| Session | ||
30 SES 09 B
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Environmental Literacy Development and the Role of Environmental Elective Elementary School Course: Case of Serbian Education 1University of Belgrade, Faculty of Education, Serbia; 2Institute for Educational Research, Belgrade, Serbia; 3University of Belgrade, Faculty of Chemistry, Serbia Presenting Author:The environmental performance of the Republic of Serbia is unsatisfactory, and the consequences of environmental degradation reflect on the population's health and quality of life. Taking into account that children and young people are future decision-makers, it is necessary to provide them with an opportunity to acquire knowledge, skills, and develop attitudes that will help them to act in environmentally responsible way, both locally and globally. This paper is part of the ELIPS project which aims to investigate environmental literacy (EL) and the environmental identity among the 7th grade students in Serbia. EL is operationalized comprehensively, encompassing four components: (1) knowledge, (2) affect, (3) cognitive skills, and (4) behavior (Marcinkowski, 1991, 2004; McBeth et al., 2008; Wilke, 1995). The testing of EL among elementary school students was conducted in several countries around the world applying an international instrument for determining the level of environmental literacy, the Middle School Environmental Literacy Survey (MSELS) (McBeth et al., 2008). In the USA, EL was tested on a sample of sixth-graders (age 11-12) and the eighth-graders (age 13-14). The total EL score on a total sample was 144.83 (out of 240) (McBeth et al., 2008). As far as separate EL components are concerned, the students from the USA achieved the following results: knowledge – 40.34; affect – 38.05; cognitive skills – 25.56, and 36.84 for behavior. Students from Thessaloniki (Greece), age12-15, had a total score of 123.31 (Nastoulas et al., 2017). The scores for EL components for the students from Thessaloniki were: knowledge – 35.18; affect – 35.43; cognitive skills – 17.2, and 36.5 for behavior. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The researchers applied a survey methodology using the MSELS questionnaire (McBeth et al., 2008). The MSELS measures four EL components, with maximal score 60 per each, which means that the total number of the score points was maximum 240. The instrument contains the basic environmental knowledge items (N=17). The tasks related to cognitive skills (N=17) consist of texts presenting environmental problems in real-life situations. Students are expected to identify and analyze the problems given in the texts and then choose the best ecological strategies as solutions to the problem. The items measuring affect (N=25) refer to environmental sensitivity, students’ verbal commitment, and their intentions to preserve the environment. Pro-environmental behavior was measured in the tasks investigating students’ genuine commitment to protecting the environment in everyday situations (N=12). The instrument also includes the questions related to the socio-demographic characteristics of the students (age, gender, parents' level of education), and the electives the students have attended. The applicability of the MSELS (for the population of the 14-year-old students) in Serbian context was confirmed in a pilot study (Marušić Jablanović et al., 2022). The testing of the EL level of Serbian students was conducted on students of age 13-14 (N=877). The sample is stratified according to the regions and the urbanization level of the settlements in Serbia. The collected data were processed by using descriptive statistical procedures (for measuring students’ achievement on MSELS questionnaire, in total, and per EL component). The scores of students who attended the GN course from grades 1-4 were compared to the scores of students who have attended this course from the 5th grade, using an Independent-samples T test. The same test was applied for comparison of students who have not attended the course and those who have attended it since the 1st grade until now. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The results indicate that the total average score of students is 147.93. The average scores for EL components are 37.85 for knowledge, 44.11 for affect, 25.97 for cognitive skills, and 40.01 for behavior. The students from Serbia obtained higher scores than American (McBeth et al.) and Greek students (Nastoulas et al., 2017), both in total EL score and in components affect and behavior. The students who attended GN elective subject/optional activity in both educational cycles have a more pronounced affect relative to students who did not attend the course (Sig = .009; df= 370; t= 2.636). The students who attended the course from grades 1-4 performed better on cognitive skills, compared to those attending it from the 5th grade (t=2.026, Sig=.043). Given that in Serbian educational practice teachers influence children’s subject/activity selection (Cvjetićanin et al., 2011), we may assume that GN contributed to students increased interest in nature, their decisiveness to change behavior and become more pro-active. The results speak in favor of the GN course, in terms of attitudes towards the environment, as well as in favor of the practice of teachers teaching grades 1-4. Nonetheless, the fact that students who attended this course did not have higher scores in other EL components raises concern. The results show that there is potential for improving the levels of EL in all domains, especially the cognitive skills domain. Although the elective subject/optional activity GN positively impacts the development of some EL components among children from Serbia, there are still indicators that the implementation of this course needs to be improved. In addition, some possible ways of developing students’ EL include development of teachers’ environmental competencies, enrichment of compulsory subjects with environmental contents and activities, as well as greater support of school for outdoor learning, cooperation with local community. References Cvjetićanin, S., Segedinac, M., & Segedinac, M. (2011). Problems of teachers related to teaching optional science subjects in elementary schools in Serbia. Croatian Journal of Education, 13(2), 184-216. McBeth, B., Hungerford, H., Marcinkowski, T., Volk, T. & Meyers, R. (2008). National Environmental Literacy Assessment Project: Year 1, National Baseline Study of Middle Grades Students Final Research Report (192). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved January 10, 2022. from https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/document/2019/Jun/Final_NELA_minus_MSELS_8-12-08.pdf Marcinkowski, T. (1991). The relationship between environmental literacy and responsible environmental behavior in environmental education. Methods and Techniques for Evaluating Environmental Education. UNESCO. Marcinkowski, T. (2004). Using a Logic Model to Review and Analyze an Environmental Education Program. In Volk, T. (Ed.), NAAEE Monograph Series, Volume 1. NAAEE. Marušić Jablanović, M., Stanišić, J. & Savić, S. (2022). Еnvironmental Literacy of Students in Belgrade Schools: Results of a Pilot Research. Teaching Innovations, 35(4), 28–46. DOI: 10.5937/inovacije2204028M Nastoulas, I., Marini, K. & Skanavis, C. (2017). Middle school students’ environmental literacy assessment in Thessaloniki, Greece. In Anwar, S., El Sergany, M. & Ankit, A. (Eds.). Health and Environment Conference Proceedings (198–209). Dubai: Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University. Retrieved January 10, 2022. from https://www.hbmsu.ac.ae/downloads/massmail/2017/august/HBMSU_Innovation_Arabia_Health_and_ Environment_Conference_Proceedings_2017.pdf#page=203 Pravilnik o nastavnom planu i programu za prvi i drugi razred osnovnog obrazovanja i vaspitanja [The Rulebook on the Curriculum for the first and second grades of elementary school] (2004). Službeni glasnik RS - Prosvetni glasnik, br. 10. Pravilnik o dopunama Pravilnika o planu nastave i učenja za prvi ciklus osnovnog obrazovanja i vaspitanja [The Rulebook on amendments to the Rulebook on teaching and learning plan for the first cycle of elementary school] (2018). Službeni glasnik RS - Prosvetni glasnik, br. 15. Pravilnik o planu i programu nastave i učenja za peti i šesti razred osnovnog obrazovanja i vaspitanja [The Rulebook on teaching and learning plan for the fifth and sixth grades of elementary school] (2018). Službeni glasnik RS - Prosvetni glasnik, br. 15. Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Bondell, H. D., Mertig, A. G. & Moore, S. E. (2013). Environmental, Institutional, and Demographic Predictors of Environmental Literacy among Middle School Children. PLOS ONE, 8 (3), e59519. Retrieved Jun 22, 2022. from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059519 Wilke, R. (Ed.). (1995). Environmental Education Literacy/Needs Assessment Project: Assessing Environmental Literacy of Students and Environmental Education Needs of Teachers; Final Report for 1993–1995 (30–76). (Report to NCEET/University of Michigan under U.S. EPA Grant #NT901935-01-2). University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point. 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Ecological Knowledge, Environmental Cognitive Skills and Affect in Predicting Pro-environmental Behavior among 7th Grade Students in Serbia 1Institute for Educational Research, Belgrade, Republic of Serbia; 2Florida Institute of Technology; 3Centre of Excellence in Environmental Chemistry and Engineering, ICTM – University of Belgrade, Republic of Serbia; 4University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia Presenting Author:According to the Environmental Performance Index that estimates climate change performance, environmental health and ecosystem vitality, Serbia takes rank 79 out of 180 countries (Wolf et al., 2022). Environmentally irresponsible behavior in Serbia is demonstrated both at the individual and institutional level (uncontrolled crops burning, lack of waste water treatment, using low quality coal and oil derivatives for power plants and individual heating systems, unsanitary landfills, massive deforestation etc.) and requests urgent changes of practice and finding solutions. Several authors underline the role of environmental education in raising awareness and changing behavior of young generations (Coyle, 2005). The main goal of environmental education is creating environmentally literate citizens, capable for lifelong learning (Coyle, 2005). “The environmentally literate citizen, let us imagine, will have a blend of ecological sensitivity, moral maturity and informed awareness of natural processes that would make her or him unlikely to contribute to further degradation of natural processes at either individual or corporate levels. This is an ideal, for it would never be expected that all citizens could really attain such competence” (Brennan, 1994: 5). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The sample (N=877) was stratified according to the regions of the country and the type of the settlement (urban/rural). It consisted of seventh-grade students (aged 13-14), with boys and girls equally represented. The data were collected after obtaining the Ethics Committees approvals, and the consents of the schools' principals, parents and the participants themselves. For the measurement of the Environmental literacy components, the Middle School Students’ Environmental Literacy Survey or MSELS (McBeth & Volk, 2010; Hungerford& Peyton, 1980; Stern, 2000) was applied, which has been utilized in different cultures, after the USA national study (McBeth et al., 2008). The Instrument consists of: (a) questions on demographic characteristics; (b) a multiple choice test of ecological knowledge; (c) two scales, one pertaining to environmental sensitivity (feelings towards and activities in nature) and one to willingness to participate/act, each of which were measured using a 5-pointLikert-type environmental affect scale; (d) a multiple choice test of cognitive skills; and (e) a self-reported behavior scale (referring to saving resources, recycling, communication regarding environment etc) which also was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The cognitive skills tasks include descriptions of real-life situations and demand: the identification of the problems described, the identification of the values contained in the stories of the actors, offering their perspective on the environmental problems, and the identification of the best strategies for solving the problem presented. In order to prevent missing data due to participants’ fatigue, the order of the tasks was changed. The cognitive skills tasks were placed after the knowledge test. The four components of the environmental literacy (knowledge, cognitive skills, affect, behavior) have the same weight, with the maximal value 60. The overall literacy score is obtained by adding the component scores, leading to the maximal environmental literacy score of 240. The instrument was addressed personally by the researchers, and the students needed 60 to 75 minutes to fill in all sections. To identify the extent to which ecological knowledge, environmental affect and cognitive skills were predictive of pro-environmental behavior, a regression analysis was applied. In order to determine if the suspected mediating role of the affect is significant, we have applied the Sobel test. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The results indicate that ecological knowledge covered by school curricula has a negligible power in predicting affect (0.5%) and statistically insignificant power in predicting behavior. Nevrtheless, these results should be interpreted cautiously, and further study would be needed to determine if, when, and how students make use of their knowledge when preparing for and/or taking specific any action(s) in real-world situations. Cognitive skills were a weak predictor of affect (3% of variance explained) and an insufficient predictor of behavior (1.4%). However, when environmental affect was introduced into the regression model as an independent variable, cognitive skills lose the ability to predict behavior and the complete predictive power (54%) belongs to affect. The mediating role of affect was confirmed using a Sobel test. It can be interpreted that even if certain cognitive skills are developed, a change in the way children feel about nature seems necessary, as this appears to help create a level of affective readiness for environmental learning in and out of school, community engagement, and changes in behavior in private and public settings. Regarding the affect prediction, when both knowledge and cognitive skills are added as predictors, the observed small predictive power (2.9%) belongs to cognitive skills only. The assumed relationship is bidirectional. These results draw attention to curricular goals, which largely emphasize the cognitive dimension of environmental literacy (especially knowledge), and neglect affective dimension, while expecting a change in the behavior in the population of students in school and after they graduate. These results are consistent with those reported in similar studies (e.g., McBeth et al. 2014). We assume that providing opportunities for outdoor learning, research in the surrounding nature, engaging in local environmental activities, planting a school garden and personal contact with damaged nature site could facilitate establishing positive environmental affect and the corresponding pro-environmental behavior. References Brennan, A. (1994). Environmental Literacy and Educational Ideal, Environmental Values, 3 (1) :3-16. Coyle, K. (2005). Environmental Literacy in America. Washington, DC: The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. Hungerford, H.& Peyton, R. (1980). A paradigm for citizen responsibility: Environmental action. In A. Sacks, et al. (Eds.), Current Issues VI: The Yearbook of Environmental Education and Environmental Studies (pp. 146-154),Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. Marcinkowski, T.& Reid, A. (2019). Reviews of research on the attitude–behavior relationship and their implications for future environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 25(4), 459-471. McBeth, W., Hungerford, H., Marcinkowski, T., Volk, T., & Meyers, R. (2008). National Environmental Literacy Assessment Project: Year 1, National baseline study of middle grades students. Final report. McBeth, W, Marcinkowski, T, Giannoulis, C., Hungerford, H., Volk, T., and Howell, J. (2014). Secondary analysis of the National Environmental Literacy Assessment: Phase I and II student, teacher, program and school surveys. McBeth, W., & Volk, T. L. (2009). The national environmental literacy project: A baseline study of middle grade students in the United States. The Journal of Environmental Education, 41(1), 55-67. McBride, B, Brewer, C., Berkowitz, A., &Borrie, W. (2013). Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, and ecoliteracy: What do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere, 4(5), 1-20. Nastoulas, I., Marini, K. &Skanavis, C. (2017). Middle school students environmental literacy assessment inThessaloniki, Greece. In: Anwar, S., El Sergany, M. & Ankit, A. (Eds.). Health and Environment Conference Proceedings (198–209). Dubai: Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University. Negev, M., Sagy, G., Garb, Y., Salzberg, A. & Tal, A. (2008) Evaluating the Environmental Literacy of Israeli Elementary and High School Students, The Journal of Environmental Education,39:2, 3-20. Simmons, D. (1995). Developing a framework for national environmental education standards [Working paper]. In D. Simmons (Ed.), The NAAEE standards project: Papers on the development of environmental education standards (pp. 9–58). Troy, OH: North American Association for Environmental Education. Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. Wilke, R. (Ed.). (1995). Environmental Education Literacy/Needs Assessment Project: Assessing environmental literacy of students and environmental education needs of teachers; Final Report for 1993-1995. Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point. Wolf, M. J., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., de Sherbinin, A., Wendling, Z. A., et al. (2022). 2022 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. epi.yale.edu | ||