Why the study was done
The authors argue that climate change education has concentrated on older learners, leaving the preschool years comparatively unexamined. They identify three obstacles reported in the wider literature: climate change involves invisible, long-term processes that sit awkwardly with young children's concrete thinking; educators worry about frightening children; and many early years staff report limited preparation and guidance. The study set out to test whether an experiential, play-based approach could address these obstacles in practice, and to show explicitly how experiential principles translate into activity design — a link the authors suggest is often assumed rather than demonstrated.
How it was done
The design was a qualitative pre-post intervention study (children assessed before and after, with no comparison group). Participants were 18 children aged 4-6 (10 boys, 8 girls) in a single public kindergarten in Greece, recruited by convenience sampling (whoever was available in that classroom). The two-week programme was delivered jointly by the class teacher and the researchers and had six components: educational videos; teacher-facilitated guided discussions; collaborative projects such as murals and model ecosystems; hands-on demonstrations including melting ice cubes and heat retention under glass; drawing and crafting; and recycling and renewable-energy activities using a solar toy and pinwheels. Educators acted as facilitators rather than instructors. Each child had a 10-15 minute semi-structured interview in Greek before and immediately after, built on five open questions. Transcripts were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis (drawing themes out of the data rather than applying a pre-set framework) in NVivo. Parents answered one question about changes noticed at home.
What the study found
The authors report four shifts, all described as descriptive patterns rather than measured effects:
1. Vocabulary moved from uncertainty ("don't," "know," "maybe") toward environmental terms — weather, earth, heat, thermometer, turbines, floods, melts.
2. Children more often attributed climate change to people and everyday activities, replacing imaginative answers such as "maybe a thief dressed up as a person."
3. Children connected warming to visible consequences: melting ice, rising seas, animals at risk, flooding.
4. Most named simple actions — recycling, cycling, turning off lights, avoiding littering.
The authors' own tally of developmentally appropriate responses rose from near zero on most questions to 15-18 out of 18 afterwards. Parent reports were mixed: many described new interest or home conversation, but several reported no change or that their child had not understood.
What this means for practice
The study indicates that foundational climate ideas can be introduced at this age when they are made tangible, participatory and action-oriented — the melting-ice demonstration and the recycling activities did the conceptual work that explanation alone would not. The authors suggest framing the topic around agency and simple actions rather than alarming imagery, and pairing classroom activity with something children can carry home. Practitioners planning similar work should note that children's understanding stayed simplified and tied to familiar examples; the authors are explicit that the goal is foundational awareness, not scientific mastery, and that repeated exposure matters more than one-off sessions.
The Bottom Line
This small qualitative study followed 18 children aged 4-6 in one public kindergarten in Greece through a two-week experiential programme (learning built around direct, hands-on experience) using videos, guided discussion, group projects, simple experiments, art, and recycling and renewable-energy activities. Each child was interviewed individually before and immediately after the programme, and parents were asked what they noticed at home. The authors report that afterwards children used more environmental vocabulary, more often linked climate change to human activity such as cars and factories, described impacts such as melting ice and flooding, and named simple actions like recycling or cycling. Many parents reported more environmental talk at home. For practitioners, the study offers a concrete activity structure for this age group, though with one class, no comparison group and no follow-up, the findings are exploratory rather than evidence of lasting change.