39
An Assessment of Environmental Literacy among Undergraduate Students at Two National Universities in Hubei Province, China Presented at 2015 Research Seminar Series of Department of Education and Interdisciplinary Studies (DEIS) at Florida Institute of Technology Presented by Yan Zhu (Joanna) Advisor: Dr. Tom Marcinkowski Melbourne, FL November 24, 2015

Yan Zhu_Dissertation PPT_An Assessment of Environmental Literacy in China

  • Upload
    yan-zhu

  • View
    249

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

An Assessment of Environmental Literacy among Undergraduate Students

at Two National Universities in Hubei Province, China

Presented at 2015 Research Seminar Series of Department of Education and

Interdisciplinary Studies (DEIS) at Florida Institute of Technology

Presented by Yan Zhu (Joanna)

Advisor: Dr. Tom Marcinkowski Melbourne, FL

November 24, 2015

Presentation Overview!q  Background!

v  Definitions of and Frameworks for EL"v  Previous Assessments and Studies of EL"

q  Research Problem, Purpose, & Questions!q  Method!

v  Instrument"v  Population and Sample"v  Data Collection and Analyses"

q  Summary of the Results!v  Results to RQ 1"v  Results to RQs 2–4"

q  Conclusions, Implications, & Recommendations!

Background: Definition of Environmental Literacy

•  Environmental literacy (EL) can be defined using characteristics of an environmentally literate person—someone who possess, to varying degrees: "1.  the knowledge and understanding of a wide range of

environmental concepts, problems, and issues;"2.  a set of cognitive skills and abilities;"3.  a set of cognitive and affective dispositions; and"4.  the appropriate behavioral strategies to apply such

knowledge and understanding in order to make sound and effective decisions in a range of environmental contexts (Hollweg et al., 2011)."

•  Operational definition: the EL component and composite scores measured using a researcher-constructed instrument called the Undergraduate Students Environmental Literacy Instrument (i.e., USELI).

Background: Frameworks for ELAuthor(s) Date Components of EL Harvey 1976 Three domains: psychomotor domain, cognitive domain (e.g.,

knowledge and skills), affective domain (e.g., value) Hungerford & Volk

1990 Nine variables: (1) knowledge of environmental problems and/or issues; (2) knowledge of the consequences of behavior; (3) knowledge of and skills in using environmental action strategies; (4) environmental sensitivity; (5) attitudes toward pollution, technology, and economics; (6) locus of control; (7) intent to act; (8) personal investment in issues and the environment; and (9) personal commitment to issue resolution

Roth 1992 Four strands: knowledge, skills, affect, and behavior Wilke 1995 Four dimensions: cognitive dimensions, affective dimensions,

additional determinants of environmentally responsible behavior, and environmentally responsible behaviors

Simmons 1995 Seven components: (1) ecological knowledge; (2) socio-political knowledge; (3) knowledge of environmental issues; (4) skills; (5) affect; (6) additional determinant of environmental responsible behavior; and (7) environmental responsible behaviors

Hollweg et al.

2011 Four components: knowledge, affective dispositions, competencies, and environmentally responsible behavior

Background: National Assessments of ELLocation! S. Korea! Israel! U.S.! Turkey! Taiwan!

Time! 2002–2003" 2004–2006" 2006–2008, 2009–2011"

2007–2009" 2012–2013"

Sample! Grade 3, 7, 11""

N = 2,993"

Grade 6, 12""

N = 3,121"

Grade 6, 7, 8"N1 = 2,004"N2 = 7,965"

Grade 5,""

N = 2,392"

Grade 3–16, Teachers/Adults"

N = 115,990"Variable Assessed !Ecological Knowledge" ×" ×" ×" ×" ×"Environmental Knowledge" ×" ×"  " ×" ×"

Skills" ×"  " ×" ×"  "Environmental Sensitivity" ×" ×" ×" ×" ×"

 "Environmental Feelings"  " ×" ×"  "  "Environmental Attitudes" ×" ×"  " ×" ×"Personal Responsibility" ×" ×"  "  "  "Locus of Control/Efficacy" ×" ×"  "  "  "Verbal Commitment/ Intention/Willingness"

×" ×" ×" ×" ×"

Behavior" ×" ×" ×" ×" ×"

Background: EL Literature outside China

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 (e.g., Chawla, 1998)"

•  Results of meta-analyses indicated willingness/intention to act as a significant predictor of behavior (e.g., Hines et al., 1986/87)"

Cognitive Components!•  Selected areas of perceived knowledge and perceived skills were found as

predictors of responsible environmental behavior (e.g., Marcinkowski, 2001)"

Behavioral Component!•  Five categories of environmentally responsible behavior: ecomanagement,

consumer/economic action, persuasion, political action, and legal action (Hungerford & Peyton, 1980; Wilke, 1995)"

6

Background: EL 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 (e.g., Dai, 2012; Yang & Hu, 2010)"

Knowledge and Skills!•  Content validity of the instrument for actual knowledge (e.g., Wang, 2006)"•  Skills were not included in prior studies"

Environmentally Responsible Behavior (ERB)!•  The old knowledge-attitude-behavior model (e.g., Zeng, 2004)"•  Lack of studies on scale development (e.g., Peng, 2010; Sun, 2006)"

Note. Articles written in Chinese characters were not included the reference slides.!

7

Research Problem

•  Researchers have conducted large-scale assessments of EL, including South Korea (2002–03), Israel (2004–06), the United States (2006–08), Turkey (2008–09), and Taiwan (2012–13). "

§  There has not yet been a broad assessment of EL in China at the K–16 level.

•  Despite a growing effort to investigate knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Chinese citizens, EL and its associated variables are not well understood there. "§  Environmental awareness has been regarded as a broad

concept, or an equivalent construct as EL, rather than as an aspect of EL."

§  Prior studies missed several key components of EL, including cognitive skills and other affective dispositions such as ES."

Research Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the status of environmental literacy among undergraduate students at two national universities in a province of Central China (i.e., Hubei Province). "

§  University 01: a national comprehensive university"§  University 02: a national normal university"

« National Universities: Supervised and funded by China’s Ministry of Education (Project 985/211)"

« Normal Universities: Training pre-service teachers for primary and secondary schools"

Research Question 1

RQ1: What is the status of environmental literacy among undergraduate students at two national universities in Hubei Province of China pertaining to the following EL variables:"§  NEP = environmental worldview"

§  ES = environmental sensitivity"

§  ERB = environmentally responsible behavior"

§  PKEE = perceived knowledge of ecology and earth system science"§  PKES = perceived knowledge of environmental science"

§  PSPI = perceived skills in investigating and evaluating problems/issues"

§  CPS = perceived skills in using citizen participation strategies"

§  WILL = willingness to act"

Research Questions 2–4

•  RQ2: What is the relationship between Affective Dispositions (Set A: NEP, ES, and WILL) and ERB?"

•  RQ3: What is the relationship between Perceived Skills (Set B: PSPI and CPS) and ERB in the presence of Affective Dispositions (Set A)?"

•  RQ4: What is the relationship between Perceived Knowledge (Set C: PKEE and PKES) and ERB in the presence of Affective Dispositions (Set A) and Perceived Skills (Set B)?"

Theorized Model for Hypothesis Testing

SetA:Affec)veDisposi)ons

•  Environmental

Worldview(NEP)•  Environmental

Sensi8vity•  WillingnesstoAct

SetC:PerceivedKnowledge

•  PerceivedKnowledge

ofEcology&EarthSystemScience

•  PerceivedKnowledgeofEnvironmentalScience

BehavioralComponentEnvironmentallyResponsibleBehavior(DV)

SetB:PerceivedSkills

•  PerceivedSkillsin

Inves8ga8ng&Evalua8ngProblems/Issues

•  PerceivedSkillsinUsingCi8zenPar8cipa8onStrategies

Delimitations & Limitations!This study was delimited to: !•  Undergraduate students at two

national universities in a province of Central China"

•  A convenience sample that consisted of five science majors and five non-science majors at these two universities"

•  Eight EL variables selected for this investigation "

•  A researcher-constructed instrument (i.e., the USELI) using students’ self-reported responses."

Conditions that limited the !generalizability of the findings!•  Selection bias: A convenience

sample of students from ten majors at these two universities"

•  Instrumentation: English-Chinese translation; Data collectors"

•  Mortality: invalid and incomplete responses (n = 113)"

•  Outlier analyses: Using Mahalanobis Distance and Cook’s D, outliers were identified and removed (n = 58)"

Stages of Dissertation ResearchApr. – Sept. 2013" Searching & reviewing the EE literature;

Writing a pre-proposal"Oct. 2013 – "Jul. 2014"

Conducting pilot studies; Analyzing & comparing results to previous studies; Summarizing findings"

Aug. – Nov. 2014" Developing initial items of the instrument; Obtaining expert opinions for the validity"

Dec. 2014 – "Feb. 2015"

Field-testing of the USELI; Reliability analyses; Submitting IRB documents"

Mar. – Apr. 2015" Data collection and data entry ""May – Aug. 2015" Data set preparation; Data analysis"Sept. to Oct. 2015" Summarizing results for conclusions,

implications, and recommendations"

A Final Version of the USELI

Parts of USELI Item ID. Scales Relevant Studies I. NEP 1.1–1.15 Likert Scale Dunlap et al., 2000;

Hong, 2006 II. ES

2.1–2.13 Likert Scale; Multiple Choices

Peterson, 1982; Sward, 1997

III. ERB 3.1–3.24 Likert Scale; Open-ended

Erdogen et al., 2012� Marcinkowski & Rehring, 1995

IV. A. PKEE 4.1–4.3 Likert Scale Hsu, 1997� Marcinkowski, 2001

IV. B. PKES 4.4–4.7 Likert Scale

IV. C. PSPI 4.8–4.12 Likert Scale Noh & Marcinkowski, 2003; Marcinkowski & Noh, 2009

IV. D. CPS 4.13–4.17 Likert Scale

IV. E. WILL 4.18–4.21 Likert Scale; Hsu, 1997 V. Demographics 5.1–5.10 Multiple Choices;

Open-Ended

Instrument Development Procedures!

1.  Selecting an existing scale for Part I (i.e., NEP)"

2.  Conducting pilot studies for ES, ERB, and PK"

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"

Pilot Study 1: NEPA quantitative study among 120 school teachers and 150 undergraduate students using a Chinese version of the 15-item NEP scale."

Item No. Ri-t

Dunlap et al., 2000 (n = 821)

Hong, 2006 (n = 4,971)

Teachers (n = 53)

Students (n = 128)

NEP01 .43 .24 .43 .14 NEP02 .35 .37 .38 .26 NEP03 .42 .35 .30 .39 NEP04 .38 .07 .11 −.06 NEP05 .53 .39 .30 .43 NEP06 .34 .32 .31 .22 NEP07 .46 .19 .43 .30 NEP08 .53 .45 .38 .23 NEP09 .33 .26 .37 .35 NEP10 .62 .34 .38 .35 NEP11 .51 .35 .37 .19 NEP12 .51 .41 .42 .32 NEP13 .48 .34 .15 .37 NEP14 .35 .17 .37 .35 NEP15 .62 .38 .21 .47

Cronbach’s Alpha .83 .71 .71 .65

Pilot Studies 2 and 3

Environmental Sensitivity (ES)!•  Environmental Sensitivity Profile Instrument used by Peterson (1982)

and Sward (1997); adapted and translated into Chinese"•  A qualitative study of factors associated with ES among 20 Chinese

environmental professionals"•  Content analysis: experiences (e.g., outdoors, formal and informal

education), relationship (role models), personality (innate)!

Environmentally Responsible Behavior (ERB)!•  Procedure used by Marcinkowski and Rehring (1995), Erdogan (2009)"•  128 students provided approximately 500 responses to the five open-

ended questions pertaining to ERB"•  Grouped by themes and presented as frequency counts to generate

an initial item pool of the ERB scale"

Pilot Study 4 and PS!Perceived Knowledge (PK)!•  Content analysis of China’s 2003 High School Curricula "•  An integration of environmental knowledge (Grade 10–12) "

§  Science major: Biology, Physics, and Chemistry "§  Non-science major: Geography!

Perceived Skills (PS)!•  Skills were not emphasized in the Ministry of Education’s curricula."•  Two unpublished instruments for skills "

§  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)"

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

Population & SampleThe Target Population"

All full-time undergraduate students enrolled at these"two national universities in Hubei Province, China

The Accessible Population"All undergraduate students selected from five science and five non-science majors at these two universities

The Sample"577 undergraduate students from these ten

majors at these two universities"(approximately 25 students per major)"

Data Collection & PreparationData Collection!•  IRB Documents, cover letter, and consent form"•  Identify data collectors at each university"•  Pencil-and-paper survey at these two universities in March 2015"

Data Set Preparation!•  Qualitative data: content analysis (ES and ERB scales) "•  Quantitative data: coding sheets, MS Excel, SPSS Version 23"•  Preliminary analysis: invalid responses, missing/multiple responses,

outliers analyses (n = 58), OLS statistical assumptions"Description of Valid Responses for Data Analyses

University 01 University 02 Total

Number of Participants 300 277 577

Number of Respondents 297 271 568

Number of Valid Surveys 253 257 510 Number of Valid Responses to All Scales 225 239 464

Data Analysis ProceduresPrimary analysis!•  Descriptive statistics (n = 464) : RQ1, total sample, university samples,

science vs. non-science samples, ten specific majors"•  Inferential statistics (n = 406): RQs 2, 3, and 4, using hierarchical multiple

regression to determine the contribution of three sets on ERB"

Additional Exploratory Analyses !•  Frequency counts and content analysis"

§  Part II ES scale: nine items using a multiple-choice format (2.3b–2.11b)"§  Part III ERB scale: four open-ended items pertaining to Conservation

Action, Consumer/Economic Action, Persuasion, and Civic Action "•  Correlational analysis"

§  Relationships among EL Variables (Pearson r )"§  Correlation Matrix using Pearson r and η (nominal vs. interval)

Summary of Results for RQ1 (N = 464)

Environmental Literacy Variables Measured

Range, Possible Scores

Min-Max Median M SD %

Environmental Worldview 15–75 35–75 58 57.55 6.91 77% Environmental Sensitivity 13–65 21–56 41 40.66 5.78 63% Environmental Behavior 0–80 12–72 37 37.04 9.50 46% Conservation 0–20 5–20 14 14.25 2.72 71% Consumer/Economic 0–20 0–20 11 11.46 2.94 57% Persuasion 0–20 0–20 8 8.27 3.67 41% Civic Action 0–20 0–20 2 3.05 3.53 15% Perceived Knowledge 7–35 9–35 23 23.30 4.41 67% PKEE 3–15 3–15 10 10.10 2.31 67% PKES 4–20 6–20 13 13.20 2.62 66% Perceived Skills 10–50 10–50 24 24.00 8.07 48% PSPI 5–25 5–25 12 12.65 4.12 51% CPS 5–25 5–25 11 11.35 4.37 45% Willingness to Act 4–20 4–20 16 16.01 2.57 80%

Summary of Results for RQ1: By University

EL Variables Measured �No. Items�

University 01 (n = 225) University 02 ( n = 239) Min-Max M SD Min-Max M SD

Environmental Worldview (15) 35-75 57.33 7.30 36-75 57.75 6.53

Environmental Sensitivity (13) 23-56 40.39 5.80 21-54 40.91 5.76

Environmental Behavior (20) 12-72 36.85 10.32 16-58 37.21 8.67

Conservation Action (5) 7-20 14.24 2.69 5-20 14.26 2.75

Consumer/Economic (5) 0-20 11.27 3.01 3-20 11.64 2.88

Persuasion (5) 0-20 8.19 4.03 1-18 8.36 3.29

Civic Action (5) 0-20 3.16 3.89 0-13 2.96 3.16

Perceived Knowledge (7) 13-35 23.74 4.09 9-35 22.89 4.66

PKEE (3) 5-15 10.43 2.27 3-15 9.80 2.31

PKES (4) 7-20 13.31 2.48 6-20 13.10 2.75

Perceived Skills (10) 10-50 24.36 8.33 10-48 23.67 7.81

PSPI (5) 5-25 12.70 4.14 5-25 12.61 4.11

CPS (5) 5-25 11.66 4.55 5-23 11.07 4.19

Willingness to Act (4) 5-20 16.15 2.43 4-20 15.88 2.68

Summary of Results for RQ1: By Major

Environmental Literacy Variables Measured

Science Major (n = 234)

Non-Science Major ( n = 230)

Min-Max M SD Min-Max M SD

Environmental Worldview 35-75 57.08 6.98 37-75 58.02 6.81

Environmental Sensitivity 23-56 40.83 5.62 21-54 40.48 5.94 Environmental Behavior 12-72 37.02 9.55 16-68 37.06 9.47

Conservation Action 7-20 14.12 2.60 5-20 14.38 2.83 Consumer/Economic Action 1-20 11.45 2.88 0-20 11.46 3.01 Persuasion 0-20 8.42 3.93 0-18 8.13 3.38

Civic Action 0-20 3.10 3.42 0-13 3.00 3.64 Perceived Knowledge 13-35 24.19 4.40 9-35 22.39 4.24

PKEE 5-15 10.94 2.24 3-15 9.24 2.05 PKES 7-20 13.25 2.63 6-20 13.15 2.61

Perceived Skills 10-50 24.55 8.16 10-42 23.45 7.95

PSPI 5-25 12.94 4.20 5-24 12.36 4.03 CPS 5-25 11.62 4.38 5-21 11.09 4.40

Willingness to Act 5-20 15.92 2.58 4-20 16.10 2.56

Transforming Scale Scores to Component/Composite Scores

EL Variables Range of Scale Score

EL Component

Unweighted Component

Score Multiplier

Weighted Component

Score

PKEE 3–15 Perceived Knowledge 7–35 4.57 32–160

PKES 4–20

PSPI 5–25 Perceived Skills 10–50 3.2 32–160

CPS 5–25

NEP 15–75 Affective

Dispositions 32–160 1 32–160 ES 13–65

WILL 4–20

ERB 0–80 Behavior 0–80 2 0–160

Note. Adapted from Table 6 (p. 33) in McBeth et al.’s (2008) Report on U.S. National Environmental Literacy Assessment (NELA) Project: Year 1, National Baseline Study of Middle Grade Students.

Component & Composite Scores (N = 464)

Environmental Literacy Scores!

Range, Possible Scores!

Min! Max! Median! M! SD!

A.  Component Score!

Perceived Knowledge!

Raw" 7−35" 9" 35" 23" 23.30" 4.41"

weighted" 32−160" 41" 160" 105" 106.49! 20.12"

Perceived Skills!

Raw" 10−50" 10" 50" 24" 24.00" 8.07"

weighted" 32−160" 32" 160" 76.8" 76.81! 25.80"

Affective Dispositions!

Raw/"

Weighted"32−160" 69" 145" 115" 114.21! 11.14"

ERB!Raw" 0−80" 12" 72" 37" 37.04" 9.50"

Weighted" 0−160" 24" 144" 74" 74.08! 19.00"

B. Composite Score! 96−640" 214.30" 564.96" 367.34" 371.59! 53.80"

Summary of Results for RQs 2–4Model3!

Variable! Model1B! Model2B! B! 95%CI!Constant! -1.337" -6.987" -9.241***" [-15.386,-3.097]"X1=NEP! .026" .071" .067" [-.024,.157]"X2=ES! .517***" .389***" .366***" [.262,.470]"X3=WILL! .939***" .802***" .784***" [.533,1.035]"X4=PSPI! " .113" .006" [-.240,.251]"X5=CPS! " .804***" .845*" [.626,1.064]"X6=PKEE! " " .228" [-.075,.531]"X7=PKES! " " .174" [-.094,.443]"R2! .280" .499" .508" "F! 52.083***" 79.573***" 58.751***" "

ΔR2! " .219" .010" "ΔF! " 87.275***" 3.856*" "

Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression !Note. N = 406 (58 outliers removed). *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.

Post Hoc Power Analysis!

Model! Actual R2/ sR2! Actual ES! k! Power !

Overall Model !(X1–X7)!

.508" 1.033" 7" 1"

Set A (X 1–X3)! .280" 0.389" 3" 1"

Set B (X 4– X 5)! .219" 0.280" 2" 1"

Set C (X 6–X7)! .010" 0.010" 2" .42"

Post Hoc Power Analysis and Calculated Powers for α = .05 Note. k refers to number of predictors. Effect size (ES) was calculated using Cohen’s (1988) effect size for an F-test, and the formula is f2 = R2 / (1 – R2). A large effect size was found in this study.

Correlation Coefficients of EL Variables!

PKES PSPI CPS NEP ES WILL ERB

PKEE .582 .334 .191 .048 .226 .117 .277

PKES .355 .225 .136 .256 .134 .305

PSPI .804 .028 .266 .132 .513

CPS −.005 .182 .103 .554

NEP .254 .314 .205

ES .247 .451

WILL .378 Note. Correlations values where p < .01 are highlighted in color

ConclusionsScale Scores!•  Total Sample (High to Low): WILL(80%), NEP(77%), PKEE (67%),

PKES(66%), ES(63%), PSPI (51%), ERB(46%), and CPS (45%)"•  Two University Samples: Very similar; Minor difference (2% in PK)"•  Science Vs. Non-Science: Very similar; Minor difference (5% in PK)"

Total Sample!•  Component scores (High to Low): Affective dispositions (71%),

perceived knowledge (67%), perceived skills (48%), and ERB (46%)"•  Composite score: students showed a moderate level of EL (58%)"

Hierarchical Multiple Regression"•  Each of the three sets (Affective Dispositions, Perceived Skills, and

Perceived Knowledge) made a statistically significant contribution to the explained variance in students’ ERB scores."

•  Set C was not significant from a practical perspective."

Implications•  NEP: pro-environmental worldview to a relatively high extent;

consistent with Hong (2006) and Wu et al. (2012); need a well-translated Chinese version of the NEP scale "

•  ES: environmentally sensitive to a moderate-to-substantial extent; need to investigate the psychological dimensions, experiential precursors and correlates, and the development of ES "

•  PK&PS: higher in PK and lower in PS; significant predictors of ERB; need to add measures of actual knowledge and skills!

•  WILL: a high level of willingness to act; consistent with findings reported in theory and reviews regarding the intention–behavior relationship (e.g., Ajzen, 1985; Bamberg & Moser, 2007). "

•  ERB: low level of participation in environmental behavior; consistent with Sun (2006), Zhang (2013), China’s general public surveys"

•  Social desirability: not a factor influencing general responses of the sample; variability of scores within and across scales!

Implications (cont.)•  Implication relative to two models of ERB!

–  Hines et al.’s (1986/87) model of responsible environmental behavior"–  Hungerford and Volk’s (1990) model of citizenship environmental behavior "

•  Implications relative to two prior assessments in the U.S.!–  NELA Phase 1 (Grades 6 & 8, McBeth et al.,2008)"–  NELA Phase 2 (Grades 6, 7, & 8, McBeth et al.,2011)"

•  Implications relative to educational practice!–  Skills should be included in the EE guidelines and programs "–  Knowledge should be taught directly in combination with the sets of skills"–  Need to develop a comprehensive EE curriculum beginning at the preschool

level and continuing through all formal and non-formal stages"–  Need to provide opportunities for students to gain positive experiences in the

nature (e.g., field trips), and to share their attitudes, perceptions, or values relating to human-environment relationship (e.g., discussions)"

•  It is important that future studies in China include similar variables and use similar measures and methods in their investigation "–  to better understand the status of EL within Chinese populations"–  to gain an insight into the relationship among the EL variables"

RecommendationsInstrument"•  Address NEP translation questions; revise and refine the USELI

scales based on factor analyses"•  Add items to measure actual knowledge and skills, and other EL

variables (e.g., personal responsibility, locus of control, socio-political knowledge)"

•  Age-appropriate instruments for large-scale assessments within Chinese populations (e.g., Grades 3–12) "

Sampling!•  A stratified random sample of students at these two national

universities in Hubei Province (ten majors, or all majors)"•  Undergraduate students at the other five national universities in

Hubei Province, or at all national universities in China"Data Collection"•  Researchers at data collection sites; online survey!

SelectedReferences•  Chawla,L.(1998).Significantlifeexperiencesrevisited:Areviewofresearchonsourcesof

environmentalsensi8vity.TheJournalofEnvironmentalEduca4on,29(3),11–21.•  Dunlap,R.E.,VanLiere,K.D.,Mer8g,A.G.,&Jones,R.E.(2000).Newtrendsinmeasuring

environmentalaetudes:Measuringendorsementofthenewecologicalparadigm:ArevisedNEPscale.JournalofSocialIssues,56(3),425–442.

•  Erdogan,M.,Ok,A.,&Marcinkowski,T.(2012).Developmentandvalida8onofchildren’sresponsibleenvironmentalbehaviorscale.EnvironmentalEduca4onResearch,18(4),507–540.

•  Hawcroi,L.J.,&Milfont,T.L.(2010).Theuse(andabuse)ofthenewenvironmentalparadigmscaleoverthelast30years:Ameta-analysis.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,30,143–158.

•  Hollweg,K.S.,Taylor,J.R.,Bybee,R.W.,Marcinkowski,T.J.,McBeth,W.C.,&Zoido,P.(2011).Developingaframeworkforassessingenvironmentalliteracy.Washington,DC:NorthAmericanAssocia8onforEnvironmentalEduca8on(NAAEE).

•  Hsu,S.(1997).AnassessmentofenvironmentalliteracyandanalysisofpredictorsofresponsibleenvironmentalbehaviorheldbysecondaryteachersinHualiencountyofTaiwan(Doctoraldisserta8on,OhioStateUniversity).RetrievedfromProQuestDisserta8ons&Thesesdatabase.(Publica8onNo.AAT304414676)

•  Hungerford,H.R.,&Peyton,R.B.(1980).Aparadigmforci8zenresponsibility:Environmentalac8on.InA.Sacks,etal.(Eds.).CurrentissuesVI:Theyearbookofenvironmentaleduca4onandenvironmentalstudies(pp.146–154).Columbus,OH:ERIC/SMEAC.

36

SelectedReferences(cont.)•  Marcinkowski,T.(2001).Predictorsofresponsibleenvironmentalbehavior:Areviewofthree

disserta8onstudies.InH.Hungerford,W.Bluhm,T.Volk,andJ.Ramsey(Eds.).Essen4alreadingsinenvironmentaleduca4on(pp.247–276).Champaign,IL:S8pesPublishing,L.L.C.

•  Marcinkowski,T.M.,&Rehring,L.(1995).Thesecondaryschoolreport:Afinalreportonthedevelopment,pilottes8ng,valida8on,andfieldtes8ngofsecondaryschoolenvironmentalliteracyinstrument.Environmentaleduca8onliteracy/needsassessmentproject.Assessingtheenvironmentaleduca8onneedsofteachers:Finalreportfor1993–1995(pp.30–76).StevensPoint,WI:UniversityofWisconsin–StevenPoint.

•  Marcinkowski,T.,Shin,D.,Noh,K.,Negev,M.,Sagy,G.,Garb,Y.,McBeth,W.,Hungerford,H.,Volk,T.,Meyers,R.,&Erdogan,M.(2013).Na4onalassessmentsofenvironmentalliteracy:Areview,comparison,andanalysis.InR.Stevenson,M.Brody,J.Dillion,&A.Wals(Eds.),Interna8onalHandbookofResearchonEnvironmentalEduca8on(pp.310–330).Washington,DC:AmericanEduca8onalResearchAssocia8onandRoutledge.

•  Peterson,N.(1982).Developmentalvariablesaffec4ngenvironmentalsensi4vityinprofessionalenvironmentaleducators(Unpublishedmaster’sthesis).SouthernIllinoisUniversity,Carbondale,IL.

•  Sward,L.L.(1997).Experien4alvariablesaffec4ngtheenvironmentalsensi4vityofElSalvadoranenvironmentalprofessionals(Doctoraldisserta8on,FloridaIns8tuteofTechnology).RetrievedfromProQuestDisserta8onsandThesesDatabase.(Publica8onNo.AAT304401951).

37

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 for their tremendous help in the data analysis process."

•  My heartfelt gratitude also goes to Dr. Ken Lindeman and Dr. Ralph Turingan for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped me improve the quality of my dissertation research. "

38

Yan Zhu (Joanna) Dr. Tom Marcinkowski Ph.D. Professor Florida Institute of Technology Florida Institute of Technology E-mail: [email protected]" E-mail: [email protected]

Thank You!!I welcome your questions and suggestions!

Contact Information

Note.BothEnglishandChineseversionsoftheUSELIareavailableattherequest.