A STUDY OF CONSERVATION ATTITUDES N A SELECTED GROUP OF FlFTH AND SIXTH GRADE ‘PUPILS'i Thom hr "fix. Dogma of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Marfha F. Sykes 1963 I 00-0. 0‘. ~v,-s ‘ LIBRARY ‘ “gm” :1 Ufiivcnhy . v .. 5....1‘; ABSTRACT A STUDY OF CONSERVATION ATTITUDES IN A SELECTED GROUP OF FIFTH AND SIXTH GRADE PUPILS by Martha F. Sykes The purpose of this study was to develop and administer a test to determine the attitudes of Michigan fifth and sixth graders towards conservation. The participants in this study came from three geographic locations designated Group A, Group B, and Group C. These locations were the Gull Lake area, the Lansing area, and the Upper Peninsula. There were 551 respondents. A pretest of twenty openended questions was developed first and administered to twenty-four fifth and sixth graders. The results of the pretest were then used in part, in the develOpment of the final questionnaire. The final questionnaire consisted of twenty-five ob- jective questions, the respondent circling the answer with which he agreed. A personal data sheet was developed to determine if there might be some correlation between the answers to the questions and such items as Sex, home environ- ment, activities, etc. found on the data sheet. The results of the questionnaire were punched on IBM cards to facilitate the analysis of the data. The results of the data indicate: 1. That the attitudes of fifth and sixth graders towards the conservation of our natural resources are, in most instances, favorable. 10. Martha F. Sykes There were a significant number of unfavorable responses. Parents do influence attitudes. Public opinion has an effect on attitudes relative to certain resources. There is apparently a degree of lack of awareness. Likewise there is apparently a large degree of lack of knowledge about certain resources. There is a correlation between those living on farms and in the city in terms of responses received. Occupation is an influencing factor. Sex and grade level did not se§m to be significantly influential as it pertains to the specific grade levels involved in this study. Geographic location is an influential factor. A STUDY OF CONSERVATION ATTITUDES IN A SELECTED GROUP OF FIFTH AND SIXTH GRADE PUPILS By Martha FL Sykes A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1963 TTVW L; a} li'" A. , ‘ h“: \— ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express appreciation to the following: Dr. Gilbert W. Mouser for his untiring supervision, encouragement, and guidance throughout the study. Mr. R. D. VanDeusen, Director, Kellogg Bird Sanc- tuary, for the use of the Sanctuary's facilities and equipment, and his assistance throughout the study. Dr. Peter Tack, Dr. C. L. Vinge, Mr. Charles Shick, Miss Shirley Brehm, who acted as Judges in evaluating the final test. Dr. William J. Walsh, for his help in the develop- ment of the pretest. Dr. W. D. Eaten for assistance and suggestions in the statistical treatment of the data. Miss Norma Bay for her help in processing the data. Mr. Frank Martin for help in organizing the material to be processed. The principals, teachers, and students of Michigan who took part in the study. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 Limitations 2 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4 III. DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTS OF PRETEST. 7 Development of Pretest. 7 Results of Pretest . . . . . . . . 8 Summary of Pretest Results . . . . . 10 IV. DEVELOPMENT OF FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE. . . . 13 Construction of Questionnaire . . . . 13 Development of Data Sheet. . . . . . l5 Selection of Sample. . . . . . . . 15 V. PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . l7 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . 18 VI. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 42 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6A 111 Table IO. LIST OF TABLES Characteristics of Sample Summary of Personal Data Sheet Summary of Groups. I See Nothing Wrong in Shooting Hawks and Owls . . . . I Do Not Think You Should Shoot Doe Deer Because They Give Birth to Fawns. If We Kill the Mother Deer, There Will Not be Enough for Next Year. . . . . Those Who Live in the City Don't Need to be Concerned About Soil Erosion . . PeOple Who Live in the City Do Not Have to be Concerned About Industry Polluting the Water That Flows Out into the Country. Water is Not a Problem in Michigan Since We Have So Many Lakes Including the Great Lakes Nearby . . . Pollution of Water is a Serious Problem but There Isn't Anything I Can Do About It. Wildlife Biologists Tell Us the Paying of Bounties Does Not Control Nuisance Animals and is a Waste of Money. There- fore, We Should Do Away With the Bounty System . . . . . . . . The Main Purpose in Conservation Is to Save-~To Store Up. iv Page 19 22 28 30 31 35 38 #0 Lu CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION "Conservation becomes a way of life through the build- ing of attitudes in the hearts and minds of people. These attitudes are action tendencies within each person that determine what he will do under certain sets of circum- stances."1 It is our Job to encourage and build these attitudes in peOple in a constructive and positive manner, from the youngster before he enters school to the senior citizens of the country and the world. In our rapidly changing world of population explosions, increased leisure, and urban development, it is imperative we become conservation conscious. Our natural resources are the backbone of the nation. Unless they are managed and used wisely now, and in the future, we will not remain the strong nation we are now. Therefore, it is our responsibility to develop in these youngsters who are our future educators, lawmakers, businessmen, and housewives an understanding and appreciation of our natural surroundings, and through conser- vation education develop positive attitudes and a conservation lByron L. Ashbaugh, "Saving Land is Not Enough," Talk before the Ninth Annual Conference, Conservation Education Association, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, August 19-22, 1962, p. 10. (Mimeographed.) l conscience. This can all be summed up in the words of Ernest Swift in his recent booklet, Count Down 2n Survival: There is no question that education is a strong force to forestall ill-advised and unwarranted change, as well as to promote sound and intelligent planning for the future. Resource education should not be a heterogeneous mass of material crammed into the minds of people like force-feeding a Christmas goose with noodles. Conservation education should start with the small child and should relate to his daily living habits to instill in him an awareness of the problems. But above all conservation should create a reverent attitude for resources and then a deep sense of individual responsi— bility will follow.2 Out of this philOSOphy evolved this study-~to develOp and administer a test to determine the attitudes of some Michigan fifth and sixth graders towards conservation. If, and to the extent that, the test proves valid, it will guide educators in their planning of education programs in conservation. Limitations 1. An inherent limitation is to adequately measure attitudes. 2. Tests were not given under standard and uniform conditions. 3. Variable emphasis was placed on certain items associated with the personal data sheet ranging from complete dis- carding of certain ones namely--education of parents, visitations to museums, sanctuaries, etc., age,partici- pation in certain nature activities and programs as 2Ernest Swift, Count Down to Survival (Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation, 1961), pp. 27-28. shown in Table l--to considerable emphasis of the remainder. No attempt was made to assign specific reasons for atti- tudes. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Research on the testing of conservation attitudes is limited. The reason for this is not known, perhaps it is due to the fact that research that has been carried out is unpublished or the more likely reason is that there has been little research done. A search of the library and its many resources came up with very little and no tests related to conservation. From here a search was made for research done in the field of conservation testing in all areas. Here records seem to be nonexistent also. Letters were written to professional conservation organizations in an attempt to find out if their organiza- tions had done any research in this area. The only testing that has been done is that by the Conservation Foundation. This research consisted of the deveIOpment of a test of reasoning in conservation which did not apply to the problem. The only test found directly related to conservation attitudes was one developed by a graduate student at the State University of New York College for Teachers. The test was concerned with the opinions of teachers towards conserva- tion. An attitude scale was used in the scoring of the test L; as follows--strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. The reSpondent circled the letter which most closely represented his thinking on the subject. A personal data questionnaire covering name and year of gradu— ation from college, where the respondent has lived the greater part of his life, grades in college, and courses taken in both high school and college, and activities par- Aticipated in was also a part of the questionnaire. A study that was of considerable help in the develop— ment of this research was one carried out by Robert H. Giles, Jr. It was a study of the "Conservation Knowledge of Virginia School Pupils.” The main purpose of this study was ”to measure the conservation knowledge of Virginia public school pupils in grades six through twelve and the source of their knowledge, a test was constructed."3 The main part of the test was divided into the following major topics: principles of general conservation, principles of soil conservation, prin- ciples of forest conservation, principles of water conserva— tion, and principles of wildlife conservation. The questions were multiple choice. The following information was gathered at the end of the test: the sex of the student, where he lived, the school subjects or courses, membership, and other activities. 3Robert H. Giles, Jr., ”Conservation Knowledge of Virginia School Pupils,” V.P.I. Agricultural Extention Bulletin, August, 1958, p. 5. The results of the test are as follows: Both the level of attainment that appeared possible based on early grade increments of conservation knowl- edge and the total amount of knowledge deemed necessary for satisfactory citizenship indicate that the knowledge possessed is below a desirable level.- Although average grades were progressively higher in each higher grade, the attainment was inadequate. *The rate of acquisition of knowledge declined after the ninth grade. The greatest knowledge was shown in principles of general conservation, the least in principles of wildlife conservation. Caucasian pupils had signifi- cantly higher scores than Negroes; average total scores from the northern part of the state were sig- nificantly higher than those from either the southern or central areas. Insignificant differences were, found between geographic regions and between sexes. Farm children were found to be significantly lower in possession of consefivation knowledge than either urban or suburban pupils. No other material was found directly relating to testing.‘ LlIbid., p. l. CHAPTER III DATA COLLECTION Due partially to the fact that little literature on research related to the testing of conservation attitudes was available, it was necessary to develop a pretest ques- tionnaire. The purpose of this pretest was to find out througha group of pertinent questions the attitudes and familiarity of students towards some basic conservation principles and practices, the results of which would be used in developing the final questionnaire. Development of Pretest A series of twenty openended questions dealing with conservation principles and attitudes were developed and administered to a group of twenty-four fifth and sixth graders; six from each of four schools (see Appendix). This number was considered adequate for the pretest. The main reason for using the Openended questions was to enable the student. to answer the questions in his own terms and frame of reference, It was felt these results would be especially pertinent in develOping and framing the state- ments in the final questionnaire. Before the test was administered to the students it was shown to several fifth and sixth grade teachers for 7 , their opinions as to wording of the questions, length of the test, and subject coverage. The results of the pretest were categorized on a large chart to be used as an outline in developing the questions for the final questionnaire. The answers to each question were recorded under one of the following headings: Yes, No, Don't Know. There was also a Comments heading which was a list of student answers to the questions. All answers were written down on this chart, in part, unless there were two or more similar answers, in that case only one was recorded. Questions asked on the pretest were then reviewed and evalu- ated as to whether it should be included in the final ques- tionnaire. The evaluation was based upon the following criteria: 1. Was the question testing for a conservation attitude or Opinion toward principles and practices of conservation? 2. Was the subject of the question definitely related to conservation? 3. Was the question worded so that we would get the desired answer? 4. Was the child's reSponse to a particular question of such a nature that it should be included in the final questionnaire? Results of Pretest As mentioned above the results of the pretest were used in the develOpment of the final test (see Appendix A). Several questions were thrown out after they were studied in terms of the above criteria. Questions one and three were not included in the final test because the attitudes of all the respondents were similar and the author assumed the response would be the same in the final questionnaire. Questions thirteen, fourteen, nineteen, and twenty were removed from the test because it was felt they were not testing for conservation attitudes or opinions and, there- fore, not directly related to the subject. Questions eight and eighteen were not included in the final test because of lack of knowledge on the part of the respondents in answering the questions. The remaining twelve questions were considered relevant to conservation and, therefore, should be included in some form in the final questionnaire. In most cases the questions were reworded or the emphasis was changed so that the answer would show an attitude on the part of the reSpondents. For example, the question "What are natural resources?" was changed to "When thinking of conservation we should think of soil, water, forests, and wildlife as making up one huge resource to be used wisely." The following is a summary of the answers given to those twelve questions considered relevant on the pretest written in the children's own words. Answers were selected that give an over-all picture of the total groups' responses. Thus a study of the pretest seemed to indicate as desirable, questions aimed at securing information concerning 10 the following attitudes: MUOtUD l. 2. Those relative to hunting. The responsibility of all peOple including the child himself toward promoting favorable attitudes. Uses of forest resources. Attitudes toward state and local education and enforcement agencies. Concern for items belonging to all of the citizenry: a. Fish b. Soil c. Water d. Wildflowers e. Wildlife Summary of Pretest Results What do you think about shooting phesants? Okay, if you don't trespass. Okay, because you shoot them for meat. Okay, in season. Okay, once in a while to shoot a male. Okay, if you don't shoot too many. Who is responsible for the conservation of our natural resources? > B C D E W A. B. C D E W A B C Game warden. We are. -Nature. We are when we pay taxes to help keep natural resources. Conservation Department of the U. S. hat is conservation? Protecting useful animals. To save our natural resources. Preserve nature. Wildlife, national forests, and parks. It means the treatment. hat are natural resources? Things not made by man. Water, plants, land. Great Lakes coal mine. 10. 11 D. Lumber and minerals. E. Things that have always been here. When you are in the woods do you think it is alright to pick the wildflowers growing there? . Yes, if you don't pick too many. . No, wouldn't be any left for others to look at. . Yes, but do not pull the roots out. Okay to pick a few, not too many or soil will blow away. Okay, if there are a lot of them and no law against it. tr] UOtflb Is it alright to shoot hawks and owls? A. No, because they will run out of them for the sanctuary. Yes, because they are mean. No, they kill many animals that we don't like. Okay to shoot hawks not owls. Yes, it is the balance of nature. WUOtfl Do you think having laws to protect wildlife is a good idea? Yes, if we didn't all the animals would be extinct. Yes, it saves them. Yes, hunters would kill them all. Yes, because some animals protect our land and help it be fertile. Yes, we want to keep our country beautiful and alive with woodland creatures. ['11 UOUZHD Should people and industry be allowed to dump garbage and waste into our lakes and rivers? No, kill all fish and ducks, and hurt people. No, it ruins our lakes and rivers so we can‘t use them. Pollute the water for drinking, swimming, and fishing. Makes rivers smell. No, it would ruin our water supply and kill many animals that need this water to drink. [TJUO mtb Do you think conservation is important? Yes, we can't live without it. Yes, because they can make new roads. Yes, because it protects wildlife. Conservation is important because natural resources would disappear. E. Yes, it will save many trees and animals from death. UOIIIID Do you think it is alright to drain land that is used by ducks for nesting if someone wants to use it for some- thing else? A. No, it would leave no place for ducks to go. ll. 12. L‘UUOW 12 No, because ducks have a right to have children too. Okay, if a good reason for draining. Yes, there are lots of places for ducks to nest. Ducks should have a place to nest without being dis- turbed. Is soil conservation important to you? a L'IIUOU'JD (D L'IlUOUitb Yes, because we wouldn't have some foods. Important to farmers. Important to everybody. Yes, we can grow gardens and have trees. Yes, it gives us our food. forests important to all citizens? Yes, need wood for homes and furniture. Yes, to make country look beautiful. No, because some peOple don't like forests. Yes, it is a place to relax. The should be, they hold back water that could create a flood and provide lumber for houses. CHAPTER IV DEVELOPMENT OF THE FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE As soon as the evaluation of the pretest questions was completed, the final questionnaire was developed. The state- ments asked on the final questionnaire all concerned our renewable resources; wildlife, forest, soil, water, and human resources. Constructing the Questionnaire As a result of study of resources on the pretest, cer— tain facts and/or trends seemed to present themselves. Using these pretest results and other factors as a guide, the final questionnaire was structured. An analysis of guiding factors follows: 1. In certain instances where lack of knowledge seemed to be evident an occasional statement was included to see if such were the case in children of the varied areas being tested. 2. Some statements, though apparently dealing with more familiar content, were included again to see how the varied backgrounds might influence the response. 3. Certainly any statement such as statement 1, where there appeared to be mixed feelings were included. A. Some statements such as number 11 relative to pollution were slightly modified. 13 14 5. Statement number 8 relative to watersheds could have been retained yet there seemed to be no comprehension concerning the term. Accordingly, a modified question relative to water was included. 6. Certain items of a highly contested nature, though not a part of the pretest, were included. After the statements of forty questions were developed, with the help of the pretest evaluation, they were sent to a panel of professors familiar with the subjects covered and the area of testing (see Appendix B). They were asked to judge the questionnaire in terms of the length of the questionnaire, wording of the statement for understanding on the part of the fifth and sixth graders, and any omissions in the content of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was then revised to twenty-five statements, or items, and cor- rections, additions, and changes were made as suggested (see Appendix). The items were phrased to elicit either a clearly favorable or unfavorable response. Accordingly, the child would agree (Yes) or disagree (No) with the statement. Provision was made for an answer "Don't Know" in case the child was totally unfamiliar with the subject. According to Sellitz, Jahoda, gt_al,, in the book Research Methods in Social Relations, such a response of ”Don't Know" may indicate the lack of crystallized Opinion.5 It is the 5Claire Sellitz, gt_al,, Research Methods in Social Relations (2nd ed. rev., New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1960), p. 368. 15 opinion of the author that it may also indicate no knowledge of the subject at all. Development of Data Sheet Next, a data sheet was developed; the purpose of which was to obtain information which might be relevant to the children's attitudes toward conservation as answered in the test. Information obtained from the data sheet included the sex, age, and grade of the child; the occupation and educa- tion of the parents; the location where the child lives; extra-curricular activities such as membership in 4-H, Boy and Girl Scouts, nature centers or Audubon groups: partici- pation in organized field trips to various sanctuaries, museums, etc.; and outdoor interests of the family such as family camping, attendance at screen tours and programs on conservation and nature, hunting, and fishing, etc. It was felt that these activities might have a signifi- cant influence on the attitudes of the children toward con- servation. Selection,of Sample The schools for the final sample were selected on the following basis. Those schools taking part in the pretest were included in the final questionnaire. Other schools were selected on the same basis as was the case for the pretest, based on their geographic location, urban-rural population, apparent economic status, and willingness to cOOperate in 16 the testing to secure a representative sampling of Michigan School Children. One sixth grade classroom and one fifth grade class- room was selected from each school. The selection of the classrooms in the individual schools was up to the principal and the willingness of the teacher to cooperate. There was no attempt on the part of the author to indicate rooms or teachers to be involved. The final sample inCluded 219 fifth and 327 Sixth graders from thirteen schools. CHAPTER V PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS OF DATA As soon as completed questionnaires were received, they were checked for errors or other irregularities. Three tests were removed from the sample. In one instance an entire page was not completed and in the case of the other two, the answers were inconsistent; that is, more than one answer was checked for the same question. After checking the data sheets, results were recorded on I.B.M. punch cards and a straight count was made of all the items. The straight count furnished the following in- formation: 1. The number of respondents answering each question and the way in which they answered the question. 2. The number of reSpondents answering the personal though unidentified data sheet and the way in which they answered the respective items. 3. An analysis of these answers making it possible to determine the over-all attitudes of the children toward conservation. 4. Indications showing that it was advisable to analyze the data further to determine the influence of sex, grade, occupation, home environment, and membership and activities on the answers of the respondents. 17 l8 Respondents were grouped according to geographical location. There were 264 respondents from Group A. The respondents in Group A were from communities in southwestern Michigan in close proximity to Gull Lake. Of these 264 respondents, 101 live on farms, 114 live in cities of under 10,000 population, and 35 live in the country (non-farm). Ten respondents answered in other categories which did not fit the above communities. A large number of the parents in this group work for industry. The respondents in Group B were from the Upper Peninsula. Most of the respondents are from residential areas with the exception of one school which serves a residen- tial and farming area. There were 131 respondents from Group B. Group 0 represents pupils in the area around Lansing. There were 153 reSpondents. Of these, 48 of the respondents live on farms although only 23 of the 48 were farmers. For a complete analysis of the three groups see Table 1. After these questions were analyzed the answers were then calculated as percentages. Findings The respondents were asked on the questionnaire to answer the statement, circling what they felt was the correct answer. The results of the information received are recorded in Table 2. The number answering the statement was recorded along with a breakdOwn of the number answering yes, no, and CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE SUMMARY OF PERSONAL DATA SHEET 19 TABLE 1 Group Item Total A B C Sex Boys 264 134 63 67 Girls 257 132 69 86 Grade 5th 219 124 10 85 6th 327 139 120 68 Age 9 year 1 10 year 125 11 year 278 12 year 125 13 year 10 16 year 1 Home Environment 1. On a farm 155 101 6 48 2. In a city over 10,000 population 90 3 58 29 3. In a suburb of a large city 87 7 62 18 4. In a city of less than 10,000 169 114 l 54 5. In the country 35 35 -- -- Occupation of Parent 1. Works for industry 185 104 61 32 2. Self employed 52 31 12 ll 3. Farmer 54 35 1 23 4. Professional 49 13 7 29 5. Company official 37 19 8 11 6. Other 159 76 38 45 7. Blank l5 -- —- —- Education of Parents 1. Mother a. grade school 42 24 9 9 b. high school 333 176 80 77 c. college 147 57 27 63 2. Father a. grade school 55 34 13 8 b. high school 290 152 71 67 c. college 157 59 26 72 20 TABLE l--Continued Group Item Total A B C Membership 4-H 88 68 24 36 Scouts 194 85 53 61 Junior Audubon 7 __ __ __ Nature Center or Museum 5 —— —— -— Camping Experiences School Camp 45 70 l 47 Private Camp 37 _- __ -_ 4-H Camp 35 __ __ -_ Scout or other camp 243 -- —— -— Blank 191 __ -_ __ Organized Field Trips K.B.S. 178 -_ __ -_ Natural History museum 136 —- -— -— Others 80 __ __ _- Parents Activities Buy hunting licenses 333 170 83 80 Buy fishing licenses 112 173 77 80 Own or rent a summer cottage 67 __ -_ -_ Family camping 214 111 59 69 Attend Audubon Screen tours 48 -- -- -— Others 68 -_ __ __ don't know. Percentages were then calculated from these numbers. A favorable answer is one in which the attitude of the respondent coincides with the attitude consistent with good conservation practices. Accordingly, an answer of either yes or no on the questionnaire could be a favorable answer. At the outset the author would like to indicate what is meant by the term significant since results have been interpreted percentagewise rather than statistically in each 21 instance wherein the author has indicated the results were significant the two following conditions were obtained: 1. There is a large enough group responding (several hundred). 2. A definite majority of the responses were of a like nature. Taking then the two factors into consideration, the author feels with little question such responses are significant. As one analyzes Table 2 it will be seen that in all but four of the statements over 50% of the children answered the statement favorably. In the case of 15 statements over 75% of the answers were favorable. For the remaining six statements, between 50% and 75% of the children answered the questions favorably. Eight statements were selected for further treatment on the basis that less than 70% answered the statement favorably. Actually there were nine statements in which less than 70% answered favorably. Statement 13 was not treated further since the results did not show significant differences between the three groups. The following eight statements were analyzed in terms of the three groups and also analyzed according to the personal data sheet to determine the significance of this information in forming conservation attitudes. Statement l—-I see nothing wrong in shooting hawks and owls. From Table 2 it will be seen that 59.1% responded favor- ably to this statement, 26.1% unfavorably, and 12.1% responded with Don't Know. 22 :.HH 5.0H S.© w.m m.o mm mm mm mm mm New m.mH s.mm m.ow :.mm H.mm H.mm mm wmm me: mma mm: mmm 0.05 m.mm m.mH m.oH H.@m ma: mmfi mm me wm a: 0mm 0mm mam mam Hmm wmm .mEHp 03p Haw cmoap Iowan on meE pa Xhoz mfiamoh on coapm>momcoo mom nooeo CH .goamomo Haom psonm coshmocOO on on come p_:oc zpao m Ca o>HH on: whose .uzo goon m>m£ pmnp moose mcfiomaaoe psopm coopoocoo on on com: p.20o H on poo: mom mopsuapmpzm mo mpoa mam mecca .mmmm pxoc pom :wsoso on no: HHHB moors .aooo heroes who Haas 63 MH .mczwm Op Began o>am mono omsmoon some moo poonm ofizora so» scans son on H .pH psonm wcflnpmcm on on wgzom 00p Em H omzwoon mE on vamp [AOQEH pom ma coapm>momcoo .mazo new mxzwc mchoonm CH wcomz wCchoc mow H Ln & .02 R .02 R .02 homeommom mcoapmoSQ 30cm u.com .02 wow Hmpoe mmbomw mo Nmhomcoo on» on EH: apogee on mpHHHnHmcommoh HE mH pH .zomwom H0 950 noon wcHuoonm so anH mo pHEHH mHs ems» opoE ngxmp common m mom oHsonm H HH 0mm .anzsoo one oucH ado mSOHH pmnp hope: one wCHpSHHom HeumsccH psonm poghoocoo on on o>mz no: on tho ecu CH o>HH on: mHQoom mam .Huugzoo machpm m m: oxme mQHmn pH mmsmomn COHpm>momgoo psopm coGAoQ:Oo on pHsonm H .mopmpm oopHcD esp Ho :oNHpHo m Em H moch men .moomHQ £03m CH onSOHH onm amo H oAOHmponp mmnmmwe com mcooz one CH onSOHH onq quomQ ponpo Comm m>mn H Hmm .oc oHsonm we own: a: wcHHHop ohoooo ooAHoHHz 950 HO HUSpm nwsopocp m ome honp omsmoop pcoauhmmoa cOHp um>mmmcoo p50 HQ 950 posses mam pmcp mCOHpmcgoEEoomh pom GOHmehomcH ou COHucoppm mmOHo aho> Hon oHsonm 83 .HH .OH & .oz 30cm 9.:om .oz 02 a .02 mow momcomwom HmQOE mCOHpmoSG ooaeaoooouum MHM¢E 24 m.mm HzH m.m om b.0H mm w.mH HF m.mH mm mm.m mm 3.0mm m.om wbm 3H mmm CNN me mm: m.mm m.mm H.®N n.5m m:.m mmH mHm mmH mom :Hm mm Hmm .soomAa season one Boa: Hmzm op chonm o3 «ohomoeoce .mogoe Ho opmmz m mH pom mHmEHcm oocmHmmg Homecoo poo moon moszdon Ho wchmQ onp mm Hams moaamofloao ooafieaaz 0mm .opmh opHmv ohm moHoon oEom ommmoon mCan coom m ohm oHHH -oHAz moaoooroao mon scans H mam .pH psonm om amo H mCHQpHCm p_CmH omocp p59 EoHnonm msoahom m mH poem: Ho COHQSHHom mam .hnmmoc mome pmohc on» wchsHocH mome Home on o>m£ o: ooch cmmH£0Hz CH EoHQOAQ m pod mH popmz 0mm .HHmo como moAHQ ozp mo oEom HHHx on COHpm>momcoo Doom mH pH commoe man mom .oochz one nmmoazp o>HH mucmmmonm Ho pop :83: :Hmppoo m HHco poH HHHz oHHH Ho mcoo: mocpo mam coom 0mm .Hoonom oompm 2H HHco Em. H ooQHm COHpm>Aomgoo pmonm cosmoocoo on cHsonm H as: commom oprHH hpo> mH voSB .NH .mH .mH .zH .MH .NH R .oz zoom p.oom .Oz ..02 a .02 mow noncommom mGOHpmoSQ Hmpoe oosoaoeoouum mqmee 25 :N wH mm mm mm o: m: 0H om mH mm mm: m.~> ©.mm m.Hw m.mw o.mm m.0H mma me mm: mm: :H: mm mzm 0mm 0mm m:m Nam mzm .moOHpoth :oHpm>hom:oo coow a: wcHupom :H oEooho>o on EoHQOhQ pmopmohw hso ohm oHQooQ Ho woodphpum one .hHomhz com: on on oohmomoh owsn oco Q5 mQmeE mm omHHCHfiz mam .mpmohOh .houms .Hhom no xchnp chocm o3 COHpm>homcoo Ho wchxchnp Conz .momomhsm mcHEhmH how ccmHnmhmE wchchmhc ohomon mpmhxmme com mxomc on unwsonu oEom o>Hw cHsosm whoczoccmH .ccohhm HE mH hoOHmmo ochom>homcoo one .9: ohOpm opuuo>mm 0p ma sch» um>hocho ch omomhmm :HmE one .uanh mH hthmH on» o>oHHop H .oHQSth mhpxo on» sphoz pom ohm mooHpoth och xcan hon» ommmoon mooau uomha coHum>homCOO umCHmwm on on Eoom mho:300CmH oEom .mm .mm .HN .om .mH .mH .oz some a. . com .02 R .02 mow momconmom Hmpoe mcoapmoSG 1|] coschCOOIIN mqmdfi 26 m.m m: as 3 m.ms mm: m.m mm R: :m mam m.mm ms: 0mm .momcooHH wcHanH ohm wchcmc ngHHom CH mH pmohopch szE m.pcoE nhhmmom GOHpm>hocho oflB .opmhoqooo pose odomho>o mam awhthmh .pGoEGho>ow .hhpmsccH aoHQooQ muHo axhoz HHHmoh on mH COHpm>homgoo HH .mm .mm II R .02 30cm u_com .OZ 02 R .02 momcommom ooh Hmooh mQOHpmoBQ UoSGHpGOOIIN mHmGm oEom m.h H.Hm mm m.6m H.6o 6mH m.mm H.Hm mMH come m.mm H.:h mm 6.6m 6.6m 6H m.mm m.em emH nohhm ocmhw H.6H m.em mm m.6m m.mh mm 6.mm H.mm mmH loH6 m.mm m.hh hm 6.6m h.mm mm m.6m 3.66 :mH ohom xom *R 62 R ooh Hooch *R 62 R ooh Hoooh *R 62 R ooh Hoooh EooH o QSOhw m QSOhU < QSOhw .momh Hhmz mom mop6zm mm 962 HHH3 momma .mmmm mmmh6z mmh HHHh m3 mH .ozzqm 6H mhmHm tho home mopmomm-mmmo mom Hoomo HHpomo 66h thmH H62 on H Amy 31 .hozmcm pootho mopo:oQ* 6.6h m.HH mm H.6m :.mN mm H.Hh 6.NH HHH mcHQEoo hHHEom m.Nh h.mH 6m m.mo h.6N hh N.mm 6.6H th ooooooHH moHeoHH hem N.6m N.HN 6m m.Nm m.mN mm h.Hm N.mN 6hH ooooooHH mehoorn hem N.hm m.m he -- -- H h.mm m.NN 6h oeHosoo Hooeoo m.mh H.mH Hm h.rm m.mm mm N.mm H.HN mm oooooo :.mm N.NN mm H.6h m.mH HN 6.Nh N.6H mm m-: moHpH>Hpo< cam QHsmthEoE m.mh m.H m: H.mm m.mN mm h.mm m.hN oh hocoo h.Nh H.mH HH -- -- m N.Hm m.6H 6H HoHoHHHo heooe66 N.mm :.m 6N -- -- h m.Hm 6.mN mH HoooHooohohN m.mh h.HN mN -- -- H m.mm H.hH mm hoahom m.em m.mm HH m.mm 6.mN NH m.em m.NN Hm oohoHoEo HHoo h.mm m.HN Nm 6.mm m.mH Hm e.mm 6.:N H6H horoseoH hoe oxhoz poohmm ho COHme5660 -- -- - -- -- - m.m: :.Hm mm hhpcsoo m.6h m.mH Hm -- -- - N.mm m.HN HHH 666.6H hoes: hoHo h.hh m.mH mH m.em m.6m Nm -- -- h phenom H.m6 -- mN 6.Nm o.6N mm -- -- m 666.6H hoho hoHo m.em 6.mN m: -- -- m e.mm h.NN H6H shah pcoECOhH>cm oEom H.mm m.6N mm m.Hm 6.mN 6NH H.Hm m.mN mmH nome H.6h N.mH mm 6.6h 6.6m 6H m.mm H.6N HNH eoHHh ocmhw N.6m 6.NN mm m.Nm 6.NN 66 m.zm m.6H NmH loHo 6.Nm m.HH hm e.mm m.6N mm m.mm m.hN :mH ohom xom *R oz R ooh Hoooh *R 62 R ooh HoooH *R 62 R ooh Hoooh sooH o Qsohu -., m QSOho ¢ mocha .onoomm HHoo H66m< mmzmmozoo mm 6H ommz H.26o hHHo mmh zH thH or: moomh Hmv m mqm<8 32 The difference in responses between the fifth and sixth graders did not seem to be significant. In reading across the table there seemed to be little variation in answers within the categories-~occupation of parent and membership and activities with two exceptions. A slightly higher percentage of those whose parents are professional people and those who have had school camping in Group C gave favorable responses to the statement. Statement 10-—Pe0ple who live in the city do not have to be concerned about industry polluting the water that flows out into the country. Analysis of Table 2 will show that 68.2% of the respon- dents were favorable toward the above statement, while 25.8% were unfavorable toward the statement and 5.6% responded Don't Know. After careful analysis of Table 6 the following results became apparent. First of all, a somewhat higher percentage of girls answered the statement favorably than boys. This was the case in all three groups with Group C showing the greatest difference. Secondly, differences were found that would seem to be significant between the three groups and within the individ- ual groups. Group A shows a higher percentage of fifth graders favored the statement than sixth graders. Group B' and C shows that a larger percentage of sixth graders favored the statement than fifth graders. However, you will notice that the percentage difference in Group B (58.3%) is 33 .hoszm poohhoo mopocoQ* 6.6h h.HN 66 m.H6 6.6H 6m 6.hm N.zm HHH mcHosoo hHHsoh N.Hh N.6N 66 6.66 6.6H Rh :.N6 6.6m th ooooooHH mcHeoHH hem 6.Nh N.6N 66 H.hh H.6N m6 h.:m H.6m 6hH ooocooHH mcHocon ham 6.66 6.6H he -- -- H N.:m N.6m 6h mcHosoo Hoocoo 6.hh m.HN H6 H.H6 6.6H mm h.:6 6.hN m6 oooooo 6.66 H.6m 6m H.6h 6.6H HN H.66 6.6N 66 6-3 moHpH>Hpo< 62m QHnmthEoz 6.6h N.NN m: N.:6 H.6H 66 6.66 6.6N 6h honoo 6.66 6.6 HH -- -- 6 6.6h 6.6H 6H HoHoHoHo heoQEoo h.N6 N.hH 6N -- -- h 6.6h 6.h mH HocoHooohohN 6.66 H.6m mN -- -- H H.hm N.:m mm hthom 6.H6 H.6H HH 6.6h 6.6N NH 6.6h 6.6N Hm oohoHQEo HHom 6.Hh 6.6N Nm h.mh 6.NN H6 6.66 6.66 H6H hhooooeH hoe ohhoz hCohmm Ho coHme5660 -- -- - -- -- - 6.6: h.me mm hopesoo 6.6h 6.6H :6 -- -- H 6.66 6.6N HHH 666.6H hoes: hoHo 6.66 H.HH 6H 6.66 H.hN N6 -- -- h phenom 6.6h H.6N 6N 6.h6 6.NH 66 -- -- m 666.6H hoho hoHo 6.N6 6.66 6: -- -- 6 6.66 6.Nm H6H Ehoh pcoecohHhcm oEom 6.66 H.6H 66 m.6h H.6H 6NH m.hm 6.66 66H noxho 6.6h 6.6N m6 6.6N 6.66 6H 6.66 6.6N 6NH :oHHm ocmhc 6.6h 6.6H 66 6.6h N.6N 66 6.66 6.6N NmH loHo H.6h 6.6N R6 H.Hh m.mN m6 h.6m 6.Nm emH ohom xom *R 62 R ooh Hoooh *R 62 R ooh Hoooh *R 62 R ooh Hoooh sooH o anchm m mocha < QSOhw .NmBZDOO mmB OBZH EDD mBOHm Bde mMB<3 MES UZHBDHHOm NmBmDDzH BDOm< szmmozoo mm OB m>HH Omz mqmomm AOHV 6 mHmHpo< 6cm QHnmhoDEoz 6.66 6.6N 6: 6.66 6.66 66 H.N: h.6: 6h hoeo6 6.66 H.6H HH -- -- 6 6.66 H.N: 6H HoHoHooo hoooEoo :.Nh 6.6 6N -- -- h H.6: :.66 6H HoooHoooHohN 6.66 6.6N 6N -- -- H H.hm h.6: 6m hoshoh 6.66 N.hN HH 6.66 6.66 NH 6.:6 :.66 H6 oohoHNEo HHoo 6.66 6.hm N6 6.6m H.6: H6 6.66 6.6: :6H hhooaoeH ooh oxhoz pcohmm Ho COHpmdmooo -- -- - -- -- - 6.6: h.6: 6m hhooaoo 6.:6 N.NN :6 -- -- H N.6: :.66 :HH 666.6H hooeo hoHo 6.66 :.:: 6H :.66 6.H6 N6 -- -- h phenom 6.N6 6.6 6N 6.hm 6.66 66 -- -- m 666.6H hoho hoHo :.66 6.hN 6: -- -- 6 :.66 6.hm H6H Shoo pCmEH-HOHH >Cm wEOm m.h6 H.6H 66 6.66 6.66 6NH 6.6: N.6: 66H 6oxHo 6.66 N.6N 66 6.66 6.66 6H h.6: 6.hm :NH noHHh mcmhm 6.H6 N.6m 66 :.66 6.66 66 :.6: 6.:6 NmH loHo h.66 :.6H h6 :.:: 6.6: m6 h.h: N.6: :mH ohom Kom *R 62 R ooh Hoooh *R oz R ooh HoooH *R oz R ooh Hoooh sooH o QSOhw m machu < QSOhU .wmmHpo< 6cm QHcmthEoE H.HR 6.6N 6: R.66 6.6N 66 m.R: H.66 6R hosso 6.66 N.RN HH -- -- 6 m.R: 6.H6 6H HoHoHHHo hsoosoo 6.Rm R.H6 6N -- -- R 6.H6 R. 66 6H HosoHoooHohN N.66 R.:m 6N -- -- H 6. N6 6. 6 6m hoshoH 6.66 6.66 HH 6.6R 6.6H NH 6. 6R 6.NN Hm oohoHoso HHoo 6.66 6.6N N6 6.66 N.6N H6 6. N6 6.6N :6H horosocH ooh oxhoz pcohmm Ho COHpmmmooo -- -- - -- -- - 6. N: 6. N: 66 hhossoo N.NR 6.NH :6 -- -- H R R6 6. 6N :HH 666:6H hoes: hoHo 6.66 H.HH 6H 6.N6 6.NN N6 -- -- R possum R.mH N.66 6N H.:R 6.6N 66 -- -- m 666.6H hoho hoHo m.:m H.0m w: lulu III: 6 m.ow R.mm HOH Ehmm psoECOhH>om oEom N.66 N.66 66 H.66 6.HN 6NH R.66 R.6N 66H eoxHo 6.66 6.RN 66 6.6: 6.66 6H 6.:6 6.66 :NH soHHH opmhw 6.66 N.66 66 6.66 6.6N 66 6.66 6.6N NmH loHo R.66 6.:6 R6 6.66 N.NN 66 N.66 6.66 :6H ohom xom *R o2 R ooh HoooH *R 62 R ooh HoooH *R 62 R ooh HoooH EooH o QSOhc m mocha ¢ QmOhc .HH H266: 66 226 H 62HHh2< H.26H mmmmH H26 22H6626 osonmo 6 6H mmH<2 26 26HHDHH66 A6HV m MHM¢B 39 50.4% were unfavorable and 25.5% answered Don't Know. You will notice in Table 9 that the reSponses among the three groups are very similar. There seems to be very little differences in reSponses among the individual cate- gories and, if anything, the responses of those in Group B indicate a slightly higher percentage of favorable answers. In all cases the number of favorable responses is less than half the total number of responses. Statement 19--The main purpose in conservation is to save-- to store up. 0f the respondents 66.0% gave unfavorable responses to the above statement, while 12.3% were favorable, and 11.5% answered Don't Know. This is shown in Table 2. Further analysis, as shown in Table 10, indicated that a slightly higher percentage of the responses in Group B were unfavorable, while a still higher percentage from Group C were unfavorable. In only one case was there a favorable response; respondents from Group A who have had school camping responded with 44.2% answering favorably and 37.1% answering unfavorably. Ao .hoszm hoohhoo mouocom* 6.R6 N.6N 66 6.N: 6.66 66 H.66 6.:N HHH mcHosoo hHHEoH R.66 N.6H 66 6.6: 6.6N RR :.66 6.HN 6RH ooosooHH mchoHH hem 6.66 6.6N 66 6.6: R.66 66 N.66 6.NN 6RH ooosooHH msHossc ham 6.H6 6.6N R: -- -- H N.:: H.R6 6R ocHoEoo Hoorom H.6: 6.:N H6 6.H: 6.6N 66 N.66 6.RN 66 oosoom 6.66 6.6H 66 6.66 6.6N :N 6.R: :.6N 66 2-: moHpH>Hpo< 6cm QHnmthEoz :.:: 6.6N 6: R.:: 6.6N 66 6.N6 6.HN 6R hospo 6.:6 H.6H HH -- -- 6 H.66 R.6H 6H HoHoHHHo homosoo R.H6 6.RN 6N -- -- R 6.66 6.6N 6H HosoHoooHohN N.66 6.6 6N -- -- H :.H6 6.6N 66 hoshoH :.6: N.RN HH -- 6.H: NH 6.H6 N.N6 H6 oohoHHEo HHoo R.66 6.6 N6 N.:: R.R6 H6 6.:6 6.6N :6H horososH hoH oxhoz pCohmm mo COHpmmmooo -- -- - -- -- - :.H6 6.6N 66 hhocooo 6.H6 6.:H :6 -- -- H 6.R6 6.HN :HH 666.6H hoes: hoHo 6.66 6.6H 6H 6.6: :.66 N6 -- -- R 666666 6.66 6.H6 6N 6.6N 6.6N 66 -- -- 6 666.6H hoho hoHo 6.66 6.:H 6: -- -- 6 :.66 6.6H H6H seem HCOECOHHH/Cm mEOm 6.66 6.NN 66 6.66 6.H6 6NH 6.6: 6.6N 66H some 6.R6 N.6H 66 6.66 6.6: 6H 6.66 R.RH :NH noHHH opmhw 6.N6 H.6H 66 N.66 6.66 66 6.:6 6.6H N6H loH6 R.66 6.NN R6 6.N: R.H6 66 6.N6 6.6N :6H ohom Row *R ooh HoroH R 62 *R ooh HoooH R 62 *R ooh HoooH osooH o mocha m QSOhU < QSOhU .26Hmh6 hH226m 62H 2HH2 h<2< 66 6H2626 62 mmohmmmmH .h6262 Ho mHooz 2 6H 622 6H<2H2< 262cm oEom :.: N.66 66 6.HH H.6R 6NH H.6H H.:R 66H soxHo H.:H H.:R 66 6.6N 6.66 6H N.HH 6.66 :NH soHHH opmhw 6.6H :.:R 66 6.6H 6.N6 66 6.:H 6.66 N6H loHo :.: 6.66 R6 H.HH :.HR 66 :.6H H.6R :6H ohom xom *R .62 R ooh HoooH *R 62 R ooh HoooH *R 62 R ooh HoooH sooH o QSOhU m macho H QSOhu m3 mmOEm OEIIM>mmmZOU 2H mmommbm ZH