Ruth George Phiri; Lameck Nsama; Ngula Walubita; Swati Samantaray; Sudhansu Shekhar Patra; Manoj Ranjan Mishra; Mahendra Kumar Gourisaria

Climate Literacy: Creating a Multilevel Interactive Platform for Climate Education

PDF (669KB), PP.41-61

Views: 0 Downloads: 0

Author(s)

Ruth George Phiri ¹ Lameck Nsama ² Ngula Walubita ³ Swati Samantaray ⁴ Sudhansu Shekhar Patra ^5,* Manoj Ranjan Mishra ⁵ Mahendra Kumar Gourisaria ⁶

1. School of Engineering, Information Communication University, Lusaka, Zambia

2. School of Applied Science, Kapasa Makasa University, Chinsali, Zambia

3. Department of Information Technology, Kapasa Makasa University, Zambia

4. Department of Humanities, School of Liberal Studies, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, India

5. School of Computer Applications, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, India

6. School of Computer Engineering, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, India

* Corresponding author.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2025.05.03

Received: 12 Sep. 2024 / Revised: 18 Mar. 2025 / Accepted: 12 Jul. 2025 / Published: 8 Oct. 2025

Index Terms

Climate Literacy, Interactive Learning, Multimedia, Adaptive Learning, Age-Appropriate Design

Abstract

Climate literacy is crucial to increasing public understanding and engagement with the global climate catastrophe. However, current climate education approaches often fail to effectively raise concern and action, particularly across diverse age groups. This study makes a modest attempt to detail the design and development of a novel multilevel interactive digital climate education platform for early learners, adolescents, and adults using adaptive learning pathways, personalized content delivery, multimedia interactivity, and gamification features to promote learner engagement as well as learning outcomes across different age levels. A mixed-methods research design was used involving pre and post-survey quantitative measures as well as qualitative user experience testing. Post-survey results indicated significant improvement in climate literacy knowledge, attitudes towards the environment, and self-efficacy beliefs regarding individual efforts to mitigate future climate impacts (response efficacy), regardless of learner age group. The comparative analysis thus revealed certain content preferences by age as well as interaction patterns among functionalities and learning gains between groups based on user perspectives that point towards differentiated preference areas linked with diverse ages. The resulting platform exemplifies interactive digital technologies’ potential for achieving sustainable behavior change through optimised synergies with large-scale educational interventions for inducing positive spillover effects in terms of broader widespread climate change engagement impact over generational transition pragma.

Cite This Paper

Ruth George Phiri, Lameck Nsama, Ngula Walubita, Swati Samantaray, Sudhansu Shekhar Patra, Manoj Ranjan Mishra, Mahendra Kumar Gourisaria, "Climate Literacy: Creating a Multilevel Interactive Platform for Climate Education", International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science(IJMECS), Vol.17, No.5, pp. 41-61, 2025. DOI:10.5815/ijmecs.2025.05.03

Reference

[1]Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
[2]M. Ojala (2012). Regulating worry, promoting hope: How do children, adolescents, and young adults cope with climate change? International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(4), pp. 537-561.
[3]K.C. Busch, J.A. Henderson, & K.T. Stevenson, (2019). Broadening epistemologies and methodologies in climate change education research. Environmental Education Research, 25(6), pp.955-971.
[4]H.O. Arslan, C. Cigdemoglu, C. Moseley, (2012). A three-tier diagnostic test to assess pre-service teachers' misconceptions about global warming, the greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain. International journal of science education, 34(11), pp.1667-1686.
[5]I. Han (2020). Immersive virtual field trips in education: A mixed‐methods study on elementary students' presence and perceived learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(2), pp. 420-435.
[6]T. Ouariachi, M.D. Olvera-Lobo & J. Gutiérrez-Pérez (2017). Analyzing climate change communication through online games: Development and application of validated criteria. Science communication, 39(1), pp. 10-44.
[7]D. N. Rapp (2005). Mental models: Theoretical issues for visualisations in science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), visualisation in science education, pp. 43–60.
[8]S. Domagk, R.N. Schwartz, & J. L. Plass (2010). Interactivity in multimedia learning: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), pp. 1024-1033.
[9]J.S. Wu & J.J. Lee (2015). Climate change games as tools for education and engagement. Nature Climate Change, 5(5), pp.413-418.
[10]J. Piaget (1964). Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of research in science teaching, 2(3), pp. 176-186.
[11]P. A. Cooper (2002). Does race matter? A comparison of effective black and white teachers of African American students. In J. J. Irvine (Ed.), In search of wholeness: African American teachers and their culturally specific classroom practices, pp. 47–63.
[12]I. Lorenzoni, S. Nicholson-Cole, & L. Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global environmental change, 17(3-4), pp. 445-459.
[13]UNESCO. (2010). The UNESCO climate change initiative: Climate change education for sustainable development. Paris: UNESCO.
[14]Y. Mochizuki, & A. Bryan (2015). Climate change education in the context of education for sustainable development: Rationale and principles. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 9(1), pp. 4-26.
[15]R. Gifford (2011). The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American psychologist, 66(4), 290.
[16]S. R. Sheppard (2012). Visualising climate change: a guide to visual communication of climate change and developing local solutions. Routledge.
[17]V. Wibeck (2014). Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change–some lessons from recent literature. Environmental Education Research, 20(3), pp. 387-411.
[18]A. Anderson, (2012). Climate change education for mitigation and adaptation. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 6(2), pp.191-206.
[19]R. Moreno & R. Mayer (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational psychology review, 19(3), 309-326.
[20]R. E. Mayer (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed., pp. 43–71.
[21]J. N. Rooney-Varga, J. D. Sterman, E. Fracassi, T. Franck, F. Kapmeier, V. Kurker, ... & K. Rath (2018). Combining role-play with interactive simulation to motivate informed climate action: Evidence from the World Climate simulation. Plos one, 13(8), e0202877.
[22]D. M. Markowitz, R. Laha, B.P. Perone, R.D. Pea, & J.N. Bailenson (2018). Immersive virtual reality field trips facilitate learning about climate change. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2364.
[23]D.A. Fields, Y.B. Kafai, & M. T. Giang (2015). Youth computational participation in the wild: Understanding experience and equity in participating and programming in the online scratch community. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15(3), pp. 1-22.
[24]L. Mason, & M. Fragkias (2018). Shifting Baselines in Environmental Economics: The Yurok Tribe, the Klamath River, and the Role of Ecosystem Services. Social Science Quarterly, 99(2), pp. 527-544.
[25]J. L. Plass, P. A. O'Keefe, B. D. Homer, J. Case, E.O. Hayward, M. Stein & K. Perlin (2013). The impact of individual, competitive, and collaborative mathematics gameplay on learning, performance, and motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), pp. 1050–1066.
[26]C. E. Hmelo-Silver (2013). Collaborative knowledge construction. In D. D. Jonassen (Ed.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments, 2nd ed., pp. 113–132
[27]R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[28]J. J. Lee & T. S. Cherner (2015). A comprehensive evaluation rubric for assessing instructional apps. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 21-53.
[29]P. Häkkinen, T. Virtanen, & R. Hämäläinen (2020). Shared and personal learning spaces: Challenges for pedagogical design. Aula, 26(1), 37-44.
[30]L. Chawla, & D. F. Cushing (2007). Education for strategic environmental behaviour. Environmental education research, 13(4), pp. 437-452.
[31]L. Head, N. Klocker, & I. Aguirre-Bielschowsky (2019). Environmental values, knowledge and behaviour: Contributions of an emergent literature on the role of ethnicity and migration. Progress in Human Geography, 43(3), pp. 397-415.
[32]J. A. Fails, M.L. Guha, & A. Druin (2014). Methods and techniques for involving children in the design of new technology for children. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 6(2), pp. 85-166.
[33]S. Tolppanen & M. Aksela (2018). Identifying and addressing students' questions on climate change. The Journal of Environmental Education, 49(5), pp. 375-389.
[34]I. E. Harker-Schuch, F.P. Mills, S.J. Lade, & R.M. Colvin, R. M. (2020). CO2peration–Structuring a 3D interactive digital game to improve climate literacy in the 12-13-year-old age group. Computers & Education, 144, 103705.
[35]K. Nallaluthan, M.N. Masran, V. Thurasingam, & K. Kanapathy (2023). Malcolm Knowles' Theory of Andragogy at Research Management and Innovation Centre Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (RMIC-UPSI): Work-Based Learning Model. Evaluation Studies in Social Sciences, 4(2), pp.30-50.
[36]M. Doelle, & A. Majekolagbe (2023). Meaningful public engagement and the integration of climate considerations into impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 101, 107103.
[37]S. James, P. Reddy, R. A. Ruiter, A. McCauley & B. van den Borne (2006). The impact of an HIV and AIDS life skills program on secondary school students in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. AIDS education and prevention, 18(4), pp. 281-294.
[38]P. Vaughter, T. Wright, & Y. Herbert (2015). Fifty shades of green: An examination of sustainability policy on Canadian campuses. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(4), pp. 81-100.
[39]The Climate Science Alliance is fiscally sponsored by the California Wildlife Foundation © Climate Science Alliance (2024). Climate Kids, A project of the climate Science Alliance, website. https://www.climatekids.org/
[40]H.J. Cheng (2021). Integrating augmented reality and virtual reality technology into Chinese education: An observation from nine cases. In Contextual Language Learning: Real Language Learning on the Continuum from Virtuality to Reality (pp. 147-170).
[41]C.C.Chen, & H.Y.Tu(2021). The effect of digital game-based learning on learning motivation and performance under social cognitive theory and entrepreneurial thinking. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 750711.
[42]A. Siegner, & N. Stapert(2020). Climate change education in the humanities classroom: A case study of the Lowell school curriculum pilot. Environmental Education Research, 26(4), pp.511-531.
[43]E. Lachapelle, & C. Borick (2022). A Decade Of Comparative Canadian and American Public Opinion on Climate Change. North American Colloquium Climate Series.
[44]S. Perdana, G. Xexakis, K. Koasidis, M. Vielle, A. Nikas, H. Doukas, ... & B. Boitier (2023). Expert perceptions of game-changing innovations towards net zero. Energy Strategy Reviews, 45, 101022.
[45]A. Jurgilevich, A. Räsänen, & S. Juhola, S. (2021). Assessing the dynamics of urban vulnerability to climate change: Case of Helsinki, Finland. Environmental science & policy, 125, pp. 32-43.
[46]A. East, J. Sankey, D. Li, T. Zhang, & J. Warrick, (2022). Measuring and attributing geomorphic and sedimentary responses to modern climate change: challenges and opportunities. ICG2022, (ICG2022-167).
[47]J. C. Ely, C. D. Clark, R. C. Hindmarsh, A. L. Hughes, S. L. Greenwood, S. L. Bradley, ... & D. Small (2021). Recent progress on combining geomorphological and geochronological data with ice sheet modelling, demonstrated using the last British–Irish Ice Sheet. Journal of Quaternary Science, 36(5), pp. 946-960.
[48]J. Parish-Morris, A.A. Pallathra, E. Ferguson, B. B. Maddox, A. Pomykacz, L. S. Perez, ... & E. S. Brodkin (2019). Adaptation to different communicative contexts: an eye tracking study of autistic adults. Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders, 11, pp. 1-10.
[49]J.N. Rooney-Varga, A. A. Brisk, E. Adams, M. Shuldman, & K. Rath (2014). Student media production to meet challenges in climate change science education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(4), pp. 598-608.
[50]L. Duchi, D. Lombardi, F. Paas, & S.M. Loyens (2020). How a growth mindset can change the climate: The power of implicit beliefs in influencing people's view and action. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101461.
[51]B. Mayer (2021). Climate change adaptation and the law. Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 39(2), pp. 141-176.

International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS)