4.6 Article

Quality Child-Parent Relationships and Their Impact on Intergenerational Learning and Multiplier Effects in Climate Change Education. Are We Bridging the Knowledge-Action Gap?

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 12, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su12177030

关键词

Climate Change Education (CCE); knowledge-action gap; intergenerational learning; multiplier effects; child-parent relationship

资金

  1. Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The science-education cooperative venture Our Common Future: 'eKidZ'-Teach Your Parents Well explores intergenerational learning processes and the transfer of learning from the younger to the older generation. Students acting as multipliers and their multiplication effect on parents is part of the research setting: 20 high school students, in the role of researchers, investigated the question of whether children who participate in the Climate Change Education (CCE) program k.i.d.Z.21 passed on their climate-change-related knowledge, attitudes and actions to their parents (n= 91), in comparison to a control group (n= 87). Due to the annual increase in student participants in the CCE project k.i.d.Z.21 since 2012 (n= 2000), this article can build on the results of a questionnaire regarding the school year 2017/18 (n= 100-120). A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) showed that the k.i.d.Z.21 project has a multi-faceted knock-on effect on parents, constituting a multiplier effect: increasing knowledge, and, above all, improvements to the child-parent relationship. Additionally, measurable positive effects in the frequency and quality of climate change communication between children and their parents have been observed (Spearman Rank Correlations), but a distinct lack of positive effects regarding changing climate-friendly attitudes or actions have been noted (Pearson Product-Moment Correlation). The importance of the child-parent relationship is a key factor in bridging the knowledge-action gap, and is reviewed in the context of CCE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据