Myth-Busting -- Children Influencing Parents

Michele - I have only anecdotal evidence, but I agree that training the children is not effective. I work in the recycling field as an educator. I have reams and reams of curricula around reducing waste, recycling and composting. It all sits unused. First, it is very difficult to get into schools to present information, even once a year around America Recycles Day or Earth Day. Second, a once-yearly 40-minute lesson is ineffective at best. All education must be repeated and reinforced to be internalized. Third, the schools are just about the worst at recycling. The administration is often very resistant citing budgetary concerns and contractual restrictions. So even if I do present a lesson on recycling, the students do not see it happening in their classrooms. If adults are not leading by example and making the issue, in my case recycling, a priority, children are usually powerless to change the institutional behavior.

Marjorie Torelli

Western Finger Lakes
Solid Waste Management Authority
Lyons, NY 

I would like to refute the refuters, based on my own experience, that children can be effective at influencing their parents. What you are really saying is that if we do a poor job of educating children, they will do a poor job of educating their parents. I concur that simply providing curriculum to teachers is not effective in getting this information integrated into instruction. Curriculum itself is no more effective than brochures - teachers work in an environment that is incredibly competitive for teaching time and resources we want them to use must be very targeted and well presented at a minimum. Likewise, simply presenting information to children does not necessarily make them advocates to our cause; they need to be actively engaged using sound education principles not simply lectured to. There is plenty of competition for their attention as well. But don't we know that already? Isn't it the premise of CBSM that messages have to be targeted and designed effectively for their audience and for the purpose we want to achieve? If we can figure out how to persuade teachers to integrate environmental curriculum into their curriculum in an effective manner (such as project-based instruction) students often do become engaged and passionate about environmental subjects. I have seen this happen and have plenty of anecdotes about students who have persuaded adults - both parents and decisionmaker such as school administrators - make significant changes in policy and make investments in energy efficiency. I have numerous examples of this from my own work with schools, including a report on a third-party study done with families of student who participated in the Alliance to Save Energy's Green Schools Program. This program helps schools integrate energy/energy efficiency into instruction and gets teams of student custodians and teachers involved in achieving energy savings at schools through no-cost behavior and operations changes. This series of 11 interviews is certainly not quantitative but provides focus-group-like information on how students do influence their parents and even siblings, presumably as a result of this program. I can send the report to anyone who is interested. (Web site it http://ase.org/section/program/greenschl/ but I don't think this report is on it.)

If you include older students in your claim, you are totally missing an incredible resource if you ignore college students, who in my opinion make up the biggest grass-roots movement promoting action for clean energy and climate change in the country. The fact that over 550 college and university president have signed the American College and University President's Climate Change Commitment is, I believe, largely due to the influence, advocacy and interest of students in this subject; colleges feel the need to be "green" in order to attract students. (This challenge requires colleges to develop and act on a plan to become climate neutral.) http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/

Merrilee Harrigan

Vice President,
Education Alliance to Save Energy
202-530-2215
www.drivesmarterchallenge.org

Hi all,  

Here is some research challenging the myth that children will change their parents behaviour. (see point 4: Children will change their parents' attitudes and behaviours)  

Check out an interesting article by Professor David Uzzell (Professor of Environmental Psychology at University of Surry) on "challenging assumptions in the psychology of climate change". ..

He challenges 4 assumptions that are often made: ..

1. Everyone experiences similar barriers to acting sustainably (WRONG) .. "Different strategies will be required for different groups depending upon the different barriers they erect to sustainable behaviour." .. "In a study examining the barriers to changing from disposable to modern reusable cloth nappies, it became clear that different groups of parents had different constraints and needs - convenience, self belief, experience, initial institutional (e.g., hospital) support, incentives, information for spouses, stigma and cost (Uzzell & Leach, 2003)." .. "One way of thinking about these barriers, the kind of strategies that are required to overcome them, and the prioritising of them as target groups is to define these groups in terms of 'would, could, can't, don't and won't'." ..

2. The young are most supportive of pro-environmental actions (WRONG) .. Lyons, Uzzell & Storey (2001) found that young people (aged 18 - 35 years): were the most strongly opposed to changing their behaviour as they considered being forced to recycle was an infringement of individual freedom. They resented being told what to do and admitted that if they felt under pressure to recycle they were less likely to do it. objected to penalties for not recycling and joked about the "recycling police and a police state", and about having bins with alarms fitted that went off when you threw out a recyclable item. considered that recycling and pro-environmental behaviour change should not be a priority because they perceived few immediate, serious and tangible benefits or costs to the individuals concerned. considered that the environmental effects of waste generation were too distant to motivate change, and small lifestyle changes were seen to have "zero effect" on what is regarded as a global problem..

3. Recycling has a positive image (WRONG) .. "most of the role models associated with recycling were negative." .. "The prototypical recycler identified by the young people was an "old man in his fifties with a beard or a woman in a tie-dyed t-shirt and dungarees". The young parents had various stereotypes of people who recycle: an ecowarrior image, Swedes or other Scandinavians, outdoors types, people who buy IKEA furniture or someone who is perfect." .. "The middle-aged group described a recycler as "someone boring"." ..

4. Children will change their parents' attitudes and behaviours (WRONG) .. Uzzell (1999) "concluded that the role of children in encouraging sustainable behaviours in the family occurs only rarely, typically in more middle-class and better educated families." .. "In the majority of homes we found low levels of concern about environmental problems, with parents having little knowledge about environmental problems and in some cases negative attitudes towards education, low levels of motivation and poor self esteem in respect of their educational role." .. "It cannot be assumed that simply giving children environmental change information and relying on a process of osmosis will lead to enhanced concern and action. "

.. Well worth a read and available at     http://www.psychology.org.au/inpsych/challenging_assumptions/  

Thanks,  
Peter   

http://randommanplanetearth.blogspot.com/

Hi Michele -

Though I have no hard evidence one way or the other, I have actually had parents come to me and tell me that their children have come home, after I worked with them, insisting that the family rethink their fertilizer use on their lawns and develop schedules for picking up dog waste out of their yards - two hugely important factors in improving water quality in our area - and thereby reinforcing the idea that working with the children helps change family/parent behavior. Even if that does not prove true a majority of the time, these children will be grown and making decisions of their own sooner than we think, so they are an audience we cannot afford to ignore. But we feel that reinforcement at all levels is important. Our organization takes a holistic approach in community education reinforcing school-based education with a significant amount of community outreach to reach both adults and children alike.

Helen

Helen W. Kuhns
Education and Outreach Coordinator
Lynnhaven River NOW
1608 Pleasure House Road, Ste 108
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
www.lynnhavenrivernow.org
(757) 962-5398

Hi Marjorie

I found your response to Michelle a bit depressing! In my school (Lincoln High School) in New Zealand, a group of students, following an environmental education course run by Lincoln University came back to school and started a student led environmental group, which got paper recycling under way, with boxes in the classrooms. Before long a parent in a neighbouring community that had children at the school, started collecting paper and bringing it to the school to be recycled, as did many people in the Lincoln community. This started in 1991 and the environmental group is still active and the whole school has set up systems for recycling, waste reduction , energy reduction etc. We now have education for sustainability in many areas of the school and we gained our silver Enviroschools award this year. The Enviroschools programme is a great way of encouraging the whole school community to make changes. The parents are involved too. www.enviroschools.org.nz The Lincoln Envirotown Trust, that I am involved with, runs children's holiday programmes and an after school Envirokids club for 3-12 year olds. Parents and caregivers need to come with the children, so this is a great way for the information to be shared with the whole family. www.lincolnenvirotown.org.nz

Best wishes
Sue

Dr Sue Jarvis
Chair Lincoln Envirotown Trust
694 Gould's Road RD4
Christchurch 7674
New Zealand
phone: 03 329 5858
www.lincolnenvirotown.org.nz 

For case studies of programs where school programs have influenced parents, and guidelines for designing effective programs of this sort, see:

http://toolsofchange.com/English/ToolsofChange/default.asp?Section=School
http://toolsofchange.com/English/CaseStudies/default.asp?ID=3
http://toolsofchange.com/English/CaseStudies/default.asp?ID=16
http://toolsofchange.com/English/CaseStudies/default.asp?ID=13
http://toolsofchange.com/English/CaseStudies/default.asp?ID=97
http://toolsofchange.com/English/CaseStudies/default.asp?ID=25
http://toolsofchange.com/English/CaseStudies/default.asp?ID=122
http://toolsofchange.com/English/CaseStudies/default.asp?ID=135

Cheers,
Jay

Jay Kassirer
President,
Cullbridge Marketing and Communications
61 Forest Hill Avenue,
Ottawa Ontario, Canada K2C 1P7
Tel: (613) 224-3800
Web: www.cullbridge.com
www.toolsofchange.com

I agree that school programs can be effective. I've been working with on school programs for twenty years now and have seen an incredible response, particularly in recent years as "green" behavior is more mainstream. There are a couple of points why I think school programs are important and can be effective. One-I think if we expect families to reduce waste, recycle, conserve energy, or whatever behavior we would like to see, I think that students need to do this at school too, not just at home. Schools need to model what we want to see throughout the community. Two-I do agree a one-time, 40 minute presentation isn't going to be effective. At the elementary level, we offer an assembly program that is fun and exciting and gets students thinking. It also provides specific tips that students can do right away in the classroom or at home. This is then followed up with classroom presentations that talk to students at their level, demonstrates and challenges them to think about their behavior, and what they can do differently rather than depending only on their parents. Many parents are too busy or don't have time to pack waste-free lunches for example, but the students can and we show them how. These presentations however are designed also to tie into the curriculum that teachers are already teaching-so it's not taking away from important student learning but augmenting it, particularly on the secondary level. Three-we also support teachers and students that want to do projects that make a difference in their school. Many students take responsibility not only for recycling but for teaching other students how to do it properly, monitoring the recycling bins or lunchroom recycling or composting programs. Some pick up litter around their school or organize waste-free lunches. I noticed that the study cited was targeted on young adults ages 18-35. We are talking about kids ages 6-18. I do agree that teens are harder to reach but I am amazed by what they and elementary students can do if inspired. In recent years, this education program has been partnered with a school assistance program so that schools are cutting down the amount of garbage thrown away, recycling more, and now starting to compost food scraps. I recommend that you check out some of the award winners at http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/education/earth-heroes.asp. There are other programs that recognize the amazing projects that kids can do. Even if it isn't influencing their parents, many of these students will have the basic knowledge to become responsible consumers as they grow up into adults.

Jennifer Howell
Triangle Associates
www.triangleassociates.com

Now that I went on about educating students, I think this is a perfect example where I wouldn't focus on children. The important thing about programs for children is that they must focus on things within their control-which is why waste reduction and recycling, energy conservation, etc are appropriate. Teaching kids about homebuilding, purchasing, maintenance and landscaping for fire-resistance is not something within children's power. The only place I would teach this in the schools would be a tech-ed class related to homebuilding, construction, or landscaping.

Jennifer Howell
Triangle Associates 

I am so glad you responded to this query, Merrilee. I somehow lost the original posting or I would have forwarded it to our school outreach coordinator, who also experiences very high success with the trickle-up theory: kids do indeed take the messages home and parents have indeed changed behavior as a result. This is from recycling to composting to general waste reduction. It is an active process, as you noted, not one that will foster success without a lot of hand-holding and encouragement by our coordinator, unless the teachers themselves are already on board.

Cheers,
Clare

From my own personal experience, I would disagree. I don't have hard evidence, however when I taught 6th grade science and had a recycling unit, I observed quite the opposite. The kids decided to start and ecology club which led to a school wide (both high school and middle school) recycling program. The community did not have a paper recycling program at the time, so parents were recruited to help the students transport the recycled paper to the nearest town with such a program. This was in 1990. At teacher conferences, parents "complained" that their students would lecture them about recycling and that their trash was dramatically reduced once they instituted recycling plastics and aluminum along with the paper. The students had projects in which they had to educate about the issue. Some did skits, others even produced a video/commercial. Others created "monopoly" - like games. Wish I had all the video's still, but I found it to be one of the things I remember the most about my short teaching career. The kids did change the institutional behavior of that particular school district.

For what that's worth.
Gail Epping Overholt

Natural Resources Education
Milwaukee River Basin
932 S. 60th Street,
West Allis WI 53214
Phone: (414) 290-2434
Cellular: (608) 206-3972
Fax: (414) 290-2424
[email protected] 

In addition to the GreenSchools and GreenCampus programs from the Alliance to Save Energy cited by Merilee, we have had similar strong and verified results in connection with a residential energy and water efficiency programs at the grade 5 or 6 level. As was correctly pointed out in a separate post, the quality of the school program is paramount, and the LivingWise and WaterWise programs from Resource Action Programs provide a short in-class curriculum coupled with take-home kits of efficiency measures. Installation rates are very high, and form the basis for numerous utility-sponsored programs in the US. Schools appreciate the programs because of the high enthusiasm level of the students to work with their families (armed with the kits and classroom lessons) and we also receive numerous reports from teachers and students of how this is the first time that their parents have been involved with homework or schools. In short, kids can be a significant influence on their parents. You just need a well designed program to provide the tools and the motivation. It works! And child delivered information can really cut through the clutter more effectively than conventional marketing and PR messaging aimed at adults. It's not the only approach, but it's a very useful component in an overall effort.

Dave Munk

Senior Program Manager
Resource Action Programs
800-465-5095

My daughter has just started grade 1 so my experience with recycling at school is limited but what I have observed so far, is that they are moderate recyclers but they would like to do more. They do have bins for: * Paper, cardboard * Refundable drink boxes * Glass * Labels (they separate these for money) They are not great at plastic recycling, but they do encourage kids to bring reusable containers instead of packaged foods. There is very little foodstuff thrown away as they are told to take all their uneaten lunch back home in their lunch kits. The School Boards, Principals and local governments need to be on board in order to make it happen. From my discussions with teachers and kids, they would gladly participate if the right bins were available. Ecole Marlborough Burnaby, BC

Sherry Ernst

Product Development Specialist
BC Hydro, Power Smart Marketing
900 - 4555 Kingsway (11th floor)
Burnaby, BC V5H 4T8
Tel: 604-453-6241
Cell: 604-317-6218
Fax: 604-453-6505

I would have to agree with Merrilee Harrigan it's no myth. In Western Australia, we have several action based environmental programs related to water and air quality and waste. These programs all offer long term curricula, directly linked to the outcomes teachers need to cover, not one - off presentations. They all involve the students in taking ownership of the programs in their school and the emphasis is on whole school participation in such areas as recyling and sustainability. There is much anecdotal evidence from schools and parents that the children's involvement in these programs and the subsequent use by them of inserts in school newsletters to reinforce the messages, does result in changes occurring at home. Certainly, I have seen these students grow to become environmentally aware young people and it would seem they are much more conscious of the impacts their purchasing decisions have than we ever were. I cannot ascribe to the notion that children's influence is a myth. Good programs delivered in an integrated and engaging manner can make a difference - not in every family, but in enough to be worthwhile, just as the influence on the child can be long lasting if delivered consistently and well.

Cheers
Bev

Beverley Stevens
Education Officer
Ribbons of Blue
Department of environment and conservation(DEC)
phone: 6467 5128
fax: 6364 6513
email: [email protected]

Doesn't it seem unfair to decry the entire theory that children can influence their parents as a "myth" when the first assumption challenged here is that "everyone experiences similar barriers to acting sustainably?" Judging by the fact that this study was conducted by a professor at a British university, I would assume that the study subjects were European. The stereotypes about recyclers as provided by the subjects convince me even more so. The subjects questioned in the 18-35 age group certainly do not appear to represent the nationwide attitude to recycling in the US within that age group. So, given the fact that, clearly, not everyone experiences similar barriers, shouldn't we take into account the country and culture - among other things - in which the education is being done before completely debunking the theory of children influencing their children as a myth?

-Elena

Elena Cronin
Clean Water Community Outreach Coordinator
Clark County Public Works
Vancouver, Washington, US

Hi Elena,  

Thanks for responding.  

I dont believe that Professor David Uzzell is trying to decry the ENTIRE theory that children can influence their parents rather he is trying to point out that different strategies will be required for different groups depending upon the different barriers they erect to sustainable behaviour". We all know this anyway, from CBSM principles.  

The point is, that it is a mistake to assume that all children WILL change their parents attitudes and behaviours because there are different barriers for different parents (as he pointed out in his study looking at barriers to changing from disposable to modern reusable cloth nappies).   He doesnt suggest that children cannot change their parents attitudes and behaviours, rather he finds "In the MAJORITY of homes we found low levels of concern about environmental problems, with parents having little knowledge about environmental problems and in SOME cases negative attitudes towards education, low levels of motivation and poor self esteem in respect of their educational role". That is, different families are facing different barriers and therefore "it cannot be assumed that simply giving children environmental change information and relying on a process of osmosis will lead to enhanced concern and action".   Also you say that the stereotypes about recyclers does not appear to represent the nationwide attitude to recycling in the US within that age group. I am interested, what attitudes do citizens of the United States in the 18-35 age group hold on recycling? Does anyone know of any published research on this topic?   I agree that different countries and cultures will provide different barriers to sustainable behaviour.Here in Australia, there is a social research project that measures the environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of the people of New South Wales through surveys and focus groups. A report Who Cares about the Environment? is released every three years by the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change. This research has been tracking changes and trends in environmental views, priorities and actions since 1994.    Well worth a read - See:   http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/community/whocares.htm  

Does anyone know of any similar research for the United States?  

Thanks for your reply,  
Peter Jennings  

Hello All,

it seems to me that there are different types of operationalisation relating to this myth. Many of the examples of commentators here that cite effective and well designed programs usually involve the parents and give them at least a semi-active role (e.g. ride with their children to school on a bike, check the progress of student work, help them to do homework, etc.). I believe that the original post was directed at a different question, however: Do children influence their parents' attitude and behaviour in the absence of any involvement of the parents in the program. Are there true spill over effects in the sense that because children might tell their parents what they learned at school, parents then shift their behaviour? Has nagging an influence - if children are enthused about riding a bike to school and nag their parents for permission and resources (a new bike), does this in itself, without further reinforcement from the school or elsewhere, change attitudes? Considering the anecdotes presented by other commentators here, there seems little doubt that well targeted family involvement is beneficial in changing attitudes or behaviour of all involved (not just the children), but so far we (contributors to this listserv) have not compiled much evidence addressing the issue of pure spill overs as defined above. I am also currently searching for that type of evidence and will post if found.

Best,
Felix

Felix Acker
School of Psychological Science
La Trobe University
Ph.: 9479 1257

Thanks, everyone,

I have been delighted and a little shocked that my inquiry has generated so much activity! I appreciate all of the discussion and the excellent examples that people have provided. I will certainly be using all of it in future discussions with my colleagues about planning our research and programs for both adults and children. The most useful information I'm finding here is that well-designed CBSM programs work -- because they follow the principles. What is unfortunate in my arena (and I'm sure in many others) is that often those entities who want to fund programs do not want to change how they do things or spend the time/money to do the careful pre-program research that is necessary for an effective campaign of behavior change. Rather than spend the up-front resources on design, it's "let's publish brochures and hand them out," with no way of measuring effectiveness. Your thoughtful discussion and contributions have given me a lot of back-up for approaching new campaigns with a strong, focused CBSM design.

Thank you again,
Michele Steinberg

Recent discussion on this list has focused on whether school programs for children can influence the environmental behaviors of the parents. This is part of a larger question about the influence of children on their parents. If you think of a family as a system, each member of the system exerts some influence on the other.

A general examination of children's influences on parents is summarized here:

The phenomenology of children's influence on parents Jan De Mol a and Ann Buysse b a Child Psychologist, Ghent University, Department of Psychology, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.

E-mail: [email protected]
b University Professor and Relationship Researcher, Ghent University, Department of Psychology, Belgium

Copyright Journal compilation (c) 2008
The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

ABSTRACT Starting from the core systemic premise that humans influence each other, this paper focuses on child influences in the bidirectional parent-child relationship. Following a co-constructionist approach on bidirectionality, meaning constructions of children and their parents concerning child influences are explored. The authors used in-depth interviews separately with children and their parents. Phenomenological analysis shows similarities and differences in children's and parents' thinking. Both stress the difficulty and existential dimension of the subject and refer to this influence as mainly unintentional. In particular, children disentangle influence from power. Children focus on the responsiveness of their parents. Parents emphasize the overwhelming effects on their personal development. The importance of making room for constructive child influences in family therapy is acknowledged. That is just one of many family systems articles on the mutual parent/child influence system. Advertisers assume that children can influence their parents' purchasing decisions and design many advertisements with that in mind.

The article below deals with childrens' influence on parental food purchasing habits.

Food for thought: parents' perspectives of child influence
Author(s): Jason J. Turner, James Kelly, Kirsty McKenna
British Food Journal 2006 Volume: 108 Issue: 3 Page:181 - 191
Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited

This item from a marketing newsletter describes how Toyota motors targets a kids website to influence them to get their parents to buy Toyotas.

http://www.marketingvox.com/toyota_targets_kids_to_influence_parents-021 976/

There are other marketing articles in a similar vein:

How Kids "Trick" Their Parents.(children influencing parents' purchasing)(Brief Article) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-54882021.html.

Perhaps closer in spirit to the list's interests are public health campaigns which use school based programs with children to influence parental health behaviors. Finally there is this discussion of a framework for how children might influence parents on environmental issues.

Students as catalysts of environmental change: a framework for researching intergenerational influence through environmental education

Reprinted from Environmental Education Research (1998) 4(3), pp. 285-298
Authors: Roy Ballantyne a; Sharon Connell b; John Fien c
Affiliations: a Queensland University, Australia b Queensland University and Griffith University, Australia c Griffith University, Australia

DOI: 10.1080/13504620600942972 journal Environmental Education Research, Volume 12, Issue 3 & 4 July 2006 , pages 413 - 427

Abstract

Many environmental problems are desperately in need of attention. Educating both adults and young people is seen as part of the solution to such problems. Given this situation, and the already considerable investment in environmental education in schools, the notion of encouraging students to initiate environmental discussions with adults at home and in the community seems attractive and worthy of investigation. To this end, this paper critically reviews education and social science literature concerning intergenerational influence. An approach is outlined to guide future efforts in research and programme development aimed at encouraging students' to act as catalysts of environmental communication and learning beyond school boundaries. view references (115)

Felix,

I certainly support your concept that directly involving the family in the students' activities would increase the parents' change of attitude. However the research I cited does in fact refer to a program that does not involve the parents directly, and specifically attempts to "assess the reach of the Green Schools Program beyond the classroom, including whether the lessons have resulted in behavioral changes in the home by the student, parents, and/or siblings." The program has as one of its secondary goals to have students influence home energy use through influencing parents -- which is one of the reasons that this aspect was evaluated -- but had no specific components that reached out to parents except students taking their learning home. I certainly do not claim that this study is definitive at all; it is very limited -- however it does indicate that a school-based program, when well designed, may be able to have an impact on family attitudes and behaviors.

The study conclusions include the following:

* "While the students, their parents, and their siblings noted some specific behavioral changes, all families expressed an overall increase in their general awareness of energy issues in their homes as a result of the student's participation. One parent made the comment, "Our overall knowledge [as a family] has improved a little; he's raised our awareness and reinvigorated the family."

* The change in awareness and behavior were not limited to energy issues, but often spilled over into a general increased cognizance of environmental issues in general throughout the family. Many of the students and their families discussed recycling, landfill levels and water/air pollution in the context of their experience in the Green Schools Program.

* It was the observation of the interviewers that the majority of the students were very enthusiastic about their experience in the Program. Several were able to effectively transfer that interest and enthusiasm to their parents, siblings, or both." Again, this study is part of an overall, third party evaluation of the Alliance's Green Schools Program in 2004-2006 and can be found on a searchable database of evaluations of California energy efficiency programs in a report at the following web site: http://calmac.org/ and search for Green Schools; you will find this report: 2004-2005 green schools Programs Evaluation, this particular aspect of the evaluation is on pages 25-31. So, I just don't think the parent involvement component is essential. This is an important point -- if we think that we can't have children influence parents unless we also have a program component that directly involves parents, we will be adding a complex and probably expensive component to the program.

Merrilee Harrigan

Vice President for Education Alliance to Save Energy
1850 M St NW Suite 600
202-530-2215
[email protected]
ase.org

Dear all,

Glad to read some lively debate about the transfer of learning from children to parents/carers particularly in relation to behaviour change. I'd like to share findings from two pieces of research that I've been involved in.

1. As Teacher-in-Charge of an Environmental Education Centre in NSW, Australia, I organised research into the transfer of learnings into the community as a result of school education programs run by our Centre. Please keep in mind that our programs were experiential, conducted at a range of sites and directly related to syllabuses. We surveyed parents/carers that were involved in our programs to find out whether their child had spoken to them about the program, if so what they had learnt from their children (knowledge, behaviour, attitudes) and what behaviours would they as adults carry out. There were extremely varied results- in some classes more than 80 percent of the students told parents about the program; in others less than 20 percent were told. The main variables appeared to be 'age' (teenagers mostly accounted for low transfer scores), 'extent of behaviour learning' (our programs that were explicitly behaviour learning were better transferred than those to do with cognitive and attitudinal development) and 'reinforcement by school' (where excursion was one-off transfer scores were generally lower than when excursion to our Centre was part of unit of work at school). It appears that most of the parents/carers that were told were interested in taking up behaviours (e.g. in waste management, protecting local environments, energy reduction, water use minimisation). Keep in mind that we couldn't track actual uptake of behaviours.

2. In recent times, I've been researching natural hazard education programs around the world. Research here again shows mixed results. In a nutshell, it appears that learning transfer rates to parents/carers can be low even after students have practised preparedness behaviours and participated in emergency drills at school. On the other hand, where the learning transfer is prescribed (e.g. students take home emergency plan template, agree to practise preparedness behaviours with their family and report back to school) there are much higher levels of transfer. Not sure if this supports either view but it may show that the transfer of learning between students and parents/carers can't be assumed and that we need to develop learning activities that specifically support it.

Hope this helps,
Neil

Neil Dufty -
Principal
Molino Stewart Pty Ltd
38 Cowper St,
Parramatta, NSW 2150
PO Box 614, Parramatta CBD BC,
Parramatta NSW 2124
Phone: 02 9354 0300
Fax: 02 9893 9806
Mobile: 0427 130 283
[email protected]