Vol. 17 No. 2 (2026)
Special Issue: SI_TGEO

Drawing the Boundaries of Controversy: Justifying the Inclusion and Exclusion of Climate Change Perspectives in Geography Teacher Education

PDF
Janna Enzmann
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
Bio
Paula Jäger
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
Bio
Anne-Kathrin Lindau
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.j.enz.17.2.318.337
Categories

Published 2026-07-11

Keywords

  • climate change education,
  • controversial issues,
  • justifications,
  • professional judgment,
  • geography teacher education

How to Cite

Enzmann, Janna, Paula Jäger, and Anne-Kathrin Lindau. 2026. “Drawing the Boundaries of Controversy: Justifying the Inclusion and Exclusion of Climate Change Perspectives in Geography Teacher Education”. European Journal of Geography 17 (2):S.318-S.337. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.j.enz.17.2.318.337.

Copyright (c) 2026 Enzmann Janna, Paula Jäger, Anne-Kathrin Lindau

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Received 2026-01-22
Accepted 2026-06-27
Published 2026-07-11

Abstract

Teaching controversial issues is a central yet challenging task in geography education, especially regarding climate change, where scientific consensus on causation coexists with contested responses to addressing climate change. Although controversy is widely regarded as essential for fostering judgment and democratic engagement, empirical research on how teacher educators, as models of professional judgment, justify decisions about the inclusion or exclusion of perspectives in classroom discussions as a relevant part of planning the teaching of controversial issues remains limited. This study investigates how such decisions are justified and to what extent participants’ justifications can be analytically related to established theoretical criteria for controversy. Group discussions with teacher educators, in which participants engaged with materials designed to prompt discussion about the inclusion and exclusion of perspectives on addressing climate change, were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The findings reveal that participants' justifications are pluralistic and context-dependent, drawing on multiple considerations that can be analytically related to different theoretical criteria. By analysing these patterns, the study offers empirical insight into how the boundaries of controversy are drawn in practice and discusses implications for teacher education and classroom practice. It thus advances the “controversy over controversies” debate by demonstrating how theoretical criteria are reflected in situated justificatory practices through which inclusion and exclusion decisions are negotiated in context. The study indicates that geography education, particularly in times of socio-spatial transformation and uncertainty, can benefit from approaches that support reflective, criteria-aware professional judgment rather than prescriptive decision rules when addressing controversial issues.

Highlights:

  • Inclusion and exclusion are justified by multiple considerations, not a single criterion.
  • Reflective use of controversy criteria can support geography teacher education.
  • Climate change highlights risks of relying solely on public debate to determine controversy.
PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Abimbola, O., Aikins, J. K., Makhesi-Wilkinson, T., & Roberts, E. (2021). Racism and climate (in)justice: How racism and colonialism shape the climate crisis and climate action. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.
  2. Achiume, E. T. (2022). Ecological crisis, climate justice and racial justice: Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/77/549). United Nations General Assembly. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a77549-report-special-rapporteur-contemporary-forms-racism-racial
  3. Alternative für Deutschland. (2025). Zeit für Deutschland: Programm der Alternative für Deutschland für die Wahl zum 21. deutschen Bundestag. https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AfD_Bundestagswahlprogramm2025_web.pdf
  4. Anders, P., & Shudak, N. (2016). Criteria for Controversy: A Theoretic Approach. Thresholds in Education, 39(1), 20-30.
  5. Bailey, C. (1975). Neutrality and Rationality in Teaching. In D. Bridges & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Values and Authority in Schools (pp. 124-132). Hodder and Stoughton.
  6. Biddulph, M., Lambert, D., & Balderstone, D. (2015). Learning to Teach Geography in the Secondary School: A companion to school experience (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771274
  7. Brüggemann, M., & Engesser, S. (2017). Beyond false balance: How interpretive journalism shapes media coverage of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 42, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.004
  8. Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei. (2014). Erläuterungen des Bundesrates: Volksabstimmung vom 30. November 2014. https://www.bk.admin.ch/dam/de/sd-web/AV95OA7LzZR7/erlaeuterungen_desbundesrates-30112014.pdf
  9. Christensen, A. S., & Grammes, T. (2020). The Beutelsbach Consensus – The Approach to Controversial Issues in Germany in an International Context. Acta Didactica Norden, 14(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.8349
  10. Cooling, T. (2012). What is a controversial issue? Implications for the treatment of religious beliefs in education. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 33(2), 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2012.694060
  11. Cooling, T. (2014). The Epistemic Criterion: A Response to Michael Hand. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 35(1), 86-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2014.884858
  12. Cremer, H. (2019). Das Neutralitätsgebot in der Bildung: Neutral gegenüber rassistischen und rechtsextremen Positionen von Parteien? Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte. https://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Publikationen/Analyse_Studie/Analyse_Das_Neutralitaetsgebot_in_der_Bildung.pdf
  13. Däuble, H. (2019). In Zeiten digitaler Meldeplattformen – Der Angriff auf demokratische (politische) Bildung und liberales Schulsystem. Gesellschaft – Wirtschaft – Politik (GWP), 68(4), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.3224/gwp.v68i4.08
  14. Dearden, R. F. (1981). Controversial Issues and the Curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027810130105
  15. Drerup, J. (2021a). Democratic education and the limits of toleration. How to respond to extremism in the classroom. Pedagogiek, 41(3), 251-271. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5117/PED2021.3.003.DRER
  16. Drerup, J. (2021b). Kontroverse Themen im Unterricht. Konstruktiv streiten lernen. Reclam.
  17. Drerup, J. (2023). Kontroversen über Kontroversen und kein Ende: Eine Antwort auf meine Kritiker:innen. Zeitschrift für Praktische Philosophie, 10(1), 419–446. https://doi.org/10.22613/zfpp/10.1.24
  18. Drerup, J., & Yacek, D. (2020). Demokratische Bildung und die Grenzen des politischen Streits. Anmerkungen zur Kontroverse über Kontroversitätsgebote. Journal für politische Bildung, 10(4), 18-23.
  19. Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e. V. (n.d.). Regelmäßig spenden und langfristig helfen. https://www.welthungerhilfe.de/regelmaessig-spenden
  20. Deutscher Ethikrat. (2024). Klimagerechtigkeit: Stellungnahme. https://www.ethikrat.org/publikationen/stellungnahmen/klimagerechtigkeit/
  21. Grassinger, U. (2018). Metaphern im Diskurs um den Klimawandel: Wie Sprache Transformationen begünstigt oder hemmt [Doctoral dissertation, Europa-Universität Flensburg]. https://www.zhb-flensburg.de/fileadmin/content/spezial-einrichtungen/zhb/dokumente/dissertationen/grassinger/grassinger-ulrike-2018-.pdf
  22. Greenpeace e. V. (2025, January, 16). 11 Tipps für mehr Klimaschutz im Alltag. https://www.greenpeace.de/klimaschutz/klimakrise/10-tipps-klimaschutz-alltag
  23. Hand, M. (2007). Should we teach homosexuality as a controversial issue? Theory and Research in Education, 5(1), 69-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878507073614
  24. Hand, M. (2008). What should we teach as controversial? A defense of the epistemic criterion. Educational Theory, 58(2), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2008.00285.x
  25. Hand, M. (2014). Religion, reason and non-directive teaching: a reply to Trevor Cooling. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 35(1), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2014.884859
  26. Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878880
  27. Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2015). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315738871
  28. Hintermann, C., Edlinger, H., Fasching, M., & Jekel, T. (2021). ’I learned a lot about my classmates… ’. Exploring focus group discussions as learning environment to raise controversial issues in geography and economic education. European Journal of Geography, 12(4), 016-030. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.c.hin.12.4.016.030
  29. Honey, P. L. (2015). Why I teach the controversy: using creationism to teach critical thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 793. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00793
  30. Hopwood, N. (2021). Think piece – Values and controversial issues. Geographical Association. https://geography.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Think_Piece__Values_and_controversial_issues_2022_QUERY.pdf
  31. IPCC (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
  32. Kindlinger, M., & Hahn-Laudenberg, K. (2023). German preservice teachers’ stances on criteria for discussing controversial issues in the classroom. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 47(3–4), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/23522798231206194
  33. Klein, M. (2019, May 31). Die Klimahysterie ist weiblich. https://sciencefiles.org/2019/05/31/die-klimahysterie-ist-weiblich/
  34. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2024). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Umsetzung mit Software und künstlicher Intelligenz (6th revised ed.). Beltz Juventa.
  35. Kutney, G. (2025). Climate denial and the classroom: A review. Geoscience Communication, 8(2), 81–114. https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-8-81-2025
  36. Lynas, M., Houlton, B. Z., & Perry, S. (2021). Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 16(11), Article 114005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
  37. May, M. (2022). Demokratiebildung und die unscharfen Grenzen der Kontroversität. Zur Notwendigkeit eines pädagogischen Kriteriums bei der Bestimmung des kontroversen Raumes. itdb, 2, 49–53. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7398007
  38. May, M., & Hameister, I. (2023). Was sind die Kriterien für die Kontroversitätskriterien? Fragen an die pädagogische Stabilität der Theoriearchitektur. Zeitschrift für Praktische Philosophie, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.22613/zfpp/10.1.18
  39. McAvoy, P., & Ho, L.-C. (2020). Professional Judgment and Deciding What to Teach as Controversial. Annals of Social Studies Education Research for Teachers, 1(1), 27-31. https://doi.org/10.29173/assert1
  40. Mitchell, D. (2017). Handling controversial issues in geography. In M. Jones & D. Lambert (Eds.), Debates in Geography Education (pp. 224–236). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315562452
  41. Netzwerk Rechte der Natur. (n.d.). Rechte für die Natur: Initiative für eine Grundgesetzreform. Unser Vorschlag. https://www.rechte-der-natur.de/de/initiative-grundgesetzreform.html
  42. Nganga, L., Roberts, A., Kambutu, J., & James, J. (2020). Examining pre-service teachers’ preparedness and perceptions about teaching controversial issues in social studies. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 44(1), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2019.08.001
  43. Nygren, T., & Efimova, E. (2025). Investigating the long-term impact of misinformation interventions in upper secondary education. PloS one, 20(7), e0326928. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326928
  44. Otto, F. (2025). Klimaungerechtigkeit: Was die Klimakatastrophe mit Kapitalismus, Rassismus und Sexismus zu tun hat. Ullstein.
  45. Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Controversial Issues: Teachers' Attitudes and Practices in the Context of Citizenship Education. Oxford Review of Education, 30(4), 489-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498042000303973
  46. Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung. (n.d.). Verbot von Einweg-Plastik. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/nachhaltigkeit/nachhaltigkeitspolitik/verbot-von-einweg-plastik-1914312
  47. Rabe, C., & Paz, A. (2025). More than just facts: Countering climate mis-and-disinformation with critical thinking and empathy. PLOS Climate, 4(10), Article e0000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000737
  48. Redaktion des Degrowth Webportals. (n. d.). Eine Definition oder was „Degrowth“ für uns bedeutet. https://degrowth.info/de/degrowth-de
  49. Slater, F. (1996). Values: mapping their locations in a geography education. In A. Kent, D. Lambert, M. Naish, & F. Slater (Eds.), Geography in Education: Viewpoints on Teaching and Learning (pp. 200-230). Cambridge University Press.
  50. Smit, E., Tuithof, H., & Béneker, T. (2024). Portraying the developing PCK of Dutch pre-service geography teachers. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 33(3), 177-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2023.2281652
  51. Standish, A. (2024). Towards an educational case for social and political issues in the geography curriculum. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 58(4), 495-513. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhae013
  52. Wang, F., Harindintwali, J. D., Wei, K., Shan, Y., Mi, Z., Costello, M. J., Grunwald, S., Feng, Z., Wang, F., Guo, Y., Wu, X., Kumar, P., Kästner, M., Feng, X., Kang, S., Liu, Z., Fu, Y., Zhao, W., Ouyang, C.,…Tiedje, J. M. (2023). Climate change: Strategies for mitigation and adaptation. The Innovation Geoscience, 1(1), 100015. https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2023.100015
  53. Warnick, B. R., & Smith, D. S. (2014). The Controversy Over Controversies: A Plea for Flexibility and for “Soft-Directive” Teaching. Educational Theory, 64(3), 227-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12059
  54. Weselek, J. & Wohnig, A. (2021). Befähigung zu gesellschaftlicher und politischer Verantwortungsübernahme als Teil Globalen Lernens – Was heißt hier Neutralität? ZEP – Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 44(2), 4-10. https://doi.org/10.31244/zep.2021.02.02
  55. Wessel, G. (2023, March, 15). Mit Technik gegen die Erderwärmung. Können Innovationen das Klima retten? Deutschlandfunk Kultur. https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/mit-technik-gegen-die-erderwaermung-koennen-innovationen-100.html
  56. Yaar-Waisel, T., & Leininger-Frézal, C. (2025). Bridging Geopolitics and Environmental Issues in Geography Education: Exploratory Teachers’ Insights from France and Israel. European Journal of Geography, 16(2), 184-196. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.t.yaa.16.2.184.196
  57. Yacek, D. (2018). Thinking Controversially: The Psychological Condition for Teaching Controversial Issues. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12282
  58. Zimmerman, J., & Robertson, E. (2017). The case for contention: Teaching controversial issues in American schools. The
  59. history and philosophy of education series. The University of Chicago Press.