Assessing environmental literacy of university

Applied Environmental Education & Communication

ISSN: 1533-015X (Print) 1533-0389 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueec20

Assessing environmental literacy of university students: A case study of Shahid Beheshti University in Iran Hadi Veisi, Michael Lacy, Salah Mafakheri & Fatemeh Razaghi To cite this article: Hadi Veisi, Michael Lacy, Salah Mafakheri & Fatemeh Razaghi (2018): Assessing environmental literacy of university students: A case study of Shahid Beheshti University in Iran, Applied Environmental Education & Communication, DOI: 10.1080/1533015X.2018.1431163 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2018.1431163

Published online: 12 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueec20

APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION , VOL. , NO. , – https://doi.org/./X..

Assessing environmental literacy of university students: A case study of Shahid Beheshti University in Iran Hadi Veisia , Michael Lacyb , Salah Mafakheria , and Fatemeh Razaghia a

Research Centre of Education for Environmentally Sustainable Development, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran; b Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

ABSTRACT

As a reflective activity at niche scale in transition management for system-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies, this study aimed to evaluate student environmental literacy (EL) and assess the effects of sociodemographic variables on the level of EL among students at Shahid Beheshti University in Iran. A total of 1,068 students took the EL test. The test had four parts: knowledge, attitude, sensitivity, and concern. The findings indicated that students had a positive attitude and a high degree of concern and showed sensitivity to the environment, but they had only low-tomoderate levels of knowledge. The sociodemographic variables of gender, age, and environmental experience had a significant effect on EL and mass media served as the main source of environmental information. Finally, recommendations are made regarding the cultivation of the results into effective content (what) and ways of teaching and learning (how) EL at niche level of universities.

Abbreviations EL REB SBU MDGs TMA HE EE

Environmental Literacy Responsible Environmental Behaviors Shahid Beheshti University Millennium Development Goals Transition Management approach Higher Education Environmental Education

Introduction The emergence of destructive environmental problems can be reduced in societies if its citizens develop environmental literacy (EL) (Hsu & Roth, 1996; CONTACT Hadi Veisi [email protected] Research Centre of Education for Environmentally Sustainable Development, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. ©  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

2

H. VEISI ET AL.

Olson & Rothkrug, 1991; Wilke, 1995; Ergodan et al., 2009). The presumption here is that environmentally literate citizens will demonstrate more responsible behavior (REB) toward protecting the environment (Shamuganathan & Karpudewan, 2015; Stevenson, 2007). Through educational institutions such as colleges and universities, society has an opportunity to foster a sense of citizenship in a multitude of ways. One of these is to utilize ecological citizenship as a policy objective for sustainability plans and policies (Hart, 2014; Mead, 2013). Colleges and universities can serve as ideal models of sustainability, as learning laboratories for communities and can provide places where students can develop new habits. Building EL among students is critical to meeting current and emerging environmental challenges and facilitate transformation to a greener society (Stevenson, 2007). This is crucial for Shahid Beheshti University (SBU), which is a major institution of higher education (HE) that leads in the development of knowledge, education, and research about the environment in Iran. As the first center of excellence for sustainable development and a center of education for environmental sustainability, different programs and research about the environment are on-going at SBU. Despite these research programs, there remains a lack of solid educational programs and curriculum about the environment. To overcome this obstacle, a program called “the knowledge tree” is currently under development at SBU. The goal of this program is to highlight the importance of multidisciplinary sciences such as environmental programs in the different academic colleges and departments. Consistent with Stephens and Graham (2010), this program could be a part of transition management approach (TMA) of HE at niche scale that highlights the critical importance of interfaces and shared learning among different niche-level initiatives (Schot & Geels, 2008). These changes are being planned to assist students and faculty to create a resilient and sustainable community within the context of climate change, the UN Millennium Development Goals, and the Education 2030 Agenda. A TMA specifies four types of activity (strategic, tactical, operational, and reflexive) through bottom-up processes (Loorbach, 2007). Reflexive activities often influence activity at the strategic level by contributing to Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) to learn from experience, stimulate coordinated strategies and collaborative programs, and build new visions concerning critical conditions to accelerate the transition to a truly sustainable society (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2010). At the reflexive level, activities include evaluation and assessment of the current situation at various levels (Stephens & Graham, 2010). The evaluation of current knowledge of the students about the environment is a major part of the program at SBU. The target is to achieve a better perspective to amend programs and curriculum in the related colleges. Accordingly, the present study examined the levels of EL in terms of student knowledge, attitude, sensitivity, and concern in order to understand the levels of EL at SBU as the first step to planning for the development of EL in students as well as system-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies.

APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION

3

Theoretical background EE has a well-developed approach. It has a set of goals and a framework that has been laid out in The Belgrade Charter (UNESCO–UNEP, 1976) and Tbilisi Declaration (Hart, 2010, UNESCO–UNEP, 1978). The principles presented in the charter are still widely acknowledged in spite of further developments in the field (Goldman, Yavetz, & Pe’er, 2014; Hollweg et al., 2011; NAAEE, 2010; NEEAC, 2005). Central to EE is the aim to develop an environmentally literate citizenry; the term “environmental literacy” describes knowledge and skills that can be more wide-ranging than issues specific to environmental sciences (Bodzin, Shiner, & Weaver, 2010). Roth (1992) stated that effective EE was essential in order to develop environmentally literate citizens with attitudes and sensitivity as well as appropriate knowledge on environmental concerns. Such citizens should also have a set of related problem-solving, planning and collaborative skills, and action strategies. According to Hungerford (1977), cultivating environmentally literate individuals, able to take action on critical environmental issues and willing to take that action, is an important goal of EE. Disinger and Roth (1992) proposed what is now a generally accepted definition of EL: “Environmental literacy is essentially the capacity to perceive and interpret the relative health of environmental systems and take appropriate action to maintain, restore, or improve the health of those systems (p. 2)”. Its components are described as environmental sensitivity, knowledge, skills, attitudes and values, personal investment and responsibility, and active involvement. Furthermore, EL should increase an individual’s sensitivity, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values toward the environment (Disinger & Roth, 2003). Based on the EE goal statements from the Belgrade Workshop (Stapp, 1976), the aims of the Tbilisi Conference, and objectives described in Hungerford, Peyton, and Wilk (1980), various conceptual frameworks for EL have been developed. For instance, Simmons (1995) in the North American Association of Environmental Education Standards Project, describes seven categories of EL: Affect, ecological knowledge, sociopolitical knowledge, knowledge of environmental issues, skills, potential determinants of environmentally responsible patterns of behavior, and active environmentally REB. On the presumption that individual environmental behavior is a direct reflection of a person’s EL (NAAEE, 2004), Goldman et al. (2014); Roth, 1992; Wilke, 1995 suggest an EL model using environmental attitude, belief, conservation knowledge and REB and interrelationships of these components (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fietkau & Kessel, 1981; Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002). In this model, EL was formulated according to variables believed to influence the formation of REB and it followed from the claim that societies need EL members in order to develop more environmentally REB (Roth, 1992; Texas et al., 2012). More specifically, Roth (1992) proposes a three-level developmental continuum for individual acquisition of EL: nominal, functional, and operational. Roth also proposes identification in three levels: (1) nominal: the nominal level of EL implies “ability to recognize many of the basic terms used in communicating about the environment and to provide rough, if unsophisticated, working definitions of their

4

H. VEISI ET AL.

meanings”; (2) functional: functional level implies “a broader knowledge and understanding of the nature and interactions between human social systems and other natural systems”; and (3) operational level: operational, indicating “progress beyond functional literacy in both the breadth and depth of understandings and skills. Lastly, taking results of this research on EL as a reference, this investigation has been based on ideas of EL proposed in Varisli (2009). These include the following components: 1. Environmental knowledge: Environmental knowledge includes all the cognitive understandings of the environment and its associated problems (Roth, 1992). 2. Environmental attitude: Attitudes refers to set of values and feelings of concern for the environment and motivation for actively participating in environmental improvement and protection (UNESCO, 1978). 3. Environmental sensitivity: Environmental sensitivity refers to a set of affective attributes that determine an empathetic view of the environment (Petersen, 1982). 4. Environmental concern: Environmental concern refers to a sympathetic perspective toward the environment (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Predictors of environmental literacy Even though development of an environmentally literate citizenry has long been recognized as the key goal of EE, sufficient emphasis has not been given to research on the factors that help to acquire EL. New research has started to develop a vision of this area. Several attempts have been made to identify the predictors of EL as REB. Previous meta-analyses (Hornik, Cherian, Madansky, & Narayana, 1995; Varisli, 2009; Vanine et al., 2016) and empirical studies (Arnon, Orion, & Carmi, 2015; Shamuganathan & Karpudewan, 2015; Barr, 2007) and models (Genc & Akilli, 2016; Hungerford & Volk, 1990) have revealed four main categories of variables that predict EL as REB. These categories are: 1. Personality factors (perception of moral responsibility, environmental concern, environmental sensitivity, locus of control, environmental attitudes and responsibility, verbal commitment, values, etc.); 2. Cognitive factors (knowledge and skills); 3. Demographic factors (age, gender, income, residence, parental education level, etc.); 4. External factors (external influences, pressure groups, opportunities to choose different actions, etc.). Varisli (2009) analyzed the possible predictors of EL and asserted that the main variables that affect EL level are gender, parental educational level, parental work status, and source of information about environmental knowledge. Similarly, AtabekYi˘git, Köklükaya, Yavuz, and Demirhan (2014) explored the correlation between teacher EL level and demographic characteristics. They reported that income level had no effect on preservice teacher EL, but that variables including gender, level of environmental interest, presence of an environmentally conscious family member,


5

exposure to natural areas, participating in environmental activities, and taking EE courses at the university were found to be effective. In order to determine factors affecting EL, and consistent with the models of Varisli (2009) and Genc and Akilli (2016), the current study modified and classified factors into two groups such that each group embraced several variables from among EL elements (environmental concern, environmental sensitivity, environmental attitudes, environmental knowledge) and demographic factors (age, gender, parental level of education, and environmental experience). Material and methods Study area

SBU is one of the most prestigious universities in Iran. Established in 1959, SBU combines the tradition of a classic university with the dynamic characteristics of a modern and interdisciplinary scientific enterprise. Since 1990, the university has placed more emphasis on postgraduate (especially PhD) and research programs, while still aiming to enhance the quality of its well-established undergraduate courses. At SBU, there are 69 programs at the bachelor’s degree level, 208 at the master’s degree level, and 136 at the PhD degree level. There are 7,343 bachelor’s level, 7,854 master’s level, and 2,145 PhD level students studying at the university. Method

The study was conducted as a campus-wide survey of students across all colleges and 160 departments at SBU during the autumn and spring semesters in 2015. The EL model was derived from a survey using a questionnaire to investigate EL levels among students. Its four main components were knowledge, attitude, sensitivity, and concerns. In addition, the study included evaluation of the effects of sociodemographic variables such as age, gender, level of parent education, and environmental experiences on EL. Sampling procedure

Participants in this study were 1,068 SBU students in Tehran, the capital of Iran. SBU is one of the largest public universities in Iran with almost 18,000 students, 20 faculties, and 120 departments. Sample size was calculated for power of 0.95 and α = 0.05 and the actual sample size for this study was n = 1,068. Students were selected by stratified random sampling to represent a proportion of the total population. Accordingly, 673 undergraduate students (63%) and 352 graduate students were selected. Instrument

The aim of this study was to evaluate levels of EL among students and to assess effects of sociodemographic variables on the levels of EL, the first step was to construct a

6

H. VEISI ET AL.

questionnaire that addressed all these aspects. As an instrument, the EL Survey from Kaplowitz and Levine (2005) and Varisli (2009)) was adapted to fit these aims. It included four parts: knowledge (13 items), attitude (15 items), sensitivity (11 items), and concern (12 items). It also included five items as demographic variables (age, gender, parent education, environmental experiences, and sources of information). The first draft was developed partially on the basis of previous research conducted by the researchers as well as other EE studies (Goldman et al., 2014; Kaplowitz & Levine, 2005; Morrone, Mancl, & Carr, 2001; Schindler, 1999, Goldman, Yavetz, & Pe’er, 2006; Varisli, 2009, Bradley, Waliczek, & Zajicek, 1999; Yavetz, Pe’er, & Goldman, 2011, Veisi & Zarandian, 2011). Each aspect of EL, knowledge, attitude, and sensitivity was addressed in the questionnaire by multiple-choice. In all categories, the Liker t-type scale was used; and evaluations were given according to five responses, from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). The concern dimension comprised of 12 items, including student concerns about local and global environmental problems, such as “air pollution” or “global warming.” For the concern items, the Liker t-type choices were given a score according to “very concerned” (5) through to, “not at all concerned” (1). Statistical reliability was measured by the Cronbach alpha value for each scale in the final instrument ranged from 0.66 to 0.81. The content validated draft was administered as a pilot study of 30 first-year students. The final questionnaire was constructed according to results obtained in the pilot study. Alpha values were determined for all categories acceptable as greater than 0.5 (Nunally, 1978). A panel of six environmental science experts (faculty members in science, science education, and environmental science departments) evaluated content validity of the draft and the questionnaire was revised according to their comments. Data analysis

The survey responses were entered into a worksheet in Excel 2013 that were then coded based on the Liker t-type scale employed according to sections of knowledge, attitude, sensitivity, and concern. Following coding, data were imported into SPSS 10.0 for Windows for statistical analysis. Compound scores for each section and then for the survey as a whole were then calculated. Analytical statistics included: t-test to evaluate differences in EL variables between gender; ANOVA procedures to evaluate differences in EL among students regarding variables of age, parent educational level, and EE experience. These tests were conducted at the α = 0.01 and α = 0.05 level. Pearson’s correlations were determined following tests to rule out multicollinearity of EL variables. Finally, descriptive statistics were used to evaluate means, standard deviations, and percentages. Findings Demographic characteristics of respondents

A wide variety of academic majors were represented in the sample of 1,068 students. The majority of respondents fell within the age range of 20 to 25 years (66%), gender


7

Table . Mean and standard deviation of the environmental knowledge of students (N = ). Statements Environmental concerns are a priority area of Iran Ecology deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings The main cause of air pollution and global warming is the burning of fossil fuels for energy Melting sea ice has risen sea level Acid rain occurs only in industrial areas Dam construction leads to the current velocity of natural ecosystems Eutrophication, bringing with it high amounts of phosphates and nitrates, often indirectly harm the environment by causing bacterial growth and huge algae blooms Sulfur hexafluoride (SF) is the main cause of the ozone depletion Domestic discharge of waste is the main source of pollution of water and soil as well as environmental degradation The main cause of the extinction of plant and animal species is human-caused habitat destruction. Environmental problems caused by overpopulation Wetlands changes in the local water cycle affect dust emissions Migration and related remittance are key elements that affect land use both within cities, and the rural areas

Mean

Std. Deviation

. .

. .

.

.

. . .

. . .

.

.

. .

. .

.

.

. . .

. . .

Scale: (). Strongly disagree. (). Disagree. (). Neither agree nor disagree. (). Agree. (). Strongly agree.

distribution was approximately even (51% male and 49% female). Most of the SBU student population constituted undergraduate students, and among these, 63% of respondents were undergraduates, 33% graduates, and 4% PhD students. 91% of respondents had some experience of EE.

Environmental knowledge As mentioned earlier, students responded to an environmental knowledge scale consisting of 13 items, divided into two categories: knowledge of environmental issues that included local issues such as using energy, pollution, recycling and conservation of habitats for creatures; and ecological knowledge that focused on interrelationships between creatures and their habitats. Table 1 presents the results obtained from student responses to each item on the scale. Measurement of the environmental knowledge ranged from 0 to 2.49 as low level knowledge, 2.50 to 3.49 as mid-level knowledge, and 3.50 to 5.00 as high level knowledge. Results showed that students had a high level of knowledge about “Melting polar ice has risen sea level” and “the effect of migration and related remittance on land use both in cities, and rural areas.” This indicated that students were well informed about interrelationships between components of their environment. The results also showed that students had a moderate level of environmental knowledge on issues such as environmental concerns, ecology, effects of dam construction, overpopulation, global warming, and the impact of humancaused habitat destruction in relation to extinction of plant and animal species. The lower mean scores were determined for items on acid rain, the effects of the domestic waste discharge on water pollution, wetland changes, ozone depletion, and eutrophication.

8

H. VEISI ET AL.

Table . Mean and standard deviation of the environmental attitude dimension of students (N = ). Statements               

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the Earth unlivable Humans are seriously abusing the environment Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . .

. . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

. .

.

.

. .

. .


Attitude toward the environment Table 2 shows the results of student responses to an environmental attitude scale consisting of 15 items, taken from the revised New Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dunlap et al., 2008). The environmental attitude scale for students was divided into three, ranging from 0 to 2.49 as a negative attitude, to 2.50 to 3.99 as moderate level attitude to 4 to 5 as a positive attitude using means of responses. The results presented in Table 2 show that students had a negative attitude toward the item “Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs” (Mean = 2.32, SD = 1. 01). They had a moderate level attitude to statements on animal and plant rights, ecological crises, overpopulation, and the disastrous consequences of human activities. Students, however, showed a positive attitude toward items related to the balance of nature, human capacity to control and develop nature. Sensitivity to the environment The sensitivity dimension included 11 items and dealt with the students’ ideas on the use of environmental services and their responsibilities. The highest score for sensitivity was 55 and the lowest score was 11. A higher score represented more sensitivity toward the environment. Table 3 presents mean scores for items and standard deviations of responses of sensitivity in relation to the environment. Results indicated that the highest agreement for students was obtained for items; “I pay attention when I hear about environmental issues (Mean = 3.82, SD = 0.953)”


9

Table . Mean and standard deviation of the environmental sensitivity dimension of students (N = ). Statements           

I perform my everyday business activities in an environmentally friendly manner I pay attention when I hear about environmental issues Collective action (i.e., Movements) is central to solving environmental problems It is important that everyone be aware of environmental problems I feel personally responsible for helping to solve environmental problems People should be held responsible for any damages they cause to the environment Nature and the environment have been invaluable just due to entertainment services I perceive myself as very concerned about environmental issues in my community I perceive myself as a sensitive person about energy usage (i.e., Turning off lights and shut off water faucets) Green purchasing is the most effective way to reduce and minimize the adverse impact on human health and the environment I am personally concerned about water shortage in Tehran that is a sensitive subject

Mean

Std. Deviation

.

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


followed by “Collective action (i.e., movements) is central to solving environmental problems (Mean = 3.97, SD = 0.90)” and “I feel personally responsible for helping to solve environmental problems (Mean = 3.91, SD = 1. 04).” While the highest agreement related to the importance of a participatory approach to solving environmental problems, the item with the least agreement was that relating to water shortage. The item “I am personally concerned about water shortage in Tehran that is a sensitive subject” received the lowest agreement in student responses (Mean = 2.22, SD = 1. 33); followed by “Nature and environment are invaluable just due to entertainment services” (Mean = 2.99, SD = 1. 39). In brief, students had moderate sensitivity to environmental issues. Concern for environmental problems In this part, students were asked to express their level of concern about environmental problems. The highest mean score for concern was 4.93 and the lowest mean score was 3.62. A higher score demonstrated a higher level of concern toward environmental problems. Mean scores and standard deviations of each item are given in Table 4. Table 4 illustrates that the highest concern for students was obtained for air pollution and dust and noise pollution, followed by those related to loss of biodiversity and global warming. Moreover, students reported a serious concern about overpopulation and water shortage. In addition, waste management and groundwater depletion were also serious concerns. The results presented in Table 5 show that respondents reported frequent exposure to ecological information from radio and television (Mean = 4.56, SD = 1. 106), followed by websites (Mean = 4.07, SD = 1. 121), journals and newspapers (Mean = 3.78, SD = 1. 60), and workshops and group education methods

10

H. VEISI ET AL.

Table . Mean and standard deviation of the environmental concerns dimension of students (N = ).

           

Statements

Mean

Std. Deviation

Soil erosion Noise pollution Loss of biodiversity Noise pollution Waste management Energy intensity Over-hunting Overpopulation Water shortage Groundwater depletion Global warming Air pollution and dust

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Scale: (). Not at all concerned. (). Not very concerned. (). Neither nor. (). Fairly concerned. (). Very concerned.

(Mean = 3.66, SD = 1. 08). However, information on ecology was occasionally passed on through events and festivals (Mean = 2.98, SD = 1. 29), seminars and conferences (Mean = 2.07, SD = 1. 189). Results showed that a high level of exposure to ecological information was accessed from popular media sources, and a much lower level of exposure was from school and college experiences.. This resembles the findings of Ogunjinmi, Oluwatuyi, and Oniya (2015), in that a sample of students in Nigeria overwhelmingly selected electronic media as their primary source of knowledge on environmental issues. Correlations among components of EL

Consistent with other work (Hwang et al., 2000; Teksoz, Sahin, & Tekkaya-Oztekin, 2012), these results demonstrate that environmental attitude had the strongest correlation (r = 0.70) with students’ personal sensitivity toward environmental protection while correlation between environmental knowledge and sensitivity was the weakest (r = 0.12). Except for the correlation between knowledge and attitude and sensitivity, all correlations for other pairs of scales of EL measures were statistically significant and positive (Table 6). Table . Usage of sources of environmental information by students (N = ).

         

Information sources

Mean

Std. Deviation

Conversation with families and friends Workshop and group education methods Websites Phone and mobile School and college Journals, newspapers, and books Radio and TV Seminar and conferences Events and festivals Films

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

Scale: (). Never, (). Not very often, (). Sometimes, () Often, () Very often.


11

Table . Correlation between components of environmental literacy. Components

Knowledge

Attitude

Sensitive

Concern

Knowledge Attitude Sensitive Concern

 . . .∗∗

 .∗∗ .∗∗

 .∗∗



∗∗ p < .

Evaluation of the variables affecting EL

Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to identify variables that affected EL among students. Dependent variables were the four environmental scales (knowledge, attitude, sensitive, and concern), with demographic variables of age, gender, parent education, and EE experience as predictors. Of these, only three variables had a significant influence on EL (p < 0.05). Gender, age, and parent education level were related to EL. Also, EE experience was related to knowledge and attitude. Furthermore, results showed a statistically significant effect of age on students’ environmental sensitivity. Similarly, consistent with Makki, Abd-El-Khalick, and Boujaoude (2003), results indicated a statistically significant effect of parent education level on attitude, sensitivity, and concern (Table 7). Results and discussion Given the main role of human activity in the growing environmental crisis, an increased focus on REB among youth, especially in colleges and universities is critical. EL can be evaluated from understanding the behavior of an individual to the environment (Roth, 1992; Wilke, 1995), based on this assumption that variables that foster EL can predict REB, EL variables are commonly acknowledged as indicators of REB (Hines et al. 1985; Hsu, 2004; Sia, Hungerford & Tomera, 1986). In this way, various measures have been included as components of EL in an attempt to improve REB (Roth, 1992; Shamuganathan & Karpudewan, 2015; Teksoz et al., 2012). Accordingly, this study was conducted as the first of its kind to focus on EL as a reflective activity at niche scale in transition management for system-wide changes in universities in the context of Iran. Levels of EL were measured among students Table . The effects of variables on four scales of environmental literacy. Knowledge Test Age Gender Parents’ educational level Environmental education experiences

Attitude

Sensitive

Concern

Environmental literacy

Sig.

Test

Sig.

Test

Sig.

Test

Sig.

Test

Sig.

F = . . T = . . F = .  .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

T = .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

12

H. VEISI ET AL.

in colleges to investigate the relationship between EL components and sociodemographic factors. It provided more empirical evidence about efficacy of EL framework. The present study explored EL among university students at SBU, Iran. Furthermore, in line with other studies (Shamuganathan & Karpudewan, 2015; Teksoz et al., 2012) and based on the theory of planned behavior, the effects of gender, parent education level, environmental educational experiences and age on students’ EL were evaluated, as well as correlations among endogenous variables (EL components). Rather, we find a variety of different approaches and conclude by providing recommendations for a comprehensive typology of actors in sustainability transitions. Descriptive results of the EL test pointed out that the students had the higher mean scores on attitude and concern, while they had relatively low and moderate scores on knowledge. Concerning high score of students in answering questions related to their daily life experiences (such as ice-melting and migration stemming from environmental issues) in line with Chu et al. (2007), it can be argued that ecological knowledge among students was low, while knowledge of environmental issues was considerably higher. These results resemble those of previous studies (Dimopoulos & Pantis 2003; Pe’er, Goldman, & Yavetz, 2007; Shamuganathan & Karpudewan 2015) showing that although environmental knowledge was limited among students, overall, attitudes, concerns, and sensitivity toward the environment were positive because of some reasons. Regarding these reasons, and according to the results of this study, a low positive correlation was established between knowledge and attitude. Similarly, Altınöz (2010), Aminrad, Zakariya, Had, and Sakari (2013), Genc and Akilli (2016), Kuhlemeier, Bergh, and Lagerweij (1999), Liu, Yeh, Liang, Fang, and Tsai (2015), and Timur (2011) found a positive but weak correlation between knowledge and attitude. Given the fact that the direction of the correlation was important, regardless of size, it can be maintained that students with adequate environmental knowledge would also have a more positive attitude. Likewise, it can be argued that students with higher attitudes are more willing to acquire knowledge about the environment. In this sense, previous studies have recommend that having knowledge on an objective would reinforce attitudes related to that objective (Engleson & Yockers, 1994). A high positive correlation was established between concern and knowledge, attitude, and sensitivity toward the environment in this study. This is in good agreement with the studies of Varisli (2009) and Ökesli (2008), which report a positive correlation between concern and knowledge, attitude, and sensitivity among EL. Given this result, it can be concluded that students were knowledgeable about and interested in environmental issues; a more positive attitude toward environmental issues was related to a higher level of sensitivity toward environment and concern about environmental problems (Disinger & Roth, 2003; Varisli, 2009; Vaninee et al., 2016). Results also statistically revealed the significant effects of gender, age, and parent educational level on EL. According to the arguments set out in Roth (1992) and Ben-Peretz et al., (2013), EL is equivalent to developing REB. Based on structural theories, female REB was more likely to stem from beliefs about the detrimental effects of environmental problems for self (egocentric) (Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993;


13

Tikka, Kuitunen, & Tynys, 2000), others (altruism), and biosphere (ecocentric). Similar to the findings of this study, Bord and O’Connor (1997) suggests that gender differences in environmental attitude stems from gender differences in the perceived vulnerability to risk from the environment, rather than from differences in ecological sensibility between women and men. Concerning sources of information about the environment, these results revealed that the mass media was its main source, with the majority of students reporting that they depended mainly on television, newspapers, and the Internet to obtain environmental knowledge. This resonates with agenda setting theory that has been found in many other studies (e.g., Coyle, 2005; Huang & Yore, 2003; Michaels et al., 2007; O’Brein, 2007). Drawing upon these theories, they argued that the mass media can be particularly effective in driving the community’s concern about the environment as well as also affect the public’s judgment of environmental issues. Where such concern is raised, community will respond by increasing the extent of disclosure of environmental information (Brown & Deegan, 1998). The results indicate that higher levels of media attention are significantly associated with higher levels of environmental knowledge. Students were relatively familiar with issues of environmental pollution such as global warming, ozone layer depletion, air pollution, and water pollution, because stories related to these topics were covered in media. Implications for the curriculum in universities Recommendations are proposed for considering sustainable transitions in higher education to cultivate the results of this study into effective content (what), teaching methods, and learning (how) EL at the niche level of universities. The results of this study indicated ways to improve the quality of EE in Iran. Because students’ knowledge about ecological processes was limited, but they had some general information about issues such as global warming and ozone layer depletion, curriculum developers and managers should consider teaching more about basic ecological concepts such as the water cycle, energy flow, landscape dynamics, and interrelationships between humans and animals. In order to improve student environmental knowledge, topics about the environment might be infused with units on ecology, and the units in the science curriculum. Teachers should provide opportunities for students to express their knowledge about these concepts in order to identify and eliminate misconceptions. Participatory approaches (i.e., Bio Blitzes) are the most effective way to change values in HEI members in order to facilitate the development and sharing of new sustainability and environmental norms (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2010). The participatory approach of Bio Blitzes that is based on demand-driven learning should support the exchange of knowledge within groups as well as creating collective intelligence (Roger & Klistorner, 2016). The results of the present study also indicated that gender affected student EL. In order to redress the gender imbalance, educators should focus on methods used to engage boys and girls in tackling environmental problems. The current study also has implications for parents. Given the effects of the mother’s and father’s level of education and the mother’s occupation on

14

H. VEISI ET AL.

student EL, special attention should be given to students of parents with low levels of education.

Funding This work was supported by the Shaheed Behishti University.

References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Altınöz, N. (2010). Fen bilgisiögretmenadaylarınınçevreokuryazarlıkdüzeyleri ˘ [Environmental literacy levels of prospective science teachers] (Unpublished master dissertation). Sakarya, Turkey: Sakarya University. Aminrad, Z., Zakariya, S. Z. B. S., Had, A. S., & Sakari, M. (2013). Relationship between awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards environmental education among secondary school students in Malaysia. World Applied Sciences Journal, 22(9), 1326–1333. Arnon, S., Orion, N., & Carmi, N. (2015). Environmental literacy components and their promotion by institutions of higher education: An Israeli case study. Environmental Education Research, 21(7), 1029–1055. doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.966656 Atabek-Yi˘git, E., Köklükaya, N., Yavuz, M., & Demirhan, E. (2014). Development and validation of environmental literacy scale for adults (ELSA). Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(3), 425–435. Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A UK case study of household waste management. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 435–473. doi:10.1177/0013916505283421 Ben-Peretz, M., Kleeman, S., Reichenberg, R., & Shimoni, S. (2013 eds). Embracing the social and the creative: new scenarios for teacher education. Plymouth, UK: The MOFET Institute and Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Bodzin, A. M., Shiner, B., & Weaver, S. (2010). The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education. New York: Springer. Bord, R. J., & O’Connor, R. E. (1997). The gender gap in environmental attitudes: The case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 830–840. Bradley, J. C., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (1999). Relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 17–21. doi:10.1080/00958969909601873 Brown, N., & Deegan, C. (1998). The public disclosure of environmental performance information—a dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 29(1), 21–41. doi:10.1080/00014788.1998.9729564 Chu, H., Lee, E. A., Ko, H. R., Shin, D. H., Lee, M. N., Min, B. M., & Hee, K. (2007). Korean source 3 children’s environmental literacy: A prerequisite for a Korean environmental education curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 731–746. doi:10.1080/09500690600823532 Coyle, K. (2005). Environmental literacy in America: What ten years of NEETF/ Roper research and related studies say about EL in the U.S. Washington, DC: The National Environmental Education Training Foundation. Dimopoulos, D., & Pantis, J. D. (2003). Knowledge and attitudes regarding sea turtles in elementary students on Zakynthos, Greece. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(3), 30–38.


15

Disinger, J. F., & Roth, C. E. (2003). Environmental literacy. ERIC/ Clearinghouse for science, mathematics and environmental education. CSMEE Digest. Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 3–18. doi:10.3200/JOEE.40.1.3-18 Engleson, D. C., & Yockers, D. H. (1994). A guide to curriculum planning in environmental education (2nd ed.). Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Ferrer-Balas, D., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Buckland, H., Ysern, P., & Zilahy, G. (2010). Going beyond the rhetoric: System-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 607–610. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.009 Fietkau, H. J., & Kessel, H. (1981). Umweltlernen: Veränderungsmöglichkeiten des Umweltbewusstseins. Modelle – Erfahrungen. Königstein/Ts.: Hain. In: J., Schahn & T., Giesinger (1993; Ed.): Psychologiefür den Umweltschutz. Hemsbach: PsychologieVerlags Union. Genc, M., & Akilli, M. (2016). Modeling the relationships between subdimensions of environmental literacy. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 15(1), 58–74 doi:10.1080/1533015X.2016.1141724 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. doi:10.3200/JOEE.38.1.3-22 Goldman, D., Yavetz, B., & Pe’er, S. (2014). Student teachers’ attainment of environmental literacy in relation to their disciplinary major during undergraduate studies. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9(4), 369–382. Hart, P. (2014). Environmental education and science education. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education. London: Springer. Hart, P. (2010). No longer a ‘little added frill’: The transformative power of environmental education for educational change. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(4), 155–178. Hines, J. M. (1985). An analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(3), 665-A. UMI No. DER85–10027. Hollweg, K. S., Taylor, J. R., Bybee, R. W., Marcinkowski, T. J., McBeth, W. C., & Zoido, P. (2011). Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy. Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental Education. Available at http://www.naaee.net. Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M., & Narayana, C. (1995). Determinants of recycling behavior: A synthesis of research results. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 24(1), 105–127. doi:10.1016/1053-5357(95)90032-2 Hsu, H. S. (2004). The effect of an environmental education program on responsible environmental behavior and associated environmental literacy variables in Taiwanese college students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(2), 37–48. 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. doi:10.1080/00958964.1996.9942812 Huang, H-P., & Yore, L. D. (2003). A comparative study of Canadian and Taiwanese grade 5 children’s environmental behaviors, attitudes, concerns, emotional dispositions, and knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(4), 449–448. Hungerford, H. R., Peyton, B., & Wilk, R. (1980). Goal for curriculum development in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 11(3), 42–47. doi:10.1080/00958964.1980.9941381 Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21. doi:10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743

16

H. VEISI ET AL.

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. Kaplowitz, M. D., & Levine, R. (2005). How environmental knowledge measures up at a Big Ten university. Environmental Education Research, 11(2), 143–160. doi:10.1080/1350462042000338324 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. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401 Kuhlemeier, H., Bergh, V. D. H., & Lagerweij, N. (1999). Environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in Dutch secondary education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(2), 4–14. doi:10.1080/00958969909601864 Liu, S. Y., Yeh, S. C., Liang, S. W., Fang, W. T., & Tsai, H. M. (2015). A national ınvestigation of teachers’ environmental literacy as a reference for promoting environmental education in Taiwan. The Journal of Environmental Education, 46(2), 114–132. doi:10.1080/00958964.2014.999742 Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management: New mode of Governance for sustainable development. Utrecht: International Books. Makki, M., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Boujaoude, S. (2003). Lebanese secondary school students’ environmental knowledge and attitudes. Environmental Education Research, 9(1), 21–34. doi:10.1080/13504620303468 Mead, E. M. (2013). Promoting Lasting Ecological Citizenship among College Students (Theses and Dissertations). Paper 1289. Michaels, S., O’Connor, C. and Resnick, L. B. (2007). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable Talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4): 283–297. Morrone, M., Mancl, K., & Carr, K. (2001). Development of a metric to test group differences in ecological knowledge as one component of environmental literacy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 33–42. doi:10.1080/00958960109598661 National Environmental Education Advisory Council (NEEAC). (2005). Setting the standard, measuring results, celebrating successes–A report to Congress on the status of Environmental education in the United States. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/education/pdf/ reporttocongress2005.pdf. NAAEE. (2004). Excellence in environmental education: Guidelines for learning (K–12). Washington, DC: Author. Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE). (2010). Excellence in Environmental Education: Guidelines for Learning (K-12). Retrieved June 17, 2012 from: http://eelinked.naaee.net/n/guidelines/posts/Excellence-in-Environmental EducationGuidelines-for-Learning-K-12. O’Brien, S. R. M. (2007). Indications of environmental literacy: Using a new survey instrument to measure awareness, knowledge, and attitudes of university aged students. Dissertation 1446054. Ames, Iowa, USA: Iowa State University. Proquest UMI Dissertations Publishing. Ogunjinmi, A. A., Oluwatuyi, B. G., & Oniya, B. J. (2015). Determining ecological knowledge and attitudes of students: The role of personal factors and school exposure. International Journal of Conservation Science, 6(3), 427–436. Ökesli, T. F. (2008). Relationship between primary school students’ environmental literacy and selected variables in Bodrum. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara. Olson, R., & Rothkrug, P. (1991). Mending the earth: a world for our grandchildren. 2800 Woolsey Street, Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books. 94705.


17

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. doi:10.3200/JOEE.39.1.45-59 Petersen, N. (1982). Development variables affecting environmental sensitivity in professional environmental educations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. Roth, C. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution, and directions in the 1990s. ERIC/SMEAC (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348 235), Columbus. Roger, E., & Klistorner, S. (2016). Bio Blitzes help science communicators engage local communities in environmental research. Journal of Science Communication, 15(3), 1–18. Schindler, F. H. (1999). Development of the survey of environmental issue attitudes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 12–16. doi:10.1080/00958969909601872 Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–554 doi:10.1080/09537320802292651 Shamuganathan, S., & Karpudewan, M. (2015). Modeling environmental literacy of Malaysian PreUniversity Students. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 10(5), 757–771. Shephard, K., Harraway, J., Lovelock, Brent, Skeaff, Sheila, Slooten, Liz, Strack, Mick, Furnari, Mary, & Jowett, Tim (2014). Is the environmental literacy of university students measurable? Environmental Education Research, 20(4), 476–495. doi:10.1080/13504622.2013.816268 Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1985/86). Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. Journal of Environmental Behavior, 17(2), 31–40. Simmons, D. A. (1995). The NAAEE standards project. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University. Stapp, W. (1976). International EE. The Unesco-UNEP programme. The Journal of Environmental Education, 8(2), 19–25. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322–348. doi:10.1177/0013916593255002 Stephens, J. C., & Graham, A. C. (2010). Toward an empirical research agenda for sustainability in higher education: Exploring the transition management framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 611–618. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.009 Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental education: Contradictions in purpose and practice. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 139–153. doi:10.1080/13504620701295726 Teksoz, G., Sahin, E., & Tekkaya-Oztekin, C. (2012). Modeling environmental literacy of university students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 157–166. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9294-3 Tikka, P. M., Kuitunen, M. T., & Tynys, S. M. (2000). Effects of educational background on students’ activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(3), 12–19. doi:10.1080/00958960009598640 Timur, S. (2011). Fen bilgisiögretmenadaylarınınçevreokuryazarlıkdüzeylerininbelirlenmesi˘ [Determining environmental literacy levels of preservice science teachers] (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Ankara, Turkey: Gazi University. UNESCO. (1978). Towards a Methodology for Projecting Rates of Literacy and Educational Attainment. (Current Surveys and Research in Statistics, No. 28), UNESCO, Paris. UNESCO-UNEP. (1978). The Tbilisi Declaration. Connect, 3(1), 1–8. Vaninee, H. S., Veisi, H., Gorbani, S., Falsafi, P., & Liaghati, H. (2016). The status of literacy of sustainable agriculture in Iran: A systematic review. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 15(2), 150–170. doi:10.1080/1533015X.2016.1164097

18

H. VEISI ET AL.

Varisli, T. (2009). Evaluating eighth grade students environmental literacy: The role of sociodemographic variables. M.S., Department of Elementary Science and Mathematics Education. 159. Veisi, H., & Zarandian, A. (2011). Assessing environmental educational needs of urban cocouncils of Tehran, Iran. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 149–160. Wilke, R. (1995). Environmental literacy and the college curriculum-colleges and universities have a challenge to meet. Environmental Protection Agency Journal, 21, 28–30. 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.