Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:21:17.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Contributing to Intergenerational Communication Regarding Environmental Programs: Preliminary Research Findings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

Roy Ballantyne ,
Sharon Connell  and
John Fien
Roy Ballantyne
Affiliation:
Queensland University of Technology Brisbane
Sharon Connell
Affiliation:
Queensland University of Technology Brisbane
John Fien
Affiliation:
Griffith University Brisbane
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Given the increasing recognition of the potential for school students to act as catalysts of environmental change, research is needed to determine the extent to which school environmental education programs can facilitate intergenerational communication and learning in the home and wider community. The present paper reports on preliminary findings from a pilot study based on two environmental education programs. Four factors were investigated in terms of their influence upon the extent to which school students discussed the programs at home: student response to the program; student environmental orientation; parent environmental orientation; and family communication properties. In this study, program and family communication factors exerted the greatest influence on the frequency of discussions concerning environmental education programs experienced by students. Suggestions are made for ways in I which environmental education programs can be designed in order to facilitate student-parent communication about environmental issues.

Type
Thematic Section—Children's Views Environmental Eduction
Information
Australian Journal of Environmental Education , Volume 14 , 1998 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ballantyne, R., Connell, S. B. & Fien, J. 1998, ‘Students as catalysts of environmental change: a framework for researching intergenerational influence through environmental education’, Environmental Education Research, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 285–298.Google Scholar
Bienvenu, M. J. 1969, ‘Measurement of parent-adolescent communication’, Family Coordinator, vol. 18, pp. 117–121.Google Scholar
Jensen, B. B. 1995, ‘Concepts and models in a democratic health education’, in Jensen, B. B.(ed), Research in Environmental and Health Education, Research Centre for Environmental and Health Education, Royal Danish School of Educational Studies, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Kruger, J. 1992, ‘The influence of children on decisionmakers in their homes: a case study in environmental education’, unpublished Masters thesis, Rhodes University, South Africa.Google Scholar
Leeming, F. C., O'Dwyer, W. O. & Bracken, B. A. 1995, ‘Children's environmental attitude and knowledge scale: construction and validation’, Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 22–31.Google Scholar
Moos, R. H. & Moos, B. S. 1981, Family Environment Scale Manual, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
Noller, P. & Bagi, S. 1985, ‘Parent-adolescent communication’, Journal of Adolescence, vol. 8, pp. 125–144.Google Scholar
Norusis, M. J. (undated), Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, SPSS 6.1: Guide to Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Potter, C. (ed) 1993, On the Brink, Australian Nature Conservation Agency/Brent Howard Games/K. Kessing Productions, Canberra.Google Scholar
Queensland Electricity Industry (undated) Powerwise: Integrated Curriculum Resource. A Teacher's Guide: Years 6/7, Queensland Electricity Industry, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Ramsey, J. M. 1993, ‘The effects of issue investigation and action training on eighth-grade students’ environmental behaviour’, Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 31–36.Google Scholar
Smith-Sebasto, N. J. & D'Costa, A. 1995, ‘Designing a Likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible behaviour in undergraduate students: a multistep process’, Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 14–20.Google Scholar
Sutherland, D. & Ham, S. 1992, ‘Child-to-parent transfer of environmental ecology in Costa Rican families: an ethnographic case study’, Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 9–16.Google Scholar
Uzzell, D. 1994, Children as Catalysts of Environmental Change. Final Report, European Commission Directorate General for Science Research and Development Joint Research Centre, London, UK.Google Scholar
Uzzell, D. & Rutland, A. 1993a, Tntergenerational relations: can children influence parents? Some theoretical and methodological issues’, Discussion paper for the First International Workshop on Children as Catalysts of Global Environmental Change, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guilford, UK.Google Scholar
Uzzell, D. L. & Rutland, A. 1993b, Tntergenerational social influence: changing environmental competence and performance in children and adults’, Discussion paper for the Second International Workshop on Children as Catalysts of Global Environmental Change, University of Braga, Portugal.Google Scholar
Wals, A., Beringer, A. & Stapp, W. 1990, ‘Education in action: community problem solving program for schools’, Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 13–19.Google Scholar
Weigel, D. J. & Weigel, R. R. 1993 Intergenerational family communication: generational differences in rural families’, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol. 10, pp. 467–473.Google Scholar