Source: http://ijese.net/arsiv/39
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:56:40+00:00

Document:
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among Turkish classroom, science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs toward using inquiry-based approaches, traditional teaching approaches, and technology in their mathematics and science classrooms; their efficacy beliefs in teaching those subjects; and years of experience in teaching in consideration of curriculum movements. The analysis was based on 258 teachers who had been working in elementary schools in Ankara, Turkey. The Teacher Beliefs toward Instructional Approaches Questionnaire-Revised Scale was used as a measuring instrument. Conducting descriptive statistics, it was found that the teachers had strong beliefs in using inquiry-based instructional approach. The results of two-way MANOVA showed no statistical difference between teachers’ beliefs regarding alternative teaching approaches with respect to their branches. Similarly, no significant difference was reported on their beliefs regarding traditional and technology-enhanced instructional approaches in terms of years of experience in teaching. On the other hand, the teachers with an experience of more than 16 years had significantly more favorable beliefs on using inquiry-based instructional approaches than the teachers with an experience of 6-10 years. The results of path analysis revealed that teachers’ experience in teaching had a significant and positive relation to their beliefs in using traditional teaching approaches and their teaching efficacy, but negative relation to their beliefs in using technology-enhanced teaching approaches. No significant relationship between these teachers’ experiences and their beliefs in using inquiry based approaches was reported. It was also shown that beliefs in using inquiry-based approaches were positively associated with beliefs in using technology-enhanced approaches.
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1989). Science for All Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Ashton, P. (1985). Motivation and teacher's sense of efficacy. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol 2. The classroom milieu (pp. 141-174). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs regarding the implementation of constructivism in their classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 323-343.
Binbasioglu, C. (1995). Türkiye’de Eğitim Bilimleri Tarihi [History of Educational Sciences in Turkey]. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of National Education.
Bishop, A.J., Seah, W.T. & Chin, C. (2003) Values in mathematics teaching - the hidden persuaders?, in Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education, eds Alan Bishop, M.A. Clements, Christine Kietel, Jeremy Kilpatrick, Frederick Leung, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Netherland, 717-765.
Borko, H. & Putman, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational psychology. NY: MacMillian.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cakiroglu, E., & Cakiroglu, J. (2003). Reflections on teacher education in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26, 253-264.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB) (1990). Academic Preparation in science (2nd ed.): Teaching for transition from high school to college. New York: Author.
Damnjanovic, A. (1999). Attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching: Differences between preservice and in-service teachers.School Science and Mathematics, 99, 71-76.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H. & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 213–234.
Engeln, K., Euler, M., & Maass, K. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science: A comparative baseline study of teachers’ beliefs and practices across 12 European countries. ZDM, 45(6),1-14.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Guffin, B. (2008). Teacher beliefs toward inquiry-based mathematical instructional strategies in South Dakota Elementary Schools, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of South Dakota, USA.
Haefner, L. A. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by Doing? Prospective Elementary Teachers' Devleoping Understandings of Scientific Inquiry and Science Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653-1674.
Holbrook, J. & Kolodner, J.L. (2000). Scaffolding the Development of an Inquiry-Based (Science) Classroom. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2000 (ICLS), 221-227.
Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 150-161.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1999). LISREL 8.30. Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc.
Kardash, C., & Wallace, M. (2001). The perceptions of science classes survey: What undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 199-210.
Kaiser, G. (2006). The mathematical beliefs of teachers about applications and modelling – results of an empirical study.Proceedings 30Th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Prague: PME 3, 393-400.
Kazempour, M., Amirshokoohi, A.,& Colak, H. (2009). Turkish preservice and ın-service teachers’ beliefs about inquiry. The International Journal of Learning, 16(7), 435-444.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modelling a researcher’s guide. London: SAGE Publications.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.
Krajcik, J. S. & Layman, J. W. (1992). Microcomputer-based laboratories in the science classroom. in Research Matters to the Science Teacher, National Association for Research in Science Teaching Monograph, 5, 101.
Langone, J. (1998). Managing inclusive instructional settings: Technology, co-operative planning, and team-based organization. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30, 1-15.
Leu, D. J., Jr. (2001). Internet project: Preparing students for new literacies in a global village. The Reading Teacher, 54, 568-585.
Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L.,& Switzer, D. M.(2009). K-12 Science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 575-596.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey [MoNE] (2005a) Ilkogretim matematik dersi (1-5 siniflar) ogretim programi taslagi (Elementary school mathematics curriculum draft (grades 1-5)). Ankara, Turkey: MNE.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey [MoNE] (2005b) Ilkogretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (1-5 siniflar) ogretim programi taslagi (Elementary school science and technology curriculum draft (grades 1-5)). Ankara, Turkey: MNE.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey [MoNE]. (2013a). Ortaokul matematik dersi ögretim programı 5-8. sınıflar: Middle school mathematics curriculum (grades 5-8). Ankara, Turkey: MEB.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey [MoNE]. (2013b). Ortaokul fen bilimleri dersi ögretim programı 5-8. sınıflar: Middle school science curriculum (grades 5-8). Ankara, Turkey: MEB.
Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M. (1996). Teachers’ experiences with inclusive classroom: Implications for special education reform. Journal of Special Education, 30, 152-186.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Morell, P. & Caroll, J. (2003). An extended examination of preservice elemantary teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy.School Science and Mathematics, 103, 246-251.
National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment (NCSESA) (1993). National science education standards: An enhanced sampler. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21 ,509 -523.
Owens, R. F., Hester, J. L., & Teale, W. H. (2002). Where do you want to go today? Inquiry-based learning and technology integration. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 616-625.
Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2012). Designing principles for support in developing students’ transformative inquiry skills in Web-based learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(3), 309-325.
Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (1996). Mathematical beliefs and different aspects of their meaning. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 28(4), 101–108.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 14-20.
Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A. & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 81–130.
Race, K. (2001). Development of an attitude survey to gauge teacher attitudes toward ınstructional strategies and classroom pedagogy in support of a larger outcomes-based evaluation effort. Presented at the Annual Meeting American Evaluation Association St. Louis, Missouri.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In Sikula, J., Buttery, T., and Guyton, E. (Eds.),Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, MacMillan, New York, pp. 102-119.
Riggs, I. M. & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625-637.
Roehrig, G. H. & Kruse, R. A. (2005). The role of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge in the adoption of a reform-based curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 105(8), 412-422.
Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Bropy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 7 (pp. 49-73). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave science. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Stipek, D., Giwin, K., Salmon, J., & MacGyvers, V. (2001). Teachers' beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 213-226.
Stover, S., & Veres, M. (2013). TPACK in higher education: using the TPACK framework for professional development.Global Education Journal, (1), 93–111.
Supovitz, J.A., Mayer, D.P. & Kahle, J.B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14, 331–356.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
Von Secker, C. E., & Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1110-1126.
Wilkins, J. (2008) The relationship among elementary teachers' content knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices.Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 139-164.
Constructing and critiquing scientific arguments has become an increasingly important goal for science education. Yet, the differences in the ways students construct collaborative oral and individual written socioscientific arguments are not well established. Our research with one middle school class in an urban New England school district addresses the following question: What are the similarities and differences between students’ collaborative oral and individual written scientific arguments? Data sources consisted of transcripts from three videotaped lessons and associated student work. The sophistication of both the collaborative oral and individual written argument products were analyzed using a proposed learning progression. Results suggest that the students’ collaborative oral arguments tended to be of lower sophistication whereas the individual written arguments tended to be of higher sophistication; however both modalities tended to include inappropriate justifications. Moreover, in the written arguments it was easier for students to include a rebuttal than limit their argument to using only appropriate justifications. These findings suggest that there are both commonalities and differences across the expressive modalities that can be targeted in an effort to strengthen the quality of students’ arguments.
Goody, J. (1994). Entre l’oralite´ etl’e´criture. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Kelly, G. J., & Greene, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world (pp. 145-181). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McNeill, K. L., Corrigan, S., Barber, J., Goss, M., & Knight, A. M. (2012, March). Designing student assessments for understanding, constructing and critiquing arguments in science. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York, NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rogers, S., Busch, K. C., & Berland, L. K. (2012, March) Variation in how individuals argue about scientific and socioscientific questions. Paper presented at the NARST 2012 Annual International Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
Tishman, S., & Perkins, D. (1997). The language of thinking. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 368-374.
A teacher’s practical knowledge contains the teacher’s beliefs about the goals, values and principles of education that guide his or her actions in the classroom. There is still a lack of knowledge about how teachers’ practical knowledge influences their teaching. The present study examines student teachers’ practical knowledge in the context of teaching climate change in elementary schools. Participating student-teachers planned their lessons using the principles and ideas of inquiry-based science teaching and the communicative approach. The same two approaches were applied in analysing the lessons, providing a broader basis on which to study student-teachers’ beliefs about teaching science. The analysis revealed different levels of success in terms of implementation of inquiry-based learning; the communicative approach was not comprehensively realised in any class. Stimulated recall interviews highlighted that most student-teachers possessed sufficient knowledge to reflect on their lessons and the necessary awareness to use the communicative approach. By comparing the results of lesson plan analysis, communication analysis and stimulated recall interviews, we can better understand student-teachers’ practical knowledge in the classroom.
Abell, S. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 1105-1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29.
Boon, H. J. (2010). Climate Change? Who Knows? A Comparison of secondary students and pre-service teachers.Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 104-120.
van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive changes in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal,26(2), 160-189.
Lehesvuori, S., Ratinen, I., Kulhomäki, O., Lappi, J., & Viiri, J. (2011). Enriching primary student teachers’conceptions about science teaching: towards dialogic inquiry-based teaching. Nordina, 7(2), 140-159.
Liarakou, G., Athanasiadis, I., & Gavrilakis, C. (2011). What Greek secondary school students believe about climate change? International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(1), 79-98.
Meira, P. A. (2006). A loita pola representación social do cambio climático: Unha reflexión para educadores. [A struggle for the social representation of climate change: An insight for educators]. In M., Soto, & X. Veiras, (Eds.), O cambio climático e Galiza, (pp. 53-61). Santiago de Compostela: ADEGA.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in science classrooms. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2001). The Content Analysis Guidebook. London: Sage Publications.
NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: striking a balance between ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ classroom talk. School Science Review, 88(324), 77-83.
Taber, F., & Taylor, F. (2009). Climate of Concern - A Search for Effective Strategies for Teaching Children about Global Warming. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(2), 97-116.
Tiberghien, A., & Malkoun, L. (2009). The construction of physics knowledge in a classroom community from different perspectives. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus & R. Hershkovitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction(pp. 42-55). New York: Routledge.
Institutions of higher education (HE) are increasingly expected to rise to the challenge of preparing environmentally literate graduates, equipped to bring a sustainability perspective into their professional function. While considerable research has explored the relationship between HE and tendency for political participation in general, studies on a possible relationship between exposure to environmental content during studies and students’ inclusion of environmental considerations in political participation, as a component of their environmental literacy and indicator of the level of their environmental literacy, are lacking. Therefore, this study investigated, in a large university, the relationship between students’ disciplinary major and their environmental literacy and citizenship as reflected in their inclusion of the environment in decision-making as voters and in citizen-society activism. A questionnaire was administrated to students from departments that include environment-related courses (‘exposed’) and departments that do not explicitly include environmental content (‘unexposed’). The questionnaire investigated exposure to environmental content, EL-dimensions (knowledge, dispositions, self-reported involvement in environmentally-responsible behaviours), voting characteristics. All these variables were found to be significantly related to academic major: ‘Natural Resource and Environmental Management’ and Geography majors acknowledged greater exposure to environmental topics and were more knowledgeable of these. These students, along with biology majors, reported being more active in responsible environmental behaviour (REB) and in environmental organizations. ‘Exposed’ students rated higher environmental issues as factors that influence their political decision-making, declared greater willingness to vote for environmentally-oriented parties and reported increased support for such parties in the 2006 and 2009 elections compared to ‘unexposed’ students. Results also indicate that despite these differences between the two groups, self-reported participation of ‘exposed’ students in REB and in civic society was lower than could be expected. Results indicate that two interplaying factors may underlie the relationship between academic major and students’ environmentalism: a transformative influence of studies via the content, ideas and philosophies of the studied discipline, and pre-existing orientation of students which influences their choice of studies. These processes can be taken into consideration towards incorporating sustainability within different academic programs in a manner that will be effective in educating environmentally-responsible graduates and preparing them as influential environmental citizens and professionals in society.
Anderson, M. W., Teisl, M., Criner, G., Tisher, S., Smith, S., Hunter, M., & Bicknell, E. (2007). Attitude change of undergraduate students in general education Courses. Journal of General Education, 56, 149-168.
Ballantyne, R. (1999). Teaching environmental concepts, attitudes and behaviour through geography education: Findings of an international survey. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 8(1), 40-58. DOI:10.1080/10382049908667588.
Bell, D. (2005). Liberal environmental citizenship, Environmental Politics, 14(2), 179-194. DOI: 10.1080/09644010500054863.
Berkowitz, A. R., Ford, M.E., & Brewer, C. A. (2005). A framework for integrating ecological literacy, civic literacy, and environmental citizenship in environmental education. In E. A. Johnson & M. J. Mappin (Eds.), Environmental education and advocacy: Changing perspectives of ecology and education (pp. 227-266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blander, D. (2007a). Education – a catalyst for political participation. Parliament, 54. [In Hebrew].
Blander, D. (2007b). Green Politics in Israel. Parliament, 55. [In Hebrew].
Brody, S. D., & Ryu, H. C. (2006). Measuring the educational impacts of a graduate course on sustainable development.Environmental Education Research, 12(2), 179-199. DOI: 10/1080/13504620600688955.
De-Shalit, A. (2004). Red & Green: Democracy, justice and environmentalism. Tel Aviv: Babel Publisher and the Heschel Center for Environmental Learning and Leadership. [In Hebrew].
Dillon, J. (2002). Editorial – perspectives on environmental education related research in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 42, 1111-1117. DOI: 10.1080/09500690210137737.
Dobson, A. (2010). Environmental citizenship: Rapid research and evidence review. Retrieved from: http://www.sd-research.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/SDRN%20Environmental%20Citizenship%20and%20Pro-Environmental%20Full%20Report_0.pdf.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.
Erdoğan, N. (2009). Testing the new ecological paradigm scale: Turkish case. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(10), 1023-1032.
Ewert, A., & Baker, D. (2001). Standing where you sit - An explanatory analysis of the relationship between academic major and environmental beliefs. Environment and Behaviour, 33(5), 687-707.
Filho, W.L. (Ed.) (2002). Teaching sustainability at Universities: Towards curriculum greening. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Goldman, D., Yavetz, B. & Pe'er, S. (2006). Environmental literacy in teacher training in Israel: Environmental behaviour of new students. Journal of Environmental Education 38(1), 3–22.
Gough, A. (2013). The emergence of environmental education research. In R.B. Stevenson, M. Brody, M. J. Dillon. & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 13-22). New York and London: Routeledge.
Harraway, J., Broughton-Ansin, F., Deaker, L., Jowett, T., & Shephard, K. (2012). Exploring the use of the revised New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP) to monitor the development of students' ecological worldview. The Journal of Environmental Education, 43(3), 177-191. DOI: 10.1080/00958964.2011.634450.
Hawthorne, M. & Alabaster, T. (1999). Citizen 2000: Development of a Model of Environmental Citizenship. Global Environmental Change, 9, 25-43. DOI: 10.1016/S0959-3780(98)00022-3.
Hillygus, D.S. (2005). The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education and political engagement.Political Behaviour, 27(1), 25-47. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-005-3075-8.
Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R. & Tomera, A.N. (1986–87). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible pro-environmental behaviour: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8.
Hodgkinson, S.P., & Innes, J. M. (2001). The attitudinal influence of career orientation in 1st-Year university students: Environmental attitudes as a function of degree choice. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(3), 37-40.
Hsu, S. J. (2004). The effects of an environmental education program on responsible environmental behaviour and associated environmental literacy variables in Taiwanese college students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(2), 37-48.
Ishai, Y. (1999). ‘Old’ versus ‘New’ politics in the 1996 elections. A.Arian, & M. Shamir (Eds.). The elections in Israel- 1996(pp. 171-201). Jerusalem: The Israeli Institute for Democracy [In Hebrew].
Kagawa, F. (2007). Dissonance in students’ perceptions of sustainable development and sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(3), 317-338. DOI: 10.1108/14676370710817174.
Kollymuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. DOI: 10.1080/13504620220145401.
Lang, K. B. (2011). The relationship between academic major and environmentalism among college students: Is it mediated by the effects of gender, political ideology and financial security?. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(4), 203-215. DOI: 10.1080/00958964.2010.547230.
Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma. The American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1-14.
McKeown-Ice, R. & Dedinger, R. (2000). Socio-Political-Cultural Foundations of Environmental Education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 37-45.
McMillan, E. E., Wright, T., & Beazley, K. (2004). Impact of University-Level Environmental Studies Class on Students' Values. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(3), 19-28.
Ogunbode, C.A. (2013). The NEP scale: Measuring ecological attitudes/worldviews in an African context. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15, 1477-1494.
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rideout, B. E., Hushen, K., McGinty, D., Perkins S., &Tate, J. (2005). Endorsement of the New Environmental Paradigm in systematic and e-mail samples of college students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(2), 15-23.
Roth, C.E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990's. Columbus OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.
Schultz, W. P., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., Khazian, A., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31-42. DOI:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00022-7.
Shephard, K., Harraway, J., Lovelock, B., Skeaff, S., Slooten, L., Strack, M… Jowett, T. (2014). Is the environmental literacy of university students measurable? Environmental Education Research, 20(4), 476-495. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2013.816268.
Shephard, K., Mann, S., Smith, N., & Deaker, L. (2009). Benchmarking the environmental values and attitudes of students in New Zealand's post-compulsory education. Environmental Education Research, 15(5), 571-586. DOI: 10.1080/13504620903050523.
Sherburn, M. & Devlin, A. S. (2004). Academic major, environmental concern and arboretum use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(2), 23-36.
Smith-Sebasto, N. J. (1995). The effects of an environmental studies course on selected variables related to environmentally responsible behaviour. The Journal of Environmental Education, 26(4), 30-34.
Stewart, M. (2010). Transforming higher education: A practical plan for integrating sustainability education into the student experience. Journal of Sustainability Education, Vol. 1. Retrieved from:http://www.jsedimensions.org/ojs/index.php/jse/article/viewFile/7/pdf_3.
Teisl, M. F., Anderson, M. W., Noblet, C. L., Criner, G. K. & Rubin, J. (2011). Are environmental professors unbalanced? Evidence from the field. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(2), 67–83.
Tikka, P. M., Kuitunen, M. T., & Tynys, S. M. (2000). Effects of educational background on students' attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(3), 12-19.
Van Petegem, P., Blieck, A. & Van Ongevalle, J. (2007). Conceptions and awareness concerning environmental education: a Zimbabwean case-Study in three secondary teacher education colleges. Environmental Education Research, 13(3), 287-306. DOI: 10.1080/13504620701430331.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.
Wongchantra, P., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2011). Effects of environmental ethics infusion instruction on knowledge and ethics of undergraduate students. Research Journal of Environmental Sciences, 5(1), 73-77. DOI: 10.3923/rjes.2011.77.81.
Yavetz, B., Goldman, D. & Pe'er, S. (2014). How do pre-service teachers perceive 'environment'? Implications for the development of environmental literacy in teacher training. Environmental Education Research, 20(3), 354-371. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2013.803038.
Yavetz, B., Pe’er, S., & Goldman, D. (2011). Characterizing the environmental literacy of student teachers toward the end of their studies – Implications for environmental education in teacher training. Dapim, 52, 137 – 183 [in Hebrew].
In this paper, the effectiveness of environmental education (EE) programs at fostering ecologically responsible behavior is analyzed through the lens of psychology. In section 1, a critique of knowledge and attitude appeals is presented using contemporary psychological understandings of these constructs to show why many EE programs have been met with mixed results. It is argued that knowledge and attitudes are misunderstood in precisely how they are employed in decision-making and that these misunderstandings hamper the impact of EE programming. In section 2, the theoretical foundation for applying identity research is developed further and is shown to engage both the automatic and controlled cognitive processes—the key distinction of the IBEE model. In section 3, this research is applied to develop a novel program for producing ecologically responsible behavior through EE using self-identity as a more sophisticated and effective behavioral mediator, as is how a ‘pro-environmental identity’ could be developed. Self-identity is a durable and robust behavioral mediator that has been shown to be highly predictive of an individual’s behavior and can be shaped to lead one toward ecologically responsible behavior across behavioral domains.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1-34.
Aronson, E. (2010). The Social Animal. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Aronson, E., & O’Leary, M. (1982-1983). The relative effectiveness of models and prompts on energy conservation: A field experiment in a shower room. Journal of Environmental Systems, 12, 219-224.
Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition. In Bargh, J. A. & J. S. Uleman (Eds.) Unintended thought, Guilford Press, 51-69.
Bohner, G., & Dickel, N. (2011). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 391-417.
Connor, M. & Armitage, C. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429-1464.
Disinger, J. (1982). Environmental education research news. The Environmentalist, 2, 285-288.
Fazio, R.H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: the role of attitude accessibility. In A.R. Pratkanis, S.J. Breckler, & A.G. Greenwald (Ed.s), Attitude structure and function (pp. 153-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gilbert, D. (2006). Stumbling on Happiness. New York: Knopf.
Gregg, G. S. (2006). The raw and the bland: a structural model of narrative identity. In D. P. McAdams, R. Josselson, & A. Lieblich (Eds.), Identity and story: creative self in narrative (pp. 63-88). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Harter, S. (1999). The Construction of the Self. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Harter, S. (2012). Emerging self-process during childhood and adolescence. In M. Leary & J.P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity (2nd ed., pp. 680-715). New York: The Guilford Press.
Jaynes, J. (1976). The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. New York, NY: First Mariner Books.
Jeannerod, M. (2006). Consciousness of action as an embodied consciousness. 2006, pp. 25–38.
Kaiser, F., Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1-19.
Leary, M. & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Oyserman, D., Elmore, K., & Smith, G. (2012). Self, self-concept, and identity. In Leary, M. & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity (2nd ed., pp. 69-104). New York: The Guilford Press.
Schultz, P. (2002). Knowledge, information, and household recycling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In T. Dietz & P. C. Stern (Eds.), New tools for environmental protection: Education, information, and voluntarymeasures (pp. 67-82). The National Academic Press.
Stryker, S. & Burke, P. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284-297.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227-236.
Uleman, J. & Bargh, J. (Ed.s.). (1989). Unintended Thought, New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Begon, M., Harper, J., & Townsend, C. (1996). Ecology: individuals, populations, and communities: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: models, tools, and challenges.International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349-377.
Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4), 381-394.
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The Solo Taxonomy: Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome: Academic Press.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. S. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: Open university press Buckingham.
Boulton-Lewis, G. (1995). The SOLO taxonomy as a means of shaping and assessing learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 14(2), 143-154.
Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, 58(4), 531-549.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: National Academy Press Washington, DC.
Campbell, N., Reece, J., & Mitchell, L. (1999). Biology. 5th: New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Carlsson, B. (2002). Ecological understanding 2: transformation-a key to ecological understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 701-715.
Chan, C., Tsui, M., Chan, M., & Hong, J. (2002). Applying the structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student's learning outcomes: An empirical study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 511-527.
Council, N. R. (2005). How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Daniel, B., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. (2004). How can we best reduce global warming? School students ideas and misconceptions. International journal of environmental studies, 61(2), 211-222.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. (2005). How students learn: History in the classroom. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Dove, J. (1996). Student teacher understanding of the greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion and acid rain.Environmental Education Research, 2(1), 89-100.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom.Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in Science - From Behaviourism Towards Social Constructivism and Beyond. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3-26).
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning.International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688.
Ekborg, M. (2003). How student teachers use scientific conceptions to discuss a complex environmental issue. Journal of Biological Education, 37(3), 126-132.
Ekborg, M., & Areskoug, M. (2006). How student teachers' understanding of the greenhouse effect develops during a teacher education programme. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 5(5), 17-29.
Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children's problem solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 157-169.
Gerard, L. F., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1037-1063.
Gerard, L. F., Tate, E., Chiu, J., Corliss, S., & Linn, M. C. (2009). Collaboration and knowledge integration. Paper presented at the International conference on Computer supported collaborative learning.
Goldring, H., & Osborne, J. (1994). Students' difficulties with energy and related concepts. Physics Education, 29, 26.
Gowda, M. V. R., Fox, J. C., & Magelky, R. D. (1997). Students' understanding of climate change: Insights for scientists and educators. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Boston MA, 78(10), 2232-2240.
Green, D. (1997). Explaining and envisaging an ecological phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology, 88(2), 199-217.
Grotzer, T. A. (2003). Learning to understand the forms of causality implicit in scientifically accepted explanations. Studies in Science Education, 39(1), 1-74.
Grotzer, T. A., & Basca, B. B. (2003). Helping students to grasp the underlying causal structures when learning about ecosystems: How does it impact understanding. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 16-29.
Grotzer, T. A., Kamarainen, A. M., Tutwiler, M. S., Metcalf, S., & Dede, C. (2013). Learning to Reason about Ecosystems Dynamics over Time: The Challenges of an Event-Based Causal Focus. BioScience, 63(4), 288-296.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003a). Emergence of progressive-inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6(2), 199-220.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003b). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072-1088.
Hmelo-Silver, C., & Pfeffer, M. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 127-138.
Hoadley, C. M. (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 839-857.
Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Fostering productive collaboration offline and online: Learning from each other. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. L. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 145-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hodges, L., & Harvey, L. (2003). Evaluation of student learning in organic chemistry using the SOLO taxonomy. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(7), 785.
Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Greer, K., & Mackenzie, M. (1995). Peer collaboration and conceptual growth in physics: Task influences on children's understanding of heating and cooling. Cognition and Instruction, 13(4), 483-503.
IPCC. (2007). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (Ed.), Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In T. Stocker, Q. Dahe, & G. Plattner (Eds.), Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers (IPCC, 2013).
Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43-57.
Korsager, M., Slotta, J. D., & Jorde, D. (2014). Global Climate Exchange: Peer collaboration in a “Global classroom”. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1(1), 105-120.
Krajcik, J., Slotta, J. D., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Designing learning environments to support students’ integrated understanding. Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy, 39-64.
Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2012). Kunnskap for en felles framtid. Revidert strategi for utdanning for bærekraftig utvikling 2012-2015. Oslo: Retrieved from http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/UH/Rapporter_og_planer/Strategi_for_UBU.pdf.
Lake, D. (1999). Helping students to go SOLO: teaching critical numeracy in the biological sciences. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 191-198.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Children's ideas about ecology 1: theoretical background, design and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 721-732.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996a). Children's ideas about ecology 2: ideas found in children aged 5-16 about the cycling of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 19-34.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996b). Children's ideas about ecology 3: Ideas found in children aged 5-16 about the interdependency of organisms. International Journal of Science Education, 18(2), 129-141.
Lee, H. S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology‐enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 71-90.
Leung, C. (2000). Assessment for learning: using SOLO taxonomy to measure design performance of design & technology students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 149-161.
Levins, L. (1992). Students' understanding of concepts related to evaporation. Research in science education, 22(1), 263-272.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry based science instruction - what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
Mork, S., & Jorde, D. (2004). We know they love computers, but do they learn science? Using information technology for teaching about a socio-scientific controversy. Themes in Education, 5(1), 69–100.
Moser, S. C., & Dilling, L. (2004). Making climate hot. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 46(10), 32-46.
Myers, T. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Akerlof, K., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2013). The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 343-347.
Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and promise: Psychology Press.
Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Prospective primary teachers' understanding of climate change, greenhouse effect, and ozone layer depletion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 299-307.
Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (2000). Models and Moves: Focusing on Dimensions of Causal Complexity To Achieve Deeper Scientific Understanding. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (2005). Dimensions of causal understanding: The role of complex causal models in students' understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 41(1), 117-165.
Peters, V. L., & Slotta, J. D. (2010). Scaffolding knowledge communities in the classroom: New opportunities in the Web 2.0 era. Designs for Learning Environments of the Future, 205-232.
Rebich, S., & Gautier, C. (2005). Concept mapping to reveal prior knowledge and conceptual change in a mock summit course on global climate change. Journal of geoscience education, 53(4), 355.
Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning.International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 99-111.
Rye, J. A., & Rubba, P. A. (2002). Scoring concept maps: An expert map‐based scheme weighted for relationships. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 33-44.
Rye, J. A., Rubba, P. A., & Wiesenmayer, R. L. (1997). An investigation of middle school students’ alternative conceptions of global warming. International Journal of Science Education, 19(5), 527-551.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993a). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 265-283.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993b). Technologies for knowledge-building discourse. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 41.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. Encyclopedia of distributed learning, 269-272.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 97-115.
Shepardson, D. P., Roychoudhury, A., Hirsch, A., Niyogi, D., & Top, S. M. (2013). When the atmosphere warms it rains and ice melts: seventh grade students’ conceptions of a climate system. Environmental Education Research(ahead-of-print), 1-21.
Slotta, J. D. (2009). A forum for international peer exchange: Consequences and conversations Paper presented at the the 13th Biennial Conference for the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Slotta, J. D., & Jorde, D. (2010). Towards a design framework for international peer discusssions: Taking advantage of disparate perspectives on socio-scientific issues. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 5(3), 161–184.
Slotta, J. D., Jorde, D., & Holmes, J. (2005). Learning from our peers in international exchanges: When is worth doing, and how can we help it succeed? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fifth International ESERA Conference on Contributions of Research to Enhancing Students’ Interest in Learning Science.
Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom: Teachers College Press.
Slotta, J. D., & Najafi, H. (2010). Knowledge Communities in the Classroom. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.),International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 8, pp. 189-196). Oxford: Elsevier.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Kubiszewski, I., & Costanza, R. (2013). 10. Planetary boundaries: using early warning signals for sustainable global governance1. Globalisation, Economic Transition and the Environment: Forging a Path to Sustainable Development, 259.
Tao, P. K. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39-57.
In terms of sustainability, renewable resources, nourishment and healthy diet, crops are important to the public. Thus, knowledge of crops is needed in order to enable people to participate in public discussions and take responsibility. This is in contrast to former surveys showing that students’ knowledge of and interest in plants in general, crop plants and agricultural issues is moderate to little. At the same time, approaches to improving knowledge and interest in school are missing. We initiated and established the Greenhouse Project (GHP) where secondary school students (grades 5-13) get to know crops through cultivating from seed to seed. To investigate whether or not original contact with a variety of staple crops and hands-on activities positively affect students’ knowledge, students of two German secondary schools were asked via questionnaires before and after the treatment. Our study was conducted in the cities of Mainz and Wiesbaden which are situated in the German Federal states of Rhineland-Palatinate and Hesse, respectively. In total, 74 students in 6/7th and 11/12th grades took part in this pretest-posttest survey; three additional 6/7th and 11/12th grade classes (i.e. 48 students) were used as control classes, and had no contact with the GHP during this time. We demonstrated that the treatment has positive effects on students’ knowledge, and that girls performed better than did boys. Therefore, knowledge of crop plant species, as well as morphological knowledge, improved. A higher level of knowledge cannot only be observed objectively via test scores, but also subjectively via the students’ self-assessment of knowledge. In contrast, the students’ opinions about and attitudes towards agriculture and crops decreased in the posttest, both in the treatment and control classes.
Ammer, U., & Gössinger, L. (2010). Was wissen bayerische Schulkinder über den Wald? [What do Bavarian pupils know about the forest?] Schutzgemeinschaft Deutscher Wald LV Bayern e. V. Waldpädagogik. Unser Wald, 1, 10–12.
Anderson, C. W. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In: Abell, S. K. & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 3–30). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Atkinson, E. P., & White, R. T. (1981). Influence of practical work on test performance. Research in Science Education, 11, 87–93.
Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2002). Nature-based excursions: School students’ perceptions of learning in natural environments. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 11(3), 218–236.
Barman, C. R., Stein, M., McNair, S., & Barman, N. S. (2006). Student’s ideas about plants & plant growth. The American Biology Teacher, 68(2), 73–79.
Bebbington, A. (2005). The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological Education, 39(2), 63–67.
Behrendt, M. & Franklin, T. (2014). A review of research on school field trips and their value in education. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9, 235–245.
Benkowitz, D. (2010). Authentische Lernumgebung als Zugang zu Biodiversität – Kompetenzerwerb durch Schulgartenarbeit [Authentic learning environment as access to biodiversity – acquirement of competence by school gardening] (155-159). In: U. Feut, H. Korn (2010). Treffpunkt Biologische Vielfalt IX. Interdisziplinärer Forschungsaustausch im Rahmen des Übereinkommens über die biologische Vielfalt. BfN [Federal Agency for Nature Conservation]-Skripten 265.
Berck, K. H. & Graf, D. (2010). Biologiedidaktik. Grundlagen und Methoden. [Didactics of biology. Fundamentals and methods]. Wiebelsheim: Quelle & Mayer Verlag.
Bickel, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Schülerinteressen an landwirtschaftlichen Themen. [Interest of students on agricultural topics]. In: J. Friedrich, A. Halsband, & L. Minkmar (Hg.). Biodiversität und Gesellschaft. Gesellschaftliche Dimension von Schutz und Nutzung biologischer Vielfalt. Beiträge der Fachtagung, Göttingen. (59-72). Göttingen: Universitätsverlag.
Bigler, A. M., & Hanegan, N. L. (2011). Student content knowledge increases after participation in a hands-on biotechnology intervention. Journal of Science Education Technology, 20, 246–257.
Brämer, R. (2006). Natur obskur. Wie Jugendliche heute Natur erfahren. [Obscure nature. How teenagers experience nature today]. Munich, Germany: Oekom Verlag.
Burch, G. F., Batchelor, J. H., Heller, N. A., Shaw, J., Kendall, W. & Turner, B. (2014). Experiential learning – what do we know? A meta-analysis of 40 years of research. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 41, 279–283.
Burrows, G. E. (2012). Recognising differences in weed and crop species – Recognition skills of agriculture students.Bioscience Education, (19).
Cooper, C. L. (2008). Botanical knowledge of a group of South Carolina elementary school students. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 6, 121–127.
Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2011). Children’s ability to recognise toxic and non-toxic fruits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7(2), 115–120.
Freund, P. A., Kuhn, J. T., & Holling, H. (2011). Measuring current achievement motivation with the QCM: Short form development and investigation of measurement invariance. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 629–634.
Gatt, S., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Borg, K., & Lautier, K. (2007). Young Maltese children’s ideas about plants. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 117–122.
Hess, A. J. , & Trexler, C. J. (2011). A qualitative study of agricultural literacy in urban youth: What do elementary students understand about the agri-food system?. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(4), 1–12.
Hesse, M. (2002). Eine neue Methode zur Überprüfung von Artenkenntnissen bei Schülern. Frühblüher: Benennen – Selbsteinschätzen – Wiedererkennen [A new method to test students’ knowledge of species. Early bloomers: Naming – self-assessment – recognizing]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 8, 53–67.
Holstermann, N., & Bögeholz, S. (2007). Interesse von Jungen und Mädchen an naturwissenschaftlichen Themen am Ende der Sekundarstufe I [Boys’ and girls’ interest in science at the end of middle school]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 13, 71–86.
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest. Research in Science Education, 40, 743–757.
Hummel, E., Glück, M., Jürgens, R., Weisshaar, J., & Randler, C. (2012). Interesse, Wohlbefinden und Langeweile im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht mit lebenden Organismen [Interest, wellbeing and boredom in science class with living organisms]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, (18), 99–116.
Jakobson, S.K., McDuff, M. D., & Monroe, M. C. (2006). Conservation Education and Outreach Techniques. Oxford University Press.
Jäkel, L., & Schaer, A. (2004). Sind Namen nur Schall und Rauch? Wie sicher sind Pflanzenkenntnisse von Schülerinnen und Schülern? [Are names hollow words? How certain is students’ knowledge of plants?]. Berichte des Instituts für Didaktik der Biologie der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, 13, 1–24.
Jäkel, L. (2005). Alltagspflanzen im Fokus: Botanisches Lernen in Zusammenhängen – eine didaktische Herausforderung im Alltagsunterricht [Focus on daily life plants. Botanical learning in contexts – a didactical challenge in class]. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften, 54(3), 15–20.
Jewell, N. (2002). Examining children’s models of seed. Journal of Biological Education, 36(3), 116–122.
Kersting, M., Alexy, U., Kroke, A., & Lentze, M.J. (2004). Kinderernährung in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der DONALD-Studie [Nourishment of children in Germany. Result of the DONALD-survey]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz, 47(3), 213–218.
Kinchin, I. M. (1999). Investigating secondary-school girls’ preferences for animals or plants: A simple ´head-to-head´ comparison using two unfamiliar organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 95–99.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. http://academic.regis.edu/ed205/kolb.pdf.
Lindemann‐Matthies, P. (2005). ‘Loveable’ mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: How children's interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655–677.
Lineberger, S. E., & Zajicek, J. M. (2000). School gardens: Can a hands-on teaching tool affect students’ attitudes and behavior regarding fruit and vegetables? Hort Technology, 10(3), 593–597.
Löwe, B. (1987). Interessenverfall im Biologieunterricht [Loss of interest in biology class]. Unterricht Biologie, 124(11), 62–65.
Mensink, G. B. M., Kleiser, C., & Richter, A. (2007). Was essen Kinder und Jugendliche in Deutschland? [What do children and teenagers eat in Germany?]. Ernährung- Wissenschaft und Praxis, 1(5), 204–212.
Nadeau, R., & Niemi, R. G. (1995). Educated guess: The process of answering factual knowledge questions in surveys. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(3), 323–346.
Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1999). The state we’re in: Issues in key stage 3 and 4 science. School Science Review, 81(294), 13–18.
Patrick, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). What plants and animals do early childhood and primary students name? Where do they see them? International Journal of Science Education Technology, (20), 630–642.
Pergams, O. R., & Zaradic, P. A. (2006). Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, Internet use, and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management, 80(4), 387–393.
Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Chudá, J. (2007a). Slovakian students’ attitudes towards biology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 287–295.
Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Kvasničák, R. (2007b). Short-term effects of field programme on students’ knowledge and attitude toward biology: A Slovak experience. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 247–255.
Randler, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2006). Cognitive achievements in identification skills. Journal of Biological Education, 40(4), 161–165.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Burns, B. D. (2001). FAM: Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung aktueller Motivation in Lern- und Leistungssituationen. [FAM: A questionnaire to determine current motivation in situations of learning and achievement]Diagnostica, 47(2), 57–66.
Rolff, H. G., & Zimmermann, P. (1997). Kindheit im Wandel. Eine Einführung in die Sozialisation im Kindesalter [Childhood change. An introduction to the socialization in the childhood]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Taschenbuch.
Schussler, E. E., & Olzak, L. A. (2008). It’s not easy being green: Student recall of plant and animal images. Journal of Biological Education, 42(3), 112–119.
Stagg, B. C., & Donkin, M. (2013). Teaching botanical identification to adults: Experiences of the UK participatory science project ‘Open Air Laboratories.’ Journal of Biological Education, 47(2), 104–110.
Strgar, J. (2007). Increasing the interest of students in plants. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 19–23.
Sula, J. (1971) Außerschulische Kenntnisse über Lebenserscheinungen der Pflanzen bei Schülern der ersten Klasse [First grade students’ out of school knowledge about plants´ phenomenon of life]. BioS 6, 218–221.
Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Talking about plants – Comments of primary school groups looking at plant exhibits in a botanical garden. Journal of Biological Education, 36(1), 27–34.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Reiss, M. J. (2000). Building a model of the environment: How do children see plants? Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 172–177.
Wagner, G. E. (2008). Botanical knowledge of a group of college students in South Carolina, U.S.A. Ethnobotany Research & Application, 6, 443–458.
Zucchi, H. (2002). Naturentfremdung bei Kindern und was wir entgegensetzen müssen. [Childrens’ alientation from nature and what we need to do?]. In: B. Gerken, & M. Görner (Eds.). Planung contra Evolution? Referate und Ergebnisse des gleichnamigen Symposiums 2001 in Neuhaus im Solling (pp. 1–31). Höxter, Germany.
In this study attempt was made to model the environmental literacy of Malaysian pre-university students enrolled in a matriculation college. Students enrolled in the matriculation colleges in Malaysia are the top notch students in the country. Environmental literacy of this group is perceived important because in future these students will be joining work force that requires important decision making. Environmental Literacy Model of these students is explained using environmental attitude, belief, conservation knowledge and Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB) with knowledge as a mediator. For this purpose data has been collected from 384 students (114 male and 270 female) and analyzed using covariance based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) approach. The result shows that REB is influenced by the students’ attitude and belief towards performing REB and knowledge about the environmental issues. On the other hand, students’ belief towards the environment does not influence the formation of REB. Furthermore students’ knowledge also does not mediate the influence of belief on the REB. These findings imply that individual who possess certain desirable attitude, belief and conservation knowledge have more tendencies to engage in REB. The results suggest that the matriculation colleges should integrate approaches that could promote attitude, belief and conservation knowledge into the mainstream of education.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Aziz, A. A., Sheikh, S. N. S., Yusof, K. M., Udin, A., & Yatim, J. M. (2012). Developing a structural model of assessing students’ knowledge-attitudes towards sustainability. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 513-522.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Barber, J. S. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: considering drives, proximity and dynamics. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 31-35.
Chan, N. W. (1988). Responding to landslide hazards in rapidly developing Malaysia: a case of economics versus environmental protection. Disaster Prevention and Management, 7(1), 14-27.
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655-690): Springer. Berlin Heidelberg.
Day, N., & Muhammad, A. B. (2011). Malaysia: The Atlas of Islamic-world Science and Innovation Country Case Study No. 1.London: Royal Society.
De Groot, J., & Steg, L. (2007). General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: The role of environmental concerns in the TPB. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37 (8) 1817-1836.
Disinger, J. F., & Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental Literacy. ERIC/CSMEE Digest, Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education (ED 35120).
Economic Planning Unit. (2001). Ninth Malaysian plan 2006-2010. Putrajaya: Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad).
Erdogan, M., Marcinkowski, T., & Ok, A. (2009). Content analysis of selected features of K‐8 environmental education research studies in Turkey, 1997–2007. Environmental Education Research, 15(5), 525-548.
Fietkau, H.J., & Kessel, H. (1981). Umweltlernen: Veränderungsmöglichkeiten des Umweltbewusstseins. Modelle – Erfahrungen. Königstein/Ts.: Hain. In: Schahn, J. & Giesinger, T. (1993; Ed.): Psychologie für den Umweltschutz. Hemsbach: Psychologie Verlags Union.
Flamm, B. (2009). The impacts of environmental knowledge and attitudes on vehicle ownership and use. Transportation research part D: transport and environment, 14(4), 272-279.
Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 898-915.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph. Tutorial and annotated example.Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 5.
Hair Jr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall, USA.
Hayduk, L. A., & Littvay, L. (2012). Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation models? BMC medical research methodology, 12(1), 159.
Hines J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behaviour: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8.
Hsu, S.-J., & Roth, R. E. (1996). An assessment of environmental knowledge and attitudes held by community leaders in the Hualien area of Taiwan. The Journal of Environmental Education, 28(1), 24-31.
Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1977). Science in the Elementary School: A Worktext: Champaign, III: Stipes.
Hungerford H. R.,& Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.
Hwang, Y.H., Kim, S.-I., & Jeng, J.M. (2000). Examining the causal relationships among selected antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 19-25.
Ibrahim, R. (2004). Promoting environmental literacy in Malaysian society- challenges and opportunities. Jurnal Pengajian Umum Bil, 5, 51.
Ibrahim, R., Amin, L., & Yaacob, M. (2011). Promoting environmental literacy through general education at the university level: UKM’s experience. The International Journal of Learning, 17(12), 151-160.
Jannah, M., Halim, L., Meerah, T., & Fairuz, M. (2013). Impact of environmental education kit on students' environmental literacy. Asian Social Science, 9(12), p.1.
Jöreskog, K. G., Yang, F., Marcoulides, G., & Schumacker, R. (1996). Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenny-Judd model with interaction effects. Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques, 57-88.
Kaiser, F. G., Wölfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental psychology, 19(1), 1-19.
Karpudewan, M., Ismail, Z., & Roth, W. M. (2012). Ensuring sustainability of tomorrow through green chemistry integrated with sustainable development concepts (SDCs). Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(2), 120-127.
Kempton, W. (1986). Two theories of home heat control. Cognitive Science, 10(1), 75-90.
Kollmus, A., & Agyemen, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
Lee, L.S., Lin, Y. K., Guu, Y. H., Chang, L. T., & Lai, C. C. (2013). The effect of hands-on ‘energy-saving house’ learning activities on elementary school students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior regarding energy saving and carbon-emissions reduction, Environmental Education Research, 19(5), 620-638.
Malandrakis, G., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2011). Global warming: Greek students’ belief in the usefulness of pro-environmental actions and their intention to take action. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 68(6), 947-963.
Meerah, T. S. M., Halim, L., & Nadeson, T. (2010). Environmental citizenship: What level of knowledge, attitude, skill and participation the students own? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5715-5719.
Moody, G. L., & Hartel, P. G. (2007). Evaluating an environmental literacy requirement chosen as a method to produce environmentally literate university students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(3), 355-370.
Olson, R., & Rothkrug, P. (1991). Mending the Earth: A World for Our Grandchildren. North Atlantic Books. 2800 Woolsey Street, Berkeley, CA 94705.
Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38(4), 462-483.
Ozsoy, S., Ertepinar, H., & Saglam, N. (2012). Can eco-schools improve elementary school students’ environmental literacy levels? In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching Vol. 13(2). Hong Kong Institute of Education. New Territories, Hong Kong.
Pe'er, S., Goldman, D., & Yavetz, B. (2007). Environmental literacy in teacher training: attitudes, knowledge, and environmental behavior of beginning students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 39(1), 45-59.
Rajecki, D. (1982). Attitudes: themes and advances. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Ramayah, T., Lee, J. W. C., & Lim, S. (2012). Sustaining the environment through recycling: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Management, 102, 141-147.
Rockcastle, V. (1989). Environmental literacy: Philosophy, content, strategies. Nature Study, 43(1-2), 8-9.
Rodríguez-Barreiro, L. M., Fernández-Manzanal, R., Serra, L. M., Carrasquer, J., Murillo, M. B., Morales, M. J., Calvo, J. M., & Valle, J. d. (2013). Approach to a causal model between attitudes and environmental behaviour. A graduate case study.Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 116-125.
Roth, C. E. (1968). On the road to conservation. Massachusetts Audubon, 52 (4) 38-41.
Roth, C. E. (1984). Elements of a workable strategy for developing and maintaining nationwide environmental literacy.Nature Study, 37, 46-48.
Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental Literacy: Its Roots, Evolution and Directions in the 1990s. Colombus, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and environment Education.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221-279.
Smyth, J. C. (1995). Environment and education: A view of a changing scene. Environmental Education Research, 1(1), 3-120.
Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self‐report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385-392.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322-348.
Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental education: Contradictions in purpose and practice. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 139-153.
Taylor, N., Tamar, D., Jenkins, K., & Kenelly, J. (2007). Environmental knowledge and attitude among a cohort of pre-service primary school teachers in Fuji. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 16(4), 131-149.
Tbilisi Convention. (1977). The Tbilisi Declaration. Intergovernmental Conference on Education. October 14-26, 1977.
Teksoz, G., Sahin, E., & Tekkaya-Oztekin, C. (2012). Modeling environmental literacy of university students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 157-166.
Wen, W. C., & Lu, S. Y. (2013). Marine environmental protection knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and curricular involvement of Taiwanese primary school students in senior grades. Environmental Education Research, 19(5), 600-619.
Wilke, R. (1995). Environmental literacy and the college curriculum-colleges and universities have a challenge to meet.Environmental Protection Agency Journal, 21, 28-30.
The Climate Change Attitude Survey is composed of 15 Likert-type attitudinal items selected to measure students’ beliefs and intentions toward the environment with a focus on climate change. This paper describes the development of the instrument and psychometric performance characteristics including reliability and validity. Data were gathered from 1576 middle school students from across the United States in 2014 to validate the instrument and establish the measurement properties of the instrument’s scales. Factor analysis revealed two stable constructs representing beliefs and intentions, which were reconfirmed through multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis techniques. Internal consistency reliability was found to be respectable for the survey as a whole as well as the two separate scales. The Climate Change Attitude Survey was created to fill a void in the measurement of middle school students’ affective responses to the environment and climate change. Educators may find this survey useful for assessing pre- to post intervention attitude changes as well as for identifying differences in selected groups of students. Further development is targeted to include adding new constructs as well as testing the instrument with different population subgroups.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Juhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-683.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitude and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Alwin, D.F., & Krosnick, J.A. (1991). Aging, cohorts, and the stability of sociopolitical orientations over the life span.American Journal of Sociology, 97(1), 169-195.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Balancing acts elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96(6), 967–989.
Ballantyne, R., Connell, S., & Fien, J. (2006). Students as catalysts of environmental change: A framework researching intergenerational influence through environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12(3/4), 413-427.
Benson, J., & Clark, F. (1982). A guide for instrument development and validation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36(12), 789-800.
Bialo, E. R., & Sivin-Kachala, J. (1996). The effectiveness of technology in schools: A summary of recent research. School Library Media Quarterly, 25(1), 51-57.
Boeve-de-Paw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). A cross-national perspective on youth environmental attitudes. The Environmentalist, 30(2), 133-144.
Bradley, J.C., Waliczek, R.M., & Zajicek, J.M. (1999). Relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 17-21.
Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Krupnick, A.J., Lampi, E., Lofgren, A., Qin, P., Chung, S., & Sterner, T. (2010). Paying for mitigation: a multiple country study. Discussion Paper. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Champeau, R. (1997). Environmental education in Wisconsin: Are we walking the talk? Stevens Point, WI: Wisconsin Center for Environmental Education.
Choi, S., Niyogi, D., Shepardson, D.P., & Charusombat, U. (2010). Do earth and environmental science textbooks promote middle and high school students’ conceptual development about climate change? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91(7), 889-898.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2002). Instruments for assessing the impact of technology in education. In L. Liu, L. Johnson, C. Maddux and N. Henderson (Eds.). Evaluation and Assessment in Educational Information Technology. New York, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2004). Validating a Handheld Computing Self-Efficacy Scale. In R. Ferdig, C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2004 (pp. 879-884). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davidson, D., & Freudenburg, W. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review of available research.Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 302-339.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications, (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
DeWaters, J., & Powers, S. (2013). Establishing measurement criteria for an energy literacy questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Education, 44(1), 38-55.
DeWaters, J., Qaqish, B., Graham, M., & Powers, S. (2013). Designing an energy literacy questionnaire for middle and high school youth. Journal of Environmental Education, 44(1), 56-78.
Dijkstra, E.M. & Goedhart, M.J. (2012). Development and validation of the ACSI: measuring students’ science attitudes, pro-environmental behaviour, climate change attitudes and knowledge. Environmental Education Research, 18(6), 733-749.
Dunn-Rankin, P., Knezek, G., Wallace, S., & Zhang, S. (2004). Scaling methods (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Europeans’ Attitudes toward climate change. (2009, July). Special Eurobarometer Report. European Commission.
Fortus, D. (2014). Attending to affect (editorial). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 821-835.
Gardos, V., & Dodd, D. (1995). An immediate response to environmentally disturbing news and the environmental attitudes of college students. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 1121-1122.
Haney, J.J., Czeriak, C.M., & Lumpe, A.T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 971-993.
Karpiak, C.P. & Baril, G.L. (2008). Moral reasoning and concern for the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 203-208. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.12.001.
Knafo, A., & Galansky, N. (2008). The influence of children on their parents’ values. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1143-1161.
Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (1996). Validating the computer attitude Questionnaire. Paper presented to the Southwest Educational Research Association annual conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, January, 1996.
Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Tyler-Wood, T., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2013). Impact of environmental power monitoring activities on middle school student perceptions of STEM. Science Education International, 21(1), 98-123.
Lawrenz, F. (1988). Prediction of student energy knowledge and attitudes. School Science and Mathematics, 88(7), 543-549.
Le Hebel, R., Montpied, P., & Fontanieu, V. (2014). What can influence students’ environmental attitudes? Results from a study of 15-year-old students in France. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9(3), 329-345.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Howe, P. (2013). Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in April, 2013. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
Leppanen, J.M., Haahla, A.E., Lensu, A.M., & Kuitunen, M.T. (2012). Parent-child similarity in environmental attitudes: A pairwise comparison. Journal of Environmental Education, 43(3), 162-176.
McMillan, E.E., Wright, T., & Beazley, K. (2004). Impact of a university-level environmental studies class on students’ values.Journal of Environmental Education, 35(3), 19-28.
Meinhold, J., & Malkus, A. (2005). Adolescent environmental behaviors. Can knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy make a difference? Environment and Behavior, 37(4), 511-532.
Metin, M. (2010). A study on development a general attitude scale about environmental issues for students in different grade levels. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 1-19.
Milfont, T.L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80-94.
Mills, L., Wakefield, J., Najmi, A., Surface, D., Christensen, R. & Knezek, G. (2011). Validating the computer attitude questionnaire NSF ITEST (CAQ N/I). In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 1572-1579). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Musser, L.M., & Malkus, A.J. (1994). The children’s attitudes toward the environment scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 94(25), 22-26.
Peterman, K., Kermish-Allen, R., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). Measuring student career interest within the context of technology-enhanced STEM projects: A cross-project comparison study based on the Career Interest Questionnaire. (Unpublished manuscript submitted for publication).
Robertson, W.H., & Barbosa, A.C. (2015). Global climate change and the need for relevant curriculum. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 10(1), 35-44.
Sarkar, M. (2011). Secondary students’ environmental attitudes: The case of environmental education in Bangladesh. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 1(3), 106-116.
Schultz, P.W., Gouveia, V.V., Cameron, L.D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franek, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457-475.
Sears, D.O., & Funk, C.L. (1999). Evidence of the long-term persistence of adults’ political predispositions. Journal of Politics, 61(1), 1-28.
Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P.R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343.
Sinatra, G.M., Kardash, C.M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2012). Promoting attitude change and expressed willingness to take action toward climate change in college students. Instructional Science, 40(1), 1-17.
SPSS. (2010). IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Tosunglu, C. (1993). A study on the dimension and determinants of environmental attitudes. PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Tyler-Wood, T., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2010). Instruments for assessing interest in STEM content and careers.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 341-363.
Weigel, R., & Weigel, R. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environment and Behavior, 10(1), 3-15.
Yilmaz, O., Boone, W.J., & Andersen, H.O. (2004). Views of elementary and middle school Turkish students toward environmental issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1527-1546.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.