the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 02 Feb 2026
Lessons learned from developing the transdisciplinary master’s-level course "Living with changing climate”
Abstract. Effective climate services require professionals who possess the competencies to interpret complex climate data, engage meaningfully with users, and support informed decision-making. This paper presents the development and pilot implementation of the graduate-level course Living with Changing Climate, designed to foster these competencies through transdisciplinary and practice-oriented climate change education. Developed collaboratively by experts in climate science, impact modelling, climate services, and educational sciences, the course aims to strengthen climate action competencies relevant to professional contexts. It is offered as part of the Nordic Master in Environmental Changes at Higher Latitudes (EnCHiL), the University of Helsinki’s Master’s Programme in Atmospheric Sciences, and the Climate University network. The course integrates climate change science, the use of climate data, and the principles of climate services, with a strong emphasis on real-world application. Using a design-based research approach, this study explores the competencies essential for climate-informed decision-making, the challenges of developing an online course for diverse learners, and the key elements of effective course design and implementation. Insights gained from the pilot phase and student feedback provided valuable guidance and highlighted critical issues, the resolution of which substantially improved the final version of the course. This work highlights the role of higher education in advancing user-centred climate services by equipping learners with the knowledge and skills necessary for proactive climate adaptation and mitigation across sectors.
- Preprint
(739 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(365 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-227', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Mar 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrea Vajda, 24 Mar 2026
We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback, the time invested in carefully reading our manuscript and the recognition that the topic is timely and important. Below we provide a general response to the key points raised; a detailed point‑by‑point reply including corresponding revisions will follow after the open discussion period ends.
1. Scope and structure of the manuscript
We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern that the manuscript currently sits between a “research article” and a “course description”. Our intention has been to document the development of a novel higher‑education course through a design-based research “lens”. We agree, however, that the narrative and framing can be clarified and the structure strengthened. In the revision, we will make the paper’s aim and contribution more explicit and ensure consistency in how the study is framed within the design-based research approach.
2. Research questions and alignment with the empirical work
The reviewer noted that the first research question is not empirically addressed and suggests removing or reframing it. As stated in the manuscript, the first research question was not intended to be answered empirically. For a clearer presentation we will revise the research questions, removing the first one to accurately reflect the scope of the analysis.
3. Clarifying the methodological approach
This is a valid point. As the pilot course represents the first implementation cycle, our empirical data indeed reflect an early stage of the iterative design-based research process. We will clarify this in the methods section by clarifying the number of design and implementation cycles completed so far, and the type of data collected (learning diaries, surveys, meeting documents). We will also more clearly distinguish between documenting the design process and presenting empirical findings.
4. Strengthening the evidence base
As part of the revision, we will expand the explanation of our data sources, provide a more detailed description of our content analysis, and clarify more explicitly how specific conclusions follow from the collected data.
5. Clarifying iteration and course delivery environment
We agree that a clearer explanation is needed of how the DigiCampus platform supports or limits iterative development within a design-based framework. During the revision, we will elaborate on how iterative redesign took place within the platform’s limitations, specify which aspects of the intervention were revised between the pilot and the final versions, and describe how the online delivery shaped design decisions.
6. Abstract, aim of the paper, and minor issues
We thank the reviewer for the suggestions regarding clarity of the abstract and the need to sharpen the stated aims and key conclusions. These improvements will be implemented. We will also address the minor language issues.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-227-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrea Vajda, 24 Mar 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-227', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Jun 2026
This manuscript addresses a relevant topic within the scope of GC, namely the design and delivery of interdisciplinary master's-level education in climate services. The paper presents a potentially valuable case study and contributes to ongoing discussions on climate literacy and capacity building. The topic is timely, and the manuscript provides useful insights into the development of a new educational approach.
At the same time, the manuscript currently reads more as a project report than as a scientific article. Considerable shortening and sharpening would improve its suitability for publication. Several sections contain repetitive descriptions of the course development process, while the key findings and their implications could be presented more clearly.
A further limitation is that the evaluation is based on a relatively small sample and focuses on the piloting phase of the course. The manuscript does not provide an assessment of the final course implementation or its impact on climate literacy, which could be the most valuable contribution for readers. While pilot evaluations are informative, the absence of evidence regarding the effectiveness of the final course limits the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn.
Specific comments
Clarity regarding the course ambitions and target audience. The manuscript would benefit from a clearer description of the intended audience and educational objectives of the course. The course is described as "transdisciplinary" and “to build the climate competency of society”. However, the prerequisite knowledge requirements, including prior completion of climate-related university courses and familiarity with “climate physics equations”, appear to set a relatively narrow entry threshold.
This raises questions regarding the extent to which the course is accessible to students from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. The distinction between interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary education could also be discussed more carefully. In particular, transdisciplinary approaches imply collaboration among individuals with complementary expertise (including non-academic) rather than requiring students to possess substantial prior knowledge across multiple disciplines.
The co-development process. The manuscript would benefit from greater clarity regarding the design process. Since feedback from teachers is discussed during the pilot phase, it would be useful to clarify whether these teachers, or other educational experts, were also involved in the initial course co-design and development.
Evaluation of the pilot phase. One significant aspect that is not addressed in the manuscript is the high dropout rate during the pilot. According to the manuscript, only one-third of the enrolled students completed the course. Understanding the reasons behind this dropout could provide important insights for future course development. The current evaluation is based on eight learning diaries and seven questionnaire responses from students who completed the course. Were any efforts made to collect feedback from students who discontinued participation? Information on challenges or reasons for withdrawal could be very informative and might represent one of the most valuable outcomes of the pilot evaluation.
Lessons learned and conclusions. The three lessons learned presented in the manuscript are relevant but remain rather general and appear to derive primarily from observations made during the course design process. Given that the manuscript does not assess the implementation or outcomes of the final course, the conclusions should be framed more cautiously. It would be helpful to distinguish more clearly between lessons derived from course development and lessons supported by empirical evaluation of student experiences and learning outcomes.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-227-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 899 | 438 | 105 | 1,442 | 114 | 87 | 173 |
- HTML: 899
- PDF: 438
- XML: 105
- Total: 1,442
- Supplement: 114
- BibTeX: 87
- EndNote: 173
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Overall, it is a paper that focuses on a key issue; that is, although climate science has made remarkable progress, the key that is still missing is to apply climate change education in order to establish collaboration among different disciplines. In this regard, I think that the paper can send some strong messages. Yet, I think that the paper would benefit from a revision. On the one hand, it is written at many points as a research paper, but, on the other hand, when one reads the paper, they get the idea that it is a thorough description of a course. As such the paper needs some restructuring and more clarity.
More analytically, the definition of design-based research given by authors and the four questions are consistent with the logic of design-based research. Yet, the first question is not addressed empirically, while the second and the fourth questions are addressed through the design and the pilot. Therefore, the first question should not have been stated as a research question. The outcome is inconsistent scope.
Another point is that the evidence is presented a bit weakly. Design-based research should not be only to design a course and evaluate the pilot but rather to perform the course in iterative cycles (starting with design, testing, refining and then testing again). If there weren’t multiple repetitions, then this is not design-based research but it seems more like a pilot study or a design case study. The authors thus need to state clearly how many times the course was repeated.
Moreover, the authors attempt to answer questions without following a clear methodology. In order to answer those questions, it would require systematic data collection, an analysis method and the reaching of design principles. Without these, it is the description of an experience. Therefore, it is framed as design-based research whereas it lacks the rigor of such research.
To overcome these issues, the first question should be removed or structured much differently (for example, by identifying the literature). Moreover, the paper should provide more information about the iteration cycles and the data sources (such as feedback, performance and observations). Also, the approach should be more analytical as to how conclusions are reached. At the end, the paper should reach clear design principles.
Minor comments:
Line 15: before engage add “to”
In line 5 in the Abstract, the authors state “This paper presents the development and pilot implementation of the graduate-level course Living with Changing Climate, designed to foster these competencies through transdisciplinary and practice-oriented climate change education”. But a bit below they also state that: “Using a design-based research approach, this study explores the competencies essential for climate-informed decision-making, the challenges of developing an online course for diverse learners, and the key elements of effective course design and implementation”. Yet, the aim of the paper should be stated with precision. What does this study aim to achieve drawing on the experience of the course? This should be loud and clear. I also recommend removing lines 18-20 as the Abstract should ensure to contain key aspects rather than details. It is also important to improve the Abstract, the sentences introducing to the topic of the paper are weak, while the Abstract lacks key conclusions.
After the research questions, the authors need to state briefly the importance of their study; that is, how insights from this study can advance education and what are the target audiences.
It is stated that “Living with Changing Climate course was implemented on DigiCampus.fi, a shared online learning platform for Finnish higher education institutions”. Of course in-person learning would be impossible because students were from different departments, but the electronic learning platform is a fixed environment that provides very little flexibility in runtime and the opportunities for redesigning are restricted. How did the educators ensure that this kind of course delivery would still adhere to design-based research?