Tripartite Collaborative Model for Children's Water Environment Science Education: Construction and Practice

Authors

  • Jiao Chen School of Materials and Environmental Engineering, Chengdu Technological University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 611730, China; Chengdu Child-friendly City Development Research Institute, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610106, China
  • Tao Qing School of Materials and Environmental Engineering, Chengdu Technological University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 611730, China
  • Yujie Ma School of Materials and Environmental Engineering, Chengdu Technological University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 611730, China
  • Mingjiang Peng School of Materials and Environmental Engineering, Chengdu Technological University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 611730, China
  • Yixin Lu School of Materials and Environmental Engineering, Chengdu Technological University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 611730, China; Chengdu Child-friendly City Development Research Institute, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610106, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/68hhkw29

Keywords:

Child-friendly, Water Environment Science Education, Tripartite Collaboration, Behavior Cultivation, Action Research

Abstract

To address the problems of fragmented curricula, one-off activities, and an emphasis on knowledge over behavior in current water environment science education for children, this study constructed and implemented a “school-community-enterprise” tripartite collaborative model for children’s water environment science education. Targeting children aged 6-12, the model integrates university research expertise, community organizational networks, and enterprise practice scenarios through four mechanisms: joint curriculum development, shared teaching resources, shared practice bases, and joint evaluation of outcomes. A theme-based science curriculum, the journey of a drop of water, was developed, adopting the experience-action-reflection cyclical instructional design. Through an implementation pathway combining on-campus classes, enterprise site visits, and household water-saving actions, the model promotes the translation of children’s water environment knowledge into water-saving behavior. Preliminary evidence from classroom observations, parent feedback, and interviews in a pilot study indicates that, beyond knowledge acquisition, children began to spontaneously remind family members to save water and to reuse water for multiple purposes at home. Family and community participation improved simultaneously, and the spillover effect of “educating one child, influencing one family, and engaging one community” began to emerge. The study suggests that in-depth multi-stakeholder collaboration is a feasible pathway to bridging the knowledge-action gap in environmental education, and the resulting curriculum resources and operational framework can serve as a reference for similar science education programs.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Gregucci, D., Nazir, F., Calabretta, M. M., & Michelini, E. (2023). Illuminating progress: The contribution of bioluminescence to sustainable development goal 6-clean water and sanitation-of the United Nations 2030 Agenda. Sensors, 23(16), 7244. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23167244.

[2] Vaghri, Z., Zermatten, J., & Lansdown, G. (2022). Monitoring state compliance with the UN convention on the rights of the child: An analysis of attributes. Springer.

[3] Roland, B. H., Kohlhoff, J., Moore, R. T., & et al. (2025). Influence of a tribally led children's environmental education program on shellfish harvesting beliefs and behavioral intentions. Community Science, 4(3), e2025CSJ000128.

[4] Yang, B., Wu, N., Tong, Z., & Sun, Y. (2022). Narrative-based environmental education improves environmental awareness and environmental attitudes in children aged 6-8. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11), 6483. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116483.

[5] Ye, H. Y., & Shih, H. Y. (2020). Environmental education for children in Taiwan: Importance, purpose and teaching methods. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1572–1578.

[6] Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8.

[7] Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21.

[8] Jensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 325–334.

[9] Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.

[10] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

[11] Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.

[12] Chawla, L. (2007). Childhood experiences associated with care for the natural world: A review of research. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(4), 144–170.

[13] Otto, S., & Pensini, P. (2017). Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 47, 88–94.

[14] Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 379–392.

[15] Fisman, L. (2005). The effects of local learning on environmental awareness in children: An investigation of the relationship between learning and environmental awareness in a nature-based program. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(3), 39–50.

[16] Beames, S., Higgins, P., & Nicol, R. (2012). Learning outside the classroom: Theory and guidelines for practice. Routledge.

[17] UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO.

[18] Tundia, R. K., Ahammed, M. M., & George, D. (2016). The effect of operating parameters on the performance of a biosand filter: A statistical experiment design approach. Water Supply, 16(3), 775–782.

[19] Wang, M., Zhao, B., Zhang, Z., & et al. (2026). Performances, process, and assessment of modified activated carbon for ammonia adsorption: A review. Chemical Engineering & Technology, 49(2), e70183.

[20] Liu, G., Chen, Z., Wang, L., & et al. (2026). Research progress on the treatment of polymer flooding produced water by flocculation/coagulation: A mini review. Separation Science and Technology, 61(11), 1857–1882.

[21] Faridizad, G., Mehrnia, R. M., & Sharghi, A. E. (2026). A critical review of economic, microbial, and design aspects of high-rate activated sludge process: Is HRAS the future of sustainable wastewater treatment? Water Conservation Science and Engineering, 11(2), 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41101-026-00504-1.

Downloads

Published

03-11-2026

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Chen, J., Qing, T., Ma , Y., Peng, M., & Lu, Y. (2026). Tripartite Collaborative Model for Children’s Water Environment Science Education: Construction and Practice. Academic Journal of Education, 3(1), 50-55. https://doi.org/10.54097/68hhkw29