environmental literacy of undergraduate students in china: constructing a measure
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental Literacy of Undergraduate Students in China
––– Constructing a Measure Presented at
2015 North American Association for Environmental Education 44th Annual Conference
October 15–18, 2015 in San Diego, CA, USA
Presented by Yan Zhu (Joanna)
Advisor: Dr. Tom Marcinkowski Florida Institute of Technology
Oct 16, 2015
1
Overview!q Research Problem"q Reviews of Literature"q Research Purposes"q Outline of the USELI "
v Undergraduate Students Environmental Literacy Instrument"
q Instrument Development Procedures v Seven Steps Taken to Develop the USELI"
q Validity and Reliability"
2
Research Problem
• Researchers have conducted large-scale environmental literacy (EL) assessments (Marcinkowski et al., 2013)"§ South Korea (2002–03), Israel (2004–06), the United States (2006–08),
Turkey (2008–09), and Taiwan (2012–13)"
• There has not yet been any broad assessment of EL in Mainland China at the K–16 level."
• EL and its associated variables are not well understood there"§ Prior studies missed several key components of EL"§ Environmental awareness has been regarded as a broad concept, or an
equivalent construct as EL: General Public Survey (1998, 2006, 2014)"
• It was necessary to develop and validate, as well as to use, a researcher-constructed instrument for this assessment of environmental literacy among undergraduate students there. "
3
General Review of Literature
Affective Components!• The NEP Scale: A valid and reliable multi-item scale to measure
environmental worldview (Dunlap et al., 2000; Hawcroft & Milfont, 2010)"• Outdoor experiences, formal education, and role models were found
among the most influential variables to the development of environmental sensitivity across cultural background (Chawla, 1998)"
Cognitive Components!• Selected areas of perceived knowledge and perceived skills were
found as predictors of responsible environmental behavior (Marcinkowski, 2001)"
Behavioral Component!• Five categories of environmentally responsible behavior:
ecomanagement, consumer/economic action, persuasion, political action, and legal action (Hungerford & Peyton, 1980)"
4
Review of Literature in China Environmental Worldview!• Inconsistency of existing scales; difficult to draw generalizations"• Disagreement on keeping all 15 NEP items [Hong, 2006; Wu et al. 2012]"
Environmental Sensitivity (ES)!• Limited understanding: Natural sciences rather than social sciences "• Absence of a valid and reliable ES scale [Dai, 2012; Yang & Hu, 2010]"
Knowledge and Skills!• Content validity of the instrument for actual knowledge [Wang, 2006]"• Skills were not included in prior studies"
Environmentally Responsible Behavior (ERB)!• The old knowledge-attitude-behavior model [Zeng, 2004]"• Lack of studies on scale development [Peng, 2010; Sun, 2006]"
Note. Articles written in Chinese characters were not included the reference slides.!
5
Research Purposes
The purposes of this study were: "
1. To develop and validate an instrument (i.e., the USELI) for an EL assessment of undergraduate students in China; "
2. To use the USELI for an EL assessment among undergraduate students at two universities in a province of Central China."
§ Universities 01 (n = 300)"
§ Universities 02 (n = 276)"
6
Outline of the USELI Undergraduate Students Environmental Literacy Instrument!
Part I: Environmental Worldview !§ A Chinese version of the 15-item NEP Scale"
Part II: Environmental Sensitivity !§ A researcher-constructed scale; Likert-type items & multiple choices"
Part III: Environmentally Responsible Behavior !§ A researcher-constructed scale; Likert-type & open-ended items"
Part IV: Other Selected EL Variables in this Assessment!§ Researcher-constructed/adapted scales pertaining to perceived
knowledge, perceived skills, and willingness to act !Part V: Non-EL Variables !
§ A researcher-constructed scale pertaining to demographic, educational, and parental variables"
7
Instrument Development Procedures!
1. Selecting an existing scale for Part I"
2. Conducting pilot studies for Part II, III, and IV"
3. Developing initial items for Part II, III, IV, and V & Translating a draft of the USELI into Chinese/Mandarin"
4. Obtaining expert opinions for validity"
5. Piloting a 2nd draft of the USELI and reliability analyses"
6. Revising and refining the USELI for full study"
7. Conducting exploratory factor analyses (EFA)"
8
Step 1: Selecting an Existing Scale
The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale!• Published in 1978; Revised as15 items (Dunlap et. al., 2000)"• Balanced set of pro- and anti-NEP items; 5-point Likert scale"• Agree or disagree on statement about the relationship between
human and the environment: Limit to Growth; Anthropocentrism; Balance of Nature; Human Exemptionalism; Eco-Crisis!
The Application of the NEP Scale in China!• A Chinese version was included in the environmental module of
2003 China General Social Survey [Hong, 2006]"• A stratified sample of 5,073 participants; door-to-door interview"• Chinese have a coherent sense of generalized environmental
worldview as has been found among North Americans.
9
Step 2: Conducting Pilot Studies
Environmental Sensitivity (ES)!• A qualitative study of 20 Chinese environmental professionals"• Environmental Sensitivity Profile Instrument used by Peterson
(1982) and Sward (1997); adapted and translated into Chinese"• Content analysis: Experiences (e.g., outdoors, formal and informal
education), relationship (role models), personality (innate)!
Environmentally Responsible Behavior (ERB)!• Five open-ended questions pertaining to five categories of ERB
(Marcinkowski & Rehring, 1995; Erdogan et al., 2012)"• 128 undergraduate students provided approximately 500 responses "• Grouped by themes and presented as frequency counts to generate
an initial item pool"
10
Facets Item Description
Limits to Growth
NEP01. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.
NEP06. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.
NEP11. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.
Anthropocentrism
NEP02. Humans have the right to modify the natural environmental to suit their needs.
NEP07. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. NEP12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.
Fragility of
Nature’s Balance
NEP03. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
NEP08. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations. NEP13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
Human
Exemptionalism
NEP04. Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable.
NEP09. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.
NEP14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.
Possibility
of Eco-Crisis
NEP05. Humans are severely abusing the environment. NEP10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. NEP15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.
The NEP Scale with Facets and Item Description!
11
Step 2: Conducting Pilot Studies (cont.)!Perceived Knowledge (PK)!• Content analysis of Ministry’s 2003 High School Curricula "• An integration of environmental knowledge: Biology, Geography, Physics, and Chemistry (Grade 10–12) "
Perceived Skills (PS)!• Skills were not emphasized in the Ministry’s curricula."• Two unpublished instruments for skills (Dr. Marcinkowski, personal communications)"
§ Environmental Investigation Skill Instrument (Noh & Marcinkowski, 2003)"§ The ‘Your Social and Community Project Skills’ Scale in the Learn &
Serve for America’s Civic Engagement Student Survey, Grade 9–12 (Marcinkowski & Noh, 2009)"
12
Environmental Concepts
Subjects
Biology Geography Physics Chemistry
1. Population (Ecology) ×
2. Community (Ecology) ×
3. Ecosystem ×
4. Natural Resources × × × ×
5. Human Population × ×
6. Solid Waste ×
7. Air/Water Pollution × × ×
8. Land Use ×
9. Environmental Health ×
10. Climate Change ×
Environmental Knowledge in the Ministry’s Curricula"
13
Step 3: Developing & Translating Items
Categories of ES Scale Descriptions of ES Items
Identify perceived degree of ES
2.1 Participants’ perception of their own ES 2.2 Participants’ perception of their parents’ ES
Identify individuals who had a major influence on participants’ ES
2.3 Family Members 2.4 Teachers and professors 2.5 Other adult role models
Identify and describe experiences or factors that influenced participants’ ES
2.6 Playing outdoors as a child 2.7 Family vacations to natural areas as a child 2.8 School-organized EE activities or field trips 2.9 Other outdoor activities as a child/youth 2.10 Environmental courses 2.11 Media with nature or environmental themes 2.12 Environmental organizations 2.13 Experiences of environmental threats/impacts 2.14 Religious beliefs and practices
14
Possible Dimensions of the ERB Scale Frequency Counts
1. Ecomanagement 1.1 Electricity saving (e.g., turning off lights) 58 1.2 Water saving (e.g., turning off faucet, reuse the water for plants) 40 1.3 Bring grocery bags for shopping 26 1.4 Planting trees or growing flowers 26 1.5 Paper saving (e.g., double-sided for printing) 24 1.6 Proper disposal of trash 17 1.7 Green transportation (e.g., taking buses or riding bicycles) 9 1.8 Resources saving (e.g., not using disposal chopsticks) 8 1.9 Reuse materials (e.g., books, glass jars) 7 1.10 Recycling (e.g., paper, plastic bottles, glass, cans, batteries) 6 1.11 Protecting animals and plants 6 1.12 Others (e.g., no littering) 4
2. Consumer/Economic Action 2.1 Not eating wildlife nor buying animal products 41 2.2 Avoid using disposable products 41 2.3 Donating to environmental organizations or paying membership fee 15 2.4 Not buying products with excessive packing 5 2.5 Purchasing recyclable products 5 2.6 Purchasing product with green label 5 2.7 Purchasing used products (e.g., used books, second-hand bicycles) 5 2.8 Others (e.g., using solar power, purchasing in-season vegetables) 4 15
Direct Conserva.on Ac.on
3. Persuasion 3.1 Persuading for not littering 40 3.2 Persuading for recycling or reusing 21 3.3 Sharing information through talking, bulletin board, or flyers 17 3.4 Persuading for saving electricity and resources (e.g., water, paper) 16 3.5 Persuading for protecting animals and plants 7 3.6 Organizing environmental campaigns on campus 5 3.7 Persuading for not buying disposable products (e.g., paper plates) 3 3.8 Others (e.g., persuading for not wasting food) 3 4. Political Action 4.1 Voting for important environmental decisions 27 4.2 Protesting or gathering in public places to express views 14 4.3 Writing petition letters or emails 10 4.4 Attending public meetings or hearings 4 4.5 Talking with officials for solving environmental problems 3
5. Legal Action 5.1 Reporting polluting factories (e.g., chemical plants) 9 5.2 Reporting noise pollution (e.g., construction sites) 5 5.3 Reporting illegal discharge of waste water, gas, and solid waste 4 5.4 Others (e.g., reporting food safety issues) 3 5.5 Reporting illegal trade of wildlife 2
Civic Ac.on
16
Step 4: Obtaining Expert Opinions!• A draft of the USELI, together with a description of instrumentation,
were submitted to a validity panel consisting of six EE experts."
• Validity panelists were requested to evaluate the validity of the USELI with respect to the following questions:"
ü Does the instrument measure what is intended to be measured?"
ü How closely does the Chinese version of the instrument correspond with the English version (e.g., translation problems)?"
ü Please check the content validity of the Chinese version in terms of cultural, political, economic, and ecological conditions in Mainland China."
ü Please check the face validity of the Chinese version of the instrument (e.g., format, clarity, and ease of use)."
17
Step 5: Field Test & Reliability Analyses
Parts of the USELI No. of Likert Items
Cronbach’s Alpha
I. Environmental Worldview (NEP) 15 .700 II. Environmental Sensitivity 14 .793 III. Environmentally Responsible Behavior 20 .909
IV. A. Perceived Knowledge 7 .843 IV. B. Perceived Skill 10 .944 IV. C. Willingness to Act 4 .841 !
• The Initial draft was revised and refined: Chinese translation; format for the Chinese version; open-ended questions in Part II; number of items in Part V"
• The 2nd draft showed a relatively high internal consistency."• Items with values of corrected item-total correlation (Ri-t) less than .30 were
dropped, modified, or retranslated. "
18
Step 6: Revising & Refining for Full Study
Scales of "the USELI
Refining Chinese" Translation
Item Modification
No. of "Likert Items
NEP NEP01, NEP02, NEP04, NEP06, "NEP07, NEP14
15
ES ES10 ES14 (dropped) 13
ERB ERB04, ERB10 ERB02, ERB07 " 20
PK/PS/WILL CPS04 PKEE03" 21
Note. NEP = Environmental Worldview; ES = Environmental Sensitivity; ERB = Environmentally Responsible Behavior; PK = Perceived Knowledge; "PS = Perceived Skills; WILL = Willingness to Act. " 19
A Final Version of the USELI
Parts of the USELI (Variables Measured)
Items and Scales Relevant Studies Item ID. Scales
I. Environmental Worldview 1.1–1.15 Likert Scale Dunlap et al., 2000; Hong, 2006
II. Environmental Sensitivity 2.1–2.13 Likert Scale;
Multiple Choices Peterson, 1982;
Sward, 1997
III. Environmental Behavior 3.1–3.24 Likert Scale; Open-ended
Erdogen et al., 2012; Marcinkowski & Rehring,
1995 IV. A. Perceived Knowledge of Ecology & Earth System Science 4.1–4.3 Likert Scale Hsu, 1997;
Marcinkowski, 2001 IV. B. Perceived Knowledge of Environmental Science 4.4–4.7 Likert Scale
IV. C. Perceived Skills in Investigating & Evaluating Problems and Issues
4.8–4.12 Likert Scale Noh & Marcinkowski, 2003; Marcinkowski &
Noh, 2009 IV. D. Perceived Skills in Using Citizen Participation Strategies 4.13–4.17 Likert Scale
IV. E. Willingness to Act 4.18–4.21 Likert Scale; Hsu, 1997
V. Demographics and Others 5.1–5.10 Multiple Choices; Open-Ended
20
Step 7: Full Study & Factor Analyses
• The final version of the USELI was administered to 576 undergraduate students at two national universities in Central China. "§ A paper-and-pencil survey in March 2015"
§ Response rate = 98%; invalid and missing responses"
§ Sample size: N = 464 for descriptive; N = 406 for inferential statistics"
§ Post hoc power analysis: Power = 1 for overall, but not for PK (Set C)"
• EFA were conducted for two researcher-constructed scales"§ ES scale suggested a three-factor structure: factors associated with
education, experiences in the outdoors and of environmental threats/impacts, and family"
§ ERB scale suggested four factors: conservation action, consumer/economic action, persuasion, and civic action
21
Validity and Reliability of the USELI
Scales! Construct Validity!
Content Validity!
Face !Validity!
Cronbach’s Alpha!
NEP" ×" ×" ×" .719
Environmental Sensitivity" ×" ×" ×" .777
Environmentally Responsible Behavior"
×" ×" ×" .856
Perceived Knowledge" ×" ×" .821
Perceived Skills" ×" ×" .939
Willingness to Act" ×" ×" ×" .841
22
Selected References • Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of
environmental sensiJvity. The Journal of Environmental Educa4on, 29 (3), 11–21. • Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., MerJg, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring
environmental aWtudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.
• Erdogan, M., Ok, A., & Marcinkowski, T. (2012). Development and validaJon of children’s responsible environmental behavior scale. Environmental Educa4on Research, 18(4), 507–540.
• Hawcro_, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-‐analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 143–158.
• Hollweg, K. S., Taylor, J. R., Bybee, R. W., Marcinkowski, T. J., McBeth, W. C., & Zoido, P. (2011). Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy. Washington, DC: North American AssociaJon for Environmental EducaJon (NAAEE).
• Hsu, S. (1997). An assessment of environmental literacy and analysis of predictors of responsible environmental behavior held by secondary teachers in Hualien county of Taiwan (Doctoral dissertaJon, Ohio State University). Retrieved from ProQuest DissertaJons & Theses database. (PublicaJon No. AAT 304414676)
• Hungerford, H. R., & Peyton, R. B. (1980). A paradigm for ciJzen responsibility: Environmental acJon. In A. Sacks, et al. (Eds.). Current issues VI: The yearbook of environmental educa4on and environmental studies (pp. 146–154). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.
23
Selected References (cont.) • Marcinkowski, T. (2001). Predictors of responsible environmental behavior: A review of three
dissertaJon studies. In H. Hungerford, W. Bluhm, T. Volk, and J. Ramsey (Eds.). Essen4al readings in environmental educa4on (pp. 247–276). Champaign, IL: SJpes Publishing, L.L.C.
• Marcinkowski, T. M., & Rehring, L. (1995). The secondary school report: A final report on the development, pilot tesJng, validaJon, and field tesJng of secondary school environmental literacy instrument. Environmental educaJon literacy/needs assessment project. Assessing the environmental educaJon needs of teachers: Final report for 1993–1995 (pp. 30–76). Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin–Steven Point.
• Marcinkowski, T., Shin, D., Noh, K., Negev, M., Sagy, G., Garb, Y., McBeth, W., Hungerford, H., Volk, T., Meyers, R., & Erdogan, M. (2013). Na4onal assessments of environmental literacy: A review, comparison, and analysis. In R. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillion, & A. Wals (Eds.), InternaJonal Handbook of Research on Environmental EducaJon (pp. 310–330). Washington, DC: American EducaJonal Research AssociaJon and Routledge.
• Peterson, N. (1982). Developmental variables affec4ng environmental sensi4vity in professional environmental educators (Unpublished master’s thesis). Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.
• Sward, L. L. (1997). Experien4al variables affec4ng the environmental sensi4vity of El Salvadoran environmental professionals (Doctoral dissertaJon, Florida InsJtute of Technology). Retrieved from ProQuest DissertaJons and Theses Database. (PublicaJon No. AAT 304401951).
24
Acknowledgements • My deepest gratitude is to my esteemed advisor, Dr. Tom
Marcinkowski, who provided insightful comments and valuable suggestions throughout the entire research."
• My gratitude also goes to Dr. Ju Chou,Dr. TC Chang, Dr. Shunmei Wang at National Taiwan Normal University and validity panelists for their constructive criticism on instrumentation. "
• I am very grateful to Dr. Riley Dunlap, Dr. HONG Dayong at Renmin University of China and other researchers who generously shared their instruments and data."
• I deeply appreciate the help of Dr. Christos Giannoulis and Dr. Joo Young Park at Florida Institute of Technology, Dr. Mehmet Erdogan at Akdeniz University for their tremendous help in the data analysis process."
25
Contact Information
Thank You!!I welcome your questions and suggestions!
Yan Zhu (Joanna) Dr. Tom Marcinkowski Ph.D. Candidate Professor Florida Institute of Technology Florida Institute of Technology E-mail: [email protected]"
E-mail: [email protected]
26