Transdisciplinary qualitative study reveals tensions between standardized climate tools and transformative learning, highlighting the necessity of reflexive pedagogical adaptation.
Standardized educational tools have proliferated in environmental education, offering accessible formats that promise scalability and efficiency. Among these, the Climate Fresk has become a flagship instrument, widely adopted across schools, universities, corporations, and public administrations. While its popularity reflects a demand for scientifically grounded resources, its transformative potential remains contested. This article critically examines the Climate Fresk through the lens of transformative learning for sustainability, drawing on a transdisciplinary study conducted in collaboration with Belgian environmental educators. Combining document analysis, participatory observations, focus groups, and interviews, the research explores the motivations behind the tool’s use and the tensions educators experience in their practical implementation. Findings reveal that facilitators value the Climate Fresk for its ability to popularize climate science and foster systemic awareness, yet its standardized design privileges a linear, technocratic framing of climate change, separates cognitive and emotional dimensions, and offers limited space for dialogical engagement. Rather than questioning whether such tools should be used, this article addresses how they can be integrated into broader educational designs to support deeper learning. An analytical grid developed with practitioners identifies strategies for critical reappropriation: situating knowledge within social and political contexts, engaging learners’ prior experiences, integrating emotions holistically, embracing complexity, and enabling engagement. By highlighting these margins of maneuver, the study invites educators to move beyond procedural participation toward reflexive, context-sensitive practices. The transformative potential of standardized educational tools depends less on intrinsic design than on the situated, reflexive practices through which they are deployed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruwet et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: