Anthropogenic climate change (CC) is one of the Grand Challenges of the 21st century and the most prominent Planetary Boundary world society has to tackle (Steffen et al., 2015, 3–6; IPCC, 2018, V–VI). Visible CC consequences like increase of extreme weather events, such as drought and extreme heat in North America and Siberia, and heavy rains and flooding in Asia and Europe during summer 2021, demonstrate that CC is not only a future issue (Ciavarella et al., 2020, 21; Schäfer et al., 2021, 14; Philip et al., 2021, 1–2). Increase of human interference with nature has become so intense that the age we live in has been designated the “Anthropocene,” the age of mankind (Crutzen, 2006, 13; Zalasiewicz et al., 2017, 56). Nevertheless, world societies not only share responsibility for the climate crisis but also have a significant role in mitigating and adapting to CC (IPCC, 2018, V; O’Brien, 2018, 154). Young people, in particular, hold an important position, since they are the ones who will be increasingly affected by CC consequences during their lifetime. Their role as decision-makers of today and tomorrow, as well as their active engagement is critical to sustainable development (Corner et al., 2015, 523). In order to “limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius,” the aim of the community of states in the Paris Agreement 2015 (UNFCCC, 2015), political regulations and financial investments, as well as scientific and technological breakthroughs, are necessary, but they alone are not enough (UNFCCC, 2015; Barnosky et al., 2016, 1). To maximize the success of meeting all these requirements, there is an urgent need for change, a transformation within the personal sphere, including beliefs, values, world views, and, more than anything, individual and collective actions for a climate-friendly future (Rockström et al., 2017, 1,269; O’Brien et al., 2018, 155–57).

Recently, there has been yet another call for education to not only produce knowledge but to also raise awareness on today’s challenges and sustainable actions as well as to empower learners to develop key competencies like critical thinking, systems thinking, integrated problem-solving, and collaboration competency, as well as values to engage for sustainable development (WBGU, 2011, 352–58; UNESCO, 2017, 2021, 17). In this context, the role of transformative learning, which can be defined as “learning that transcends habitual thought patterns and behavior through deep learning that changes frames of reference, assumptions, and habits of mind” (Klein, 2018, 13) or, in Mezirow’s words, learning “that transforms problematic frames of reference—sets of fixed assumptions and expectations […]—to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change” is discussed (Mezirow, 2003, 58). Consequently, this kind of learning is considered to be a powerful tool to create change and to promote individuals’ transformative engagement (Mitchell et al., 2015, 88 and 92–93; Klein, 2018, 21). Transformative engagement, in this study, is understood in a more comprehensive understanding of Barnes et al.’s (2020, 824) definition of transformative and Grabau and Ma’s (2017, 1,046–47) definition of science engagement, as being a fundamental change in individuals’ cognitive, emotional and behavioral characteristics encouraging alteration of social-ecological relationships toward a climate-friendly future.

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4, “Quality Education,” plays a significant role in fostering this type of learning for achieving SDG 13, “Climate Action” (Boeren, 2019, 279; UN, 2021, 27). In this regard, the potential of science education with its major goal of raising scientific literacy (SL) has been thoroughly discussed (Laugksch, 2000, 84; Yacoubian, 2018, 308–9). However, can teacher-centered, knowledge-based science education really fulfill these challenges? A growing body of literature claims that traditional pathways of teaching have to be rethought in order to foster transformative learning and engagement, enabling participation, integration, and reflection (Singer-Brodowski, 2016, 15–16; Balsiger et al., 2017, 359; Hindley and Wall, 2018, 263–66; Kyle, 2020, 1; Leichenko and O’Brien, 2020, 1). Leichenko et al. (2021, 1), for example, stated that most climate change education (CCE) programs pay attention to the physical dimension of CC and evaluation of political, technological, and behavioral solutions without practically supporting students to adopt and sustain their active role in the necessary transformation. Kyle (2020, 4–5) argued that students frequently experience a kind of science education disassociated from real-world topics. He suggested that science education should empower students to actively deal with societal issues in their lifeworld. Moreover, many approaches fail to consider the relevance of emotions, values, and worldviews, which are important in provoking personal change (Leichenko et al., 2021, 2–3) [for more details, see Verlie et al. (2021) and O’Brien and Sygna (2013)]. In a literature review about effective CCE strategies, Monroe et al. (2019, 804–6) pointed out the importance of personal meaningfulness and engaging teaching methods by means of field trips, community action projects, or collaboration with scientists or affected persons. These claims were also addressed by the concept of SL vision III (Sjöström and Eilks, 2018, 67; Valladares, 2021, 581–82).

Moving beyond traditional pathways of (teaching and) learning, we argue that transdisciplinary education (TE) is a promising concept in science education, enabling students to perform research together with out-of-school (scientific) partners in real-world learning settings (Kubisch et al., 2021b, 3–5). TE is assumed to raise students’ SL and transformative learning, foster personal meaningfulness and generate competencies via active engagement and exchange of experience as well as different perspectives and forms of knowledge (Thomas, 2009, 245; Mitchell et al., 2015, 86), and, finally, contribute to a climate-friendly future by transformative engagement (Kubisch et al., 2021b, 1). TE should not be considered as an isolated approach but rather a frame for active and constructivist learning approaches like inquiry-based learning (Riemeier, 2007; Pedaste et al., 2015).

The objective of this publication is fourfold:

The study is structured as follows: first, we give a brief insight into the role of science education, its limitations and visions, and significance of student’s scientific literacy; this is followed by a literature review and good practice examples of transdisciplinarity (in education), and is continued by study design and results. We finish with discussion and conclusion.

In contrast with the broad consensus among scientists that anthropogenic CC is happening and that there is an urgent need for more actions (IPCC, 2018, V–VI), doubts about and denial of CC still exist in societies (Maibach et al., 2014, 295; Corner et al., 2015, 529; Jylhä, 2018, 487; Hahnel et al., 2020, 16). Since awareness of CC causes and consequences is critical for engagement and action (Poortinga et al., 2019, 25), there is still lack of individual and collective engagements (Maibach et al., 2014, 295–96; Jylhä, 2018, 487). Literature reviews of young peoples’ CC awareness, knowledge, and action found that vague knowledge and concepts, as well as misconceptions about CC causes, impacts, and solutions persist among young people aged between 8 and 19 years (Corner et al., 2015, 529; Lee et al., 2020, 7–9). According to Lee et al. (2020, 7–9), scientifically accurate knowledge of the causes of CC tended to increase with age. The need for climate protection was proposed without the acknowledgment of personal responsibility or awareness of time lags of the usefulness of measures (Lee et al., 2020, 7–9). These findings are in contrast to the ongoing Fridays For Future movements (Hagedorn et al., 2019, 79) and general high levels of CC concern among young adults (Corner et al., 2015, 529).

Against the backdrop of findings pointing at various possible manifestations of young people’s knowledge, awareness, and action, the importance of science education becomes apparent. Liu (2013, 26) states, that formerly mentioned challenges are also reflected in school, culminating in students’ disinterest in science and decreasing interest in science careers. According to an international group of scholars, school science is disconnected from reality, failing to address the role of science in students’ everyday lives (Linder et al., 2007, 2–3). Moreover, relevant topics like CC and the role of science for social, economic, and political actions are neglected. Consequently, recent calls from scholars state the need for transformative science education– moving away from simply teaching and learning disciplinary knowledge to “science-in-context” (Bencze and Alsop, 2014, 827–29). This is captured by the concept of socioscientific issues (SSIs) (Zeidler et al., 2005, 357; Zeidler et al., 2019, 1), contextualizing science knowledge and connecting science knowledge to issues of social significance (Bencze and Alsop, 2014, 833). This kind of science teaching and learning 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” (Eilks, 2015, 154–55). Thus, SSIs are part of an educational philosophy that is built on moral intelligence and social responsibility (Bencze and Alsop, 2014, 833). Moral intelligence and social responsibility also reflect in Valladares’s (2021, 582) requests of a type of science education “that broadens the agency capacity of individuals and communities to take advantage of science in the generation of adaptative, resilient, and sustainable responses to unpredictable changes of today.” Valladares (2021, 581) further states that in order to achieve transformative science education, students need to experience education that allows them to “understand, value, and relate to the world differently in their everyday lives, not only through canonic scientific ideas, but also through a dialog exchange of different perspectives (1), of alternative forms of knowledge (2) and by fostering student’s engagement with science and with their community and culture (3).”

This notion is captured by the concept of SL, which is considered to be one of the major goals of science education, which is backed by scholars of science education, science curricula, and policy documents, as it is considered to be equally beneficial for both individuals and societies as a whole (Laugksch, 2000, 84; OECD, 2017, 21; Yacoubian, 2018, 308–9). According to science educationists, a scientifically literate person should be able to make informed decisions that are based on scientific knowledge, which requires factual and procedural knowledge of science. Scientifically literate people know about the benefits of science while simultaneously taking a critical perspective on science (Norris and Phillips, 2003, 225; OECD, 2017, 21; Yacoubian, 2018, 308). In particular, SL vision III, which can be designated as science for transformation (Sjöström and Eilks, 2018, 78) or critical SL (Hodson, 2011) in Sjöström and Eilks (2018, 66), touches on this idea, targeting to encourage critical engagement with science (Liu, 2013, 25) and sociopolitical actions (Hodson, 2003, 645). While aiming to contribute to critical citizenship and sustainability (Sjöström and Eilks, 2018, 78), vision III is closely associated with transformative learning (Mezirow, 2003, 58–59) and transdisciplinarity, fostering student’s dialogical emancipation and participation (Sjöström and Eilks, 2018, 77; Valladares, 2021, 557). According to Simonneaux (2014, 51), critical reflexivity, participation, and action in scientific activities are significant for transformative science education. According to Choi et al. (2011, 681), a concept of SL for the 21st century is required, which includes competencies, which echo the competencies demanded by Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (UNESCO, 2017, 10). Wiek et al. (2011, 204) propose a definition of competencies contributing to sustainability as “complexes of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable successful task performance and problem solving with respect to real-world sustainability problems, challenges, and opportunities.” Besides SL vision III, their definition also highlights the importance of visions I and II of SL. While vision I is focused on knowledge of scientific content and processes, vision II creates a link to students’ lifeworld, focusing on the relevance of scientific knowledge and processes in society (Roberts, 2007, 2011). Consequently, vision I, “within science,” is focused on pure science learners aiming to develop mental capacity and preparing for a science career, whereas vision II targets bridging science and society. Meanwhile, vision III, “science within society,” aims at encouraging students to engage in complex SSIs for seeking informed and responsible solutions (Liu, 2013, 29). Liu (2013, 31) argues that “focusing on one vision while ignoring others is undesirable” (Liu, 2013, 31), since the three visions of SL are interdependent and reinforce each other. Balanced didactical implementation of the three visions of SL might also face challenges similar to those encompassed in the concept of ESD. ESD is now an educationally well-justified concept (Burmeister and Eilks, 2012, 93–94; Burmeister et al., 2013, 169), however, its implementation in formal school education still remains rare (Eilks, 2015, 156). Despite the demand for competencies, educating responsible and critical citizens, which is significant for achieving SL vision III, teaching and learning, in many cases, still remains content-driven (Eilks, 2015, 156). According to Burmeister et al. (2013, 173–74), reasons for this are lack of teacher’s knowledge of the ESD philosophy and pedagogy and limited resources. However, Sjöström and Rydberg (2018, 9) point out possible didactical dilemmas that might arise if teachers aim to balance knowledge transfer, competency generation, and students’ sociopolitical participation. This might also be true for balanced implementation of the three visions of SL.

As a consequence of the reflections of expanding SL to vision III, the vision of knowing-in-action (Aikenhead, 2007, 68), subject teaching, and learning will need to transcend school boundaries and open up students’ lifeworld, acknowledging the importance of transdisciplinary perspectives and fostering active engagement with SSIs (Hodson, 2003, 666; Sjöström and Eilks, 2018, 77; Zeidler et al., 2019, 1) while simultaneously considering possible didactical dilemmas (Sjöström and Rydberg, 2018, 9).

The study was carried out in the project SEAS with N = 162 secondary school students from Austria and Germany, aged between 13 and 16 years who were part of the research-education cooperation k.i.d.Z.21. In total, 27.8% of the students were female, while 31.6% of the students were male; 2.3% were diverse; 38.4% of the students preferred not to answer the question. The students were consulted by means of a standardized online questionnaire before (pre-test) and after (post-test) being part of the TE project. The collaboration started at the beginning of the school year in September 2020 and ended in July 2021. Besides SL (visions I to III), students’ climate-friendly behavior, their CC concern, their feeling of responsibility, and their locus of control regarding CC were queried (see Table 1). These items were derived and modified in a further k.i.d.Z.21 standardized questionnaire. The questionnaire has been applied since the beginning of the project in 2012. The items of SL were derived and modified via the following assessment instruments (Pugh et al., 2010; Reeve and Tseng, 2011; Heddy and Sinatra, 2017; Patall et al., 2018) and co-developed by SEAS partners. All the questions were closed questions using a five-point assessment Likert scale, in which the dimensions ranged from “I disagree” to “I agree.” The standardized questionnaire asked for students’ self-assessment, possibly biasing the data, which can be declared as a limitation of this study. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested with Austrian secondary school students independently of the TE project.

The statistical relationship between students’ SL and their transformative engagement for climate action was analyzed before and after participating in the TE project k.i.d.Z.21. According to the definition in the introduction, transformative engagement for climate action consists of students’ awareness of CC and the need to act, their feeling of responsibility, their locus of control, and their climate-friendly behavior (see Table 1). Subsequently, the single contribution of the three visions of SL to transformative engagement was assessed in more detail.

The data were analyzed using SPSS IBM Statistics 26. In order to distinguish the three dimensions of SL a factor analysis, more specifically, a principal component analysis with varimax rotation was used (Sedlmeier and Renkewitz, 2013, 684). An analysis of scale reliability (SR) by means of Cronbach’s alpha ensures that the constructs analyzed are well represented by the single items. According to Kuckartz et al. (2013, 247), values for SR are interpreted to be acceptable if SR > 0.7. In order to assess the predictive quality of the three visions of SL for transformative engagement for climate action, a regression analysis was conducted. Both pre- and post-test data were analyzed by multiple regression analysis in order to detect changes in the predictive power of SL before and after taking part in the TE project. Variance inflation factor (VIF) was calculated to prevent multicollinearity of the predictors, and values for VIF < 10 were acknowledged as acceptable (Kuckartz et al., 2013, 271–72). The effect size of the adjusted R² was calculated to indicate the practical importance of the results beyond statistical significance (p < 0.05). A low effect size is defined for values between 0.1 ≤ f < 0.25, a medium one for 0.25 ≤ f < 0.40, and a high effect size for f > 0.4 (Cohen, 1988, 410–14). A test for normal distribution was waived, since the sample size is sufficiently high, preventing major effects on the results of the analysis (Sedlmeier and Renkewitz, 2013, 325).

The concept of SL is thoroughly discussed by scholars (Norris and Phillips, 2003, 225), being defined as a major goal of science education (Yacoubian, 2018, 308) and as a prerequisite for a scientifically literate and responsible society (OECD, 2017, 39). Current scholarly debates draw on a more comprehensive view and emphasize the need for science education and, thus, SL to address the pressing socio-ecological challenges of our time. Initial definitions were based on a narrower understanding of the term “scientifically literate,” focusing on the understanding of scientific knowledge and processes [Showalter (1974) in Laugksch (2000, 74)]. Today’s science education is meant to foster change in values, attitudes, and behaviors at individual and societal levels, supporting sustainable development (Laugksch, 2000, 84; OECD, 2017, 39; Sjöström and Eilks, 2018, 78; Valladares, 2021, 581–82). Beyond SL visions I and II, which relate to scientific knowledge and processes for later application and understanding of the usefulness of scientific knowledge in life and society (Sjöström and Eilks, 2018, 65–66), SL vision III is assumed to contribute to transformative engagement by means of engaging teaching methods and knowing-in-action (Aikenhead, 2007, 68; Liu, 2013, 29).

For our research, we collected data by means of a standardized questionnaire from secondary school students in Austria and Germany. The data were evaluated by regression analysis, taking a closer look at the contribution of SL and the single SL visions to student’s transformative engagement for climate action, both before and after taking part in the TE project k.i.d.Z.21 (Table 2). The regression analysis of the post-test model reveals that all the three visions of SL statistically significantly predict transformative engagement for climate action, with SL vision III measuring practical and transformative engagement in science and having a slightly higher influence than vision II and greater influence than vision I. Visions I and II, which capture knowledge and concepts of science and scientific processes and practical implications of science, have a (slightly) minor influence on transformative engagement. Despite increasing calls for (science) education to be transformative (Balsiger et al., 2017, 359; Kyle, 2020, 1; Valladares, 2021, 581–82), the results are in contrast to a wide range of school curricula, which are predominantly based on knowledge production and are not connected to students’ lifeworld (Balsiger et al., 2017, 359; Kyle, 2020, 1–4). Moreover, the majority of scholarly debates is still focused on knowledge, e.g., improvement of CC knowledge (Monroe et al., 2019, 796–98). Of course, the significance of knowledge should not be underestimated, since the exchange of knowledge and knowledge production is one of the leading aims and outcomes of transdisciplinary collaborations (Lang et al., 2012, 26). We concur with Liu (2013, 31) that all the three visions of SL are important, including knowledge of scientific concepts and processes. Consistent with the emphasis on the importance of (science) education in sustainability discourse (UN, 2015; UNESCO, 2017; Kyle, 2020, 1), we propose a more visionary approach to science education considering all the three visions of SL. However, we emphasize the need for didactical concepts, which foster the transformative potential of SL, especially vision III. Hence, returning to the initial question, whether teacher-centered, knowledge-based science education can meet the claims for SL vision III, in accordance with other scholars in the realm of transformative education (Singer-Brodowski, 2016, 15–16; Balsiger et al., 2017, 359; Leichenko and O’Brien, 2020, 1; Valladares, 2021, 581–82) and underscored by missing climate action at a societal level (Maibach et al., 2014, 295–96; Jylhä, 2018, 487), our answer is no.

Since knowledge of climate change and sustainability is, to a large degree, under constant change and context-dependent (Riemeier, 2007, 70–71; Künzli, 2019, 8), knowledge production needs to be a co-production process among students, scientists, and other out-of-school partners who jointly research topics related to students’ lifeworld and everyday life (Kubisch et al., 2021b, 1). This is not only consistent with calls for transdisciplinarity (Lang et al., 2012, 25) but also with contemporary approaches to learning, like moderate constructivism (Riemeier, 2007, 69–70), which are frequently discussed in scholarly debates. As shown in the literature review of transdisciplinarity and TE, mutual learning occurs during the collaboration process that fosters knowledge production and provides both new scientific and societal insights (Walter et al., 2007, 326–28; Clark and Button, 2011, 50; Mitchell et al., 2015, 93; Kubisch et al., 2021a). Consequently, the concept of TE captures all the three visions of SL (see Table 2). From a didactical point of view, the collaboration needs to be carefully designed, taking into consideration students’ interest and allowing them to tie up with their preconceptions and experience, hence fostering an equal exchange (Widodo and Reinders, 2004, 237–38). While jointly researching some real-world issues, students construct knowledge of scientific processes and research skills, and generate competencies like critical, system, and reflective thinking, and communicative and problem-solving competency (Currie et al., 2005, 405; Pedaste and Sarapuu, 2006, 48; Clark and Button, 2011, 48; Furtak et al., 2012, 315–16; Young et al., 2015, 72). This is in line with the didactical approach of inquiry-based learning (Pedaste et al., 2015, 51–54) and claims of ESD (UNESCO, 2017, 10).

In order to demonstrate the success of the TE concept, we conducted a pre-post comparison of the regression analysis of the pre- and post-test data, analyzing change in the predictive quality of SL on transformative engagement for climate action (Table 2). The predictive quality of the model is higher after students’ have taken part in the TE project, being explained by a higher influence of the SL visions, in particular visions III and II, gained in importance, reflected by a higher standardized ß coefficient. The change in predictive quality comparing the pre- and post-test models is 30.7%. Moreover, the pre- and post-test comparison demonstrates that SL visions II and III, which did not significantly predict transformative engagement in the pre-test, did so in the post-test, with SL vision III having a slightly higher influence than vision II and especially vision I. Hence, these findings give reason to assume that the TE concept supports the didactical realization of vision III and that of vision II. The influence of vision I on transformative engagement decreased after the students took part in the TE project. These findings support the assumption that by promoting the three visions of SL via the TE concept (see Figure 2), connecting knowledge of scientific content and processes (vision I) to a meaningful real-world context (vision II) through students’ active engagement in science with scientists (vision III), the significance of pure knowledge decreases. At the same time, the synergy of knowledge, meaningful real-world context, and active engagement in science fosters the significance of vision II and, in particular vision, III for transformative engagement for climate action.

Therefore, the contribution of the TE concept to the didactical realization of SL should be explained in more detail (see also Figure 2). The equal exchange of all partners involved, in the form of an inquiry process, fosters deep reflection, allowing for an opportunity to get to know not only different perspectives but also to gain awareness of one’s own perspective. This deep reflection is associated with transformative learning, facilitating the restructuring of mental models and enabling conceptual change through change in thought patterns, values, and behaviors (Mitchell et al., 2015, 93; Klein, 2018, 20–21) for transformative engagement (Deisenrieder et al., 2020, 8–11; Kubisch et al., 2021a, 6–8). Moreover, active engagement in a joint inquiry process not only increases scientific skills (Currie et al., 2005, 405), awareness (Young et al., 2015, 72; Kuthe et al., 2019, 382–83), and personal meaningfulness of socio-ecological issues (Monroe et al., 2019, 804–6), but it also draws on all the three kinds of knowledge, system, target, and transformation, which are relevant for action (Walter et al., 2007, 333–34).

In order to achieve the 1.5-degree Celsius target, the need for social transformation has been acknowledged in the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015), requesting changes in values and world-views and, even more importantly, demanding for individual and collective actions (O’Brien et al., 2018, 155–57). SDG4, “Quality Education” plays a key role in this regard and aims to contribute by means of awareness building, and knowledge and competency generation to transformative engagement (WBGU, 2011, 352–58; UNESCO, 2021). In that discourse, science education is understood as making a major contribution to a scientifically literate society, which makes informed and responsible decisions (OECD, 2017, 39).

However, as pointed out in this study and acknowledged by many other scholars discussing the concept of SL, teacher-centered and knowledge-based science education is not the appropriate methodology to reach these goals. TE is a promising didactical concept working toward the claims of SL vision III, which can be described as science for transformation (Sjöström and Eilks, 2018, 78). TE is considered to be a frame, enabling students’ active, situational, emotional, social, and self-regulated learning (Riemeier, 2007, 69–70), as well as identification and pursuit of (scientific) issues within students’ lifeworld (Pedaste et al., 2015, 55–57). Active engagement in a research process and exchange of different perspectives and forms of knowledge between students and scientific experts are assumed to contribute to transformative learning (Mezirow, 2003, 58), which enables change in habitual thought patterns, norms, values, and, finally, behaviors (Mitchell et al., 2015, 93; Klein, 2018, 20–21). The findings of this study give first indications, demonstrating the influence of SL on transformative engagement for climate action in a TE project.

These promising results need to be replicated and proven by future research also taking into account the limitations of this study. In particular, the SL visions need to be replicated and the constitutive items should be further expanded in terms of their content. SL vision I, in particular, needs to be considered critically. In this study, SL vision I is not specifically focused on “scientific content and scientific processes” (Sjöström and Eilks, 2018, 65) but on a fundamental understanding of the nature of science, capturing students’ (mis)conceptions of science. The reason is that operationalizing SL vision I on the basis of disciplinary knowledge does not allow for the replication of the findings and, thus, transfer to other contexts (e.g., different school types, age groups, and countries) because of student’s diverse prior knowledge. Consequently, future research needs to rethink the operationalization of SL vision I. Considering the research frame, which was determined in advance in this TE project, we propose to replicate this study allowing students to co-design the whole research process and collaborating with scientists within students’ local community.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee of the University of Innsbruck. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

SK, HK, LK, VD, MF, KO, NL, SP, and JS: conceptualization. HK and SK: investigation and data evaluation. SK, HK, and LK: writing original draft preparation. LK, VD, MF, KO, NL, SP, and JS: writing review and editing. SK: visualization. LK and JS: supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

HK is employed by alpS GmbH which is part of the project Science Education for Action and Engagement toward Sustainability. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.