Introduction

Environmental challenges posed by climate change threaten humankind’s existence and sustainability, which is largely caused by humans themselves (Franchini et al., 2017). According to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global warming phenomenon represents a paramount and pressing challenge for humanity today (IPPC, 2023). Trends in global warming have caused an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, as well as shifts in weather patterns, disease outbreaks, loss of habitats, coastal degradation, and many other phenomena that threaten human development (Fawzy et al., 2020). In an effort to deal with this rapidly escalating situation, the countries of the world adopted the Sendai Framework for 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), some of which pertain particularly to climate action—SDG-13 (UN, 2015).

As a burning issue, climate change penetrates education systems at different levels (Henderson et al., 2017). Monroe et al., in a recent scoping review of the literature concerning environmental education, identified several themes revolving around climate change education, including the importance of creating an engaging discourse and implementing school or community projects to foster local changes (Monroe et al., 2019). Moreover, Rousell and Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles (2020), in their own systematic review of the literature dating from the last two decades, reported that there is a need for participatory, interdisciplinary, creative, and affect-driven approaches to climate change education. This is because most climate change education programs generally fall short of achieving sustainable changes in young people’s attitudes and behaviors. The authors concluded with a call to develop novel programs for climate change education capable of meaningfully engaging students (Rousell & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, 2020).

Of particular importance, science education in the context of climate change is crucial for equipping students with the knowledge and tools required to understand the risks and possible mitigation measures (Sharma, 2012). Within the chemistry education field, different education programs have been developed to promote students’ understanding of climate change phenomena (e.g., Mahaffy et al., 2017). Nevertheless, tailoring such educational programs continues to pose challenges that require further exploration into the best practices that support these programs.

For example, many studies have shown that science teachers face difficulties when they introduce socio-scientific issues (SSI) into their teaching (Sadler et al., 2006). Previous research has explored teachers’ perspectives regarding the use of these issues in the context of science teaching (Sadler et al., 2006). Different teachers’ profiles were identified regarding the way teachers adopted or chose not to use SSI in science teaching; teachers who incorporated SSI into their classrooms highly identified with the SSI approach. However, ‘‘even among those high school teachers who supported the idea of SSI curricula, most reported that they failed to incorporate these themes in their own classrooms because of constraints imposed upon them’’ (Sadler et al., 2006, p. 368); in other words, the initial stage of identifying with the innovation is not enough. Teachers prefer to base on a curriculum that includes SSI pedagogy and to experience this pedagogical approach as learners before they are ready to apply it as teachers (Blonder, 2016). Teaching the topic of climate change provides a fertile ground for SSI pedagogy. However, as previously mentioned, it also poses many challenges for science teachers, since it is a complex socio-environmental issue without a single definitive or unambiguous solution (Shepardson et al., 2012). There is a notable lack of learning materials and programs that can effectively support teachers and learners in dealing with this complex challenge as well as a vast amount of data and information about climate change available in the media (Cheng & Gonzalez-Ramirez, 2021).

SSI pedagogy often involves argumentation and decision making about social dilemmas linked to scientific topics that are typically open-ended questions that citizens often encounter in their lives (Molinatti et al., 2010), questions that require students’ critical thinking regarding data and information sources. In the field of climate change, the production and distribution of content without any journalistic oversight increase the likelihood of inaccuracies and misleading information (Kiili et al., 2008). Consequently, comprehending science through media channels requires a more profound scrutiny of information and critical thinking skills (Tseng, 2018). This especially applies to fields that are subject to constant change and revision, such as global climate change. Therefore, it is crucial to equip students and teachers with the requisite skills and abilities to evaluate and analyze the available information, thereby enabling them to adequately critique sources of data and make informed decisions based on these data (Walsh & McGowan, 2017; Raps et al., 2022).

Theoretical Framework: The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

This research employs the theoretical framework of the technology acceptance model (TAM) to better understand the promoting and hindering factors regarding integrating, enabling, and accepting technologies when teaching climate change. The idea of TAM was introduced by Davis (1986, 1989). According to this framework, the factors influencing the intention to use technology are the perceived ease of use and the usefulness of the technological tool (Davis, 1989). A recent meta-analysis study (Scherer et al., 2019) that synthesized 124 correlation matrices from 114 empirical TAM studies suggested additional external factors, such as subjective norms and computer self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), which influence TAM, as well as facilitating conditions.

In a comprehensive study (Granić, 2022) that surveyed 47 articles dealing with adopting technologies in education, four main categories were identified as factors that may indirectly or directly influence the adoption of technologies. The categories found are as follows: (1) user aspects that include, among other things, the user’s self-efficacy in using technology, their fear of using computers, and their self-esteem in using technology (e.g., Chang et al., 2017; Nagy, 2018; Yu, 2020); (2) enjoyment and usefulness, the user’s perception of enjoyment during the activity, as well as the playability and accessibility of the system (e.g., Lin & Yeh, 2019; Park, 2009; Yu, 2020); (3) task and technology aspects, including the technological complexity, the technology required by the task and the internet access factors (e.g., Chen et al., 2008; Lee & Lehto, 2013; Teo, 2010); and (4) the social aspects, including subjective norms, social influence, and motivational support (e.g., Jang et al., 2021; Song & Kong, 2017; Vanduhe et al., 2020) .

It is common to consider Shulman’s work from the late 1980s (Shulman, 1986, 1987) as the foundation for understanding teachers’ teaching abilities. Shulman claimed that teachers rely on two central elements in their teaching: content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK). He also claimed that these two elements should not be separated; rather, they should be integrated. This is why he suggested the term PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) to describe the intersection between the two elements and the merging of content and pedagogy into a complete understanding of how the different aspects of a specific subject are organized, coordinated, and represented for instruction. Shulman claimed that PCK is required when a teacher interprets the subject matter and finds different ways to make it accessible to the student (Shulman, 1986). Since the time that the terms describing teachers’ knowledge were first introduced, information and communication technologies (ICT) have rapidly advanced and have moved to the forefront of education, dramatically changing it. Mishra and Koehler (2006) argued that teachers nowadays cannot limit themselves to only understanding technology and the way it works—they also have to gain a deep understanding of the opportunities these technologies offer; thus, these technologies should be implemented appropriately. They therefore suggest implementing TPACK (Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) in order to include the knowledge and skills relevant to technology as part of the instructional process (Archambault & Barnett, 2010). The TPACK model was applied in many recent studies that were conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic, which examined the development of teachers’ knowledge for online and hybrid teaching during the lockdown periods (e.g., Raps et al., 2020; Kartimi et al., 2021). A prominent finding in many studies indicated that the development of teachers’ and lecturers’ TPACK was hindered and that generally they did not reach a full TPACK during their online teaching (Blonder, 2022). TPACK was suggested as one of the important factors that influence the acceptance of educational technologies. However, TPACK did not directly affect teachers’ intention to use technology in their teaching (Joo et al., 2018).

As science educators, we should be concerned with the barriers that teachers might encounter when they choose to implement programs. These barriers could be related to the content, the pedagogy, and the technological tools that enable them. The current study concerns the need to apply and integrate technological tools that present updated data regarding teaching climate change. The consensus model of science teachers’ knowledge development suggests that the knowledge teachers learn must first pass the “filters and amplifiers” of the teachers before they will introduce this new knowledge to their class (Gess-Newsome, 1999). These filters and amplifiers might be factors that influence TAM in teaching climate change.

To better understand the factors that influence technology acceptance regarding teaching climate challenge, we aimed to identify those features that affect teachers’ acceptance of technology and how technology may help/hinder adopting the process. We therefore posed the following research question:

What factors promote/inhibit the utilization of technological tools for teaching climate change?

The Study

The context of the study is a program titled Chemistry, Climate & Numbers in Between, designed to address the need for learning materials and curricula that can facilitate learning about climate change by utilizing the skills needed to critically accessible online information. The program was developed for high-school students, with an emphasis on changing the discourse on climate issues and the environment through a dialogue that is data-driven and based on chemical knowledge (Raps et al., 2023). The program comprises three units, each focusing on a specific topic: electric vehicles, solar panels, and natural gas. The curriculum explicitly emphasizes acquiring critical skills, including argumentation and digital literacy (Raps et al., 2023). The digital units are integrated into a Learning Management System that incorporates materials and content as well as various applications.

The unit for which we will demonstrate the use of the technology tools deals with electric vehicles. The transportation sector accounts for approximately 30% of worldwide CO2 emissions and remains one of the few industrial domains that influence climate change and whose emissions continue to rise. Electric vehicles emerge as pivotal players in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, curbing air pollution, and enhancing the overall living standards globally. Recognizing the need to better understand the environmental ramifications of EVs across their lifecycle, this unit endeavors to elucidate these aspects for students’ comprehension and awareness (Chapman, 2007; Requia et al., 2018; Verma et al., 2022). This unit, as well as the other units, has a unique structure comprising several components.

It begins with a dilemma related to the central topic, and students are requested to respond based on their previous knowledge. In this unit, the dilemma is as follows:

Some argue that an electric vehicle is “greener” than a gasoline-powered vehicle and is thus a solution to the problem of global warming. Others argue to the contrary. What do you think? Explain.

Throughout the unit, students are exposed to digital data and chemical explanations of the phenomena. They learn about how vehicles driven by an internal combustion engine are related to global warming, they are exposed to an experiment from which conclusions are drawn regarding the relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming, they perform calculations to examine their own carbon dioxide emissions (“carbon footprint”), and finally, they are introduced to electric vehicles and their batteries’ operating principles. In the next step, after they become familiar with most of the scientific principles, they are required utilize the internet and compare the types of vehicles. This step is conducted with an emphasis on digital literacy and critical thinking regarding the sources of information and the data on which they rely. Later, the students are exposed to the “numbers in between,” authentic online data; this adds relevant information about the greenhouse gas emissions of various vehicles. In this section, the students are also exposed to a specific application, which will be discussed in the next section. During the unit, students are requested to revise and enhance their arguments, drawing upon the insights that they have developed.

Here, we will focus on an open-access online application pertaining to the electric vehicle unit. This application was developed at MIT; it depicts the carbon dioxide emissions of different hybrid electric and fuel-driven vehicles (https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore). This dynamic application allows one to compare different vehicles based on diverse criteria and enables the use of parameter alterations, such as how the vehicles are used, the costs (including the vehicle, fuel, and maintenance) per month, taxes, the price of electricity/gasoline, the city’s share, and other relevant data. However, teachers should first learn to use the app and then accept its utilization in class before using it with their students.

For the students to be able to understand and navigate the overload of data, they must be gradually exposed to it. Students are expected to apply mathematical skills that involve understanding the representation of variables in a graph, attempting to identify connections between them, and comprehending the significance of the visual representation. In the next step, students are prompted to compare different types of vehicles and move between representations in order to reach conclusions regarding the selected vehicles, as well as try to draw conclusions from the specific examples in relation to general phenomena. After reaching their conclusions, they should address the following question: If you were among the decision-makers at the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Finance, which types of vehicles would you recommend that the government purchase through financial support? Justify the arguments based on the analysis performed using the data to which they were exposed through the technological tool.

Methodology

Participants

This study explored the attitudes of high-school chemistry teachers in Israel that belong to the professional learning community (PLC) of chemistry teachers managed by the Weizmann Institute of Science. These teachers included three teacher-leaders and their 15 PLC teachers. In addition, the study explored the opinions of 17 chemistry education experts from the Weizmann Institute of Science, who specialize in technology, teachers’ development, chemistry teaching, and research and development. In total, 35 participants contributed to this study.

Study Procedure and Data Collection

In order to identify the hindering/promoting factors regarding utilizing technology in teaching climate change, teachers first need to be introduced to the program, the content, and the technological tools. We collected data separately for each of the research participant groups: In the first stage, we exposed the participants to the program. Next, they experienced the technological tools that enable the learner to generate and analyze data in order to establish their knowledge and opinions regarding climate change-related dilemmas. Lastly, they were invited to discuss both the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing the digital tool to teach climate change and the factors that both promote and inhibit its use. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed by the first author. We noticed that the responses were the same for all three participant groups, so we present the results of the combined data and did not continue with another population sampling.

Data Analysis

Guided by the theoretical framework of TAM, data were analyzed using a top-down approach. All statements were first classified according to four categories: (1) user aspects and personal characteristics, (2) enjoyment and usefulness, (3) “task and technology” aspects, and (4) “social” aspects. Both authors classified the factors, and a Cohen Kappa value of 0.831 was obtained. In the next step, the authors classified the factors and tried to determine the specific ones that relate to climate change education. Based on Chi (1997), the qualitative data were quantified, and the percentage of each factor was calculated out of the overall responses. In the Results section, we present the promoting and inhibiting factors as well as a breakdown of specific factors relating to climate change education. A chi-square test was applied to compare the distribution of teachers’ statements related to general technology and those that were specific to climate change.

Ethics

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel (approval No. 2189-1).

Results

The initial breakdown of all the promoting and inhibiting factors raised by the teachers and by the science teaching experts includes 58 factors that promote the use of the technological tool and 43 inhibiting factors. These factors were divided into four categories that may influence adopting the technological tool. Factors that were classified into several categories were counted several times accordingly. In total, after counting all the factors, 99 promoting factors and 67 inhibiting factors were found.

The following table shows an example of the classification of factors into different categories (Table 1):

Table 1 Classification of factors into categories
Full size table

The following graph classifies all promoting and inhibiting factors (Fig. 1). The study population mentioned more factors that promote the use of technology other than the inhibiting factors according to TAM. As shown, a multitude of aspects related to the “task and technology” have the highest impact on adopting the technological tool. Furthermore, many inhibiting factors related to the internet and device access were observed, including “it is better to use computers and I don’t have computers in the classroom”, or “it should be adapted to mobile devices.” Similarly, factors that promote the use of the tool dealt with the technological complexity and the importance of the task. For example, “the website is accessible and does not require a certain platform,” or “it provides access to a lot of information and enables proficiency in content and digital skills.” The figure shows that “pleasure and usefulness” as well as the user aspects and personal characteristics have a slightly higher impact on adopting the technological tool compared with the “social” aspects. Regarding the inhibiting factors, the user aspects have the lowest impact in validating the technological tool presented to the study population.

Fig. 1
figure 1

General factors that promote/inhibit the utilization of technology (N=166)

Full size image

After obtaining the findings, we isolated the specific promoting and inhibiting factors in order to use the technological tool to teach climate change. These factors were classified into categories, as was done in the first part. A total of 44 specific factors pertaining to climate change education were identified. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of these factors into categories.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Factors that promote/inhibit the utilization of technology in the context of climate change (N=44)

Full size image

In general, it can be observed that most factors that the teachers raised (~ 77%) promoted the utilization of technological tools for climate education. Similarly, the main factor here was associated with “pleasure and usefulness.” This aspect encompasses the perceived enjoyment of the technological tool, its quality, and the richness of its content, as well as the relative advantages of the tool for climate education purposes. Nevertheless, in comparison with the previous categorization, the “social” aspect emerged with a higher impact on adopting the technological tool; specifically, it focused on aspects of subjective norms and the social influences on the learner’s daily life and how the integration of technological tools might affect them, whereas user aspects exhibited less impact. By applying the chi-square test, a significant decrease was observed, in comparison with the previous categorization, in the inhibiting factor related to the “task and technology” aspects in the context of technological adoption (p < 0.05).

Specifically, the promoting factors were related to the perception of accessibility and the quality of the content as well as information about a topic that continuously changed, as exemplified in the following quotes. “The content is up-to-date and has many accurate numbers and data,” or “the source is reliable, MIT made it”; “In my opinion, the app makes a subject that is constantly being updated accessible; thus, the students have accessible information that changes all the time, so it’s worth adopting the tool for teaching the students.” Nevertheless, concerns arose concerning the same aspects, and they constituted the factor that could inhibit adopting the technological tool, for example: “There is information and we do not know who is behind its funding,” or “where do the data come from. They are treated as holy, but perhaps there are interests behind them that we don’t know about.” The other aspect that affects adopting technology is related to the “social” aspect. Teachers saw how the technological tool socially affected the students’ lives. They said, for example, “both aspects - the economic and the environmental - appear in the technological tool and are relevant to adopting the subject in the classroom or it can be based on knowledge in making decisions.”

To sum up, we could identify hindering/promoting factors that corresponded to those that were mentioned in the TAM literature. Interestingly, most of the hindering factors concerned general disadvantages of integrating technology into teaching (e.g., technical malfunctions). However, factors that are specific to teaching climate change in relation to TAM emerged as well. These factors included the critical consumption of digital data, the need to constantly change teaching based on the changing data, and others as well as the social impact of such a tool on the students’ environment.

Discussion and Implications

It is important to discuss the results of the current study from the perspective of the TAM framework while considering the literature regarding teachers’ professional development. The TAM provides an applicative framework to better understand the filters and amplifiers that may prevent or encourage teachers to adopt new technological tools in their teaching. The role of the amplifiers and filters in moderating exchanges between teachers’ knowledge and the pedagogy that they actually enact in their teaching was emphasized (Sorge et al., 2019). We have demonstrated that the TAM, which was applied in this study, served as a bridge between the theory of teacher knowledge development (Gess-Newsome, 2015) and their actual practice regarding technology integration; moreover, it provided a lens to identify the filters and the amplifiers. Understanding teachers’ filters and amplifiers is an essential stage for developing teachers’ knowledge in practice and supports the implementation of innovative curricula and technological tools (Blonder, 2021).

Next, we discuss the teachers’ considerations regarding whether to accept the technological tool that was integrated into the program for teaching climate change. Several insights emerged from the data regarding accepting general technology and technology that is specific to teaching climate change.

Analysis of teachers’ responses revealed that most (122/166, 73%) of the considerations regarding whether to accept the technology were related to general aspects of TAM and were not connected specifically to the climate change contents of the program. Namely, when teachers consider adopting a certain educational technology, their decision to accept the technology is primarily based on aspects related to technology in general and not specific considerations related to applying the technology to teach a specific topic. Teachers’ TPACK, which includes these considerations, had only a partial effect on the factors that teachers mentioned. This finding echoes a pervious study that explored the relationship between TPACK and aspects that are part of TAM (e.g., self-efficacy, perceived ease of use) (Joo et al., 2018). The authors have found that teachers’ TPACK significantly affected teachers’ self-efficacy and their perceived ease of using technology as well as their perceived usefulness of technology in the classroom. However, it did not directly affect their intention to use technology in class. Many studies that were conducted on online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic found the same trend. Lecturers and teachers who shifted to teach remotely focused their efforts on learning how to operate the technological tool, and only a little attention was devoted to choosing the best tools to better support the teaching and learning of specific topic (Blonder, 2022). The results of the current study indicate that this trend goes beyond the pandemic. Therefore, when we want to support the implementation of educational technology, attention should first be given to the general aspect of the technological tool including all its aspects, and only then should the suitability of the technology for teaching a specific topic be introduced.

Next, we discuss the differences that were found between the aspects that related to general technology and those that were related to the technology within the climate change topic. We conducted a chi-square test to compare the two and found that the only inhibiting factor related to the “task and technology” aspects was significantly lower in the context of climate change than in the general context. Regarding for the general factors, teachers reported 60% promoting factors for acceptance of technology (Fig. 1), and for specific factors related to climate change, they reported 77% (34/44) promoting factors (Fig. 2). This is an interesting finding that perhaps suggests that it may be easier for teachers to accept use of technological tools in educational programs dealing with climate change. Perhaps this is linked to the perception of climate change as an innovative teaching venue. Previous studies suggest that technological acceptance is increased when teachers perceive that their personal innovativeness is higher (Mazman Akar, 2019), which might be the case in the current study as well. More research is needed to further examine this aspect. The specific factors that the teachers mentioned regarding the “task and technology” were connected to the task importance and the perceived reliability resource. The latter was also identified as the main inhibiting factor, since teachers expressed uncertainty about the source of the resources and what was the hidden agenda of the data publisher.

When we examine the content of the “pleasure and usefulness” aspects that were mentioned by the teachers and that were related to climate change, both as promoting and inhibitoring factors, we identified the central role of the data presented, which can be manipulated using the technological tool. Teachers wrote about the data’s reliability, its source, an easy way to manipulate and present it, and the ability to update the data and keep it relevant to the changes that occur in the field of electric vehicles. The number of scientific studies on climate change has dramatically increased over the past two decades, which led to large accumulation of data (Callaghan et al., 2020). Therefore, students need to critically analyze the wealth of data from numerous studies (Minx et al., 2017). The data-based pedagogy has already contributed to teaching the topic of sustainable development (Raps et al., 2022). The current study showed that the teachers perceived the technological tools as a supportive means for this pedagogy.

The social aspect was more dominant regarding specific climate change technological considerations and increased from 10.8% in the general technology to 20.5% (Figs. 1 and 2). This change was not significant, but may be a sign of a trend that emphasizes the importance of social aspects when dealing with climate change. Our research findings suggest that social aspects, including subjective norms and social influence, play a significant role in either promoting or hindering the adoption of technological tools. However, teachers may hesitate to utilize such tools if they fear potential negative effects on their students or anticipate negative societal perceptions resulting from the insights they may encounter. Consequently, teachers may opt to avoid incorporating the tool into their practices. Conversely, emphasizing the benefits of the technological tool and considering its potential positive impact on students and on broader societal change may encourage greater utilization among teachers. This finding strengthens one of the design principles of the program that conceptualizes the scientific contents of climate change within SSI dilemmas (Raps et al., 2023). The concept of socio-scientific issues (SSIs), contextualizes science knowledge and connects science knowledge to issues of social significance (Bencze & Alsop, 2014; Zeidler et al., 2005). As summarized by Eilks (2015, 154–55), this pedagogy tends “to mold sustainable development education by developing general educational skills in the area of an individual’s actions as a responsible member of society.” In the current study, we found that not only responsibility for society is essential for promoting a behavioral change, as suggested by Eilks (2015)—it is also an essential part in the teaching and learning process and therefore influences teachers’ intention to adopt the educational technology for teaching climate change issues. We therefore recommend to emphasize the specific social aspects within education technology when encouraging teachers to implement it in teaching climate change.

Limitations

The main limitation of the study is the number of participants (N = 35). Nevertheless, we were able to collect perspectives from diverse practitioners: leading teachers, in-service teachers, and chemistry educators that have experience in teaching and in educational research. Interestingly, the results indicated that these three different populations raised very similar concerns and considerations regarding accepting the technology.

Another limitation is the emphasis on one specific technological tool related to the topic of electric vehicles. In order to be able to generalize the differences between the structure of TAM for educational technology and its structure in relation to climate change educational technology, more applications should be examined.