Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98–106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy

http://d0301-42

n CorrE-m

altschul1 Fa2 Fa

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Energy literacy: Evaluating knowledge, affect, and behavior of studentsin Taiwan

Lung-Sheng Lee a,1, Yi-Fang Lee a,n, James W. Altschuld b, Ying-Ju Pan c,2

a National Taiwan Normal University, 162 HePing East Road Section 1, Taipei 10610, Taiwanb The Ohio State University, 3253 Newgate Court, Dublin, OH 43017, USAc National Chi Nan University, 1 DaiXui Road, Puli, Nantao 545, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 July 2014Received in revised form8 November 2014Accepted 11 November 2014Available online 27 November 2014

Keywords:Energy educationEnergy literacyEnergy program performance

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.01215/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

esponding author. Fax: þ886 2 2392 9449.ail addresses: lslee@ntnu.edu.tw (L.-S. Lee), ivd.1@osu.edu (J.W. Altschuld), lulu1017@ntnu.ex: þ886 2 2392 1015.x: þ886 2 2362 1453.

a b s t r a c t

Energy literacy that can empower people to make thoughtful decisions and take responsible actions ismore important as energy shortages have become pressing issues in the world. Energy literacy wasmeasured among a sample of 2400 secondary students involved in a national energy education programin Taiwan. Response patterns related to student background and factors determining energy consump-tion behaviors were also studied. Energy literacy was high and positive, with greater impact as expectedby grade (senior high school students outscored junior high school ones) and there were some effectsdue to gender and socioeconomic status. Students' performance on energy knowledge wasacceptable (over 60% correct across grades) while a notable discrepancy between affect and behavior wasidentified indicating that there might not be a correspondence between what people say they would doand what they actually do. Energy saving behavior was more closely associated with the affect than othervariables. Reasons for the findings and implications for energy education in the future are discussed.

& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Energy is a pressing issue in the world as growing consumptionleads to not only greenhouse gas emissions that radically damageour climate but also to energy shortages. The production and useof energy represent a challenge requiring awareness and beha-vioral adaptions at every level of society. Energy literacy that canempower people to make thoughtful decisions and act responsiblyis ever more important (DeWaters and Powers, 2007).

Energy literacy (knowledge, affect, behavior) is a learned entitythus warranting programs and studies of their effectiveness ingrades K-12 (Newborough and Probert, 1994; Stern, 1992; Zo-grafakis et al., 2008). Recent research (DeWaters and Powers,2011) found that US secondary students' awareness of energy is-sues was discouragingly low and similar to that of 20 years ago(Barrowa and Morrisey, 1989; Gambro and Switzky, 1999). Peopletended to self-report that they knew quite a bit about energy;however their performance on related tests did not support theirstatements about what they knew (Murphy and Olson, 2008). Itwas also noted that energy consumption behaviors strongly

ana@ntnu.edu.tw (Y.-F. Lee),du.tw (Y.-J. Pan).

correlate to affect, but were much lower in regard to awareness.These findings highlight the need to improve literacy and knowl-edge of relevant events (DeWaters and Powers, 2008, 2011).

Other important variables are costs for countries that rely onlarge amounts of imported energy (Taiwan as an example obtains98% of supply overseas mostly as fossil fuels). In such instanceseducation must deal with conservation by guiding individuals touse more efficient appliances, make appropriate choices, saveenergy in daily life, etc. In Taiwan a key indicator of what has beentaking place is intensity (energy required per unit output) whichhas decreased by 1.9% annually since 2001 (Hu, 2011), but com-pared to developed countries there is still room for improvement.

To close the gap and strive for energy independence, Taiwanproposed an energy policy with education as its centerpiece(Taiwan Bureau of Energy, 2009). Numerous projects have beenconducted to increase students' energy literacy. A latest and na-tionwide one is the “Nurturing Talent for Energy Technology(NTET)” program in place from 2010 to early 2014. Two levels ofenergy education (Newborough et al., 1991) were emphasized –

developing energy professionals in higher education and produ-cing a more energy-literate population via primary and secondaryeducation. This effort presented a unique opportunity to studywhether it achieved its goal, especially for junior and senior highschools.

To date the importance of energy education is underscored inTaiwan, and yet there is limited documentation of where

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98–106 99

secondary students start in the learning process and what theygain from it (Lee, 2011). One reason is the lack of valid instrumentsto measure energy literacy and the difficulty of accessing a na-tionwide sample with the result that understanding about literacyand its linkage to behavior has not been well established. Suc-cinctly, the evaluation of energy education programs has been lessthan stellar.

Therefore, we examined energy-related knowledge, affect, andbehavior for a national sample of secondary students participatingin NTET. Data were collected by an instrument modified fromDeWaters and Powers' work to measure energy literacy. It wastailored to fit different grades (junior and senior high school) andto determine where secondary students were at the beginning ofan educational program, their progress, and utilization of in-formation obtained for improving future offerings. It also per-mitted the examination of the associations between key variablesparticularly as tied to student actions or potential energy relatedactions. Key questions were:

�

What is the performance of students on an energy literacysurvey in the domains of knowledge, affect, and behavior?

�

Are there patterns related to student grade, gender, and familysocioeconomic status?

�

What are the correlations between affect, behavior, andknowledge?

�

Are the variables predictive of students' energy conservationbehaviors?

1.1. Literature review

Energy is the underlying currency that is necessary for every-thing humans do in their work and lives and how their behaviorsaffect the natural environment that supports them (WisconsinK-12 Energy Education Program, 2013). It is an interdisciplinarytopic, ranging from scientific concepts and environmental issues atthe local level to events across the globe (DeWaters and Powers,2013). In this regard, the United States Global Change ResearchProgram (2012) described energy literacy as a part of social andnatural science literacy in which related issues could not be un-derstood by using only a science or technology approach. It re-quires a comprehensive consideration of civics, history, economics,sociology, psychology, and politics along with science, math, andengineering. The concept covers a broad range of fields and it isnecessary to depict it from varied dimensions.

Ideas of science, technology, and environment literacy, inputderived from literature, education standards and curriculum ma-terials formed the basis of DeWaters and Powers' (2013) definitionof energy literacy as “a broad term encompassing contentknowledge as well as a citizenship understanding of energy thatincludes affective and behavioral aspects” (p. 38). A literate personunderstands how energy is used daily, the impacts of its produc-tion and consumption on the environment and society, the influ-ences of energy-related decisions and actions on the global com-munity, the need for conservation and developing alternativesources, and other factors that contribute to decision making andaction. Similarly, the US Department of Energy saw the term as “anunderstanding of the nature and role of energy in the universe andin our lives….also the ability to apply this understanding to an-swer questions and solve problems” (United States Global ChangeResearch Program, 2012). A similar perspective was found in theNorth American Association for Environmental Education's (2011)description of environmental literacy “the knowledge, abilities,dispositions, and behaviors of students that enable students tomake decisions and act to address environmental issues” (pp.15–16). These viewpoints collectively point toward the fact that

knowledge, affect, and behavior are critical dimensions of energyliteracy.

Surveys designed to assess the domains are often used in en-ergy education programs (Energy Center of Wisconsin, 1999;National Energy Education Development Project, 2013; NationalEnvironmental Education and Training Foundation, 2002). TheWisconsin K-12 Energy Education Program (KEEP) study is illus-trative of how they are measured (Energy Center of Wisconsin,1999). KEEP published a curriculum focused on the knowledge andskills necessary to help future consumers make informed choicesabout energy use. Its baseline assessment measured students' andparents' knowledge, attitudes, and practices about energy con-sumption. Surveys had common items for attitudes and behaviorsin versions that took into account differences between 4th–6thand 7th–12th graders. Another notable case is the National EnergyEducation Development (NEED) project. It aims at promoting anenergy conscious and educated society by establishing networks todesign and deliver energy education programs. Evaluation is a highpriority for all of NEED's programming areas to obtain feedback forimprovement in the curriculum, materials, activities, and studentperformance. An exemplary measurement strategy is the onlinePre/Post Energy Poll that enables educators a tool to assess stu-dents' knowledge prior and after programs. It has questions forfour grade levels: primary, elementary, intermediate and second-ary focusing on science of energy, forms of energy, sources ofenergy, electricity, transportation, and conservation and efficiency.Under each topic, knowledge, comprehension, and applicationitems are included. Obviously, no matter whether it is NEED orKEEP, the evaluation instrument is a critical component of theproject. However, it was mainly limited to the knowledge domain,with little attention to affect or behavior (as in the NEED survey),or somewhat narrowly focused on specific predetermined curri-culum-based objectives, and perhaps not representative of acomprehensive approach to energy literacy.

What would constitute a more appropriate survey? Chen,Huang, and Liu (2013) tried to look at that concern by developing aframework to serve as a guideline for survey design, specificallyfor the Taiwan context. Nine indicators in four dimensions weregenerated from a literature review and evaluated by a panel oflocal experts to ensure relevance for students. They prioritized thedimensions and indicators by a process which used pairwisecomparisons. A panel of 63 key members in the NTET programparticipated. The results showed that the dimensions were sortedby priority as follows: “civil responsibility for a sustainable so-ciety”, “low-carbon lifestyle”, “energy concepts”, and “reasoningon energy issues”. As for the indicators, “awareness and self-effi-cacy” and “identifying carbon-less technology and action plans”were the top two and “possessing a systematic understandingabout energy” was the lowest. This work represents an initial ex-amination of the energy education framework and more validationis needed.

Likewise, DeWaters and Powers (2011, 2013) worked on thequestion by means of a content framework to organize the ap-proach to data collection. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral do-mains were the foundation for in depth exploration of what itmeans to be energy literate. There were general characteristicsaligned with the domains with each characteristic consisting ofspecific concepts. The framework was reviewed by a panel of en-ergy and energy-education specialists with 33 items in 8 generalcharacteristics produced for knowledge, 11 for 3 affective char-acteristics, and 8 for 5 behavioral ones. Table 1 contains the set ofcharacteristics and examples of benchmarks. These componentsbecame the foundation for the Instrument Development Frame-work with the criteria placed into a content outline. This constructwas employed in succeeding studies (Chen et al., 2013; DeWaters

Table 1The characteristics and examples of benchmarks of the instrument development framework (DeWaters and Powers, 2013).

Domain General characteristics Examples of benchmarks

Cognition 1. Knowledge of basic scientific facts Definition/forms of energy2. Knowledge of issues related to energy sources and resources Renewable and nonrenewable resources3. Awareness of the importance of energy use for individual and societal functioning Society's need for energy4. Knowledge of general trends in US and global energy resource supply and use Relative abundance of energy resources in the US/globally5. Understanding of the impact energy resource development and use can have on society Societal impacts related to energy resource development6. Understanding of the impact energy resource development/use can have on theenvironment

Impact of developing energy on all spheres of theenvironment

7. Knowledge of the impact individual and societal decisions related to energy resourcedevelopment and use

Importance of energy saving and improved efficiency of en-ergy use

8. Congitive skills Ability to examine one's own beliefs and values

Affect 1. Concern with respect to global energy issue Values energy education2. Positive attitudes and values Prevention of societal problems related to energy use3. Stron efficacy beliefs Internal locus of control

Behavior Predispositions to behave1. Willingness to work toward energy saving Considers energy impacts of everyday decisions2. Thoughtful, effective decision-making Evaluates pros and cons related to energy consumption3. Change advocacy Remains open to new ideasBehavior1. Willingness to work toward energy saving Exhibits energy saving habits at home and in school2. Change advocacy Encourages others to make wise energy-related actions

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98–106100

and Powers, 2011; Lee and Lee, 2013) and was critical to the in-strument development procedure of the current study.

Energy literacy education should focus on what students learnin the classroom and their actions and behaviors in daily life, al-though the relationships between the variables are not fully clear(Jensen, 2002). In some cases, individuals with higher energy/en-vironment knowledge had more positive attitudes and wereproactive toward energy conservation (Energy Center of Wiscon-sin, 1999; Murphy, 2002; Murphy and Olson, 2008), but in othersmore complex associations were observed (Bamberg and Möser,2007; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Rajecki (1982) proposed thatthe discrepancy between attitude and behavior might come fromindirect experience, normative influences, temporal gaps, and at-titude-behavior measurement. For instance, an indirect experience(learning energy impact on environment in school) as opposed toa direct one (seeing carbon emission from the vehicles on thestreet) will lead to a weaker correlation between the two variables.Also affecting relationships and differences in results is the factthat attitudes are often much broader in scope (Do you care aboutthe environment?) than measured actions (Do you recycle?). Suchdiscrepancies may point to possible flaws in research methodologyand illustrate the difficulty in designing valid instruments.

Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) noted that with education,knowledge is more extensive, but that does not automaticallyimply increased pro-environmental (energy-related) attitudes orbehaviors. After reviewing models to explain such interactions,they proposed a structure where environmental knowledge, va-lues, attitudes, and emotional involvement constituted a “pro-environmental consciousness” that was embedded in broaderpersonal values. It was shaped by personality and internal factors(motivation, locus of control) and external factors (social andcultural, infrastructure, the political context, economic situations)and pointed toward a nonlinear relationship when cultural andpractical concerns were taken into consideration. Such viewpointswere incorporated into the current study.

1.2. Study context

This was an exploratory investigation to describe the energyliteracy of secondary students in Taiwan. The context is the NTETwhich was a nationwide project initiated by the Ministry of Edu-cation between 2010–2013 with goals of promoting energy

education at the primary, secondary and tertiary education levels,and enhancing the knowledge of energy-saving and carbon-re-duction for all citizens.

Not only does this project deal with education, it also has broadimplications on the overall energy policy picture in the country.Our premise is that citizens who are better informed and em-powered to act are more likely to successfully carry out govern-ment decisions about energy resources. This is part of the bedrockof what Taiwan must do to ensure its energy future.

One master project office and two sub-project offices (forgrades K-12 and the college level) were funded to work withpromotion centers for grades K-12, which were regional/county/city-based and affiliated with schools as well as university/collegebased resource centers (NTET, 2013). The first two authors werethe project leader and co-leader respectively of the office forgrades K-12 with the responsibility to monitor promotion centers'performance and to identify required knowledge, skills and affectfor students. This study was designed to capture the latter withemphasis on secondary students.

Five regional promotion centers were located at senior highschools (for grades 10–12) and 15 at elementary/junior highschools (for K-9) around the country. They recruited seed teachersfor grades K-12 and volunteers and narrators for promotion cen-ters, disseminated/promoted basic energy education to studentsand communities within their regions/counties/cities, and estab-lished websites for energy technology education. A school wasdesignated as a center to collaborate with 6–8 schools in its area,i.e., a partnership to disseminate energy education. In total, 300K-12 schools participated, 148 of them were combined junior andsenior high schools. The evaluation examined effectiveness instudent learning, affect, and behavior as measured by a closed-ended survey.

2. Methodology

2.1. Survey instrument

To design the instrument a team of 6 master science andtechnology teachers (3 from junior and 3 from senior high schools,JHS and SHS) and 3 experts in energy, energy education, andmeasurement was convened. They reviewed energy literacy

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98–106 101

frameworks, literature sources, curriculum standards, and ques-tionnaires. Then they developed a pool of items, conducted a pilottest, examined reliability and validity, and prepared a revisedinstrument.

DeWaters and Powers' framework and their Energy LiteracyQuestionnaire for secondary students in New York was critical andmodified to fit Taiwan (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; DeWaterset al., 2013). The original questions were looked at in detail by theteam to see if they were suitable for the context, with items beingdeleted or revised, and new ones written. Approximately 63% ofthe items were retained or modified from DeWaters and Powers'instrument (Table 2). Most item modifications were straightfor-ward (language) or a minor alteration to better fit Taiwan with anexample being “Which of the following sources provides most ofthe electricity in the United States?” revised to ask for the answerin Taiwan. As for new items, they were in regard to knowledgecovered in education standards and curriculum materials or affect/behavior that were highly encouraged in schools, e.g. “What is themain goal of the Kyoto Protocol?” or “I unplug electronic deviceswhen not in use.” The final form contained sections for studentbackground (gender, parents' highest educational level, householdincome, school location) and for energy-related knowledge, affect,and behavior.

Considering differences between JHS and SHS, separateknowledge versions attentive to level were generated similar tothe approach taken by DeWaters and Powers. Both versions cov-ered the same subscales: energy concepts, sources and resources,energy development and usage, and impact on the environment/society. Item difficulty was controlled by generating easy, middle,and high difficulty items. A pilot study was administered to 400students from each level and some items based on discriminationwere deleted, resulting in scales of 52 items for SHS and 48 for JHS.Four parallel knowledge tests of 20 items each were created forJHS and SHS to reduce respondent burden and increase return rate.They were composed of linking items (n¼12) that were commonto all forms with the rest unique to each version. All questionswere selected on difficulty and coverage of topic areas (Rogers,2010) and the 4 tests were equivalent as supported by Raschmeasurement via Winsteps.

For the affective and behavioral domains the same 5-pointLikert scale was used for SHS and JHS students. There were 14affective items in two subscales of “concern with global energyissues” and “positive attitudes and values”, and 12 behavioral onesin “act toward energy conservation” and “change advocacy”.Higher affective and behavioral scores denote more positive valuestoward energy-related issues and conservation or signify that aperson is demonstrating actions to save energy and encourageothers to change consumption patterns, respectively. The sub-scales of each domain and corresponding definitions are in Table 3.

Table 2Number of items retained, modified, removed, or added from the DeWaters andPowers' survey to the current study.

Domain DeWaters andPowers' survey

Current Survey

Retention Modification Removal Addition Total

Knowledge(MSa/HSb)

30/38 6/7 4/4 20/27 10/9 20/20

Affective 17 6 5 6 3 14Behavioral 10 4 4 2 4 12Total (MS/HS) 57/65 16/17 13/13 28/35 17/16 46/46

a MS was the version for middle school students in DeWaters and Powers'survey and for junior high school ones in current study.

b HS was the version for high school students in DeWaters and Powers' surveyand for senior high school students in current study.

The pilot test produced reasonable Cronbach's alphas for thethree domains and overall items (.72 to .98 for JHS; .78 to. 93 forSHS). Content validity was addressed in the development processwith unclear items rewritten or removed.

2.2. Subjects

Two groups participated. One consisted of 9th graders fromjunior high schools in promotion centers and their partner schools.Since the schools were across the country, they were sorted intoregions (east, south, west, and north) and subsamples (8 schools)taken. Parallel forms were randomly administered to 160 studentsat each school for a total of 1280 JHS students excluding those inpilot test. For the 12th graders, sampling was similar noting thatthere are two types of schools in Taiwan: college-bound generalhigh schools and career-oriented vocational high schools. Each hasabout the same number of students; thus, one school was selectedper type in every part of the country. Approximately 120–160students per school were involved, leading to a total of 1120. Theyhad participated in the NTET project for two years when the sur-vey was administered.

2.3. Data collection and analysis strategy

The instrument was in paper-and-pencil format for classroomadministration. Project leaders (principals, directors of teachingaffairs) at target schools were in charge of data collection such asarranging survey delivery via standardized procedures. Parallelforms were randomly distributed to subjects at the same time; theprocedure worked well with return rates of 96.88% for JHS and96.70% for SHS.

Students recorded their responses on computer-scored answersheets that were subsequently scanned into a Microsoft Excelspreadsheet. The multiple choice knowledge questions weretransformed to dichotomous data, 0 representing a wrong answerand 1 for the right one which were summed and converted topercent correct. SPSS 19.0 version was used to facilitate dataanalysis. ANOVA was conducted to see if the knowledge responseswere similar across forms and differences were insignificant. Thedata from the 4 versions were collapsed for analysis. The resultssupported the use of parallel forms and random assignment to thesample.

Descriptive statistics were calculated for the domains and sta-tistical analyses were done for grade, gender, and family socio-economic status (SES) via nonparametric statistical analyses sincethe data were not normally distributed. SES was created from twovariables: parents' highest educational degree and family eco-nomic status leading to a 5-level scale. The higher scores indicatedthe students came from higher status. Relationships betweenknowledge, affect, and behavior were determined by Spearmancorrelation. A multiple regression was conducted for the fourthquestion to ascertain whether energy consumption actions couldbe predicted.

3. Results

3.1. Subject characteristics

Just over 51% of the JHS respondents were male and 45.1% frommiddle class families (family income). Parents' highest educationallevel as determined by the mode/median was at high school,consistent with nationwide data (Yeh et al., 2013). Slightly above40% of the students were in urban schools and the percentage ofstudents from promotion center schools was close to those frompartner schools (48.6% vs. 51.4%). Most students (60.5%) indicated

Table 3Domains, subscales, and definitions of energy literacy.

Domain Subscale Definition

Cognition 1. Basic scientific energy concepts Understand the definition of energy, units of energy and power, and energy transformation2. Energy sources and resources Identify primary energy source, renewable/nonrenewable energy resources3. Energy development and usage Awareness of the use of energy in societies and households4. Energy impact on the environment/society Understand the impact of energy resource development and use can have on the environment and society

Affect 1. Concerns about global energy issues Acknowledge seriousness of energy problem and interest in current energy-related events2. Positive attitudes and values Potential for adapting lifestyles to alleviate energy problems

Behavior 1. Act toward energy conservation Exhibit energy-saving habits in daily life2. Change advocacy Encourage others to make wise energy-related decisions and actions

Note: Adapted from DeWaters and Powers (2013).

Table 4Knowledge, affective, and behavioral performance for JHS and SHS students.

Knowledgea Affectiveb Behavioralb

JHS SHS JHS SHS JHS SHS

Mean 61.04 63.83 4.02 4.04 3.42 3.51SD 19.70 19.62 .76 .76 .81 .75Reliabilityc .77 .77 .91 .93 .90 .90N 1240 1083 1240 1080 1228 1068

a Knowledge scores were converted to percent correct.b Affetive and behavioral items were measured by 5-point Likert scales.c Cronbach's alpha (α) internal reliability coefficient.

Table 5Comparison of student performance on knowledge subscales by group.

Knowledge subscale JHS SHS

M (%) χ2a/post hocresultb

M (%) χ2/post hocresult

(1) Basic scientific energyconcepts

61.11 261.26nnn 63.47 288.07nnn

(2) Energy sources/resources 56.41 (4)4(1)4(2)c 63.01 (4)4(2)4(3)(3) Energy development andusage

59.73 (4)4(3)4(2) 55.69 (4)4(1)4(3)

(4) Energy impact on the en-vironment/society

70.12 71.59

nnn po .001.a The value was an index of the difference among subscales calculated with

Friedman test.b Post hoc result was calculated with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.c (1)¼Basic scientific energy concepts, (2)¼Energy sources/resources, (3)¼

Energy development and usage, and (4)¼Energy impact on the environment/society.

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98–106102

that they learned about energy from school, a result analogous towhat DeWaters and Powers (2011) reported, underscoring theimportance of energy education programs provided by schools.

For the SHS survey, 49.1% of the students were from generalhigh schools with the rest from vocational high schools. A littlemore than half (53.5%) were male. The majority of schools wereurban (78.6%) and partner schools (64.6%). Like the JHS results,57.3% of the students learned about energy at school. Their familybackgrounds (parents' education and SES) were parallel to the JHSand national numbers.

3.2. Student performance on energy literacy survey

A summary of knowledge, affective, and behavioral ratings forjunior and senior high school students is in Table 4. The averagepercent correct for the JHS group on the knowledge questions was61.04. Affect toward energy saving tended to be positive (M¼4.02)and higher than for behavior (M¼3.42). The patterns for SHS weresimilar for the three domains, 63.83%, 4.04%, and 3.51% andslightly better than JHS students, especially in the knowledge andbehavior (po .01 on Mann–Whitney U-test). This is most apparentand expected in cognition where 53.55% of the SHS students wereabove 70% correct with only 40.73% in JHS demonstrating thatlevel of achievement. For the affective and behavioral domains, themean score on the affective subscale was significantly higher thanthe mean behavioral score for JHS (Wilcoxon Z¼�23.03, po .001)and SHS (Wilcoxon Z¼�19.70, po .001) with effect sizes(r¼� .46/� .42) close to large level (|.5|) suggested by Cohen(1988). The reliability of the instruments was acceptable rangingfrom .77 to .93.

3.2.1. Energy-related knowledgeScores on the four knowledge subscales were significantly

different no matter the grade. Friedman ANOVA results showedχ2(3)¼261.26 for JHS, χ2(3)¼288.07 for SHS and both χ2 valuesreached po .001 level. Knowledge about the impact of energyresource development and use on the environment and societywas the best, 70.12% correct for JHS and 71.59% for SHS (Table 5)and significantly higher than each of the other 3 subscales (pair-wise comparisons via post hoc analysis). A majority of JHS stu-dents (86.2%) recognized that developing renewable energy re-sources is a better way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ascompared to using more nuclear power, extracting more crude oil,or building a modern oil refinery. Most SHS students (77%) iden-tified that renewable energy is a strategy to protect the earth.

The subscale “basic scientific energy concepts” was also highfor both groups (61.11% for JHS and 63.47% for SHS) and significantwhen compared to “Energy sources/resources” for JHS and “Energydevelopment and usage” for SHS in post hoc tests (Table 5). Ninetythree percent of JHS students knew that energy was the capacity

or ability to perform work or a force that moves something. Morethan 67% of SHS students recognized that the amount of electricityused was measured in Kilowatt-hours (kWh). As for the remainingsubscales, JHS students demonstrated more knowledge on itemsconcerning “energy development and usage” then “energy sour-ces/resources,” whereas the reverse was true for the SHS group(see post hoc results in Table 5). Some of the pairwise results werequite small with low effect size (ro .1), e.g. (1) versus (3) in JHSand (1) versus (2) in SHS (Table 5).

Although the students performed well in knowledge itemsgenerally, they failed to demonstrate knowledge on several energyissues. For example, SHS students had difficulty identifying gaso-line as a secondary energy source (36% correct) and few students(31%) recognized that the change in high and low tides can beharnessed into electrical energy. Only 17% JHS could identify

Table 7Results of gender difference for knowledge, affective, and behavioral subscales bygroup.

Domain Group Gender Mean SD Mean rank Mann–Whitney U

Knowledge JHS Male 62.48% 20.45 642 173342nn

Female 59.98% 18.45 589SHS Male 63.22% 20.32 529 138861

Female 65.06% 18.19 546

Affective JHS Male 3.99 .88 619 187840Female 4.04 .71 614

SHS Male 4.00 .87 520 143483n

Female 4.11 .75 564

Behavioral JHS Male 3.46 .88 630 174219Female 3.38 .72 591

SHS Male 3.51 .81 518 132660Female 3.53 .67 543

n po .05.nn po .01.

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98–106 103

nuclear power as the most cost-effective way to produce in termsof actual year expenditures as opposed to wind, solar, and hy-droelectric power in Taiwan, and less than 37% knew biogas wasone of the biomass energy sources.

3.2.2. Energy-related affect and behaviorResponses to the affective and behavioral items are in Table 6.

For the subscales of affect, the means were consistently around4 indicating that students generally acknowledged the seriousnessof energy problems and were willing to change lifestyles to resolvethem. There was some variability in the response of JHS studentsto the affective subscales, with the “concern of global energy is-sues” (M¼4.05) being significantly higher than “positive attitudeand values” (M¼4.00) (Z¼�4.40, po .001) but the effect(r¼� .08) was small.

For behavior, the ratings were lower than those for affect, butstill positive, with means from 3.29 to 3.60 across subscales andgroups. JHS students exhibited energy-saving habits in daily lifemore than encouraging others to make wise energy-related deci-sions (po .001) with a similar pattern in SHS. The effect sizes(r¼� .28 for SHS and � .20 for JHS) were close to medium (|.3|)level (Cohen, 1988). Better than 70% of the students (71% JHS and77% SHS) reported that they often or always turned off the lightswhen they left a room. On the other hand, only one-fifth (23% JHSand 28% SHS) were willing to encourage their family to take easilyaccessed public transportation instead of riding in a car.

3.3. Response patterns by student gender and family SES

Gender differences for the 3 domains by group are in Table 7.Interestingly females in SHS performed better than males in alldomains whereas JHS males were somewhat superior. The gendereffect was significant in a few instances with JHS males havinggreater energy-related knowledge than females (Mann–WhitneyU¼173342, po .01). More than 43% of JHS males realized thatburning coal provided most of the electricity in Taiwan, while only28% females knew the answer (po .001). Females had more dif-ficulty than males estimating how much electricity (kWh) wouldbe consumed when running a computer with 400 W (rated power)for 5 hours (33% correct for males and 23% for females, po .001).

The data also show that SHS females were more positive inattitudes and values toward energy issues than their male coun-terparts (Mann–Whitney U¼143483, po .05). The SHS femalesmore strongly agreed to the statement that they would do more tosave energy as compared to males, with nine out of fourteen itemsreaching the level of significance at .05. Along those lines: SHSfemales felt more strongly that “Taiwanese should conserve moreenergy” than males (po .01), “we should make more of our elec-tricity from renewable resources” (po .05), and “I would do moreto save energy if I knew how” (po .05).

Table 6Comparison of student performance on affective and behavioral subscales by group.

Subscale JHS SHS

M Za M Z

Affective(1) Concern of global energy issues 4.05 �4.40nnn 4.03 �1.37(2) Positive attitudes and values 4.00 4.05

Behavioral(1) Act toward energy conservation 3.55 �13.86nnn 3.60 �10.13nnn

(2) Change advocacy 3.29 3.43

nnn po .001a The value was an index of difference between subscales in affective or be-

havioral domain calculated with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

The SES variable was measured by combining the ratings fromparents' highest educational degree and from family economicstatus leading to a 5-level scale. Table 8 contains the comparativeresults of family SES difference for knowledge, affective, and be-havioral subscales by group. An SES effect was seen in knowledgequestions for both groups (Welch F(4, 331.41)¼12.91 for JHS andWelch F(4, 213.29)¼10.27 for SHS, po .001). Post hoc analysis in-dicated differences between the highest SES (level 5) and levels 3,2, and 1; also for the difference between level 4 and level 1. Stu-dents in the higher family SES tended to be more knowledgeableabout energy-related issues than those in the lower ones. The gapbetween the lowest two levels was especially notable in thatstudents in the lowest SES level might have deficient energy-re-lated knowledge. For affect and behavior, SES disparities were notsignificant.

3.4. The relationship between knowledge, affective, and behavioralDomains

In Table 9 the correlation coefficients between the knowledge,affective, and behavioral domains are given. Although all werepositive and significant (po .01), magnitudes varied with thatbetween affect and behavior being greater than the other two. Therelationship patterns were identical across grades.

3.5. Predicting energy consumption behavior

The last question dealt with whether energy-related knowl-edge, affect, gender, and SES predict energy conservation beha-viors. Multiple regression analysis was conducted by the ENTERprocedure in SPSS. The bivariate correlations between predictorsand criterion variable are in Table 10. Three predictors (affect,knowledge, and gender) significantly correlated with behaviorswith the range of coefficients from � .07 to.49; for the most partmulti-collinearity did not seem to be a problem.

All predictors were entered simultaneously to predict energyconsumption behaviors (Table 11). They explained 24.2% of thevariance for JHS (R2¼ .242, F(4, 1213)¼96.59, po .001) and 21.3% forSHS (R2¼ .213, F(4, 1053)¼71.25, po .001). Energy-related affectsignificantly predicted conservation behavior (β¼ .49, po .001)and was much more prominent than the other variables.

Table 8Comparative results of family SES difference for knowledge, affective, and beha-vioral subscales by group.

Mean Fa Post hocresult

SES(1)b SES(2) SES(3) SES(4) SES(5)

KnowledgeJHS 51.97 57.35 59.41 61.99 66.74 12.91nnn SES(5)4

(3),(2),(1) SES(4)4(1)

SHS 54.58 61.23 60.00 65.26 68.96 10.27nnn SES(5)4(3),(2),(1) SES(4)4(3),(1)

AffectiveJHS 4.00 4.06 4.00 3.98 4.09 .91SHS 3.66 3.99 4.05 4.06 4.08 2.04

BehavioralJHS 3.42 3.45 3.36 3.49 3.43 1.25SHS 3.60 3.53 3.50 3.51 3.51 .15

nnn po .001.a The value was calculated with the Welch test.b SES(1) was the group of the lowest family SES, and SES(2), (3), (4) and

(5) were in ascending order.

Table 9Spearman's rho coefficients between knowledge, affective, and behavioral aspects.

Intercorrelation JHS SHS

Knowledge vs. Affective .25nn .24nn

Knowledge vs. Behavioral .12nn .10nn

Affective vs. Behavioral .52nn .47nn

nn po .01.

Table 11Summary of multiple regression analysis on energy conservation behavior withfour predictors.

JHS SHS

β t value β t value

Energy-related knowledge � .01 � .47 � .04 �1.45Energy-related affect .49 19.03nnn .47 16.37nnn

Gender � .07 �2.63nn � .01 � .21Family SES .01 .32 � .04 �1.47

nn po .01.nnn po .001.

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98–106104

4. Discussion

This study generated interesting findings about knowledge,affect, and behavior in regard to energy issues. Energy literacylevels among secondary students in Taiwan were high and posi-tive. The pattern was not consistent with studies in the US (De-Waters and Powers, 2011; Gambro and Switzky, 1999; NationalEnvironmental Education and Training Foundation, 2002). Onepossible explanation is the energy independence of the country.Due to insufficient resources, people in Taiwan may be more at-tuned to shortages and encouraged to conserve and reduce carbonin everyday life for environmental sustainability. The US is moreenergy independent, with over 70% self-sufficiency (Yergin, 2008)and students might not strongly sense the issue resulting in poorerunderstanding and awareness. Another reason might be sampling

Table 10Correlation matrix among criterion variable and four predicted variables.

Y X1 X2 X3 X4

Energy conservation behavior(Y)

1.00 .11nnn .46nnn .02 � .02

Energy-related knowledge (X1) .12nnn 1.00 .33nnn .05 .18nnn

Energy related attitude (X2) .49nnn .25nnn 1.00 .07n .07n

Gender (X3) � .05n � .07nn .03 1.00 .12nnn

Family SES (X4) .02 .19nnn .03 � .01 1.00

Note: The characters having bold were the correlation coefficients for SHS studentsand those in italics were for JHS ones.

n po .05.nn po .01.nnn po .001.

as the subjects were from the schools participating in an energyeducation program and have more exposure to energy-related is-sues. Evidence of this is also there from the impact of age on theknowledge domain being significant, similar to earlier researchendeavors (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; Gambro and Switzky,1999). Respondents noted that schools were their major source ofinformation about energy which supports education as an inter-vention to improve energy-related knowledge. A national energyeducation project (like NTET) with definite goals and supportiveresources appears to be effective in disseminating energy policyand conservation.

Among the domains, performance on cognition was noticeable.The majority of students have correct understanding and aware-ness of energy issues, particularly on the items regarding the im-pact of energy resource development and use on the environmentand society. To some extent, the results might be attributable tothe fierce debate on the construction of a nuclear power plant inTaiwan. The issue has attracted nationwide attention even more sosince the destructive nuclear accidents in Japan in 2011. Similar toJapan, Taiwan is in the circum-Pacific seismic zone with the un-predictable threat of earthquakes. The Fukushima nuclear disastertriggered by earthquake and tsunami forced Taiwanese citizens toface the pros and cons of using nuclear power, to explore thedevelopment of renewable energy in the global context, and tounderstand the potential damages caused by different types ofenergy on the environment. Consequently, it is not surprising tosee students equipped with more knowledge on this aspect ofwhat is happening and also reflects well on the high ratings ob-served on “concern of global energy issues” in the affective do-main. Conversely, the slightly lower scores on “Energy develop-ment and usage” indicate areas for improvement. Some teachingactivities linking to students' life experiences might be helpful,such as encouraging students to observe and record the use ofenergy in households and schools, arranging a visit to a powerplant close to their community to gain an understanding of howelectricity is made and what resources are used.

The average scores on energy-related affect were better thanthose for behavior for overall students and the two levels. Thefinding was close to earlier studies (DeWaters and Powers, 2011;Murphy and Olson, 2008; Rajecki, 1982) where there was a dis-crepancy between affect and action. DeWaters and Powers (2011)found that most students agreed saving energy was important andmaking more electricity from renewable sources was necessary.However, their responses on the behavioral subscale did not seemto generally reflect the positive affect. For example, about twothirds of respondents reported that they turn off the lights whenleaving a room, but only one third shut down their computers. Thegap might in fact be larger than the data show because of over-estimating behaviors with self-reported measures (Murphy andOlson, 2008). In other words, there may not be a correspondencebetween what people say they do and what they actually do. Theinvestigation of Minnesota's environment literacy attests to the

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98–106 105

prior statement (Murphy and Olson, 2008). There respondentsreported that they conserved electricity by turning off lights andappliances when not in use (90%), lowering the thermostat in thewinter (69%), and running the air conditioner less often in thesummer (52%), but data from the Minnesota Department ofCommerce on energy showed that overall electricity use for re-sidential consumers had increased around 19% during the surveyperiod (Murphy and Olson, 2008). In the current study, such a biaswas not studied. Caution is needed in interpretation.

A gender effect was found in the affective domain; femalestended to have more positive attitudes and values, particularly forthe SHS level. The increase in gender influence with age alignedwith previous works (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; Lawrenz andDantchik, 1985) and seems to relate to the premise that femalemay be more amenable to change as they progress through theeducational system. As for the males, factors influencing affectwere not clear and more research is needed.

Like several other studies (Barrowa and Morrisey, 1989; Gam-bro and Switzky, 1999; Lawrenz, 1983; Murphy and Olson, 2008), agender disparity in the knowledge domain (in favor of males) wassignificant for JHS with a reverse outcome for the SHS level. Al-though the gap for SHS group is not significant, it is encouraging tosee female's performance in science at the higher grades sincegender equality has been promoted in Taiwan for decades andrecent investigations are noting more awareness of the issue byteachers (Fang and You, 2008) and less difference in classroomtreatment received by male and female students (Chen, 2005).

Turning to SES, Gambro and Switzky (1999) observed thathigher SES students had greater cognition scores but even at thetop status, knowledge remained disappointingly low. In our study,the highest group had 70% correct on the knowledge items and thelowest group 52%. The findings underscore that SES is a foundationon which the child builds her/his own experience via education.

Despite the performance on energy-related knowledge, con-servation behavior appears to be more closely linked to affect thanknowledge (multiple regression results). To know is one thing andto do is another. The role of knowledge in environmental behavioris complex and probably not a linear cause-and-effect one withsocial norms, economic situations, values, and beliefs being in-fluential (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; Owens and Driffill, 2008;Stern, 1992). Since affect plays a critical part in behavior, energyeducation should, in addition to knowledge, strive to impact stu-dent attitudes, beliefs, and values via projects, case studies, deci-sion making exercises, and action strategies as recommended bysome (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; Zografakis et al., 2008). Someof these strategies would also be advisable for the government inimplementing policies related to energy use for the public.

5. Conclusions and policy implications

5.1. Conclusions

This study aimed at measuring secondary students' energyliteracy in light of their performance on the domains of cognition,affect and behavior, and exploring the correlations between them.How the performance varied by grade, gender, and SES were ex-amined and variables predictive of energy conservation behaviorswere identified. The results highlighted that the energy literacy ofstudents in Taiwan tends to be high and positive across domains.Grade as expected had impact on the performance as senior highschool students outscored junior high school ones. Effects due tosocioeconomic status and gender were found in favor of studentsin higher SES, females in SHS, and males in JHS. On the whole, age,gender, family SES (family income and parents’ highest educationlevel) proved to be important factors in various areas of

knowledge, affect, and behavior, a result consistent with othersurveys (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; Murphy, 2002; Murphy andOlson, 2008). Among the variables, energy saving behavior wasmore predictable by affect than by knowledge and gender.

5.2. Policy implications

The findings about energy literacy for secondary studentsshould be helpful to evaluators and decision makers in Taiwan andelsewhere for policy formation and the design/development ofenergy education programs. They may lead to curriculum and in-structional methods that embrace not just energy-related knowl-edge, but value judgments, ethical and moral dimensions, decisionmaking skills, and personal responsibility for resource develop-ment and consumption. Performance in this case was good butthere is room to improve, and there is also a need for more rig-orous program evaluation.

Regarding student background, family SES was identified asone of the decisive factors regarding the acquisition of energyknowledge. Bourdieu (1986) asserted that people from privilegedsocioeconomic backgrounds tended to acquire more cultural ca-pital and thereby obtain returns in the form of academicachievement. In this case, although most students reported thatschool had contributed most to their understanding of energy is-sues and problems, there was still 40% due to other things such asbooks/newspapers/magazines, friends/family members, informa-tion from the internet, and television programs. Cognitive perfor-mance in higher SES group may be partially attributed to thegreater cultural resources to which they have access. That suggestspolicy makers to think not only how to treat equal equally, but alsoto treat unequal equally. Another notable background character-istic was grade (in favor of the SHS group). Schools cultivatingenergy literacy and maintaining energy education programs isfundamental. In the long term, there should be national curricu-lum standards for what should be taught along with procedures toensure if they have been met. More efforts along these lines arewarranted.

In addition to learning from the official curriculum, it is ad-visable to promote energy literacy through the informal curricu-lum. The NTET project was an example in which students wereencouraged to explore energy-related topics via extracurricularactivities, student clubs, speeches, dramas, energy fairs, educa-tional field trips, etc. The energy innovation contest held by theproject office every year also functioned well in encouraging stu-dents to develop innovative ideas on energy efficient applicationsand promoting the concept of energy efficiency to the community.Such informal curriculum was found in pockets of activity ratherthan as an explicit policy. It should be considered further for sti-mulating student learning interests. We hope that doing so willprovide inspiration and guidance for anyone with an interest inenergy education.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said: “Knowing is not enough; wemust apply. Willing is not enough; we must do” (Gookin, 2003:119). The connection between knowledge, affect, and behavior isnot fully clear. Beliefs, values, culture, intention, national policy,and energy independence are intertwined as related to energyconsumption behaviors and those interactions might be an inter-esting avenue for exploration.

Finally, this study was the first effort to investigate students'energy literacy in a nationwide context in Taiwan. It created abaseline understanding of the target population and the de-terminants of energy-saving behaviors. It is important to continueconducting similar surveys periodically so that trends in energyliteracy can be tracked and well-informed decisions about edu-cation efforts can be made.

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98–106106

Acknowledgment

This study was supported under a Ministry of Science andTechnology and Ministry of Education Grant in Taiwan.

References

Bamberg, S., Möser, G., 2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: anew meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental beha-vior. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 14–25.

Barrowa, L.H., Morrisey, J.T., 1989. Energy literacy of ninth-grade students: acomparison between Maine and New Brunswick. J. Environ. Educat. 20 (2),22–25.

Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital. In: Richardson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Theoryand Research For the Sociology of Education. Greenwood, New York,pp. 241–258.

Chen, J.M., 2005. A study on the implementation of gender equity education incampus (Retrieved June, 2013. Available from: ⟨http://help2.ncue.edu.tw/ezcatfiles/b014/img/img/263/study-schoolsex.pdf/⟩).

Chen, K.L., Huang, S.H., Liu, S.Y., 2013. Devising a framework for energy education inTaiwan using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 55, 396–403.

Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ.

DeWaters, J.E., Powers, S.E., 2007. Developing an energy literacy scale. In: Pro-ceedings of the 114th Annual ASEE Conference and Exposition, Honolulu, HI,June 23–28, 2007, paper number AC 2007-1069.

DeWaters, J.E., Powers, S.E., 2008. Energy literacy among middle and high schoolyouth. In: Proceedings of the 38th ASEE/IEE Frontiers in Education Conference.Saratoga Springs, New York.

DeWaters, J.E., Powers, S.E., 2011. Energy literacy of secondary students in New YorkState (USA): a measure of knowledge, affect, and behavior. Energy Policy 39,1699–1710.

DeWaters, J.E., Powers, S.E., 2013. Establishing measurement criteria for an energyliteracy questionnaire. Environ. Educ. 44 (1), 38–55.

DeWaters, J., Qaqish, B., Graham, M., Powers, S., 2013. Designing an energy literacyquestionnaire for middle and high school youth. J. Environ. Educ. 44 (1), 56–78.

Energy Center of Wisconsin, 1999. K-12 energy education program baseline study:An evaluation of teacher practices and student and parent learning (RetrievedSep. 2013. Available from: ⟨http://www.ecw.org/ecwresults/188-1.pdf⟩).

Fang, D.L., You, M.H., 2008. 2008 survey study of the implementation of genderequity education curricula and instruction in elementary and secondaryschools. Ministry of Education, Taipei.

Gambro, J.S., Switzky, H.N., 1999. Variables associated with American high schoolstudents' knowledge of environmental issues related to energy and pollution. J.Environ. Educ. 30 (2), 15–22.

Hu, Y.Z., 2011. Current status of energy efficiency policies and measures in Taiwan.Paper presented at 2011 US–Taiwan Clean Energy Forum.

Jensen, B.B., 2002. Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behavior. Environ.Educ. Res. 8, 325–334.

Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentallyand what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8(3), 239–260.

Lawrenz, F., 1983. Student knowledge of energy issues. Sch. Sci. Math. 83, 587–595.

Lawrenz, F., Dantchik, A., 1985. Attitudes toward energy among students in grades4, 7 and high school. Sch. Sci. Math. 85, 189–202.

Lee, L.S., 2011. Identifying energy literacy for the upper secondary students inTaiwan. Paper presented at the International Conference on Energy, Environ-ment Entrepreneurship, Innovation (ICEEEI’11). Lanzarote, Canary Islands,Spain.

Lee, L.S., Lee, K.C., 2013. A framework for energy literacy outcomes and energyeducation seed teachers' performance. Energy Education Science and Tech-nology Part B: Social and. Educ. Stud. 5 (3), 257–274.

Murphy, T.P., 2002. The Minnesota Report Card on Environmental Literacy: ABenchmark Survey of Adult Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes And Beha-viors. Hamline University, Center for Global Environmental Education.

Murphy, T.P., Olson, A.M., 2008. The third Minnesota report card on environmentalliteracy. The College of Saint Catherine; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,MN.

National Environmental Education and Training Foundation, 2002. Americans' low“energy IQ”: A risk to our energy future. Why America needs a refresher courseon energy. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation, Wa-shington, DC.

National Energy Education Development Project, 2013. Secondary energy poll:blueprint for success (Retrieved August 2013. Available from: ⟨http://www.need.org/files/curriculum/guides/Blueprint%20for%20Success.pdf⟩).

Newborough, M., Getvoldsen, P., Probert, D., Page, P., 1991. Primary- and secondarylevel energy education in the UK. Appl. Energy 40, 119–156.

Newborough, M., Probert, D., 1994. Purposeful energy education in the UK. Appl.Energy 48, 243–259.

NTET (Nurturing Talent for Energy Technology Program), 2013. Background andgoals (Retrieved August 2013. Available from: ⟨http://www.energyedu.tw/eng/background.php⟩).

Owens, S., Driffill, L., 2008. How to change attitudes and behaviours in the contextof energy. Energy Policy 36, 4412–4418.

Rajecki, D.W., 1982. Attitudes: Themes and advances. Sinaur Associates, Sunder-land, MA.

Rogers, W.M., 2010. Parallel forms reliability. In: Salkind, N.J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofResearch Design. Sage, CA, pp. 996–998.

Stern, P.C., 1992. What psychology knows about energy conservation? Am. Psychol.47 (10), 1224–1232.

Taiwan Bureau of Energy, 2009. Taiwan's energy policy and supply-demand si-tuation. Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taipei.

United States Global Change Research Program, 2012. Energy Literacy: EssentialPrinciples and Fundamental Concepts For Energy Education. US Department ofEnergy, Washington, DC.

Wilderness wisdom: Quotes for inspirational exploration. In: Gookin, J. (Ed.), 2003.National Outdoor Leadership School. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA.

Wisconsin K-12 Energy Education Program, 2013. A rationale for energy education(Retrieved August 2013. Available from: /http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Pages/About/Rationale.aspxS).

Yeh, K.L., Lee, Y.F., Pan, Y.J., 2013. A study on the relationship between social-eco-nomic status, psychological status and learning satisfaction for the post-sec-ondary students. Paper presented at the International Conference on theConstruction and Utilization of Education Databases, Taipei.

Yergin, D., 2008. September 27. Energy independence. Wall Street Journal.Zografakis, N., Menegaki, A.N., Tsagarakis, K.P., 2008. Effective education for energy

efficiency. Energy Policy 36, 3226–3232.