Climate Change Education in Ukrainian Universities…
391
from KMA, and three from SSU. It was a manageable number for interviewing,
transcription purposes, and results processing considering the time available to us.
We scheduled the interviews for January 2020; each interview average duration was
about one hour. All interviews were video-recorded and transcribed in Ukrainian,
with further partial English translation.
There were three blocks of questions designed in the interview protocol: (1)
mechanics, processes, and methods of climate change teaching; (2) personal attitudes
of teachers towards climate change problem and their observations at any climatic
scientism in the university community; and (3) necessities, barriers, opportunities for
better climate change teaching for respondents personally and in Ukrainian higher
education generally. The detailed interview protocol is included as an Annex I to the
paper.
In the selection process, we tried to access different specialties, as well as different
level of engagement in the climate change teaching indicated by respondents in the
first survey. Thus, among 10 selected interviewees, six answered to the question
“How often are climate change related issues being mentioned in your course?” –
“More than 2 times, both during the lectures and seminars”, three answered “Once in
the course, in brief/generally, during the lectures only”, and one answered “other”,
meaning that her courses are directly related to climate change problem. Five fields of
study were included as follows: five economists, one mathematician, one ecologist,
two climatologists, and one phycologist. It just so happened that there were more
participants from economics.
5 Results and Discussion
The problematic questions of this paper address hindrances, internal and systemic
barriers, communicational and cultural challenges of educational environment that
could inhibit a process of transformative learning methods’ implementation into
higher education. Here we highlight some challenges and cases of transformative
learning in regard to CCESD necessities in Ukraine, emerging from the two-stage
interviewing processes.
5.1 Crosscut Survey of Three Sample Universities in Ukraine
In December 2019–January 2020, we received 35 responses from three sample
universities; the majority of respondents—fifteen—were from SSU following by
thirteen from KNU, and with seven only from KMA (see Fig. 2). All respondents
except two hold a PhD degree; four of them were working as heads of departments,
and two—as deans.
Regarding the field of studies and disciplines, the biggest part of respondents
teach Economics (related to Social Sciences according to UNESCO International
391
from KMA, and three from SSU. It was a manageable number for interviewing,
transcription purposes, and results processing considering the time available to us.
We scheduled the interviews for January 2020; each interview average duration was
about one hour. All interviews were video-recorded and transcribed in Ukrainian,
with further partial English translation.
There were three blocks of questions designed in the interview protocol: (1)
mechanics, processes, and methods of climate change teaching; (2) personal attitudes
of teachers towards climate change problem and their observations at any climatic
scientism in the university community; and (3) necessities, barriers, opportunities for
better climate change teaching for respondents personally and in Ukrainian higher
education generally. The detailed interview protocol is included as an Annex I to the
paper.
In the selection process, we tried to access different specialties, as well as different
level of engagement in the climate change teaching indicated by respondents in the
first survey. Thus, among 10 selected interviewees, six answered to the question
“How often are climate change related issues being mentioned in your course?” –
“More than 2 times, both during the lectures and seminars”, three answered “Once in
the course, in brief/generally, during the lectures only”, and one answered “other”,
meaning that her courses are directly related to climate change problem. Five fields of
study were included as follows: five economists, one mathematician, one ecologist,
two climatologists, and one phycologist. It just so happened that there were more
participants from economics.
5 Results and Discussion
The problematic questions of this paper address hindrances, internal and systemic
barriers, communicational and cultural challenges of educational environment that
could inhibit a process of transformative learning methods’ implementation into
higher education. Here we highlight some challenges and cases of transformative
learning in regard to CCESD necessities in Ukraine, emerging from the two-stage
interviewing processes.
5.1 Crosscut Survey of Three Sample Universities in Ukraine
In December 2019–January 2020, we received 35 responses from three sample
universities; the majority of respondents—fifteen—were from SSU following by
thirteen from KNU, and with seven only from KMA (see Fig. 2). All respondents
except two hold a PhD degree; four of them were working as heads of departments,
and two—as deans.
Regarding the field of studies and disciplines, the biggest part of respondents
teach Economics (related to Social Sciences according to UNESCO International