to strengthen self-efficacy due to the magnitude of climate change threats that can overwhelm youth (Carman et al., 2021). Other studies have shown that promoting youth self- efficacy has benefited mental health and well-being, which increases youth climate change action (Hayes et al., 2018; Sabouripour et al., 2021; Stevenson et al., 2014). Another study suggested that being supported in experimenting with climate-friendly behaviours and having direct feedback on how their behaviour affected their environment enhanced young people’s self-efficacy by reducing feelings of fear and powerlessness, and strengthening their willingness to act (Gorr, 2014). Reflecting on participation in climate change education programs, the youth reported that a shift from being recipients of climate change information to becoming climate change communicators strengthened their self-efficacy (Kolenaty et al., 2022). Thus, it is proposed that learning about climate change mechanisms is insufficient and must be accompanied by participatory activities that strengthen self- efficacy, such as providing opportunities to engage in personal and community climate actions (Kolenaty et al., 2022). This will assist in meeting the PISA 2025 Science Framework, which states that self-efficacy is an integral part of willingness to act (OECD, 2023).

In this review, it appears that climate change education also increased knowledge and perceived importance of and interest in climate change; however, the effects on other secondary outcomes were inconclusive, such as intention to act, perceived threat or severity of climate change, and behaviour. It has been suggested that climate change education increases climate change knowledge, which heightens concerns about climate change and, in turn, leads to increased self-efficacy, resulting in enhanced willingness to act (Carman et al., 2021; Kolenaty et al., 2022). Interest in and the perceived importance of climate change have also been found to enhance self-efficacy, which leads to increased knowledge. In other words, knowledge helps build self-efficacy; however, it is shown that the reverse is also true; increased self-efficacy enriches the knowledge obtained (Carman et al., 2021). Thus, gaining sufficient knowledge from climate change education programs is a key initial driver of climate action as it is crucial for increasing self-efficacy. To confirm the important elements of climate change education needed to optimise self-efficacy, future research should explore outcomes related to self-efficacy, such as knowledge, concern, interest, importance, and willingness to act (Kolenaty et al., 2022).

Although the climate education programs were limited in number and too heterogeneous to draw conclusions about the optimal components of programs, consistent findings were that group work enhanced self-efficacy and related affect outcomes. This has been supported in the literature elsewhere, whereby working collaboratively in a group enhanced not only the collective (group) self-efficacy but also the individual self-efficacy of students (Öntaş & Tekindal, 2015; Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2021; Salanova et al., 2022; Wang & Lin, 2007). Group work provides opportunities for individuals to learn vicariously through team members who have mastered a similar challenge and are modelling an effective strategy (Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2021; Salanova et al., 2022), which enhances self- efficacy in accordance with Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986; Bandura et al., 1999). In particular, group leaders have been found to function as role models and enable inspirational motivation (Salanova et al., 2022). The positive psychological effect of working collaboratively also boosts mood, which is believed to influence personal judgements of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Bandura et al., 1999; Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2021). In addition, working in a group environment provides opportunities for continual feedback, which is an important element in building self-efficacy (Onlu et al., 2020; Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2021). Thus, it would be useful for future research to incorporate group work into climate change education programs and measure collective efficacy alongside self-efficacy, which was not considered in the studies included in this review.

Limitations

The findings of this review are largely based on a limited number of heterogeneous studies, mainly of non-randomised quasi-experimental designs, which decreases the confidence in the results. This is evident from the fact that most outcomes had a very low GRADE rating. Sources of heterogeneity were varying participant samples and research settings as well as the use of mostly unvalidated researcher-developed outcome measures. Additionally, substantial heterogeneity was introduced through large variations across studies in terms of program content, structure, duration, participation, and personnel involved. Thus, the effects on self-efficacy and related outcomes cannot be delineated to determine the most effective strategy until further research increases the body of available evidence.

Directions for future research

The results of this review provide a strong rationale for future research. The findings highlight the benefit of participatory climate change education programs in building self-efficacy; however, the optimal content of these education programs remains inconclusive. In addition, it is unclear whether these beneficial effects on self-efficacy translate into changed behaviours and willingness to act due to the lack of reported secondary outcomes among studies. Therefore, to increase the quality of evidence to guide optimal climate change education programs for youth, future studies should assess self-efficacy in addition to the secondary outcomes that drive self-efficacy, such as knowledge, concern, interest, importance, and willingness to act. Trials should also explore how this education is provided by utilising participatory group work. These well-designed trials should have an adequate sample size, clearly define educational programs, use validated outcome measures, and report full data, including secondary outcomes related to self-efficacy.

Conclusion

Participatory climate change education programs were effective in improving youth self-efficacy, knowledge, and measures of climate-related affect (perceived importance of and interest in climate change). The small body of evidence analysed was highly heterogeneous; however, group work is suggested to be an essential element in building youth self- efficacy through climate change education programs. However, confidence in the body of evidence to support these conclusions was mostly very low, warranting future rigorous trials with clearly defined youth education programs, consideration of secondary outcomes related to self-efficacy, and valid outcome measures.

References

Baldwin, C., Pickering, G., & Dale, G. (2023). Knowledge and self-efficacy of youth to take action on climate change. Environmental Education Research, 29(11), 1597–1616.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2121381

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13(2), 158–166. Doi: 10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158.

Bramer, W. M., Rethlefsen, M. L., Kleijnen, J., & Franco, O. H. (2017). Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 245.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y

Carman, J., Zint, M., Burkett, E., & Ibanez, I. (2021). The role of interest in climate change instruction. Science Education, 105(2), 309–352.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21610

Corner, A., Roberts, O., Chiari, S., Völler, S., Mayrhuber, E. S., Mandl, S., & Monson, K. (2015). How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators. WIREs Climate Change, 6(5), 523–534.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.353

Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 2–21.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005

Deisenrieder, V., Kubisch, S., Keller, L., & Stötter, J. (2020). Bridging the action gap by democratizing climate change education – The case of k.i.d.Z.21 in the context of Fridays for Future. Sustainability, 12(5), 1748.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1748

DeWaters, J. E., Andersen, C., Calderwood, A., & Powers, S. E. (2014). Improving climate literacy with project-based modules rich in educational rigor and relevance. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3), 469–484.

Feinstein, N. W., & Mach, K. J. (2020). Three roles for education in climate change adaptation. Climate Policy, 20(3), 317–322.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1701975

Gibb, N., & UNESCO. (2016). Getting climate-ready: A guide for schools on climate action. https://doi.org/10.54675/moyx1103

Gorr, C. (2014). Changing climate, changing attitude? Museums & Social Issues – A Journal of Reflective Discourse, 9(2), 94–108.

https://doi.org/10.1179/1559689314z.00000000021

Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Schunemann, H. J., Tugwell, P., & Knottnerus, A. (2011). GRADE guidelines: A new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 380–382.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011

Hayat, A. A., Shateri, K., Amini, M., & Shokrpour, N. (2020). Relationships between academic self-efficacy, learning-related emotions, and metacognitive learning strategies with academic performance in medical students: A structural equation model. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 76.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-01995-9

Hayes, K., Blashki, G., Wiseman, J., Burke, S., & Reifels, L. (2018). Climate change and mental health: Risks, impacts and priority actions. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 12, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-018-0210-6

Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M. P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M. C., & Vedel, I. (2019). Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: A modified e-Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 111, 49–59.E1.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008

Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(0), 10.

https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n10.2005

Johnson, L. R., Johnson-Pynn, J. S., Lugumya, D. L., Kityo, R., & Drescher, C. F. (2013). Cultivating youth’s capacity to address climate change in Uganda. International Perspectives in Psychology, 2(1), 29–44.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031053

Johnson, L. R., Johnson-Pynn, J. S., Sweeney, S. S., & Williams, C. T. (2009). Youth civic action: Going green, going global. Ecopsychology, 1(2), 75–84.

https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2009.0007

Kolenaty, M., Kroufek, R., & Cincera, J. (2022). What triggers climate action: The impact of a climate change education program on students’ climate literacy and their willingness to act. Sustainability, 14(16), 10365.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610365

Leal Filho, W., & Hemstock, S. L. (2019). Climate change education: An overview of international trends and the need for action. In W. Leal Filho & S. L. Hemstock (Eds.), Climate Change and the Role of Education (pp. 1–17). Springer International Publishing.

Ma, T., Moore, J., & Cleary, A. (2022). Climate change impacts on the mental health and wellbeing of young people: A scoping review of risk and protective factors. Social Science & Medicine, 301, 114888.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114888

Molthan-Hill, P., Worsfold, N., Nagy, G. J., Leal Filho, W., & Mifsud, M. (2019). Climate change education for universities: A conceptual framework from an international study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 1092–1101.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.053

OECD. (2023). PISA 2025 Science Framework (Draft).

https://pisa-framework.oecd.org/science-2025/assets/docs/PISA_2025_Science_Framework.pdf

Onlu, O. B., Abdusselam, M. S., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2020). Interaction between group work, motivation and instructional feedback in project-based courses. Inquiry in Education, 12(1), 9.

Öntaş, Ö. C., & Tekindal, M. T. (2015). The effect of group work on the self-efficacy of social work students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1124–1128.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.804

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906

Petersen, G. B., Klingenberg, S., Mayer, R. E., & Makransky, G. (2020). The virtual field trip: Investigating how to optimize immersive virtual learning in climate change education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2099–2115.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12991

Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M., Hakanen, J., & Salanova, M. (2021). Building efficacy beliefs through team task engagement and past task performance in contemporary teams. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 24(2), 129–142.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420924404

Rousell, D., & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. (2020). A systematic review of climate change education: giving children and young people a ‘voice’ and a ‘hand’ in redressing climate change. Children’s Geographies, 18(2), 191–208.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1614532

Sabouripour, F., Roslan, S., Ghiami, Z., & Memon, M. A. (2021). Mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between optimism, psychological well-being, and resilience among Iranian students. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675645

Salanova, M., Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M., & Nielsen, K. (2022). The impact of group efficacy beliefs and transformational leadership on followers’ self-efficacy: A multilevel-longitudinal study. Current Psychology, 41(4), 2024–2033.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00722-3

Sanson, A. V., Van Hoorn, J., & Burke, S. E. L. (2019). Responding to the impacts of the climate crisis on children and youth. Child Development Perspectives, 13(4), 201–207.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12342

Schrot, O., Peduzzi, D., Ludwig, D., Riede, M., & Keller, L. (2021). Is it possible to build adolescents’ cognitive adaptive capacity through climate change education? Insights into a two-year long educational programme in North Tyrol (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy). Climate Risk Management, 33, 100327.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100327

Schweizer, S., Davis, S., & Thompson, J. L. (2013). Changing the conversation about climate change: A theoretical framework for place-based climate change engagement. Environmental Communication, 7(1), 42–62.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.753634

Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Bondell, H. D., Moore, S. E., & Carrier, S. J. (2014). Overcoming skepticism with education: interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived climate change risk among adolescents. Climatic Change, 126(3), 293–304.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7

Ung, M., Luginaah, I., Chuenpagdee, R., & Campbell, G. (2016). Perceived self-efficacy and adaptation to climate change in coastal Cambodia. Climate, 4(1), 1.

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/4/1/1

UNESCO & UNFCCC. (2016). Action for climate empowerment: Guidelines for accelerating solutions through education, training and public awareness.

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/action_for_climate_empowerment_guidelines.pdf

Wang, S.-L., & Lin, S. S. J. (2007). The effects of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2256–2268.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.005

Zulkosky, K. (2009). Self-efficacy: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 44(2), 93–102.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6198.2009.00132.x

Appendix