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: yzhu2011@my.fit.edu"

E-mail: marcinko@fit.edu

26