A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION COMPETENCIES 0F THIRD GRADE STUDENTS AND ' _ THEIR TEACHERS ' Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY VIRGINIA ANN JONES 1976 n‘ u IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 1293 01107 0533 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Comparative Study of Environmental Education Competencies of Third Grade Students and Their trackers presented by Virginia Ann Jones has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Fisheries & Wildlife degree in f ,7 %/ 5/1“): 4/- Major professor / July 21,1976 Date 0-7 639 wcrsity Ur; Ya Rm An Rn... BM 14k LM “ - I . a. - 3,; = :f. i N. ::mmt;n...,3.. 7.2:. mamma .mm m mommmmmmwmm awmwmaammaaaummmmmmm.,m ahha5-~5-55~hsaaseNNfi mmemmammmooammmwmmmwmmm nnmammnnwmmmmnnmnnmwo u') .evvvwvvacvcwv.vvcev.v nmmmmmammnmmmmmmmmnm mm NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN _______________________ a. «5 _H ”h m~ ma .. U. N. .. .N on a. _u mm mm .m m. ~u _m ”a mm mw aaaaaaaaaaaacooacgaeom: 5r ‘9 I All “1 V‘- n! .r\ u. ”'9 ‘ I! F 1‘ Inf) ‘1" m m n l” tn 8", I!) In ‘13 u”) I!) I1”) \I) u.) m at: '4') a an U) us oveoeqvvvvveeow~qucqu mmmmmmnmmmmmm (‘1 f 3 t’) (V) M ”3 "an” -~N~NN~N~NN (‘0 N (V N NNNNNNN __._________________r__ r mm on gm mm w“ Fm an a. u. ”a a. n. v. n. N. _. m~ mm mm “a an mm .A ocoaaaoaaoaascccgaacarr FE a. a 3.... 2 n .N 2 .t n H: mmuummmmmqm_ mumuwwuwmmmm " V ~1- ‘3' 1r 'V v O ' t t r F- —- —- '— v— —- .— .- — .- — w‘ an .— v U. N on N '- . N I. N .n N - F. "I N an mm -. a c: c: c: :3 a a a a a _ _ rrl rt him a} m 'w/ No {.7 I 1 ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION COMPETENCIES 0F THIRD GRADE STUDENTS AND THEIR TEACHERS BY Virginia Ann Jones The primary purpose of this study was to determine current levels of environmental education competency of third grade students and their teachers in relation to the Michigan Goals of Environmental Education. Also of interest was whether or not a relationship exists between knowledge about the environment and behavior regarding the environment and whether or not it is possible to assess the teachers' environmental education competency at minimal adult level and thereby to gain insights regarding the effects of these competencies on those of their students. Four hundred and thirty-six third grade students were given an Environmental Education Competency Measure (E.E.C.M.) based on Michigan K-3 Minimal Performance Objectives. The cognitive com- ponent of the instrument was administered orally and the total number of correct responses constituted the C-score for each student. In addition, teachers were asked to observe specific environmental education behaviors of their students and then to rate each student in regard to the frequency of exhibited behavior Virginia Ann Jones on a behavioral checklist. The scores derived from this checklist constituted the affective-behavioral (AB-score) component of the E.E.C.M. The total of AB and C-scores constituted the environmental education competency (E.E.C.). The 20 teachers of the third grade classes used in the study were given an E.E.C.M. based on Michigan 7-9 Minimal Performance Objectives. The cognitive component was open-ended with the C-score determined by comparing the responses of the teachers with the re- sponses of ten environmental education ”experts." The A8 component of the instrument involved self-reported responses regarding envi- ronmental behaviors. These responses were verified by an interview with the researcher who then evaluated each teacher on a behavior- al checklist to determine their AB-score. The total of AB and C- scores again constituted the E.E.C. The data were evaluated using a combination of item analysis, descriptive reports and parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures. Analysis of the data indicated that the behaviors identified by the minimal performance objectives are well within the capabilities of the subjects evaluated. Actual achievement in relation to Michigan's Minimal Performance ObjectiVes for environ- mental education was, however, generally low. Further analysis of the data in relationship to individual objectives suggested specif- ic concepts which appeared to be fully equilibrated by the subjects and others which were not yet clearly understood. When environ- mental education competencies were analyzed in terms of the five Michigan Goals of Environmental Education major differences were Virginia Ann Jones found between the competency levels of the teachers compared to that of their students. Statistical analysis of correlations indicated a highly significant correlation (at the .00] level) between student C-scores and AB-scores but no significant relationship was found for the teachers tested. Further, no significant relationship was found between either the cognitive or affective-behavioral scores of teachers and the mean cognitive or affective-behavioral scores of their classes. However a significant correlation (at the .20 level) was found between the overall E.E.C. of teachers and the mean E.E.C. of their classes. Analysis of the findings indicate that: I). Overall E.E.C. levels of both third grade students and teachers were generally low in relation to the Michigan Goals of Environmental Education. 2). The affective-behavioral (AB) competencies of the third grade students were substantially lower than their cognitive compe- tencies. The converse was true for the third grade teachers. 3). A highly significant correlation was found between the cognitive achievement of students and their affective behaviors as evaluated by their classroom teacher. 4). While there was no significant correlation between the isolated scores of teachers on either component of the instrument and the appropriate scores of their students, the overall environ- mental education competency of teachers did have a significant relationship to total student achievement. Virginia Ann Jones The highly significant relationship between the environmental education knowledge and behaviors of third grade students and the influence noted between overall teacher environmental education competency and student achievement suggest that environmental educa- tion is a confluent approach to the educational process in which the final learning outcome may be greater than the sum of the parts. The low environmental education achievement levels of both students and teachers demonstrated in this study point to the urgent need to make environmental education programs available at all edu- cational levels. Inasmuch as the data collected represent baseline competency levels they could be utilized to identify individual performance objectives and related curricular areas in need of particular development. Instructional strategies to meet these needs could then be designed to improve the environmental education competencies of both students and teachers. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION COMPETENCIES OF THIRD GRADE STUDENTS AND THEIR TEACHERS BY Virginia Ann Jones A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Fisheries and Wildlife l976 Dedicated to my parents, Daniel D. and Ann M. Jones, and to The Sisters of St. Joseph of Nazareth, Michigan for their love, support, encouragement and Faith. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Robert W. George, my committee chairman, and Drs. Eugene W. Roelofs, Gilbert W. Mouser and Milton Steinmueller my committee members, for their guidance, enthusiasm, time, interest and most of all the encourage- ment which was so freely given during the course of this study. I am also indebted to Dr. Edward L. Smith of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center for his assistance in interpreta- tion of the item analysis and statistical data. Dr. N. Jean Enochs, also of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center, provided both encouragement and technical assistance for which I am most grateful. A special note of appreciation must go to the members of the Michigan Environmental Education Referent Committee for the many hours spent in the development of the minimal performance object- ives utilized in this study and for their willingness to supply expert advice regarding environmental education content and process. I am also grateful to the superintendents, principals, and staffs of the elementary schools who participated in this study for the many ways in which they assisted in the process of data collection. A special thanks must go to Mrs. Frances Fenn, for her contributions which were above the call of duty in making the final product a quality one, to the eighth grade students from St. Joseph School in St. Johns, Michigan, for their assistance in data transferral, and to the principal, teachers and third grade students of St. Therese School in Lansing for their assistance in revising the student assessment instrument. Finally, I am grateful to Dr. John W. Brainerd of Springfield College, Springfield, Massachusetts, for the many ways in which he has contributed to my professional and personal devel0pment through the course of the years. His insight and dedication to the cause of environmental education are a constant source of inspiration. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I . INTRODUCTUON . O O C O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 General Background Information. . . . . . . . An Ecological View of Learning . . . . . . Emergence of the Environmental Education Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Education in Michigan. . . . Definitions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study. . . . . . . Purpose of the Study. . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . Overview of the Dissertation. . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . The Cognitive and Affective Domains in Learning 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Attitudes and Behavior . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Cognitive and Affective Domains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Status of Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Education Assessment. . . . . . Assessment in Cognitive and Affective Domains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norm-Referenced and Criterion-Referenced Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performance Behavioral Objectives in Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student-Teacher Interactions in Learning. . . Teacher Knowledge and Student Achievement. Teacher-Student Attitudes. . . . . . . . . Teacher Behavior and Student Performance . PAGE ll '3 l6 I7 I9 20 20 22 25 28 28 33 37 A3 A3 “5 CHAPTER PAGE II. (Cont.) Developmental Learning Theories . . . . . . . . 46 Introduction and Terminology . . . . . . . . A6 Cognitive Development. . . . . . . . . . . . A9 Affective or Moral Development . . . . . . . S3 Implications for Elementary Environmenta Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Ill. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 overVEew. I O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O 62 Experimental Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Hypotheses o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 63 Assumptions and Limitations. . . . . . . . . 6h Performance Objectives and the E.E.C.M. . . . . 65 Student E.E.C.M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Teacher E.E.C.M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Population Selection and Description. . . . . . 82 Operational Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Scoring Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Statistical and Data Processing Procedures. . . 9l IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA. . . . . . . . 98 Analysis of Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Cognitive Component Student E.E.C.M. . . . . 99 AB Component Student E.E.C.M. . . . . . . . ll2 Total Student E.E.C.M. . . . . . . . . . . . llS Cognitive Component Teacher E.E.C.M. . . . . ll8 AB Component Teacher E.E.C.M. . . . . . . . l23 Total Teacher E.E.C.M. . . . . . . . . . . . l25 Comparative Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29 Hypothesis Number I. . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Hypothesis Number 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . l30 Hypothesis Number 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . l3l Hypothesis Number A. . . . . . . . . . . . . I32 Discussion of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . l32 vi CHAPTER IV. (Cont.) Descriptive Data. Student Environmental Education Competency Teacher Environmental Education Competency Competencies and Environmental Education 608‘s. 0 O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS. Sumary O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Implications. . . . . . Implications for Future Research. . REFERENCE LIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX I (State Accountability Model) . . . . APPENDIX II (Experts Responding to Teacher E.E.C.M.). APPENDIX III (What I Think About the Environment) . . APPENDIX IV (Environmental Education Behavioral Checklist). APPENDIX V (Environmental Education Survey for Teachers) (WI th keY) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX VI (Teacher Self-Report of Environmental BehaViors) . C O 0 O C C O C O C . APPENDIX VII (Teacher Interview Questions). . . APPENDIX VIII (Teacher Behavioral Checklist). . APPENDIX IX (Student Answer Sheet). . . . . . . APPENDIX X (Codebook Student Data Transformations). APPENDIX XI (IBM Answer Sheet and Key). . . . . vii PAGE I35 I35 lhl 146 1h9 1A9 153 15A 155 157 170 171 I72 202 203 2l3 Zlh 2I5 2I6 2I7 218 IO. ll. I2. I3. IA. l5. I6. LIST OF TABLES Implications of Devel0pmental Learning Theory for Elementary Environmental Education . . . . . . . . Environmental Education Goals and Third Grade Performance Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Education Goals and Ninth Grade Performance Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Michigan School Districts. . . . . . . . . . Participating Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Responses to Listing Items. . . . . . . . . . Scorer Reliability Teacher Cognitive E.E.C.M. . . . . Related Components of Teacher AB-Scores . . . . . . . Evaluation of Indices of Item Difficulty for Mastery Test I tems O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Evaluation of Indices of Item Discrimination for Mastery Test Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution and Percent Correct of StudentC‘SCOres......o.......... Grouped Frequency Distribution Student C-Scores . . . Descriptive Statistics Cognitive Component Student E.E.C.M. O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 Distribution and Rank of Mean Class C-Scores. . . . . Frequency Distribution Indices of Item Difficulty for Student Cognitive E.E.C.M. . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution of Indices of Item Difficulty and Discriminating Efficiencies for Student cognitive E.E.C.M. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 vii a PAGE 6l 7h 83 8h 88 89 90 93 9h 99 I00 lOO I03 ID} 105 TABLE 17. I8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29- 30. 31. 32. 33. 3h. LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) Descriptive Statistics Item Analysis Student Cognitive E.E.C.M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grouped Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistics for Student AB-Scores . . . . . . . . . Distribution and Rank of Mean Class AB-Scores . . . . Frequency Distribution of Student Behavioral CheCkliSt Ratings. 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O Grouped Frequency Distribution of Student Environmental Education Competencies . . . . . . . Descriptive Statistics for Student Environmental Education Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution and Rank of Mean Class E.E.C. . . . . . Teachers' Adjusted C-Scores and Corresponding Ranks . Grouped Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistics for Teachers' Adjusted C-Scores . . . . Percent/Item Analysis of Teachers' Cognitive E.E.C.M. Distribution and Rank of Teachers' AB-Scores. . . . . Grouped Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistics for Teachers' AB-Scores . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution of Teacher Behavioral Checklist Ratings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution and Rank of Teacher Environmental Education Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grouped Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Environmental Education cmpetenCEes O O O I O O O C C O O I I O O O O O 0 Correlation of AB and C-Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation of Teacher and Student C-Scores . . . . . Correlation of Teacher and Student AB-Scores. . . . . viii PAGE 105 112 11h 115 116 116 118 119 119 122 123 123 125 127 127 129 131 131 LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) TABLE PAGE 35. Correlation of Teacher and Student E.E.C. . . . . . . 132 36. Comparison of Rank Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 37. Student Environmental Education Competencies in Relation to Michigan Goals and Minimal Performance Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I36 38. Teacher Environmental Education Competencies in Relation to Michigan Goals and Minimal Performance Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IAZ 39. Comparison of Student and Teacher Environmental Education Competencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lh7 ho. Summary of Correlational Analyses . . . . . . . . . . 153 FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES E155 and Harbeck Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kimball MOdel. O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Frequency Polygon for Student C-Scores . . . . . . . Percentage Distribution of Indices of Item Difficulty for the Cognitive Component of the StUdent E.E.C.M. O O O I I I O O O O O O O O O 0 Percentage Distribution for Item Discriminations and Discriminating Efficiencies of the Cognitive Component of the Student E.E.C.M. . . . . . . . . Frequency Polygon for Student AB-Scores. . . . . . . Frequency Polygon for Student Environmental Education Competencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Polygon for Teachers' Adjusted C-Scores. . Frequency Polygon for Teachers' AB-Scores. . . . . . Frequency Polygon for Teachers' Environmental Education Competencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 23 23 101 104 106 113 117 121 124 128 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Environmental quality is a major societal concern of Americans today. Within the past decade the average citizen has become increasingly aware of environmental concerns through a variety of mass media channels and educational programs. The activities of Earth Day, April 22, 1970, demonstrated the inter- est, concern, and commitment of nearly twenty million Americans (Swan 1975, p. 15). Subsequent Earth Day celebrations have also occurred. Yet this type of response alone has not been enough to bring about significant changes in basic values and life-styles necessary to improve the quality of our environment. There is a growing realization that: ...education has an important role to play now and in the coming years in helping people rationally solve some of the persistent prob- lems associated with our natural and man-made environment. Education is the key to changing human attitudes, values and feelings, as well as behaviors--and doing so through intrinsic means (Michigan Department of Education, November 1973, p. 1). Educational programs designed to achieve these ends are generally termed ”environmental education.” GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION An Ecological View of Learning Before considering the nature of environmental education I think it is necessary to examine three important conceptual- izations of the manner in which the human organism is interrelated with his environment and hence the manner in which learning occurs. These fundamental views can be identified as nomothetic, idiographic and transactional. The nomothetic view holds that knowledge and absolute values have their origins in the environment or have meaning apart from man himself. The human mind is conceived as tabla rosa (blank slate) upon which the social system inscribes its beliefs and val- ues. Hence the environment is the most important component of the learning system. This view derives its theoretical support from behaviorism (especially the operant conditioning model of B. F. Skinner),from social learning theory and from psychoanalysis. The idiographic or absolute relativistic view places its emphasis on the individual organism and holds that ALL values are relative. This approach derives theoretical support from exist- entialism and humanism and has been expressed in sensitivity training, gestalt therapy, situation ethics, and values clarifi- cation programs. The emphasis of these programs is on individual freedom and respect for the values of others while avoiding indoctrination and concentrating on the process by which values are determined. Finally, the transactional view of learning as developed by Maslow, Piaget, Kohlberg and others holds that learning occurs through the interactions of the individual with the environment. Learning is not inherent in either the organism (idiographic view) or in the environment (nomothetic view) but in the process of interaction-that is, in the nature of the transactions that occur between the two. Clifford Knapp states that Whenever peOple experience new things in their surroundings and delight in their discoveries; whenever people wonder about something they find and try to seek answers to questions; whenever people become concerned enough to do something to improve their surroundings; they are engaged in environmental education (1975, p. 209). Central to Knapp's statement is the notion that man as an organism in some way interacts with the environment or real world and that learning or modification of behavior results from this interaction. This is a transactional or ecological view‘gfi the learning process which emphasizes the all-important principle that it is impossible to separate man from his environment. Thus the human organism constructs knowledge, values, attitudes and generates behaviors through a process of interaction with the environment. Environmental education activities and programs based on this ecological model of the learning process are primarily concerned with the nature of the transactions or interactions that take place between the individual and the environment. These transactions may be analyzed in light of the three domains of learning recognized by most educators: the cognitive, the affective, and the psychomotor. While the learning domains effectively ident- ify the nature of the transactions occurring in the learning process, it is important to recognize that they are intimately interrelated in the actual dynamic of learning and that no learning activity can be viewed as relating exclusively to one domain. The ecological or transactional view of learning just described has much potential for the development of future environ- mental education programs. Since it is based on fundamental ecological principles describing the manner in which organisms are related to each other and to their environment it affords Opportuni- ties for ”modeling” these principles in actual learning programs. Emergence of the Environmental Education Concept In spite of the fact that environmental education and its forerunners, (nature study, conservation education and outdoor education) have been a part of curricular efforts since the early part of the twentieth century, ”many perceive environmental educa- tion as a new movement. Many others perceive it as one or more old movements with a new name." (Mclnnis and Albrecht 1975, p. 3). Hence there is still a need to clarify what is meant by the term ”environmental education”. Nature study or nature education had its beginnings in 1891 with the publication of Nature Study in the Common Schools by Wilbur Jackman. The focus of nature study is learning through direct experiences and first hand observation facts and concepts about the natural world. Inquiry and discovery approaches to learning play a significant role in nature study programs. Nature study can be defined as: ...an area of study aimed at developing an understanding of and respect for the natural parts of our environment and cultivating in man the skills of accurate observation (Swan 1975, p. 9). This movement was supported by the publication of the Cornell University Rural School Leaflets and the Handbook of Nature Study by Anna Comstock, and by the foundation of the American Nature Study Society which still publishes a periodical entitled Nature Study. Conservation education originated in the 19305 and was initially intertwined with federal programs of human resource conservation, such as the Works Progress Administration (W.P.A.) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (C.C.C.) born out of the depression. The central focus of conservation education is the ...educational process of communicating an understanding of the characteristics, distribution, status, uses, problems and management policies of our basic natural resources. The emphasis has been on “stewardship” and the ||wise-use“ concept in relation to basic natural resources (Governor's Environmental Education Task Force 1973. p. 88). Leadership for this movement came from many sources including governmental and private agencies and associations, soil and water conservation districts, wildlife federations and sports- men's clubs. The Conservation Education Association is the professional organization which seeks to promote and encourage conservation education activities and programs. Outdoor education developed as an educational movement during the 19205. The central concern of outdoor education is the approach to learning or the environment in which learning occurs. In effect, while conservation education is sometimes considered a substantive area of study, outdoor education is considered an educational approach or method (Swan 1975. P. 9). Thus outdoor education involves the use of resources outside the classroom in order to obtain its educational objectives. The writings of John Dewey and William Kilpatrick provided a theoretical framework for outdoor education, and large scale, year round programs were soon established. Outstanding spokesmen for outdoor education included the late Julian Smith of Michigan State University and L. 8. Sharp, Director of the Life Fresh Air Camps program. Within the last decade the term “environmental education” has come to the fore, and in May 1968 a National Conference on Environmental Education was held in New Jersey. The Environmental Education Act of 1970 helped to bring the meaning of environmental education into focus and helped to define the parameters within which it operates. In accordance with this act (Public Law 91-516) the United States Office of Education defines environmental education as: ...the educational process dealing with man's relationship with his natural and man-made surroundings, and including the relation of p0pu1ation, pollution, resource allocation and depletion, conservation, transportation, technology and urban and rural planning to the total human environment (U.S. Congress, 915t, October 1970:Environmental Education Act.) Dr. George Lowe of the United States Office of Education, a sub-division of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued the following statement: omooxroxmth-u ‘ is NOT conservation education. is NOT a subject - it is a process. is multidisciplinary. is community oriented. is problem focused. includes ALL components of society. builds on past good - work. is teacher-student oriented. . is both formal and non-formal. E.E. could be an educational reform. o o o o o o m "'1 m m m 1'71 m m m o o o o o o o o mmrnrnmrnrnrnrn O 0 (January A, 1972). After indicating that there is no single, all-inclusive and adequate definition of environmental education, Noel McInnis, a prominent environmental educator, suggests the following as environmental education components: 1 2. “3meer w Perceptual awareness. Conceptual understanding of the natural environment. Conceptual understanding of the man-made environment. Values and values clarification. Fostering creative abilities and attitudes. Aesthetic discrimination. Humanism. Organizational skills and knowledge. Decision-making (1975, p. 25). It is apparent that the perspectives of different people regarding environmental education vary considerably. Some hold that environmental education should penetrate all aspects of the curriculum; indeed that environmental education is THE curriculum. Others see it as a discrete, unique component of the curriculum. Some see it as a way of teaching, or a process; others see it as content or a body of knowledge and skills to be taught. In Michigan, the state legislature has defined environ- mental education as: ...teaching... of attitudes and skills involving the relationship between man and the quality of his cultural and biophysical environment...(included should be) understanding of ecology and man's activities within the context of the natural com- munity... our environmental heritage; the intelli- gent use of natural resources; the effect on the environment of chemical contamination...preserva- tion and enhancement of natural areas and recreation land for leisure time use; planning for wise land use; and the increased stress placed on the environ- ment by growing technology and human populations... (State of Michigan Legislature, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 69, June 1971). This statement was summarized by the Governor's Environmental Education Task Force in its report, Michigan's Environmental Future Environmental education is the basic process leading toward the development of a citizenry that is aware of and concerned about the environment and its associated problems, and that has the knowledge, skill, motivation and commitment to work toward solutions to current and projected problems. (1973, p. 14). It is this operational definition of environmental education that will be employed in subsequent discussions. Environmental Education in Michigan In early 1970 a Task Force on Goals of Michigan Education consisting of educators, students, and other citizens was estab- lished by the State Board of Education. The result of the work of this group was the publication of a report entitled The Common iggglglgfi Michigan Education in September 1971. Goal 11 under the section on student learning addressed itself to education for a quality environment Michigan education must develop within each individual the knowledge and respect necessary for the appreciation, maintenance, protection, and improvement of the physical environment. (Michigan Department of Education, 1971, p. 7). In response to suggestions from various citizen's groups and governmental agencies, Governor Milliken appointed a broadly- based Environmental Education Task Force in mid-1971. This group sponsored a series of geographically distributed public meetings to obtain ideas and concerns regarding a state master plan for environmental education to be developed by the Task Force. Funds for the development of the master plan were received through a grant from the United States Office of Education,cfl:the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. In the first edition of the report of this group entitled Michigan's Environmental Future: A Master Plan for Environmental Education (1972) the following goals 10 for environmental education were established: to develop in people an awareness, understanding, and concern for the environment with its associ- ated problems--natural, manmade social, political and economic--and knowledge, skill, commitment and motivation to work toward solutions to these and projected problems. (Governor's Environmental Education Task Force reprinted by Michigan Department of Education, November 1973, p. 3). An Environmental Education Guidelines Committee was established by the Department of Education in accordance with Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 69 (1971) to develop guidelines to assist local school districts in designing educational strat- egies to meet these goals. This committee suggested that these goals may be achieved by helping individuals: I. to realize and appreciate that man is I an inseparable part of a life support 1 system, and that whatever he does 1 alters the inter-relationships within I the system; ~ 2. to obtain a basic awareness and I understanding of the environment with I its associated problems and to learn ' ways they can be effectively solved; 1 3. to recognize and clarify their values . concerning the environment; A. to deveIOp a personal responsibility for environmental protection and enhancement; 5. to develop the motivation to work toward the prevention of and solutions to environmental problems. (Michigan Department of Education, November 1973. p. 3). ‘ ’0’er ‘. ‘N ‘5. The five broad sub-goals listed above were utilized to develop minimal performance objectives by the Department of Education's ad hoc committee for the Development of Basic Environmental Education Objectives. This group began work in the fall of 1973 and has developed several drafts of objectives in ll accordance with the State Accountability Model (Appendix I). In September 1975 the ad hoc committee was dissolved and the Michigan Environmental Education Referent Committee (M.E.E.R.C.) was established as a permanent committee of the Department of Education. This group will revise and finalize the existing minimal perform- ance objectives, develop suitable test items, and assist in needs assessment, delivery system analysis and evaluation as well as make recommendations for curriculum deveIOpment. DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY In this study the following definitions are being used Cognitive domain refers to the mental activities or operations involved in knowing an object. It includes what an individual learns as well as the intellectual process involved in learning. Cognitive skills include recall and recognition (knowledge), compre- hension, application, analysis and evaluation (Krathwohl,Bloom and Masia, 196A, p. A9). Affective domain refers to the emotional aspects of experience and learning. The emphasis is on feeling or tone, emotion, and degree of acceptance or rejection, and finds expression as interests, attitudes, appreciations and values (Kratwohl, g£_gl, 1964, p. 7). Behavior is an observable or overt action which may be either verbal or nonverbal. Entry level is the existing knowledge, skills, attitudes and values the learner brings to the educational situation. 12 Terminal level is the level of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values desired/achieved as the outcome of instruction and stated in the performance objective. Performance objective is ...a statement which describes the individual or individuals who will be behaving (Audience), the behavior to be exhibited (Behavior), the object or objects of the behavior,... the technique to be used for measuring behavior (Condition), and the criterion for success (Degree). (Governor's Environmental Education Task Force, 1973, p. 89). Environmental Education Competency (E.E.C.) will be defined as the degree or level of success achieved in attaining the Michigan Goals of Environmental Education as measured by ability to demon- strate behaviors specified by Michigan Environmental Education minimal performance objectives. Environmental Education Competency Measure (E.E.C.M.) is the instrument used to assess E.E.C. It consists of two components: a cognitive component or C-score plus an affective-behavioral component or AB-score. Definitions of additional terms such as ”appreciation”, “awareness“, ”commitment”, ”concern”, “environmental problem”, ”environmental solution”, ”environmental quality”, ”pollution“, ”understand“, and “value'l are in accordance with those contained in the glossary of Michigan's Environmental Future, 1973, the state Master Plan for Environmental Education. 13 NEED FOR THE STUDY In America today all are exposed to some form of environmental education whether they realize it or not. Television programs and commercials, bumper stickers, cartoons, comic books, textbooks, newspapers, magazines, and novels all contain messages about the environment and its quality. Many even express values and attitudes about the manner in which environmental problems should be solved. Because environmental problems are a salient concern for our society today, everyone is learning something about the environment through some type of formal or informal educational technique or program. But what exactly are People learning and how are they learning it? What environmental knowledge, attitudes and values do they need in order to make intelligent decisions regarding personal behavior and public policy? Questions such as these were considered by the Governor's Environmental Education Task Force when developing the state master plan for environmental education. This committee and the Department of Education's Guidelines Committee formulated the basic goals and sub-goals for environmental education for the state and thus answered for Michigan the question ”What is important to us?” The next import- ant question to be asked is ”Where are we now, and where do we want to go?" The first half of this question (”Where are we now?") points to the need for pilot studies to determine baseline data regarding the current levels of environmental education achievement possessed by various groups and individuals within the state. The second half of the question (”Where do we want to 90?“) is currently 1h being addressed by the Michigan Environmental Education Referent Committee involved in the development of minimal performance objectives. It will be impossible to consider questions such as ”How shall we get there?” (delivery system analysis and curriculum deveIOpment) and “How shall we know when we have arrived at our destination?“ (evaluation) until sufficient data have been collected to provide adequate answers to the first basic question, namely, “Where are we now?" Hence at the moment the collection of baseline data regarding current levels of environmental education achievement in Michigan in terms of assessment of existing entry levels of both cognitive and affective behaviors is an important research need and a top priority item. Recent research indicated that teachers, students, and administrators have perceived a need for and expressed interest in determining the knowledge and attitudes as well as the background (training/experience) needed by teachers to produce successful environmental education programs and curricula. Instruments to evaluate cognitive and affective achievement must be designed and tested to meet this need (Hilgerson, Hilburn, Wiley, Blosser, 'g£_§l 1971. This study addresses itself to these needs by deveIOping and testing such evaluation instruments and by assessing current levels of student and teacher achievement in both cognitive and affective domains in relation to the Goals of Michigan Environmental Education. 15 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The primary purpose of this study was to determine current levels of environmental education competency (E.E.C.) of third grade students and their teachers in relation to the Michigan Goals of Environmental Education. Since these goals are directed at both cognitive skills and affective behaviors, success in meeting the resulting minimal performance objectives will be determined by individual achievement levels in both of these learning domains. Although psychomotor skills contribute to learning, current Michigan goals do not address this aspect of the learning process and therefore are not considered in this study. Also of interest in this study was whether or not a relationship exists between knowledge about the environment and behavior regarding the environment. 15 there a relationship between what third grade students know about the environment and what they do about it? Similarly, is there a relationship between what third grade teachers know about the environment and what they do about it? In the past numerous studies have attempted to correlate teachers' environmental knowledge/attitudes/behaviors with student environmental knowledge/attitudes/behaviors. This study was also interested in whether or not it is possible to assess the teacher's E.E.C. at minimal adult level and thereby to gain insights regarding the effects of these competencies on those of their students. Therefore the purpose of this study was threefold: I. To determine current levels of environmental education competency of third grade students and their teachers through assessment of entry behaviors. l6 2. To determine if a relationship exists between competence in the cognitive (knowledge about the environ- ment) and the affective (behaviors regarding the environ- ment) domains. 3. To determine if a relationship exists between a teacher's E.E.C. and that of his/her students. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Since little is currently known about the entry levels of students regarding environmental education knowledge and behaviors, it is difficult to establish meaningful minimal terminal performance. This study seeks to assess what the entry level of third grade students is regarding E.E.C. and thus serves as a pilot project for the field- testing of stated environmental education objectives. Such a field- testing is necessary ...to determine whether the behaviors cited by the objectives are attainable by students in a school setting as a result of planned instructional strategies... ...(for) determining the appropriateness of the objectives for the age group specified... ...(for) identifying some indicators of the rele- vance of the objectives in relationship to commonly agreed upon goals... (Michigan Department of Education, July 1973, p. I). The information made available as a result of this study would make it possible to reexamine existing minimal performance objectives in terms of the criteria just stated in order to make necessary modi- fications. In addition, the determination of this type of baseline data is essential to the deveIOpment of educational programs that are relevant to student needs and abilities. As soon as information is 17 available concerning existing entry levels and the desired outcomes of environmental education instruction have been determined, we can examine the important issue of what delivery systems can be best utilized to obtain our goals. Among the t0p priorities in environmental education today is the development of meaningful in-service teacher education programs. In order to do this, existing entry levels must be assessed and relevant terminal performances specified. Meaningful teacher educa- tion programs must be based on knowledge of entry levels of bgth the teachers and their students. This study seeks to provide useful data in this regard. OVERVIEW OF TH§:DISSERTATION In Chapter II the literature is reviewed to provide an understanding of the theoretical relationships of knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviors in the learning process; to explore the role of performance objectives and criterion-referenced measure- ment in evaluation; and to provide an understanding derived from empirical studies of possible relationships between teacher traits and student performances. A brief description of the developmental learning theories by Piaget and Kohlberg is also provided. In Chapter III the procedures used in the study are described. Hypotheses are formulated and assumptions and limitations stated. A description of the instruments used in assessing E.E.C. as well as scoring and evaluation procedures are given. Information describing statistical and data processing procedures is also given. 18 Chapter IV consists of the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data. The E.E.C.M. instruments are analyzed and descriptive and statistical data are presented and inter- preted in relation to the formulated hypotheses and to achieve- ment of specified objectives. In Chapter V the data related to each of the hypotheses are examined and conclusions drawn. Data describing current levels of E.E.C. in Michigan in relation to Michigan Environmental Education goals are also examined and conclusions regarding educational impli- cations and implications for future research are presented. CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Literature regarding the theoretical relationships of the components of cognitive and affective domains is reviewed in this chapter in order to provide a basis for interpretation of empiri- cal studies seeking to explore those relationships. Descriptive literature related to demonstrated levels of environmental educa- tion achievement in these domains is also cited. A theoretical basis for the utilization of performance objectives in environmental education assessment is provided through a review of the literature relating to performance object- ives and criterion-referenced measurements in the educational process. Research exploring possible relationships between teacher traits and student performances is also reviewed to examine pos- sible correlations between the cognitive and/or affective-behavioral scores of teachers and the cognitive and/or affective-behavioral scores of their students. Finally a brief discussion of the developmental learning theories of Piaget and Kohlberg is presented to provide a conceptual framework for the interpretation of descriptive data. 20 The Cognitive and Affective Domains in Learning Attitudes and Behavior An attitude may be defined as a person's favorable or unfavorable orientation toward a group of objects or events-- the evaluative dimension of human response (Knapp, 1972). Insko and Sch0pler (1967) and Wicker (1969) support Knapp's definition by referring to attitudes in terms of evaluative feelings in regard to particular objects. Rokeach (1968) suggests that atti- tudes represent an organization of interrelated beliefs that are focused on a specific situation. Finally, Watson (1966) describes attitudes as predispositions to act in a certain manner toward any given stimulus; thus attitudes can be considered constructs which can be inferred from behavior. Behavior, as previously defined, is an observable or overt action which may be either verbal or nonverbal. The ramifica- tions of this definition are extremely significant in the applica- tion of the term “behavior" in the deveIOpment of behavioral or performance objectives to be discussed later in this chapter. Often a three-step flow process from knowledge acquisition to attitudinal change and behavioral modification is assumed. This assumption is based on psychological balance, consistency or dis- sonance theories. These theories suggest that as a person receives more information on a topic, he begins to behave in accordance with that information. If there is inconsistency (dissonance) between the attitudes he holds and the knowledge he has obtained, the individual will change his behavior to bring it into closer harmony 21 with his attitudes. As Swanson (1972) points out, the actual relationship among the members of this triad are probably not as simple nor as consistent as previously assumed. This may in part be related to the fact that although attitudes are classi- fied as belonging to the affective domain, they also have a cognitive component. Alternative theories to dissonance or consistency theory suggest that behavior may change before atti- tude change and that attitudes are more resistant to change. (Swanson, 1972, p. 36A). Numerous empirical studies have been conducted to investi- gate the relationships of attitudes and behaviors. Wicker (1969) indicated that research prior to 1969 suggested that it is consider- ably more probable that attitudes will be unrelated or only slightly related to overt behaviors than that attitudes will be closely re- lated to actions. Seed (1970) found that young adults have strong public attitudes against littering but that their private attitudes and actions tend to be dissonant with their public littering atti- tudes. This is supported by the findings of Bart (1972) in a study of Minnesota graduate students in which attitudes relating to personal behaviors formed a linear hierarchy and were to a great extent independent of other attitudes which related to more public behavior. From this he concludes that anti-environmental attitudes associated with personal behavior are the most difficult to change. According to Sheth (1974) more recent studies indicate that when attitude scores are calculated on the basis of 22 multidimensional measures there is a significant relationship to behavior or behavioral intention. This is supported by the results of Evans' (197A) study which was successful in fostering changes in littering and/or pollution behaviors as a result of programs focused upon attitudinal change. Further, the observed behavioral changes were explicable by cognitive consistency theory. Perkes (1973) points to a lack of understanding of just how attitudes and behaviors are related and how both are influenced by knowledge. Nevertheless, research suggests that although the relationship between attitudes and behavior is by no means linear or direct; the linkage is still predictable and manageable (Fishbein, 1967,), Relationships of Cognitive and Affective Domains Educators have long suspected that close relationships exist between components of the cognitive and affective domains and have conducted numerous inquiries into the nature of these relationships. Models describing possible relationships have been suggested by Eiss and Harbeck (1969) and Kimball (197A). The Eiss and Harbeck model emphasizes the complexity of interrelationships among the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains and the resulting synthesis (output) in the form of overt behavior (Figure 1 adapted from page A), 23 Cognitive / \ Affective ¢———-’ Psychomotor UTPUT 1 INPUT I sub-conscious 0“" 3‘10"“ Figure l. Eiss and Harbeck Model Kimball (l97h) developed a model utilizing Piaget's stages of cognitive development and related them to affective maturity (Fig. 2 - adapted from page 1). Early Cognitive devel- Higher Order Cognitive opment at home Development (Sensori motor and Mature (Concrete and formal pro-operations) 'IPAffectiv. *I' operations in home Affective learning Development and school) (Expression of learning) Figure 2. Kimball Model This model suggests that cognitive development at higher levels is dependent upon affective deve10pment and maturity. Kimball's model is supported by Gordon's (1970) research which indicated a close relationship between affect and cognition in the development of object performance in infants and in the development of symbolism and language in the young child. Gordon concludes At all ages.. cognitive organization, development and change are inspired and fed by a search for meaning which is affective (p. Ah). 2A Piaget and Inhelder (1969) indicate that all behavior patterns, no matter how intellectual, involve affective motivational fact- ors; hence cognitive and affective aspects of learning are inseparable and irreducible. In 1950, Sherman studied the attitudes of elementary school teachers in training and the extent to which conservation informa- tion was related to the possession of these attitudes. He found that common factors seem to be operating to influence both conservation information and attitude attainment. In 1966 George found that conservation attitude changes were associated with interest, motivation and exposure to conservation knowledge. Solid (1971) studied the relationship of attitude toward conservation to knowledge about conservation in a group of junior high school students. The results of this study indicate a direct relationship or positive correlation between conservation knowledge and attitudes. Cohen's (1973) study of the relationship between the environmental information and environmental attitudes of high school students supports Solid's conclusions. Furthermore, the group which exhibited the higher information level was also more willing to express their attitudes. In a study of 1881 sixth grade students in North Carolina, Hounshell and Liggett (1973) found a high positive correlation between individual knowledge about the environment and attitudes toward the environment. Kimball (197%) found a high positive correlation between measures of thinking and feeling in Americans and in the citizens of other 25 countries. Moger's (1975) study of more than 200 high school seniors found a correlation of .38 between affective (environ- mental attitudes) and cognitive (environmental knowledge) test scores. This correlation was significant at the .001 level. Also the correlation between cognitive test scores and student grade point average (GPA) was .58; significant at the .01 level. However, no corresponding significant correlation between environ- mental attitudes and GPA was indicated by the results of this study. The results of some research investigations, however, have suggested an inverse relationship between knowledge and the develop- ment of specific environmental attitudes (Tichenor, Donahue, Olien and Bowers 1971, Krathwohl, g£_gl., 1964, Hilgerson gt_gl., 1971). Thus Krathwohl, g£_gl. conclude that the correlation between these two domains is too low to effectively predict one type of response from the other. Although the existing relationship between the cognitive and affective domains is not yet fully understood, Brown (1971) affirms that it is still apparent to most educators that all intellectual learning involves some affect and all affect is based upon intellectual involvement of some type. Status of Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes Several studies have attempted to determine the amount of specific or general environmental education knowledge/attitudes held by various segments of our society. In 1969 Swan found that despite the high concern expressed for air pollution by high school students, the subjects knew relatively little about air pollution 26 or local control efforts. Similarly a 1969 questionnaire distributed to fourth through sixth grade students by Towler and Swan (1972) indicated a high degree of awareness of environmental problems but little knowledge about factors which affect the environment or how they affect it or the degree to which they, as individuals, are personally related to the problem. The high level of awareness demonstrated by these studies corresponds to the high level of aware- ness of environmental problems in the United States reported by the May 1970 Gallup Poll according to Doran, Guerinin and Sarnowski (197A), 51% of the respondents to the poll indicated environmental problems are one of the three most important issues facing American society today. In spite of this high level of awareness, research continues to indicate low levels of understanding of factors relating to environmental problems. Towler and Swan (1972) in a study of ele- mentary school children found that elementary children generally lack an understanding of cause and effect relationships regarding environmental problems such as pollution (a phenomenon in accordance with the stages of cognitive development suggested by Piaget). They also found that a sample of teachers represented by members in the Michigan Environmental Education Association did a little better than the students in terms of environmental knowledge; but there were still large gaps in their overall understanding. Based on a review of the research prior to 1972, Roth and Helgeson (1972) conclude that the ability to identify or recognize environmental problems 27 does not necessarily imply knowledge or understanding of the problems presented. The results of an extensive study of 10,26h tenth and twelfth grade students in 22 states conducted by Bohl (197%) indicates that while American youth have a positive atti- tude toward environmental management, they are oriented toward regional problems and related knowledge areas and they seem to have little knowledge about how to change things in order to improve the quality of the environment. A major hypothesis regarding reasons for this generally low level of environmental education knowledge concerns the lack of educational background on the part of most teachers in terms of environmental education. This is supported by research conducted by Ferrier (1972) who studied 131 elementary school teachers and found that 56% of the teachers (59% of primary teachers) felt that environmental education was a vague term. In spite of this only lh% felt that they were uncertain as to how environmental education relates to their classroom. Ninety-four percent felt that environmental education should be integrated into all areas of the curriculum but more than 50% indicated that they did not have enough background and training to do this effectively. The lack of information regarding levels of existing environmental education knowledge in relation to broader environ- mental education goals is indicated by Towler and Swan (1972). They suggest, for example, that the first step toward meeting 28 Michigan's environmental education goals is to describe the base on which we can build--to determine the status of student's know- ledge and attitudes about the environment. Environmental Education Assessment Within the last decade all curriculum areas, including environmental education, have been influenced by the growing national movement for accountability in education. In California the Stull Bill of 1971 required that teacher appraisal systems be created that would establish standards and techniques for assess- ing student progress in each curriculum area (including environ- mental education) and assessing teacher competencies in these areas (Passineau, 1975). In Michigan, a State Accountability Model (Appendix I) has been formulated and minimal performance objectives have been or are being deve10ped in all subject matter areas. Passineau (1975) suggests that assessment, however, should not be considered as synonomous with evaluation, since the process used to measure and describe a particular phenomenon is called “assessment”, while "evaluation'I implies the imposition of a judg- ment regarding the worth of a phenomenon. Assessment in Cognitive and Affective Domains Assessment in the cognitive domain constitutes a major aspect of every educational program and numerous means (including multiple-choice, fill-in, matching and essay type questions) exist to measure acquisition and retention of cognitive skills. Cognitive learning objectives abound which are formulated by the individual 29 classroom teacher, the local school district and the state departments of education. Cook (1975) reports that the Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICA) pr0posed a series of cognitive learning objectives in environmental education for the high school level. (FICA did not, however, suggest any affective environmental education objectives). Assessment and evaluation in the affective domain is much more difficult, and therefore there has been a tendency to mini- mize affective measurement efforts. However, since many of our environmental problems are actually closely related to human behavior (Swan 1969), worthy environmental education objectives and assessment must eventually deal with behavioral change (Perkes, 1973). Ames (1971) points out that in the final analy- sis, the success of environmental education will be determined in terms of its ability to change the behavior of society. Clearly stated learning objectives in the affective domain are prerequisite to any assessment effort. The purpose of formu- lating objectives is to identify the Specific outcomes of learning that are desired as a result of any given learning experience or program. Eiss and Harbeck (1969) indicate that at present the state of our knowledge about the affective domain may not be suf- ficient to suggest behaviors that invariably will serve as indica- tors of achievement of any particular affective objective. Affective assessment today consists of the identification of certain overt student behaviors that will be accepted as evidence that the objective has been achieved. 30 Few affective assessment instruments deveIOped specifically for environmental education currently exist (Passineau, 1975). Bennett (1973) developed a series of guidelines for formulating environmental education objectives in all learning domains and reviewed existing environmental education assessment instruments. Passineau (1975) concludes that in order to assess the outcomes of environmental education a variety of measures are needed from formal test items to attitude scales, unobtrusive measures, and informal teacher observation. Since classroom behaviors are directly relevant to curriculum goals, observational data can be used for assessing success in meet- ing these goals (Love, 1974). In fact ...a qualitative score... might well be given for the achievement of behavioral goals in the affective domain, if the score is used as an indication of the success of the school in achieving its goals and of teachers in carrying out the instructional program (Eiss and Harbeck, 1963, p. 26). Although observational techniques (checklists, ratings, and narratives) are frequently used to assess learning outcomes, there are numerous factors which may influence their effectiveness. For example, the selection of behaviors to observe reflects the theoret- ical biases of those constructing the assessment instrument. In addition, their reliability may be affected by lack of precision in defining the behavior, the degree of complexity utilized to record behaviors, the order (high or low) of inferences required to classify the behaviors, and the demand for simultaneous observation of too 31 many variables (Good, 1963). Observer biases may also influence the observational process (Knafle, 1972). This raises the ques- tion as to whether the teacher's perception of student academic performance may be influenced by student behavior or vica versa. Brandt (1973) found that individual observers may also exhibit tendencies to either distribute their ratings along a given scale or to cluster ratings about a median value. Several empirical studies have been conducted to investigate the utility of observational techniques in the classroom setting. Love (197h) found that the classroom behavior patterns of teachers and children were relatively stable across days. Contrary evidence is provided by a study conducted by Elmore and Beggs (1972) in which elementary teachers were asked to rate students on items describing specific observable classroom behaviors in two separate sessions with a two-week interval between ratings. The results of their study indicate that teachers were not stable in rating pupil behav- ior over this period of time. In spite of the limitations and difficulties associated with behavioral observation techniques such measures are still most use- ful in the assessment of affective learning outcomes. Trexler (1963) found that the observational method seemed--to have a higher degree of validity for ascertaining conservation behavior than intro- spective techniques. Cronbach (l9h9) indicates that observations by partial observers can be accepted as valid if they can be made reliable. Reliability is enhanced when direct observations are made over reasonably long periods of time (too lengthy a time period 32 tends to have a negative effect), when the extent of the sampling is sufficiently large, and when the individuals being observed are consistent in their performance (Cronbach, l9h9, Trexler, 1963). Other affective instruments include the attitude inventory and self-reports. In 1950 Sherman suggested that an attitude inventory could be a feasible device for use with elementary teach- ers and that environmental attitudes could be inferred from reSponses to specific behavioral situations in regard to conservation problems. Upon completion of a review of the related literature, Roth and Helgeson (1972) conclude that statements of behavior with respect to conservation concerns do not satisfactorily predict observed behav- ior consistent with such statements. This is supported by Trexler's (1963) study of elementary school children in urban classrooms. Trexler investigated the relationship between children's testimonies and their observed behavior regarding conservation actions. He also explored the relationship between the children's testimonies and their I.Q., sex, academic achievement and the type of housing in which they lived. The results of this study showed a correlation of .03 between what children testified they did and what they were observed doing. This correlation is certainly not strong enough to suggest that self-report testimony of children can be relied upon to predict their conservation behaviors. None of the personal factors tested seemed to have an effect on the consistency of re- sponse. Although affective assessment is difficult and at present far from precise, desired environmental education outcomes are 33 such that avoidance of assessment in this domain would result in serious omissions in the total environmental education endeavor. Perhaps one solution to the difficulties suggested above is the combined and concurrent use of more than one affective assessment instrument to ascertain the status of affective environmental education goals and outcomes. Since all environmental education programs should have as a prime consideration the modification of environmentally-related behaviors, any instrument that helps teach- ers appraise the student's behaviors toward the environment should be most helpful for both assessment and evaluation. Norm-Referenced versus Criterion-Referenced Evaluation The current dispute regarding the relative merits of norm- referenced (NR) and criterion-referenced (CR or mastery) evaluation procedures has implications for environmental education assessment and evaluation. This topic is particularly germane in Michigan because of the development of environmental education minimal performance objectives by committees of the Department of Education. In NR-testing, a student's score is assessed by relating it to the test results achieved by other students in the same or similar group. Thus, the critical property of NR-evaluation is the compari- son to others for the establishment of an evaluative judgment (Yelon, 1976). In CR-testing, a student is expected to be capable of perform- ing specific tasks in order to achieve the terminal objectives. His performance on these tasks can be interpreted without reference to the performance of other students. Thus, CR-measurlng instruments are constructed to yield measures which can be directly interpreted 3A in terms of specified performances standards (Stanley and Hopkins, 1972). The mastery or CR-test (CRT) is sometimes termed “content- meaningful” and is given to identify those students who have or have not acquired basal competencies. When a CRT is administered, the student is asked to perform the stated behavior as evidence that a particular objective has been attained. Hence CRT-items are directly derived from the instructional objectives of a learning program while NR-tests (NRT) are often constructed from more general object- ives which may have greater significance to society but which may or may not be directly related to a particular learning program (Passineau, 1975). NR-evaluation assesses individuals by comparing their performances with the performance of a normative group. The distri- bution of scores of such a group generates a normal or bell-shaped curve. Thus in NR-measurement the scale is anchored in the middle of a distribution of scores and represents average performance for a particular group while in CR-measurement the scale is anchored at the extremes with a score at the top of the scale indicating complete or perfect mastery of some particular performance (Ebel, 1971). Bloom (1968) suggests that the normal curve is intended to describe the outcome of random processes and, since education is a purposeful activity, the distribution of scores obtained upon the completion of instructional activities should be skewed toward the higher scores if instruction is effective. 35 A model developed by Carroll (1963) to explain the results of the research he conducted indicates that if students are normally distributed with regard to aptitude for a particular subject and all are presented with identical instruction, then achievement measured at the completion of study of the subject will be normally distrib- uted. In this situation, the correlation between aptitude and achievement was found to be relatively high (.70 +). Conversely, if students are normally distributed with respect to aptitude but the quality and type of instruction and time allowed for learning are adapted to the characteristics and needs of each learner, then the majority of students will achieve subject mastery. In this situation, the correlation between aptitude and achievement should approximate zero. Glaser (1968) and Atkinson (1967) found that most students, in both standardized and self-paced learning systems can attain a given level of achievement, but some will attain it sooner than others. These studies indicate that 99% of the students tested can learn a subject to a high level of mastery if given sufficient time and appropriate assistance. The best NR-examinations are those in which items which lack discrimination (those in which everyone answers in a similar manner) are deleted because they do not help differentiate students on the basis of the characteristics being evaluated. Since individ- ual differences are of no concern in criterion-referenced testing, the best CRT-items might be answered similarly by all students if a particular objective has been achieved. 36 Block (1971) suggests that CR-measurements are absolute in the sense that they can be interpreted in relation to a fixed performance standard or criterion and do not require consideration of other measurements for interpretation. They indicate what the student has or has not learned because they are taken on a fully representative sample of skills (content and behaviors) drawn from those he was expected to learn (Block, p. 289). If pupil learning success is to be promoted, evidence regarding what the student has learned at each stage must be available. Given this information, steps may then be taken to ensure that each student masters required performances before moving on to the next level of related performances. Establishment of specified performance levels which will be acceptable indications of mastery is somewhat arbitrary but rests upon the following assumptions: 1. The attainment of some performance level in a particu- lar instruction sequence will produce greater learning outcomes than non-attainment at some level. 2. Attainment of the selected level will produce approxi- mately the same outcomes as would attainment at other possible levels (Block, 1971, p. 183). Ebel (1971) suggests the following as limitations of CR- measurements: 1. They do not provide all the information we need to know regarding achievement. 37 2. They are difficult to obtain on a reliable basis. 3. They are necessary for only a small proportion of important educational achievements. Other researchers suggest that the above limitations are equally applicable to NR-measurement. Harsh (1974) indicated that even for NR-testing, evaluation of the performance of another individual requires making judgments based upon a limited sample of possible and/or observed behavior. NRT-items sample some con- tent from some categories of learning materials in some of the available formats. CRT-items provide exact replication of content, format and application that were used in the original lesson. Block (1971) suggests that findings to date indicate ...that pre-specified instruction objectives provide a key to maximally effective class- room instruction when put into operation in the form of criterion-referenced measurements for use in a feedback correction system (1)- 2911). In spite of the numerous differences between NR and CR measurement previously described, there is still great variability in classification of measurement devices as CRT or NRT instruments by different researchers. Perhaps this indicates that although NRT and CRT instruments are concerned with different referent norms, they are still not totally exclusive of each other. Combined calcu- lations may thus allow more comprehensive and meaningful assessment and evaluation of learning outcomes. Performance/Behavioral Objectives in Education Although there is a technical distinction between the term ”performance objective” and the term ”behavioral objective”, many 38 researchers use these terms more or less synonymously. Both (1974) defines a behavioral objective as an operational statement of behav- iors (verbal or nonverbal overt actions) which students will be expected to demonstrate at the completion of a learning unit. Application of Mager's (1962) three criteria for behavioral objectives tends to increase the Specificity of the behavioral statements to such a degree that behavioral objectives tend to be- come transformed into performance objectives. According to Mager, all behavioral objectives must contain statements which identify specific action(s), designate the conditions under which the student will be expected to perform the action, and specify the criteria of acceptable performance. A performance objective contains four essential components: a statement regarding the Audience for whom the objective is written, identification of the specific observable Behavioral action required as the terminal behavior, designation of the £9nditions of performance and the Degree or criteria of accept- able performance. Hence for all practical purposes these two terms may be viewed as descriptions of basically the same philosophical and empirical approach to formulation of educational objectives. Proponents of behavioral objectives include Briggs (1970), Kibler, Barker and Cegala 1970), Geis (I972), Mager (1962), Cogswell (1966), Churchman (1968), DeCecco (1968), Brooks and Friedrich (1973), Vargas (I972), Gagne (1967), Glaser (1967), Kurtz (1965), Lindvall (196“), Popham (1969), Tyler (1950), and Walbesser (1963). They suggest that there are four major advantages to 39 formulating objectives in behavioral terms. I. Use of behavioral objectives more clearly communicates educational_goals. Gagne (1972) indicates that behavioral object- ives have a major role in clearly communicating educational goals to all involved in the learning process. In an extensive review of the literature related to behavioral objectives Booth (197A) reports that this hypothesis is supported by the work of Kibler, Barker and Cegala (1970), Briggs (1970), and Harless (1971). Gagne (1972) suggests that clearly communicating expectations to the learner regarding terminal behaviors serves to provide direc- tion to the learning process by assisting the learner to reject extraneous or irrelevant stimuli and by serving a reinforcement function since the learner is thus able to determine which behav- iors are ”correct”. Popham (1969) found that the use of behavioral objectives provided students with a direction and goal for their studies. Brooks and Friedrich (1973) suggest that behavioral objectives help direct the attention of students and Harless (1971) found that behavioral objectives tend to inform the student as to what has been achieved and what yet remains to be mastered. 2. Use of behavioral objectives facilitates curriculum design. Research conducted by Brooks and Friedrich (I973), Mager (1962), and Kibler, g£_gl. (1970) suggests that using behavioral objectives assists the teacher to organize materials and design appropriate instructional strategies to obtain their educational objectives. A0 3. The use of behavioral objectives improves the teaching- learning process. Harless (1971), Mager and Pipe (1970) and Geiss (1966) suggest that the use of behavioral objectives tends to reduce instructional problems. A. The use of behavioral objectives facilitates evaluation procedures. Little research has been cited to support this claim. The effects of the use of behavioral objectives upon both students and teachers have been studied by numerous researchers. Booth (197A) and Walbesser and Eisenberg (1972) provide extensive summaries of this research and report the following results for each research question studied. 1. Does the use of behavioral objectives have a significant effect upon student achievement? Blaney and McKie (1969), Engle (I968), Tieman (1968), Piatt (1969), Meier (1930), McNeil (1967), Dalis (1970), Lawrence (1970) all indicate a significantly positive influence of the use of behavioral objectives. Bryant (1972) found that training teachers to use behavioral objectives had a significant effect on the cognitive achievement of black inner city children. Boardman (170), Bishop (1969) and Weinberg (1970) indicate no significant influence. Since these studies manipulated a wide range of variables including different student populations, different subject matter areas and different degrees of specificity of objectives, Walbesser and Eisenberg (1972) conclude that the literature offers a cautious support for this hypothesis. Al 2. Does the use of behavioral objectives have a significant effect upon the efficiency of knowledge acquisi- tion and retention? Mager and McCann (1961) found that students who were aware of behavioral objectives were able to progress through instructional units in less time than those who were not. Walbesser (1970) found that the rate of acquisition and resistance to forgetting could be altered by informing learners of instructional objectives. Since a wide range of variables were manipulated in the various studies, research results thus offer only cautious support for the hypothesis that knowledge of behavioral objectives increases the rate of acquisition of learning and retards forgetting. 3. Does the use of behavioral objectives have a significant effect upon student attitudes toward instruc- tion? Tieman (1968) found that students had a more favor- able attitude toward presentation of lessons when specific objectives were used in contrast to general (non-behavioral) objectives. Research conducted by Rowan (1971) supports Tieman's results. Piatt (1969) found that students presented with behavioral objectives had a more positive attitude toward the instructor than those who were not given any instructional objectives. A few research studies have investigated the opinion of teachers regarding behavioral objectives and their use. An ERIC report prepared by Cook and Neville (1971) examined the literature 42 in this regard and explored the question ”Do teachers act differently on being given statements of objectives which are more specific?” Ammons (1962) found that teachers were unable to distinguish between behavioral and general objectives and this conclusion is supported by Baker (1969). Frey (1973) surveyed 406 elementary, middle and secondary school teachers and found that there was a high level of familiarity with behavioral objectives and a high degree of involve- ment invvriting them but indecisiveness in regard to opinions of the influence of behavioral objectives on pupil performance. In spite of this, the majority of teachers surveyed indicated that behavioral objectives were useful in the educational process. Booth (197A) concludes that the research fails to substantiate or disprove that behavioral objectives enhance the teaching-learning process (Jenkins and Deno, 1971) because research conducted to date has manipulated too many variables and utilized too many experiment- al designs to permit definitive conclusions. Walbesser and Eisenberg (1972) and Booth (1974) list the following as opponents of behavioral objectives: Atkin (1968), Eisner (1967), Ebel (1970), Aronstine (1972), May (196A), MacDonald (1966), Raths (1971). These individuals caution that behavioral objectives should not be relied upon too heavily (Strain, 1970). Arnstine (I96h), Atkin (1963), and MacDonald (1966) express the following concerns: 1. Behavioral objectives are too restrictive and hinder innovation. 2. Behavioral objectives can not be developed for all or even most of the important goals of education. 1+3 3. Writing behavioral objectives requires a great deal of time and is therefore unrealistic and impractical. Eisner (1969) indicates that teachers simply are not using them in instructional programs. A. Use of behavioral objectives may result in failure to understand and appreciate the learning process. Passineau (1975) suggests that the criticism that behavioral objectives do not foster the entire realm of educational potential including creativity and decision-making is based upon the realiza- tion that it is easier to formulate behavioral objectives for lower levels of cognitive learning than for higher levels or for the affective domain. He also indicates that the theory, however, should apply equally well to these levels of learning. Eisner (1967) points to the inability of behavioral objectives to articulate all outcomes of a process as dynamic and complex as education but Passineau replies that this simply means that when one is dealing with complex areas, certain important outcomes will deveIOp without being specified as objectives in advance. Student-Teacher Interactions in Learning Numerous studies in the past have attempted to correlate teachers' knowledge, attitudes and/or behaviors with the knowledge, attitudes and/or behaviors of their students. The findings of some of these research projects will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs. Teacher Knowledge and Student Achievement Although there is a general expectation that increased teacher knowledge will be manifested in gains in pupil achievement, recent #4 research in this area does not provide overwhelmingly favorable evidence in this regard. Phillips (1973) found no significant relationship between student achievement in arithmetic and the arithmetic achievement of the most recent teacher. Ekstrom (1974) studied the cognitive characteristics of elementary teachers, their teaching behavior and the academic success of their pupils. Teachers were measured in terms of their knowledge of the subject being taught, their knowledge of teaching and their verbal, numer- ical, reasoning and memory aptitudes. Ekstrom concluded that the relationship between teacher knowledge in a content area and pupil achievement in that same area may not necessarily be positive. Rouse (1968) found a slightly negative correlation between the amount of college mathematics studied by elementary school teachers and the arithmetic achievement of their pupils. These studies suggest that numerous factors may be operating to influence the process of transferral of a teacher's knowledge to his or her students' ergo a direct relationship between a teacher's cognitive competencies and the achievement of his/her students can not Q priori be assumed. Teacher-Student Attitudes The general assumption that teacher attitudes have a significant role in student learning is not clearly supported by research (Stern, 1963). Peskin (196“) in a study of seventh grade teachers and students in New York City, found no significant relationship between teacher attitude and student attitude nor between teacher attitude and student achievement. Glass (1970) 1+5 studied 525 high school students and their teachers to determine what effect teacher attitude toward biology had on student atti- tudes toward biology. The relationship between these two variables as determined by the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranks test was significant at the .05 level. In addition, it was found that student attitudes could be significantly changed to be more con- gruent with that of their teacher. The conclusion suggested by this study is that students in general tend to adopt an attitude toward biology which is similar to that of their teacher but there is little or no relationship between these student attitudes and achievement in biology. Phillips (1973) found that the attitude of the most recent teacher toward arithmetic had a significant relationship at the .05 level to student attitudes toward arith- metic. These studies suggest that teacher attitudes may have a significant impact on student attitudes but do not seem to influence student achievement. Teacher Behavior and Student Performance Soar (1972) reports that numerous studies of teacher-student interactions using the Flanders systems of interaction analysis have found a positive relationship between indirect teacher behavior and various measures of pupil growth in achievement and development of favorable classroom attitudes. Anderson and Kaplan (197A), however, found that teacher behavior had a negligible effect on both math- ematics achievement and satisfaction with school. Soar (1967) found that various patterns of teacher affective behavior related differentially to pupil growth in reading and vocabulary. Glass A6 (1970) found that the profile level of high school students (which included attitude toward biology and understanding of science) were modified to become more congruent with the profiles of their teachers. Since teacher E.E.C. includes both cognitive and behavioral components, based on the results of previous research the effects of teacher E.E.C. upon student E.E.C. are not readily predictable. Studies previously conducted have sought to indicate the know- ledge, attitudes and behaviors of teachers primarily in terms of areas of academic preparation and/or experiences in selected courses, workshops or programs or in terms of attitude preferences indicated by various Likert type scales. Pupil growth has been assessed pri- marily in terms of generalized achievement test scores and attitud- inal scales. Utilization of performance objectives derived from identical educational goals for both students and teachers should provide a useful mode of inquiry into the relationships between overall teacher traits (EEC) and overall student performance (EEC). Developmental Learning Theories Introduction and Terminology Learning theories which attempt to describe characteristics in a manner which is related to age in an orderly way are considered to be “deveIOpmental” (Sullivan, 197A). The theory of cognitive development formulated by Jean Piaget and the theories of moral or affective development suggested by Piaget and Kohlberg are also transactional in their philosophic approach to the educational pro- cess. Both of these theories utilize a rather distinctive and specialized vocabulary; hence the following definitions and #7 discussion may be useful in developing an understanding of the essential features of Piaget's and Kohlberg's work. Content - The observable behaviors of the organism, the l'what“ is said or done, the ”what” of behavioral objectives. Structure - The principles used to organize content, the underlying frame of reference, the manner of a particular response. Assimilation - External reality is taken into the organism's information system on terms dictated by the organism; perceptions are directly incorporated into existing cognitive structures. Assimilated perceptions therefore become the individual's transla- tion of the world of reality. Accommodation - A modification in the organization of a mental structure or the development of a new, enlarged mental frame- work. Stimuli from the external world cause transformations in cognitive structures. Operations - Transformations of reality by means of internal- ized actions of the mind which are then grouped into reversible, coherent (logical) systems (Piaget and Inhelder, 1969). Equilibration - The stability of a behavioral organization brought about by a regulation of assimilation and accommodation to maintain a state of internal balance; a dynamic reading of the environment (assimilation) and a consequent adjustment to the situation (accommodation). Veatch (1971) suggests that when the order of a mental Operation can be reversed a deeper, internal level of understanding has been achieved. Such an understanding results from the process of equilibration. 48 Egocentrism — The inability to differentiate self from non-self; the lack of awareness of things outside the realm of one's immediate experience; lack of awareness of the perspectives of others and projection of the individual's wishes, fears, and desires onto the world around him (Pulaski, 1971). Perspectivism - The ability to differentiate self from others; the capacity for putting oneself in the place of another. Conservation - The ability to comprehend that objects or quantities remain constant despite changes in their appearance. Decentration - Focusing on both primary and secondary aspects of a stimulus and incorporating them into a unified whole. Object constancy - Intellectual ability to realize that objects and people exist independently of individual's perception of them (Pulaski, 1971). Piaget's and Kohlberg's theories suggest that all learning develops through a series of invariant stages which are qualita- tively distinct from each other, have structural integrity and which are hierarchially integrated. Thus stages can not be skipped in the learning process, although some individuals progress faster and farther through the various stages. Duckworth (196A) indicates that although the order of the stages is constant, the time of appearance of a particular stage may vary with the individual and with the culture. Each new level of development represents a new coherence, a new structuring of elements of reality which until that time have not been systematically related to each other. Movement from stage to stage is a long term process and is in no way automatic. Inter- and intra-stages (transitional stages) A9 exist during which the individual is characterized by a resurgence of egocentrism and disequilibrium. Gordon (1970) suggests that ...disequilibrium is created through the transactional relationship between internal growth and external social pressure and acts as a motivating force for development (p. 1&4). Allen (1973) characterizes the general pattern of growth from one stage to the next higher stage as a process involving awareness of the next higher stage and the development of dissonance between one's current pattern of reasoning and awareness of reasoning pat- terns at the next higher level. Also involved are the nature of personal experience, increased sensitivity, general cognitive growth and the degree of risk and support involved in reasoning situations with others. Duckworth (196A) suggests that biological or nervous maturation, experience and social transmission or mediated contact with the world are necessary conditions for development but are largely passive in nature. In addition to these passive factors, the active and dynamic force of the equili- bration process is also essential for development or growth. Although all of these factors are necessary in the developmental process, none are sufficient in and of themselves. Hence it is the dynamic interactions of these factors which take place as the individual experiences various transactions with the environment that ultimately direct the nature and rate of individual deveIOp- ment. Cognitive Development Since the early 1940's, Piaget and his associates have interviewed hundreds of subjects and have confirmed their 50 original position that stages of cognitive deveIOpment exist and that although the age of attainment of certain concepts may be somewhat variable, the order of development is still invariant (Phillips, 197A). The first developmental stage identified by Piaget is the sensorimotor stage which generally characterizes individuals in the age range from birth to approximately two and one-half years. The primary intellectual instruments at this stage are perceptions and physical movement. Children from two or three years to seven or eight years are generally characterized by pre-operational thought. This is a pre-conceptual stage of development in which the child is capable of thought or representation but cannot perform mental Operations; that is, the child can differentiate words or images (signifiers) from the objects or events to which the thoughts, images, or representations refer. However thoughts cannot be integrated into networks of ideas which he can reverse in his thinking. Thought is perception-bound therefore the child at this stage will make decisions based on perceptual clues if a conflict arises between cognitions and perception. Spontaneous reasoning regarding a part of the whole in relation to the whole itself is impossible. Thought is not yet organized into rules and concepts and defini- tions tend to be functional rather than abstract. Pre-operational thought involves transductive reasoning (reasoning from particular to particular) and tends to link things together which are unre- lated. Generally such individuals are egocentric and tend to 51 believe that all events are caused by people. Mental comparisons are still impossible and perception tends to center around one area or feature of an object at a time. Although thinking is more advanced, the child is still unable to deal with more than one relationship at a time and thought is still largely unsystematic (Steward, 1973). The majority of the third grade students who were the subjects of this study can be expected to be in a transitional stage between pre-Operational and concrete operational thought depending upon their age and the type of experiental background. Around seven or eight years there is a major revision in a child's thought as a shift occurs from the pre-operational stage to the .gtggg of concrete operations. This shift permits the child to conceptualize certain types of relationships and is marked by development of the child's ability to decenter from a focus on the perceptually dominant features of reality. There is an accompany- ing decentering from focus on the more obvious overt behaviors of others to the less obvious underlying behavioral mechanisms (Whiteman, 1967). During this stage of concrete operations (seven or eight years to eleven or twelve) the child can operate intellectually on concrete objects or their representations and can serialize, extend, differentiate or combine existing structures to form new relationships or groupings. Thought is still limited to concrete experiences and the child is not capable of dealing with abstractions. Reversibility characterizes this stage and the 52 child can range forward and backward in space and time on a mental level (Pulaski, 1971). The development of conservation is one of the most signifi- cant achievements of this period. This ability is important for values development as well as cognitive development since human relationships are dependent upon the ability to hold certain rela- tionships constant in the face of numerous changes (Steward, 1973). Phillips (197A) points out that an individual child may function at the concrete operations level at certain times or with certain types of content and may function at a different level with dif- ferent content or in different situations. Thus a “concrete Operational” child does not exist; the designation of stages are merely constructs presenting optimum capabilities which are not always observable in any given child. Therefore when describing the level at which an individual child seems to be functioning, it would be most proper to specify that the child was functioning at the concrete Operational stage in regard to the specific task under consideration. The level of formal operations generally characterizes development from eleven or twelve to adulthood and may be estab- lished as early as 15 or 16 years. Abstract and formal thought is possible and consideration can be given to the form of an argument as well as its content. Reasoning is hypothetico- deductive in that a person can reason about a specific hypothe- sis and draw conclusions regarding possible outcomes. Operations are coordinated and issues and principles become important. S3 Reflective thought is possible and egocentrism is replaced by perspectivism once equilibration at this level has been achieved (Stewart, 1973). Recent work (Marek and Renner 1972 and McKinnon and Renner 1971) suggests that many individuals who should chronologically be at the formal operational level are still functioning at the concrete level with regard to the majority of educational tasks, and hence tend to ignore variables or are incapable of consider- ing many variables concurrently. This is significant in the development Of environmental education programs since the concrete thinker tends to select the most obvious cause and effect while the formal Operational thinker is capable of identifying and mentally manipulating the larger number of variables which is required for consideration of most environmental problems. Affective or Moral Development A developmental perspective on morality would suggest that there is no fixed morality throughout one's life. Instead an individual's moral stance depends upon current and past transac- tions or interactions with the environment and how this content has been internally organized into a cohesive structure which tends to provide the framework for all decisions and behaviors. According to Allen (1973) individuals at different ages may dif- fer in the following dimensions: 1. Differentiation of what one considers significant in taking any moral stance or action. Differences in knowledge base and the cognitive skills required to understand what is happening 5A and to perceive consequences and implications will therefore affect one's moral stance. 2. Empathy; the ability to consider the perspective, interests and feelings of others affects the sensitivity of an individual in weighing actions and making judgments. 3. The reference group considered significant in defining one's sense of responsibility and Obligation may vary from the family to universal concern for all mankind and, it would be hoped, by extension to the entire biosphere. These variables are reflected in the suggested stages of moral deveIOpment formulated by Kohlberg. Kohlberg (1968) extended the work Of Piaget (1932) by presenting moral dilemmas to a wide variety and age group of sub- jects who were asked to judge the morality of conduct in a series of stories. Each level and stage of Kohlberg's moral typology requires and assumes the achievement of certain cognitive Piaget stages, tasks and traits. Stage zero, the amoral Or premoral stage, characterizes the child from birth to about four and one-half years old. At this stage the child does not understand the concepts Of rules, power and authority and judges good and bad in terms of what is pleasant or exciting. There is no sense of obligation even in terms of external authority. The first level of moral thinking is the preconventional 12x31 and is usually occupied by children aged from four to ten; hence the third grade children who were the subjects of this 55 study would be expected to be functioning primarily on this level. There are two stages which are discernable at this level: stage one, the obedience and punishment stage, and stage two, the back- scratching stage. At stage one the moral perspective of authority is paramount and the physical consequences Of an action determine its positive or negative value. Stage two reasoning recognizes that each individual has his own idea of what is ”right“ but the child usually feels that his own idea is best. Human relations contain elements of fairness, recriprocity and sharing but these are always pragmatically interpreted; hence relationships are based on a ”you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours” principle and not upon loyalty, justice or gratitude. To summarize, the preconven- tional child is usually well-behaved and responsive to social labels of good and bad but these labels are interpreted in terms of the physical power of the authority figure. (Kohlberg, 1968). Level two, the conventional level, containing individuals from ten or twelve years and Older, has been described by Kohlberg (1968) as conformist because conforming to the rules and expecta- tions of one's family, group and nation is regarded as valuable in its own right. Not only is conforming a primary concern but so is the maintenance, supporting and justifying of the order estab- lished by these groups. Stages three (conformity) and four (law and order) are discernable in Level Two. At stage three, the child is perspect- vrstic and is primarily concerned with the evaluative judgments made by others. Hence ”good” behavior pleases or helps others 56 and is approved by them; ergo approval is earned by being “nice“. The intentions of others are considered for the first time in forming evaluations of behaviors and actions. Stage four individ- uals are characterized by a strong orientation toward authority, and what is “good” is what appears to be best for society and for the majority. I'Right“ behavior involves doing one's duty and maintaining the social order. This stage characterizes many Americans and many adults never develop beyond this level. The third or post conventional level is characterized by a thrust toward autononomous moral principles which have universal application apart from the authority or groups who hold them and apart from the individual's identification with these groups or persons. Stage five (social contract) individuals define individ- ual rights and standards in terms of those agreed upon by the whole society. ”Right” action is therefore a matter of personal Opinion except where democratically or constitutionally defined; thus this is the official morality of the American constitutional government. Emphasis is upon the legal perspective; however, laws can be changed for the benefit of society. Stage six (universal princi- ples) individuals define ”right” in terms of a decision of conscience in accordance with internalized ethical principles. These are universal principles such as justice, equality of human rights and human dignity. Although data from empirical studies is not yet conclusive, Kohlberg (1973) speculates on the existence of a stage seven in which all life and that which supports life is of primary value. 57 Such a level is reminiscent of Aldo Leopold's ”land ethic” and would be of paramount significance to environmental educators if adequately demonstrated by future research findings. Application of the Kohlberg levels and stages to the development of values regarding human life is of particular inter- est to environmental educators. In terms of the value of human life the six stages can be characterized as follows: Stage 1 - The value of human life is not distinct from the value of physical Objects and is based upon the physical attributes or social status of its possessor. Stage 2 - Human life is valued as instrumental to satisfac- tion of needs of its possessor or of other persons. Stage 3 - The value of human life is dependent upon the empathy and affection of family members and others toward the individual. Stage A - Life is sacred in terms of its place in a religious or moral order of rights and duties. Stage 5 - Life is valued in terms of its relation to commun- ity welfare and in terms of being a universal human right. Stage 6 - The sacredness Of human life is a universal human value and is expressed as respect for the individual (Kohlberg, 1968). Allen (1973) suggests that persons at any particular moral stage will understand all lower stages and occasionally will employ lower stage Operations depending upon motives, needs, attitudes, moral sensitivities and awareness in a particular situation. This 58 has many implications for the environmental educator who is attempting to foster development of a moral-ethical environmental perspective. Implications for Elementary Environmental Education Havinghurst (1953) identified the primary developmental tasks of middle childhood as development of concepts necessary for everyday life, deveIOpment of conscience, morality, and a scale of values, and development of attitudes toward social groups and institutions. These developmental tasks involve both cognitive and affective growth; hence the theories of Piaget and Kohlberg have numerous implications for elementary environmental education. Piaget's work in the cognitive domain indicates that all knowledge is made up by man in the process of making sense out of his environment; therefore all knowledge is tentative. This lends support and provides a basis for inquiry, problem-solving, and discovery approaches to learning—- the learning by doing, the field work and other hands-on activities characteristic of environ- mental education. Perhaps an even more significant result of Piaget's work deals with the findings that indicate that children are not merely l'little adults“ but actually utilize a different logical pattern of learning or interacting with the environment. Piaget's stages of cognitive deveIOpment provide a basis for examining the learning process at different levels of maturity and are most useful in determining what types of learning materials and experiences are appropriate at what level of development or at what grade level in 59 the school curriculum. In the affective domain the work of Lawrence Kohlberg is very significant to environmental educators. As a transactional- ist he believes that the values an individual holds at any moment are the result of his current and past interactions with his environment and that as new information becomes available and different interactions take place, the individual's values are likely to change. Hence to identify or clarify one's value-stance at any point in time is only useful for that particular point in time. Since environmental educators are vitally concerned with value development, environmental education activities based on this ecological model of learning should provide the Opportunity for numerous interactions which can foster progression through Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Allan (1973) suggests that environmental education should facilitate student dialogue and reasoning appropriate to the student's cognitive and moral stage and should encourage progress to the next level. Kelly and White (1975) utilize Piaget's and Kohlberg's work to describe the cognitive and affective characteristics of children in the lower elementary grades (K-3) and to suggest implications of these characteristics for environmental education. (Table I). They point out that principal access to the environ- ment of children at this level is through direct sense perception; therefore, learning activities should promote sensory utilization to obtain information about the environment and its components. 60 The primary school child is likely to be possessive and egocentric in his contact with nature and as such tends to enjoy collecting objects from nature and from the man-made technological world; thus these interests can serve as a focus for planned environmental education experiences. Since children at this stage of development are learning to assess the attitudes Of others as a function of their verbal and nonverbal behavior, they are likely to be partic- ularly sensitive to the attitude of the teacher in relation to environmental activities; thus teacher attitudes can be expected to influence the impact of these experiences upon the child. The primary role of the elementary teacher in environmental education is to assist the students to better know as many parts of their environment as possible and to facilitate the development of con- cepts regarding simple relationships which can provide a basis for discrimination and formulation of simple classification systems. 61 TABLE 1 Implications of Developmental Learning Theory for Elementary Environmental Education Characteristic of Primary School Child lo Children exhibit a wide 1. range of cognitive abilities Limited abilities to interpret time, space and distance The difficulty of the child in recognizing that Objects may hold several properties concurrently Difficulty in maintaining logical consistency in thought process Although the rudiments of understanding cause and effect relationships exist Children tend to enjoy pictures and project their own experiences into them The primary child has limited 7. dexterity, stamina and psychomotor coordination Although the moral sense level at this stage is based on personal concepts of right and wrong Implication for E.E. ...therefore a wide range of educational activities should be available. ...suggest that activities in- volving these concepts should be gradually introduced and developed slowly and carefully. ...suggests that E.E activities emphasize a small number of rather Obvious properties for any natural or man-made object. ...requires that activities demanding logical development of relationships should be presented slowly and carefully with a great deal of redundancy and reinforcement. ...activities should be selected that tend to promote the exam- ination of only the most simple cause and effect environmental relationships. ...ergo careful selection and use of illustrations can foster interests in the environment and promote consideration of simple relationships. ...therefore selection of E.E. activities should be made care- fully so that unrealistic demands are not made on the child's endurance or capabilities. ...only activities which avoid complex value questions related to externally-based moral prin- ciples should be selected. (Adapted from Environmental Education Guide, K-12, Divisions of Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education, State Department of Education, Richmond, Virginia, 197% as presented by Kelly and White (1975). CHAPTER 111 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY Overview Experimental Desigp Four hundred and thirty-six (A36) third grade students representing twenty classes in eight different public school dis- tricts of Michigan's lower peninsula were given an Environmental Education Competency Measure (E.E.C.M.) based on Michigan K-3 Minimal Performance Objectives. The cognitive component of the instrument was administered to groups of ten students orally by the researcher. Posters illustrating both questions and answers were read to the students and they were asked either to mark an ''X“ through the appropriate circle on the answer sheet represent- ing the response of their choice or to write four or five words in list format. The total number of correct responses constituted the C-score for each student. In addition, teachers were asked to observe specific environmental education behaviors of their students during a two-month period and then to rate each student in regard to frequency of exhibited behavior on a behavioral checklist. The scores derived from this checklist constituted the AB component of the E.E.C.M. 62 63 The teachers of the twenty third grade classes used in the study were given an E.E.C.M. based on Michigan 7-9 Minimal Perform- ance Objectives. The cognitive component of the instrument was open-ended in format and was scored by comparing the teachers responses with those of ten environmental education “experts“ who were members of or consultants to the committees developing environ- mental education performance objectives. (Appendix II) One point was given for each acceptable response. Two separate scorings of these responses were made by different individuals and the scorer reliability coefficient determined. The total number of correct responses constituted the C-score for each teacher. The A8 component of the instrument involved self-reported responses regarding environ- mentally-related behaviors. These responses were verified by an interview with the researcher, who then accordingly evaluated each teacher on a behavioral checklist. The scores derived from this checklist constituted the AB-score of the E.E.C.M. The data were then evaluated using a combination of item analysis, descriptive reports and parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures. Hypotheses The following questions were of interest in this study 1. Is there a relationship between cognitive (C-score) and AB scores of students and/or teachers in general? The null hypothesis tested was that there is no significant relationship between C-scores and AB-scores for either group. 6A 2. Is there a relationship between cognitive scores of teachers and those of their students? The null hypothesis tested was that there is no significant relationship between C-scores of teachers and the mean C-scores of their respective classes. 3. Is there a relationship between AB scores of teachers and those Of their students? The null hypothesis tested was that there is no significant relationship between AB-scores of teachers and the mean AB-scores of their respective classes. A. Is there a relationship between environmental education competency (E.E.C.) of teachers and that of their classes? The null hypothesis tested was that there is no significant relationship between the E.E.C. of teachers and the mean E.E.C. Of their respective classes. In addition to these questions, determination of current levels of environmental education competency Of third grade students and their teachers was also of interest. No hypotheses were formu- lated in this regard. The descriptive data contained in subsequent sections of the study best describe the results obtained. Assumptions and Limitations In this study the following assumptions have been made 1. The sample pOpulation was representative of third grade students and teachers in Michigan. 2. Uncontrolled variables (sex, socio-economic status, intelligence quotient, age) will tend to distribute their effects widely throughout the experimental sample. 6S 3. The cognitive component of the E.E.C.M. reflected accurately environmental education cognitive achievement. A. Teachers' observations of affective behaviors were accurately reflected by use of the behavioral checklist. 5. The teachers' responses to the self-report AB component of the instrument were validated by the interview process and reflected in the final AB-scores. The following limitations have been recognized in this study 1. The test items represent only a small fraction of the items that could be utilized to assess whether or not a specific performance objective has been mastered. 2. Some of the test items may require modification. 3. The existing minimal performance Objectives used in this study have not been refined. A. Additional performance objectives may be needed to accurately reflect existing levels of environmental education competency in terms of established goals. 5. The size of the teachers' sample is small. 6. Teachers' Observational skills vary. Performance Objectives and the E.E.C.M. Minimal performance objectives relating to the five Michigan Goals of Environmental Education were developed for grades K-3, A-6, and 7-9 by the Michigan Environmental Education Referent Committee. Both student and teacher environmental education competency 66 measures (E.E.C.M.) are based directly upon existing Objectives for their respective levels. The student E.E.C.M. specifies behaviors to be achieved at the completion of the third grade while the teacher E.E.C.M. specifies behaviors to be demonstrated at the completion of the ninth grade. The ninth grade competency level represents the minimal adult level of achievement to be assessed; therefore teachers with or without specialized training and/or background in environ- mental education would be expected to demonstrate this minimal level of environmental education competency. Student E.E.C.M. The student E.E.C.M. consists of two parts: a cognitive component assessed in written form and an AB component assessed through the use of a behavioral checklist. Test items (Appendix III) for the cognitive component were generated in multiple choice or list format from the performance objectives specified for Goals 1 and 2, while items for the behavioral checklist (Appendix IV) were developed from performance Objectives specified for Goals 3, A, and 5. Table 2 indicates the goals and related performance objectives for the third grade utilized in this study (Michigan Department of Education, June 197A). Test items were pre-tested with a group of thirty third grade students from a parochial school in Lansing and necessary mod- ifications were made. Third grade teachers from several parochial schools were asked to examine and criticize the items of the behavioral checklist in terms of utility and applicability to the 67 third grade classroom. Their suggestions were incorporated into the final form of the checklist. 68 TABLE 2-A Education Goals and Third Grade Performance Objectives Environmental man—J m ammo. um >umtsuum m_1~_ $oo_ ;u_3 __im m ammo. um >Omtsuom m.m x00. ;u_3 31— : ummO_ um LOQEJZ Emu. umOk outmwm ....___3 teetmo_ Ozu Opmtm pt_cu Ozu mo pco any u< 1 accomplm ucoEcoL_>co m_; c_ pom: mouLDOmot .mtsumc >mmucoO_ >_Qa:m poo$ mu_ Lu_3 Em_cmmuo ozu mum_OOmm< .m can .Em_cmmto osu mo umu_nmz asp >w_uCOO_ .< .umu_nmz umzu ;u_3 paum 1_OOmmm otm umcu m_mE_cm to\pcm mace—a >mmucon_ .mc_>__icoc mum umzu Omocu EOE; mcw>__ mum umzu Omozu Oumtmaow .ucOEcot_>co m_; mo mucocoasoo m:_u_t3 c_ on_tumop to suboxm to_>mzom __ucoa pcm comma co>mu AEm_cmmtov .mE_cm \ucm_a m mo otauu_a m to men: on» co>_o Abmu_amcv peso» otm mm:_cu m:_>__ ates: mum—a m mo cowua_tumOO to museuma m co>_o mucocoaeou _mucOEcoL_>co mo um__ m co>_o __ucua pcm comma co>_o mco_u_pcmm m.— _._ Loafinz nmm>_._.um.amo muzm o$__ L30 *0 mucocoaeou >w_ucOOm pcm o~_cmouot p_:o;m Lacuna. exp 1 _ m>_humpmo u<¢mzwo .Eoum>m ogu c_;u_3 mmwcmco_um_ottouc_ any mean—m moon on LO>Oum£3 umzu pcm EOum>m geodesm ow__ m co puma O_nmtmaOmc_ cm m_ cmE umcu Oum_uotaam pcm o~__mOL Oh i _ 4umtnoom m~.NN.N_ Noo_ ;u_z >umtsuom _Num_ $00. ;u_3 consaz Emu. umOh outmum ....___3 coatmo_ as» Opmtm pt_cu as“ $0 new ecu u< I ouco_p1fl .mc_mcm;u otm umzu mo_utmaota..Oumum LO_>m;um mco_um>LOmno o>_mmouu:m ;u_3 momcmzo umcu umu_nm; LO yummno umeicmE to .mtaumc .Em_cmmto cm mo motauu_a wo mO_LOm m co>_o mco_u_pcom _.m LOQEJZ umm>_._.um:.mo muzm utoaaam Om__ Lao c_ Lauoo umzu momcmzu _OHCOEmpcam OEOm mo muoommo on_LOmou Ocm >m_OCOO_ p.30zm Locumo_ ask 1 m u>_humnmo 4<¢mzmu Em_cmmto on“ >n po>m_a O_ot...mc_u_tz c_ to >__mto On_LOmoa mEmwcmmLo mo anotm u_m_uoam m mo puma mm u_ >e_OCOO_ taguo some 0“ a_;mco_u um_oL m 305m umgu Omocu >m_ucOO_ Lo_>m;um _m3p_>_pc_ to Em_cmmto u_e_ooam o co otauu_a any co>_o m_m:n_>_vc_ to Em_cmmto u_w_umam mo Otauo_a to O_aEmm m co>_o ucOEcot_>co as» c_ peso» muOOmno mo um__ m co>_o mco_umpcmm m.~ N.N _.N consaz "mu>_huwfimo wuzm utoaaam ow“. Lao mo mucocoaeou chEm ma_cmcomum_oL .mucmEmpcnm On_tumOO pcm ON_:mouot p_:o£m Loctmo_ ask a N m>_humwmo 4u co_u:__oa mum_taotaam mOOL30m OLOE to _ ;u_3 O_n_mmOQ mo um__ m can >Omtsuum wou30m co_u:__oa co_u:__oa mo moa>u wm10m x00. ;u_3 some zoom: 00 am”. m co>_0 ..— LOQE:z Emu. umOh ootmum Lo_>mcom. mco_u_pcom consaz ....___3 LOCtOO. ecu upmtm OL_;u on» m0 pea ecu u< 1 oucomplfl "mm>_humwmo muz_h0m000 4_0m >_o>_uuowmo on cmu >Ozu m>m3 acme. OH pew mew—note pmum_OOmmm mu_ :u_3 ucoe 1cot_>cu as» CO mc_pcmumtopc: pcm mmocOLOZO Ommmn a c_muno OF 1 N 4<00 ucoEcoL_>co ozu c. oomEucmE mumcmxu mc_uu_QOp >umtauum Otm umcu momcmcu macauu_a *0 mm woo_ ;b_z mmogu >L_bcmn_ mm_tom m cm>_o ..a tapasz Emu. umuH_ outmom. to_>mcwm mco_u_pcmw Canasz ....___z .mcho_ was mamas at_;u use to new use u< - muco_us«. "mu>_»umsmo muzm utoaaam ow__ Lao c_ mc_me mo O_nmamu mm cme umzu mmmcmzu Osu mo mEOm >m_aco0_ 0cm O~_cmouot p_:o;m Eocene; ask 1 J w>_kumwmo 4umtsuum twozu on_tumOp to mEm_cmmto :m $00. ;u_3 0cm otammoz o_aEmm co>_0 m.m pottauuo momcmcu omcmco mc_ >omtsuum :u_:3 c_ tepto 1umtum:___ motsuu_a mm.~m $00. ;u_3 cw Eozu omcmtt< *0 00m m co>_o N.m consaz Emu. umuH motmom. Lo_>mzum mco_u_pcom. consaz 71 TABLE 2-D O>m£ >mE uco>o ecu c_ po>_o>c_ cOmtoa m mmc__mow >_ucmsootu mzowcm> >m_uco0_ — m< tonsaz Emu. umOk outmum Lo_>m;wm .mODmm_ AucOEcot_>co >u_c:EEOO\pOO;Lob;0_oc >__m_uoamov Loam mo co_ua_tumOO m to co_um:u_m to uco>o .mucOEcOL_>co u_m_uoam m co>mo ..— mco_u_ncom Longsz "mm>_humwmo muzco OH OmcoamOL cm neumtocom on >mE umcu m0c__OOm ecu mo OEOm owmcmouot p_:ozm Costco. Och 1 _ m>_kum000 4co on“ 0c_ctoucou mo:_m> >m_tm_u 0cm o~_cmouot OP 1 m 4<00 ucoecot_>co umcu cm Emmcmmto cm :00: o>mz mcohu_pcou ecu uuowwo O>_ummoc 0:1mm _ ummO_ um \O>mu_moa...Oumum Longsz Emu. umOh ootmum to_>mzum ....___3 Loctmo_ ecu upmtm pt_;u ecu mo pco ecu u< 1 ouco_p:< mco_u_pcou .mOCOEcOLm>co wo «Om O CO co_ua_LOmOp to otauu_a m co>w0 _.~ mco_umncmm consaz nmw>_._.um=.mo uuzcu_moc new «cOEcot_>co >nu_moc m coozuoa abgmco_um_ot ozu mo mmmcotm3m Oumtumcoeou p_sozm Loctmo_ one 1 N m>_h0m000 u<¢mzmo 71a TABLE 2-D ucoEcoL_>co m_; mo acoeoucmsco to co_uoauota ptszu pauuot_p a_:mptmzoum m m< .m m< >_uco:uotm mo cacao—>0 mo>.0 >__Lmuc:_o> ..N tonsaz Emu. umOh oatmam_ Lo_>msam_ mcomu_pcqm tonsaz .....__3 Locho_ ecu ovmem cuwcu any mo 0:0 any u< 1 ooco_v1d_ "mu>_homsmo wuzco m_; 0Lm30u >u.__n_mcoamot .chmtoa 00 achm m mm; a; umcu aumLuchEOp O_:o;m Lacuna. ask 1 N m>_hum000 4<¢mzm0 ucoecot_>co m_; 00 acme etc was» mEmmcmmLo : m< Losuo uaoam mc_tmu .. >_uco:cotu mo cocoo_>o mo>w0 >__tauc:_o> ..— LonE:z Emu. umOh outmud Lo~>msum mco_u_pcoq consaz ....___3 Eocene. 0:» Opoem pu_;u ecu mo 0:0 may u< 1 ou:o_u:fl_ "mm>_humfimo muz_huusmo 4<¢mzm0 .ngzmvthOum 1 ucoEoucmsco 0cm co_u00uota _oucoecot_>co to» >u___n_mcoamot .chmtoa a ao_o>on Oh 1 m14<00 uCOEcoL_>co yoga comOLO mm; as >53 cumum —__3 one acoEcot_>co >:u_mo: mucoEcoL_>co OLOE m m< ecu mc_umu_pc_ to N *0 cowua_cumou N m< >_uco:votu — any swoonu ..mz to otauu_a m co>_0 N.N consaz Emu. anew outmum Lo_>m:am_ mco_umpcqm consaz A.uuo .mEm_cmmLo >;u_aoz .Loumz emu—u .L_m coo—OM acoEcoL_>co >;u_moc m mo:_m> ocm\oz umcu oucou_>o o>_m 0—:o;m Lacuna. use 1 N m>_huuwmo 0<¢mzuo 72 E _ 2 E m. N 3 .2 ME 3283: .A T m m< .w 0< >_ucosuotu consaz EOu. umOh outmum ....___3 Eocene. as» upmtm ot_;u any *0 oco ozu u< 1 oucompafl ucoEcoLh>co .muO. m_c c_ EO_OOLQ .mucoEcOc 1_>co an o» comps—Om LO\pcm.mo co_uco>ota ecu OLOZOu 0c_xcoz mo oucov_>o o>_0 >u_c:EEoo OOOztoncmpoc to ..oocum .050: c_ 50.noLa .mucoEcOL_>ca cm owwcmouom to_>a;am co_uum .mu_m>za >3 to >__oto .>__Lmuc:_o> mc_u_t3 cm to >__m_LOuu_a .>__oL0 mco_u.pcom N.— ..— LonE32 “mm>.humpmo uuz_Om a_o: Ou mw_zuOEOm Op >N_Lmuc:_o> 0cm acoEcoL_>co Oum_poEE_ m_: c_ Eo_n0cq oco ammo. um ow_cmOOOL p—aosm Loctmo. ask 1 _ m>_huunmo 4<¢wzmo .comuum11mEo—notal_mucOEcot_>co On mco_u:_Om pea mo co.uco>ota ozu utmzou xtoz o» cowum>_uoe qo_o>ov OP 1 m 4(00 73 Teacher E.E.C.M. The teacher E.E.C.M. consists of a cognitive component assessed in written form and an AB component assessed through a combination of self-reports, interview and a behavioral checklist. Test items for the cognitive component (Appendix V) were in the form of open-ended essay questions instead of short answer or multiple choice format in order to Obtain information that more readily reflects the actual thought pattern of the teacher. Test items relating to performance Objectives specified for Goals 1, 2, and part of Goal 3 constituted the cognitive component of the E.E.C.M. A self-report (Appendix VI) of environmentally-related behaviors contained questions relating to performance objectives specified for Goals 3, A, and 5. These responses were verified by an interview with the researcher (Appendix VII) who then evalu- ated each teacher accordingly on a behavioral checklist (Appendix VIII). Table 3 indicates the ninth grade goals and related performance objectives utilized in this study. (Michigan Department of Education, June 197A). 7A TABLE 3-A Environmental Education Goals and Ninth Grade Minimal Performance Objectives >omtsoum 2;}: .82 E.E >omtnuum 01m N00. cu_3 >Omcauom Ono: $00_ ;u_3 >umtnoum o..m.~._ Noo. ;u_z LonEJZ Emu. umOh outmum ....___3 Locumo_ ozu Opmtm cucmc ecu mo pco ogu u< 1 ouco_plfl >2 naseeou mc_uumtouc_ cm c_ Om: .mucoe 1cot_>co 0cm mco_u 1m_:aoa commotoc_ coozuon a_;mco_u 1m_ot ecu ewe—QXN Ecum>m ecu L00 mOOLJOmoL _mtsumc Av .muOuumw 0c_u_E__ Au .>u_umamu mc_>utmo An .EOum>m pOmO_O Am mm Loam mco_u_c_eou _mco_u notoao uuntumcou Emum>m on» $0 mmocpoum_ot 1t0uc_ any mmaum_0 Emum>m as» Emtmm_0 to_>mcom Eoum>m utoaasm om__ m 00 mucosa—o 00 um__ m can __Ocoa pcm comma m co>_0 Eoum>m utoaasm om__ m *0 mucosa—o 00 um__ m 0cm __Ocoa 0cm Logan co>_0 Ecum>m utoaasm Om__ m 00 mucosa—o wo um__ m can __ucoa pcm Luann co>_0 Emum>m “Loganm om__ m 00 mucosa—o mo “mm. m pcm __ucoa 0cm comma co>_u mco_a_pcom J.— m.— N.— ..— LOQEJZ "mm>_h00000 mozm utoaaam ow__ ecu Ou:u_umcoo umcu muted m:o_cm> ago 00 ma_;mco_um_mttuucm osu 0cm to; >b_mmouoc ago 00 0c_0cmumLO0c: o_mmn m OumtumCOEOp 0—:OLm Lacuna. use 1 _ m>.h0m1fldiu<¢mzmo .Eonxw ecu c_;u_3 mmmcmco_um_oLLoHc_ ozu mean—m mOOp a; LO>on53 umzu 0cm Emum>m utoaanm om_— m mo puma o_nmtm00mc_ cm m_ cmE umzu Oum_uotaam pcm ON__mOt OF 1 _ 4(00 75 TABLE 3'8 Autos to my :_ .mLO>Om Longsz Emu. awe» outmmm ....___3 toctmo_ ozu Opmtm zuc_c on“ mo 0:0 ecu u< 1 ouco_plfl :mE muuommm Emum>m utoaasm Om__ on» some; c_ m>m3 um”; Lo_>m:om ucoEcoL_>ca ume1cmE to .mtaumc m 00 comua_tumOp to cam: ecu co>_0 ..a mco_u_pcom. tonssz H002.5300 uuz<2¢0umma .EOum>m utoaaam am__ QLH Ucm CNS “*0 mmGCU®HM—®LLQHC_ QLH @HmLumr—OEOU U—DOr—m LMCLMO— OFF l +~ m>_._.umq.m0 ...(dmzww m. m tonEJZ Emu. umOh outmom >Omtaoum m_1©_ Xbo_ £u_3 consaz Emu. umOh outmum ....__w3 Eczema. use Opmtm cuc_c osu *0 0:0 ozu u< 1 muco_plfl Emum>m m_cu mcmpcmumLOpc: EOLm mo>_LOO O;m\o; umsu mu_wocon um_4 Low>mxom mew—nota co_u 1:__Oa 0cm mmm_tu >mtoco ecu 00 com» ecu c_ mo__OOEOu:m mo co_uu:pota pay“ 1E__c: mc_uu_ELoa mo muuowmo ecu mo amps 1.30cx Oumtumcoeoo Lo_>msam comma pcm .wucoa co>_0 ..m mco_u_pcqw consaz “mm>_kumpmo muzu__msc m_; o>OtQE_ to c_muc_me cmu on Emum>m uLoQasm amm— osu to» ctoucoo new $0 0c_ucmumLOpca m.cme zmsotzu umzu11EOHm>m ueoqazm ow__ m_; mc_ucmumto0:: EOE» cmE cu mu_mocon on» ON__mOL 0—:o;m Costco. och 1 m m>_humwmo 4<¢mzmo A>ueoaOLa :30 Ou uzm_t .xo_aeou _m_tum:pc_ .Eon>m Om_tat0uco out» .o._v mco_u:u_umc_ m.cmE mo mo_ameo .mto>Om co>_0 ..N mco_u_pcom consaz "mu>_humwmo muzm utoaaam om__ m_; :0 mco_u:u_umc_ pupae—Om mo muuowwo O_n_mmoa ecu mo mmocothm cm OumtachEOp 0—:OLm Costco. ask 1 N m>.k0m000 4<¢mzmo 76 0N._N m ..e 2’ 0N 0— ummO_ u< u. M 59:32 53. 33. $3.02. T ...._:3 LmCme— ML“ mvmem Lucmc Gr: *0 Ucm mzu u< I mucmmmuDI/M “COEcOL_>co umcu mo mew—note 0cmu_w_c0_m um_4 mam—note _mucOEcoL_>co “cmuLOQE_ um_4 Lo_>m£om ucoecot_>co Ome1cmE to _mtaumc m 00 O_Qmeo cm cu>_0 __ucoa pcm comma co>_o mco_u_pcom ..— consaz ”mm>_H0mfimo muzco ecu :u_3 paum_u0mmm wee—note mo mc_0cmumtmpc: pcm mmocotm3m OumtumCOEOO p_:O£m Loatmo_ one 1 _ m>.k0m000 0mm Cessnz Emu_ umOh outmum .po>_Om >_O>_uuowmo on and >Ocu m>m3 atom. 00 can mEo_nota naum_OOmmm mu_ Lu_3 uCOEcoL_>co ago 00 mc_pcmumtOpc: pcm mmocotmzm u_mmn m c_muno OH 1 N 4<00 Emum>m utoaaam Oe__ ecu muumwmm cmE umzu m>m3 um_4 tom>m£om ucoecot_>co onwEucmE to _mt:umc m mo co_uaptummp to 05m: ago co>_0 m:o_u_pcom. N.: LonEaz 77 :mc0_u3—Om: vaumommam or» 00 u_:mot Eo_nota m mm tsooo >mE .mucoEcot_>co >Omtsoom umxu mew—00cm cm OH mco_u:_Om om.mN Nao_ ;b_3 3m: >t_ucma_ m_n_mmoa meow cm>_o _.m Longsz Emu. “woe outmum. to_>m;om. mco_u_pcow consaz ....___3 Loctmo_ ecu Opmtm cuc_c on» m0 pco ozu u< 1 ooco_p1m "wm>_h0mwmo muzco paumommsm zu_3 vaum_u0mmm mew—note 3O: >m_HCOp_ p_:o£m toctmm_ ask 1 m m>.huuwmo 4mouov mew—nota pcOEcOL_>co acme >omtnuum Omega mo 1cmE to .mcsumc m m. mN.MN N00. ;u_3 muumwmo On_cumoo eo O_ameo cm co>mo :.N 3 E AEOHm>mOOOV DID. EOECOL _>co mums mm >Omtnuum mew—note any 00 1cmE LO .mtaumc m NN.NN N00. zu_3 Omamu >C_OCOU_ No O_ameo cm co>_0 m.N AEon>mouov mew—notq Otm u:OE:OL_>co acme >Omtsoom paum__ mew—note 1cmE to .mtaumc m mcoc N00_ :u_3 >;3 on_tumO0 mo m_ameO cm co>_0 N.N mcomu:_0m Eo_notq >Omtsoum o_n_mmoa _muCOEcoL_>co cm mo mN.:N moo. ;u_z ego. mumum co_ua_LUmme m ce>_u ..N Loganz Emu. “woe outmom. to_>m;um mco_u_pcom topazz ....___3 Eocene. ecu oomtm cuc_c ecu mo 0:0 ozu u< 1 moco_p:«. “wm>.h0m000 muz_mcm 0cm “COEcoL_>co 0:0 00 mew—note ON>_mcm 0—:osm eczema. exp 1 N m>.k0m000 4 0cm mcLOocou .mucOE 1cot_>CO Cu pummOt m 0 >_HCO:UOLe c. Op_ca u_n_LxN mEO_nOLQ _OHCOE 1coL_>CO pcm HCOE 1cot_>CO On vOum_OL _ 0 .:m >_OCODUOLu mmc__OOm mmOLQXm LODEJZ Emu. umOh OOtmOm. Lo_>chm ....___3 tOCcOO. Ocu Opmtm Luc_c O5“ 00 pco O50 u< 1 OOCOmpam >__Lmuc:_o> N.N >_wtmuc:_o> ..N mco_u_chm LOQEDZ Hmm>_._.um_.mo m02CO Ozu mc_cLOucou mO:_m> :30 tOc\m_L mo :o_uwcmouOt m mmOLQXO O_:o;m cOcLOO_ OLA 1 N m>_AUMOmo 4omt3uom mO:_m> O50 c_ pOm: mm Nee. £u_z mama. ecu mumum tOnE32 EOu. umOh OOtmOm Lom>chm ....___3 LOchO_ OLH Opmtm Lucwc Ozu mo UCO OLu u< 1 OOCO_plfl thma 0cm __ucoa CO>_0 ..— mcowu_0com LOnE:z umm>_._.0m000 muz:O Osu mc_ptmmOt mO:_m> :30 LO;\m_; >m_tm_u 0cm Oum:_m>O .ON_cmOOOt Op LOOLO c_ co_umo_m_tm_o mO:_m> c_ maOum Ono >_aam p.305m LOcLOO_ One 1 HIMNJHduduaerflu2md .ucOEcot_>CO Ozuimc_ctOOcoo mO:_m> >m_cm_u 0cm ON_cmouOt OP 1 MIJ<00 79 EOum>m utoaaam Ow__ EO_notQ OLH mo mucocoaeou .mucoecot_>CO m:o_tm> co u_w_anm m 0u O>ms >OE OODOLO pummOc c_ co_u_moa >umcnuum m_:u mqume O:_m> tm_:u_utma mm.~m._m Noe. ;u_z bee; >O_ucoe_ m cmmoso mc_>mz ..m LOnE:z EOu. umOh OOLmOm. Lo_>m;um mcomu_0com LOQEJZ ....___3 LOchO_ O50 Opmtm zuc_c Ocu *0 OCO Ozu u< 1 OOCO_p:«. ”mm>_Humfimo wuzm mOu_o:u On“ 00 mOOCanOmcou O_n_mmoa Ocu Oum:_m>O p.305m LOchO_ Oz» 1 w m>_h0m000 4nsum m_;a to me_u was um cmuu_tz mum; Ocoz "mm>_pumsmo muzw_cm_o ”H cu LOOLO c_ O_nm_mm>m mOOWOLO Ogu O~_cmOOOL 0—:ozm LOchO_ OLA 1 : m>_h0m000 4_pc_ mm -az>_nc_ Omega to sn e_m; mco_u_moa >omtsuum mO:_m> Ocu >33 O:_m> mc_ptmmOL mm N00_ :uwz pcm 30; c_m_axN “COEOumum m CO>_0 N.m EO_noLa Ozu Op pummOt c_ manotm\m_msp_>_pc_ tOcuo >n 0—O; EO_noLa .muCOE >umtsuum mO:_m> Oumum 1cot_>CO cm 00 coma mm moo. £u_z ace >L_ucma_ -a_tomme ecu co>_a _.m LOnE:z EOu. umOh OOtmwm to_>m;Om. mcomu_pcqw LOOEJZ ....___3 tOCtOO. Oz» Opmtm Luc_c Ozu mo OCO Ozu u< 1 OOCOmpJfl ”mm>_Humwmo muz :30 tOc\m_£ sot» LOOO_O >mE mO:_m> L_Ocu >53 cam 30; ON>_Ocm Ou O_bm on new mtOsuo >n p_O; mO:_m> Ocu O~_cmOOOL p_:O;m tOctmO_ Och 1 m m>.k0m0mo 4m uLOQasm Ow__ Ozu cm mEm_:mmLo tOcuo No mc_Onu__O3 Oz“ to» cLOucoo comuum uLO>o J 0 >.u:O:UOtm wo OOCOp_>O O>m0 >0 >__Lmuc3_o> _.N LOQEJZ EOu. umO» OOtmOm. Lo_>mcum mco_u_pcom tOnE:z ....___3 LOCLOO_ OLu Opmtm cuc_c Ozu mo OCO Ozu u< 1 OOCO_03«. "mm>.hum0mo wuzm utoaasm Om__ Ocu cm mammcmmto tOcuo OO 0c_Onu__O3 Ozu to» stoocou m Oumtumconp p_:OLm LOCtOO. Os» 1 N m>_humwmo 4_uum “COEOOCOLCO\co_quu 1ota .OHCOEcoL_>CO c_ u:OEO>_o>c_ >0 mLOzuo pcm 0—Om mo mc_On1__O3 TABLE 3-G Ocu LOO ctOocou mo co_uum utO>o N 0 >_HCO:UOtu OOCOp_>O O>_0 >0 >_~Lmuc:_o> _._ LODEJZ EOu. umOh OOLmum Lo_>mLOm. mco_u_pcqm LOQEDZ ....___3 LOCtOO. Ocu Opmtm zuc_c Ozu #0 OCO Ocu u< 1 OOCO_03¢ "mm>_h0m000 muzCO to» >u___n_mcoamOL mc_E:mmm >0 mLOcuo pcm m_OmE_L mo 0:_On1__O3 Ocu LOO cLOucou m OumtuchEOp 0.:ocm LOCLOO_ Och 1 _ u>.k0m000 4CO LOO >u___a_mcoamot .chmth m ao_O>Op Oh 1.0 4<00 81 TABLE 3-H mO_0_>_0OO _m0coecotm>CO co mc_xtoz wo co_0um 0LO>O N 0 .0 0 .m 0 >_0CO:UOLu OOCO00>O O>00 >0 >__Lm0c:_o> ..— LO0E:z EO0_ 0mOh OOtmOm LO_>m0Om_ mco_0_0com LO0E:z ....___3 .m:.mm. 0:0 oemtm £0c_c age to new 0:0 p< 1 mucm_ns«_ "mm>.huwsmo muzazmoumwa .mO_0_>_0um _O0COEcoLm>CO co x003 O0 co_0m>_0oe m amao_m>mu mm; m;m\m; page Oumtumcoemu e_so;m tmcho_ use 1 _ w>_eumsmo sCO O0 com0a_Om 0cm mo co_0cO>Ota O00 ptmzo0 x003 O0 co_0m>_0OE QO_O>O0 OP 1 m 0<00 82 POpulation Selection and Description The population for this study consisted of a stratified sample of third grade students and teachers from public school districts in Michigan's lower peninsula. Since research on the significance of geographical location and other demographic var- iables upon environmental education knowledge/attitudes seems to conflict (Hess and Torney 1967, Sherman 1970, Solid 1971, Hilger- son, ggpgl., 1971, Dorsey 1972, Perkes 1973, Hounshell and Liggett 1973, Volker, Heal, and Horvat 1973), demographic factors were given some consideration in the development of the stratified sample in order to assure validity. The 613 local school districts of the state are divided by the Michigan Department of Education into five types based primar- ily on pOpulation and economic focal point. The designations of these types and the ranges of population size are shown in Table A (Michigan Department of Education, June 1971). Local district names and vital educational statistics for each district are contained in Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) reports. The December 1971 MEAP was utilized to select districts for the stratified sample as follows 1. Districts in each population group were numbered consecutively. 2. Using a table of random numbers five district names were selected from each group. Only those districts found in the lower peninsula were acceptable for the sample. 83 3. A letter was sent to the superintendent of each district describing the study and requesting cooperation. A. Using the Michigan Education Directory, l973-7A a specific school in each district was chosen on the basis of popula- tion size. The school containing the largest K-3 population was selected and request for participation of this school in the study was made to the superintendent's office. 5. Occasionally the superintendent's office recommended substituting a different school within the district for the one originally selected. This advice was followed and the substitution made. TABLE A Types of Michigan School Districts Number within Type state Description Metropolitan 15 l or more adjacent cities Core City with a population of 50,000 or more which serves as economic focal point of environs City 2A Community of 10,000 to 50,000 that serves as economic focal point of environs Town 105 Community of 2,500 to 10,000 that serves as economic focal point of environs Urban Fringe 122 Community of any size that has as its economic focal point a metropolitan core or city Rural 3A7 Community less than 2,500 8A Table 5 contains the list of districts that agreed to participate in the study and thus composed the actual stratified sample. TABLE 5 Participating Districts District and Total Number Total Number Number Classes Classes Students Participating Metropolitan Core City 5 113 Lansing (1) Pontiac (A) City 2 39 Holland (2) Town 5 117 Bad Axe (A) Otsego (1) Urban Fringe 5 113 Birmingham (1) Fitzgerald Schools (A) Rural 3 5'-I Bloomingdale (3) Total = 20 A36 Operational Procedures Each participating school was visited early in the fall in order to acquaint the third grade teachers with the purpose of the study and with relevant procedures. The Student Behavioral Checklist t0»be used by the teachers in assessing the environmental behaviors CDF their students was explained and necessary clarifications 85 regarding the intended observations were made. The teachers were asked to Observe these behaviors for a period of two months and then to complete a checklist for each child in their classes. During this initial visit the Teacher E.E.C.M. was intro- duced and a brief discussion concerning the meaning of the concept “life-support system“ was held. The Teacher E.E.C.M. was labeled I'Environmental Education Survey for Teachers'I to minimize anxiety concerning the test. In order to further reduce anxiety teachers were assured that the information and scores obtained would be utilized only for the research purposes stated and that no reports regarding individual scores would be reported to school adminis- trators. The teachers were asked to base their answers solely upon the knowledge they already possessed and to take as much time as they needed to complete the survey instrument. It was announced that the completed surveys were to be collected after a period of two months. All third grade students were tested in groups of 10 during a second visitation to each school two months after the initial contact. Prior to testing the students were given a brief intro- duction to the study. They were told that the information and scores obtained would not affect their grades in any way, and that the research was primarily concerned with what they thought about the ”environment“. After ideas regarding the meaning of the word ”environment” were solicited from the group a brief introduction to the testing procedure was given. Students were asked either to place an ”X” through the circle on the answer sheet that 86 indicated the answer of their choice or to list Hueitemsrequested. All of the multiple choice questions (Numbers 5-A0) were adminis- tered before allowing time for students to fill in the lists required in questions Numbers l-A and Al-AS (see Appendix 111). All questions and answers were illustrated and each item was read to the students in order to minimize effects of differential reading levels. Students were permitted to ask questions and a relaxed testing atmos- phere was maintained. Thirty minutes was allocated as testing time for each group. Student Behavioral Checklists based on teacher observation and the completed Teacher E.E.C.M. were collected during this second visitation as well. Each teacher was interviewed to varify infor- mation on his or her survey form and to provide general feedback relative to procedures utilized. Scoring Procedures Since the formats of student and teacher E.E.C.M. differed a great deal, scoring procedures for each will be discussed separately. Student E.E.C.M. Data from the student answer sheets (Appendix IX) for the cognitive component of the E.E.C.M. (”What I Think About the Environment”) were transferred to IBM 0-8165(MSU-OS-102) forms to permit machine scoring and automatic punching of computer cards. Since the scoring machines allow only one correct response for each question, the data were recoded to indicate a separate item for each of the five Options to each multiple choice question in 87 which there were two or more correct answers. Options indicating a correct response for an item were coded as ”true“ using the number one position on the IBM answer sheet. Options indicating an incorrect response were coded as ”false” using the number two position on the answer sheet. The codebook for this transforma- tion is found in Appendix X and the key for the machine scored answer sheets is found in Appendix XI. Ten eighth grade girls were trained to assist in the transfer and to verify the accuracy of the transferral process. Each student answer sheet was re- viewed a third time by the researcher to check the accuracy of the transferred data and to hand score the two lists requested in ques- tion Numbers l-A and Al-AS. Table6 contains a sample of acceptable and non-acceptable responses given by students. One point was given for each correct response and the standard formula to correct for guessing on a S-item multiple choice test (right minus wrong divided by A) was utilized (Stanley, 196A p. 195). The maximum possible score for this portion of the test was 121 points. Data from the Student Behavioral Checklists (Appendix IV) were collected directly on IBM #0-8152 forms utilized by the teachers and each item was machine scored. Computer cards were punched directly as scoring took place. Responses in the First column, ”frequently“, were weighted by three,responses in the Second column, ”occasionally“, were weighted by two and responses in the Third column, “rarely”, were weighted by one to give a maximum possible score of 30. TABLE 6 Student Responses to Listing Items Questions 1 - A: Acceptable Physical, biological and social components of environment such as: animals fire smoke houses flowers woods pollution air food snow policemen sunshine cars litter germs ”Name four things that are part of our environment” Non-acceptable Largely omissions or duplications of an item previously listed. Also items such as: helping snacks keeping things in place don't pollute clean-up Questions Al - A5: ”Name five natural resources“ Acceptable Non-acceptable Largely omissions or duplications of items previously listed. Also included: Specific or general descriptions of items commonly recognized as natural resources including: land electricity water factories forests buildings animals stores plants cars air plastic soil air pollution oil radar gas clothes sand shelter coal salt 89 Teacher E.E.C.M. The responses of ten environmental experts, either members of,or consultants to M.E.E.R.C. were used to generate the key of acceptable responses to the Environmental Education Survey for Teachers, the cognitive component of the Teacher E.E.C.M. This key (Appendix V) was open-ended and one point was allocated for each acceptable response. Since the number of correct responses varied with the perceptiveness Of the teacher there was no upper limit or maximum number of possible points for this component of the E.E.C.M. In order to minimize scoring bias two separate ratings of each test were made by different individuals with backgrounds in natural re- sources and environmental education--one by the researcher and the other by a graduate student in fisheries and wildlife. The scores thus obtained were compared by means of one parametric (Pearson r ) and two non-parametric tests of correlation (Spearman's Rank and Kendall's Tau). Table 7 contains the results Of this comparison. TABLE 7 Scorer Reliability Teacher Cognitive E.E.C.M. Statistical Test Significance Level Pearson r = .9699 .001 (Downie and Heath 1959 p. 306) Spearman Rank r = .9A7O .Ol (Tate and Clelland 1957,p.l32 Kendall's Tau = .8298 .01 (Tate and Clelland 1957,p.132 Although scorer reliability was very high a few differences between scores were evident. To accommodate for these differences an adjusted cognitive score was Obtained for each teacher by averag- ing the scores assigned by both evaluators for each item and for the 90 total test. This adjusted C-score should more nearly reflect the actual achievement of the teachers on this portion of the E.E.C.M. (See Table 2A, pagell9). The teacher's AB score was Obtained by use of a combination of self—report questions (Appendix VI) and interview questions (Appendix VII) to provide information used by the researcher to subjectively rate each teacher on a Behavioral Checklist (Appendix VIII) indicating degree of environmental education concern/commitment. Table 8 shows the relationships among self-report, interview, and checklist items. In deriving the AB-score from a completed Behavioral Checklist, responses in the category ”strong” received three points, ”moderate” received two points and “weak” received one point for a total maximum score of 21 points. TABLE 8 Related Components of Teacher AB-Scores Behavioral Checklist Interview Self-Report Item Question Item Cl 1. 2. 3 C2 1, 12 C3 2. 3 CA A, 5, 6, 7 I. 2. 3. 9 C5 11 8 C6 12 c7 8. 9. 10 5, 6. 7 91 Statistical and Data Processing Procedures All data were coded with a sequence of six numbers; the first number indicated the school district, the second and third numbers identified the teacher and the last three numbers indi- cated the individual student. For example, number 296001 would mean that student number 001 was part Of teacher 96's class in participating district number 2. Since the specific data for each teacher and district would be valuable only to those involved, the code sequence for this information is not presented in this report. The questions of interest in this study and the hypotheses derived from them relate directly to statistical tests of degree of relationship or correlation. Since some students were absent from school the day the cognitive component of the E.E.C.M. was administered and therefore only AB-scores were available from the teachers for these students, only data for which both cognitive and AB-components (matched pairs) were available were utilized in this study. The n for students participating in the study was therefore reduced from A36 to A06. Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient, a standard parametric test of degree of relationship, is most useful when the nyis large enough to presuppose a normal distribution. Therefore this test was most applicable to research questions associated with the student data in which the n_was more than A00. Data obtained from this test were considered significant if the probability of obtained values lay between the .l and .001 levels. 92 Non-parametric tests of correlation are most useful when the .2 is small and a normal distribution is not presupposed. Two such correlational tests were considered for this study: the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient and the Kendall's Tau Coefficient of Correlation. Since Kendall's Tau Correlation is very sensitive to ties occurring in ranks and Spearman's Rank Correlation is not seriously affected by such ties, the latter was selected as the maj- or statistical test for data in this study in which n is less than 25. Data Obtained from the Spearman's Rank Correlation test were considered significant if the probability of the Obtained values lay between the .20 and .10 levels. I All student data were processed initially by use of computer programs. The Michigan State University Computer Institute for Social Science Research (CISSR) data analysis system was utilized in the form of the 1975 GRADER program, which provided the following outputs for the student data: raw scores, mean and standard devia- tion for both components of the E.E.C.M. and for the combined scores by class or section and for the total sample. GRADER also provided a frequency distribution and histogram for each E.E.C.M. component and for the entire sample. Item analysis for the cognitive component of the Student E.E.C.M. was provided by the Office Of Evaluation Services at Michigan State University. Five indices were of importance in this study: the index of item difficulty, the index of item discrimina- tion, the discriminating efficiency, the standard error of measurement, and the Kuder-Richardson Reliability #20. 93 The index of difficulty is the proportion of the total group who answered the item incorrectly. A high index therefore indicates that the item was difficult. Generally, For achievement tests, most test constructors desire items with indices of difficulty from 20-80; with an average index of difficulty from 50-60 (Office of Evaluation Services, 1965, p. A). Since items utilized in this study were developed from minimal performance objectives they constitute a mastery or criterion- referenced test; and as such differ significantly from ordinary achievement test items in terms of underlying theory and assumptions. Table 9 indicates suggested indices Of item difficulty that can be used in the evaluation of mastery test items for future usefulness. TABLE 9 Evaluation of Indices of Item Difficulty for Mastery Test Items Index Item Evaluation 71+ Very Difficult 70-50 Difficult 119-30 Medium Difficulty 29-19 Easy 18 - below Very Easy The index of item discrimination is the difference between the percentage of the upper group who answered the item correctly and the proportion of the lower group who answered correctly. The upper group was defined as the 27% who received the highest overall C-scores while the lower group was defined as the 27% who received the lowest overall C-scores. This index is dependent upon the difficulty index 9A and may reach a maximum value of 100 or 1 for an item with an index of difficulty of 50. For achievement type tests a discrimination index of A0 (or .A0) or greater is considered desirable. Since the items used in this test were mastery or criterion-referenced items instead of achievement items, different discrimination indices must be used for analysis. Stanley and Hopkins developed a procedure useful for the evaluation of items based on indices of discrimination for achievement type tests (1972, p. 273). The criteria thus estab- lished were adapted for mastery tests items by decreasing the required value for each rating by ten points. The resulting criteria were used in this study for the evaluation of indices of discrimination and are found in Table 10. TABLE 10 Evaluation of Indices of Item Discrimination for Mastery Test Items Index Item Evaluation 30+ Very Good 29-20 Good 19-10 Reasonably Fair 9" Poor 0 or Negative Ambiguous The discriminating efficiency of an item is the ratio of the actual discrimination achieved to the maximum possible discrimination for an item with that given index of difficulty. Since discrimina- ting ability for items in which the index of difficulty is either high or low is greatly reduced, and criterion-referenced examinations contain a relatively high proportion of such items, the index of 9S discrimination may not accurately reflect the appropriateness of any particular item for this type of test situation. The discrim- inating efficiency, however, indicates what prOportion of the maximum possible discrimination at a given index of difficulty was actually achieved, and therefore provides additional information on appropriateness Of items, particularly useful for evaluation of criterion-referenced examinations. The values listed in Table 9 for indices of discrimination will be used to determine which discriminating efficiencies indicate acceptable and non-acceptable items. For the purpose of this study, any item having a discrimin- ating efficiency of 10 or more will be considered acceptable. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the Kuder- Richardson Reliability #20 (KR #20) are useful indications of the overall merit of the test. Tne SEM is related to both the relia- bility of the test and the standard deviation. The greater the reliability, the smaller the SEM. If the reliability of a test was equal to zero, the SEM would equal the standard deviation. If the test was perfectly reliable (I), the SEM would equal zero. The Kuder-Richardson Reliability #20 examines the relationship between each item and all the rest of the items and as such determines the extent to which the test is reliable. The range of the KR #20 coefficient is from O to 1, therefore the greater the KR #20 value the greater the degree of internal correlation among test items, and the greater the reliability of the test. 96 The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), a program made available to the Michigan State University Computer Center from the Vogelback Computing Center, Northwestern University (Version 6, April 1, 1975), was utilized to provide the following outputs for matched pair data: Pearson Correlation Coefficients for cognitive and AB components of the Student E.E.C.M., frequency distribution, histogram, mean, and standard deviation for each test component separately, for the total score, and for analysis of frequency of each category of response on the Student Behavioral Checklist. Data in which the teachers' scores and the mean scores or ranks of each class were involved were analyzed by use of standard formulae and tables with the assistance of an electronic calculator. Ranks for the teachers' scores and for class means were determined utilizing techniques described by Downie and Heath (1959, p. 206). Data for both components of the Student and Teacher E.E.C.M. were also examined with regard to achievement attained in relation to each goal and for all performance objectives. For this analysis all objectives were weighted equally. Since the computer analysis of student data included percent correct for each item of the cognitive component and percentages for each category of response on the Behavioral Checklist, the achievement attained for each objective was determined by calculating the mean percentage for all questions relating to that objective. The teacher data were 97 based on raw scores and therefore contained a variable number of points for different questions. These raw scores were therefore weighted in order to make comparisons possible. The maximum raw score value attained was 10; ergo all raw scores were weighted accordingly so that the highest value attained would be comparable (10 points). Items thus weighted were then converted to percentages and the achievement attained for each objective was determined by calculating the mean percentage for all questions relating to that objective. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA Analysis of Instruments The design of this study provides a means for assessing the environmental education competency of students and teachers based on their performance on both a cognitive test instrument and sub- jective affective-behavioral (AB) evaluations. Analytic data for these instruments and data derived from their use will be presented in the following manner: 1. Data from Cognitive Component Student E.E.C.M., ”What I think about the Environment“. 2. Data from AB Component Student E.E.C.M., Student Behavioral Checklist. 3. Data from Total Student E.E.C.M. A. Data from Cogpjtive Component Teacher E.E.C.M., ”E.E. Survey for Teachers”. 5. Data from AB Component Teacher §;§gC.M., Teacher Behavioral Checklist. 6. Data from Total Teacher E.E.C.M. Comparative data in the form of correlation coefficients determined in relation to each hypothesis and descriptive data concerning achieved environmental education competency levels will then be presented and analyzed. 98 99 Coggjtive Component Student E.E.C.M. The following tables (Table 11 and 12) and graph (Figure 3) provide data concerning the distribution and frequency of raw scores (C-scores) for ”What I Think about the Environment”, the cognitive component of the student E.E.C.M.. Table 11 also indicates the percent of the maximum possible score correct for each raw score value. TABLE 11 Frequency Distribution and Percent Correct of Student C-Scores Score Frequency Percent Correct Score Frequency Percent Correct 3A 2 38.10 67 7 55.37 36 I 29.75 68 18 56.20 37 l 30.58 69 12 57.02 39 I 32.23 70 11 57.85 A0 2 33.06 71 17 58.68 Al I 33.88 72 19 59.50 A2 I 3A.7l 73 1A 60.33 A3 I 35.5A 7A 18 62.81 A5 I 37.19 75 2A 61.98 A6 1 38.02 76 19 62.81 A7 I 38.8A 77 13 63.6A A8 I 39.67 78 12 6A.A6 A9 5 A0.50 79 7 65.29 50 2 Al.32 8O 13 66.12 51 8 A2.15 81 II 66.9A 52 2 A2.98 82 9 67.77 53 2 A3.80 83 11 68.60 5A A AA.63 8A 9 69.A2 55 6 A5.A5 85 8 70.25 56 8 A6.28 86 12 71.07 57 S A7.11 87 A 71.90 58 6 A7.93 88 3 72.73 59 A A8.76 89 2 73.55 60 8 A9.59 90 2 7A.38 61 8 SO.A1 91 2 75.21 62 8 51.2A 92 2 76.03 63 3 52.06 99 l 81.82 6A 10 52.89 65 13 53.72 A06 66 10 5A.55 Maximum Score = 121 100 TABLE 12 Grouped Frequency Distribution Student C-Scores Scores Frequency 103-97 1 96-90 6 89-83 A9 82-76 8A 75-69 115 68-62 69 61-55 A5 5A-A8 2A A7-AI 6 AO-3A 7 Table 13 provides statistical data describing this distribu- tion of scores. TABLE I3 Descriptive Statistics Cognitive Component Student E.E.C.M. Statistic Value Mean 70.53 Median 71.26 Mode 75.00 Standard Deviation 11.21 Variance 125.75 Range 66.00 Maximum Score 121 Interpretation of the significance of the data contained in Tables 11, 12 and 13 and Figure 3 must be made in light of the nature of the testing situation. Since this examination is designed as a pre-test to determine student entry levels of behavior prior to introduction of specific instructional strategies, achievement test criteria must not be applied to the resulting data. For example, a mean score of 70.53 represents only 58.29% of the maximum possible score of 121 points. Such a mean would indicate a very difficult achievement type test when administered at the completion of a set Frequency 3:383 101 120- 20- IOI- 01020 30405060 708090100 C-Score Figure 3. Frequency Polygon for Student C-Scores. 102 of instructional activities designed to teach the content contained in the examination. Yet for a criterion-referenced pre-test this mean, interpreted along with the median, mode, and standard deviation, indicate that the content tested is well within the capabilities of third grade students and that, given appropriate instructional strategies, there is every indication that the content can be mastered at levels established by the minimal performance objectives. This is supported by the fact that the obtained scores are clustered about the mean in such a way that 279 students or 68.7% of the total sample lie within one standard deviation of the mean. The median and mode are also within close proximity of the mean. The frequency polygon (Figure 3) derived from these scores indicates that the distribution of scores closely approximates a normal curve and is skewed very slightly to the right. The curve obtained for terminal behavioral levels following completion of educational activities in a mastery learning situation would be skewed sharply to the right indicating that most students had mastered the specified content. Since 68.7% of the students were able to answer A9.02 - 67.56% (the mean i_one standard deviation) of the content correctly without prior instruction the probability of the curve shifting sharply to the right following instruction is very high. Therefore the data derived from the distribution of C-scores clearly indicate that the test measures content well within the capabilities of the third grade students assessed. 103 Table IA indicates the distribution of the mean class C-scores and the resulting class ranks. TABLE 1A Distribution and Rank of Mean Class C-Scores Section Number Mean C-Score Rank 295 76.82 1 308 76.50 2 617 76.31 3 720 73.67 A 309 73.5A 5 297 73.50 6 A12 72.56 7 902 72.39 8 29A 71.82 9 718 71.79 10 821 71.57 11 311 71.A8 12 293 71.2A 13 719 70.56 1A 310 70.0A 15 516 68.12 16 515 67.A8 I7 901 6A.A8 18 513 61.50 19 51A 59.95 20 1. Item Analysis - Difficulty and Discrimination Table 15 indicates the frequency distribution and percent- age of the indices of item difficulty obtained for the cognitive component of the Student E.E.C.M.. Figure A shows the percentage distribution of these indices of item difficulty. TABLE 15 Frequency Distribution Indices of Item Difficulty for Student Cognitive E.E.C.M. Difficulty Index jjjgvaluation Number of Items Percentage 71 - above Very difficult 15 12.A 7O - 50 Difficult 19 15.7 A9 - 30 Medium Difficulty 26 21.5 29 - 19 Easy 19 15.7 18 - below Very Easy A2 3A.7 10A 100+- 901- 80- 701- 60- E. 8 50- 83 40. 30- "7 20- '1 IO- ‘1 I [-1 0 a a E: s s 13 18 .38 a? a8 a 8;; =5 ’5 g 20 3 5’ Index Evaluation Figure A. Percentage Distribution of Indices Of Item Difficulty for the Cognitive Component of the Student E.E.C.M. 105 Table 16 shows the frequency distribution and percentage Of the indices of item discrimination and the discriminating effic- iencies Obtained for this portion of the Student E.E.C.M. Figure 5 indicates the percentage distribution of these indices. TABLE 16 Frequency Distribution of Indices of Item Discrimination and Discriminating Efficiencies for Student Cognitive E.E.C.M. No. Items No. Items Discrimination Discriminating Percent- Index Evaluation Index Percentage :Efficiency age 30-above Very Good 19 15.70 87 71.90 29-20 Good 37 30.58 11 9.10 19-10 Fair A7 38.8A l3 lO.7A 9- 1 Poor 12 9.92 A 3.30 O or Negative Ambiguous 6 A.96 6 A.96 Table 17 provides additional descriptive statistics for the item analysis of the Student Cognitive E.E.C.M. TABLE 17 Descriptive Statistics Item Analysis Student Cognitive E.E.C.M. Statistic Value Mean Item Difficulty 36 Mean Item Discrimination 18 Mean Discriminating Efficiency A8.9l Kuder-Richardson Reliability NO. 20 0.8A81 Standard Error of Measurement A.3287 Table 15 and Figure A indicate that 50.Al%.of the items/options were either easy or very easy, 21.5% were of medium difficulty and 28.1% were difficult to very difficult. This distribution of indices of item difficulty is suitable for a criterion-referenced examination based upon minimal performance objectives since the expectation in such an examination is that the majority of the students will be able to master the performances indicated by the test items. The mean item difficulty of 36 indicates that the average test item/Option was of medium difficulty. Percent 100 90 80 70 60 50 Very Good 106 Discrim. Index Discrim. Efficiency Index Evaluation Figure 5. Percentage Distribution for Item Discriminations and Discriminating Efficiencies Of the COQnitive Component of the Student E.E.C.M. 107 Table 16 and Figure 5 show that 85.12% of the indices of discrimination and 91.7A% of the discriminating efficiencies indicate items/options that are reasonably fair to very good. The mean item/Option discrimination of 18 indicates that the average item discrimination was fair. The mean discriminating efficiency of A8.91% indicates that the average discriminating ability of the test items/options was very good. Based upon the criteria for evaluation of test items established in Chapter Three in relation to discriminating efficiency, ten items/options or 8.26% of the items/options should be rejected. 2. Acceptable and Non-acceptable Items/Options: Any item/ option having a discriminating efficiency of ten or more was con- sidered acceptable for this study. Of the 121 items/options, III or 91.7A% of the total were able to meet this criterion of accept- ability. Eight questions contained one or more non-acceptable Options but only one question, number 12, was completely unaccept- able. The following items/options were non-acceptable: a). Question 9 - Which plants or animals would you find living here? (Forest) Option A - Bobcat. Apparently this option was incorrectly keyed for “false“ instead of ”true”. If the key had been correct 7A% of the upper group and 76% of the lower group or 78% of the total number of students tested would have correctly identified the forest as the appropriate habitat for the bobcat. Since a higher number of students in the lower group responded correctly than students in the upper group, there is some indication that guessing 108 may have played a major role in the selection of response for this item. Option B - Daisy. This option was answered correctly by 21% of the upper group and A3% of the lower group by indicating that the forest is not the habitat of the daisy. This resulted in a negative index of discrimination (-22) and a negative discriminating efficiency (-3A). Apparently this Option was confusing, especially to students in the upper group. Perhaps this confusion is due to the fact that daisies are often found along roadsides bordering a forested area and in openings in the forest canopy. b). Question 10 - Which of these plants or animals would you find living here? (Field or lawn) Option D - Pine tree. Thirty-eight percent of the upper group and A1% of the lower group answered this Option by correctly indicating that the field or lawn is not the habitat of the pine tree. This resulted in a discriminating index which was negative (-3) and a negative discriminating efficiency (-3). This option was therefore confusing; perhaps because conifers, especially pines, are often planted as ornamental trees on lawns surrounding homes. Option E - Chipmunk. Sixty-four percent of the upper group and 62% of the lower group answered this option incorrectly. Thirty-six percent Of the upper group and 37% of the lower group responded correctly by indicating that the field or lawn is not the habitat of the chipmunk. This resulted in a negative discrim- ination index (-1) and a negative discriminating efficiency (-l). Perhaps the fact that chipmunks often wander onto lawns 109 surrounding homes found near wooded areas was responsible for the confusion indicated by this option. However, the presence of this type of confusion may also indicate that the habitat concept involving the place where an organism lives versus places in which the organism may be occasionally found is not well established for third grade students. c). Question 12 - Where do I live? (Fox). Options included forest, prairie, field, city and desert. This item was very difficult for the students tested and as a consequence 67% of the upper group and 62% of the lower group omitted the item. Thirty-two percent of the upper group and 29% of the lower group or 30% of the total sample responded correctly to the item in selecting the forest as the appropriate habitat. The distractor options were apparently unattractive since no more than 3% of the students in either group selected any one distractor. This may reflect that the fox and its habitat are unfamiliar to the third grade students tested or may be further indication of difficulty in conceptualization of the notion of habitat. d). Question 17 - This is a mammal (dog). Which of these pictures show other mammals? Option E - Snake. Although this option was of medium difficulty (A8) for the students tested both the discrimination index (7) and the discriminating efficiency (7) were very low. Fifty-seven percent of the upper group and 50% of the lower group or 52% of the total sample responded correctly to this option by indicating that the snake is not a mammal. Data resulting from llO item analysis are not sufficient to formulate hypotheses that may be useful in interpreting the obtained results. e). Question 26 - What is my job in the environment? (bee) Option E - I build a fancy house. Apparently this Option was keyed incorrectly for ”true” instead of “false”. If the key had been correct 62% of both upper and lower groups or 61% of the total student population would have been correct in indicating that while some bees do indeed build a fancy home this is not their role or function in the environment. Therefore this item indicates that conceptualization of the notion of role may be well established in the third grade. f). Question 35 - Which changes in the environment were man-made? Option D - Wind blown trash. Forty-six percent of the upper group and 62% of the lower group were able to respond correctly to this option indicating that wind blown trash as pictured in the test item (see Appendix III) was not a change caused by man. The discrim- ination index of -16 and the discriminating efficiency of -17 indicate that this item was confusing in that more of the lower group responded correctly than did the upper group. Thus the bright- er students must have inferred something from the question which led to confusion. The pictured item was extremely clear in illustrating the wind blowing over a trash barrel but apparently some students realized that all trash is generated by man or hypothesized that the lid was not properly attached, or made other observations or inferences which led to ambivalence in the overall response pattern. 111 9). Question 37 - Which of these cause water pollution? Option C - Speedboats. Although this was a difficult option (5A) it was not discriminating. The discriminating index was low (7) and so was the discriminating efficiency (7). Fifty-four per- cent of the upper group and A7% of the lower group or A6% of the total responded correctly by identifying speedboats as a cause of water pollution. Forty-six percent of the upper group and 51% of the lower group responded incorrectly. This result may reflect the presence or absence of boating experience on the part of the students tested or may simply indicate that this question was too subtle for third grade students. h). Question 38 - Which Of these cause pollution of land? Option C - Power plant. Although this option was medium in difficulty (38) it was confusing or ambiguous as indicated by the negative index Of discrimination (-3) and the negative discrim- inating efficiency (-3). In spite of the fact that 62% of the total sample responded correctly indicating that power plants are not ordinarily causes of pollution of land, the Option was confus- ing since 59% Of the upper group and 62% of the lower group responded correctly. The students in the upper group perceived aspects of the question which apparently confused them in selection of their response. 3. Reliability The reliability of this component of the Student E.E.C.M. can be assessed by examining the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the Kuder-Richardson Reliability Number 20 (KR # 20) (Table 16). 112 The SEM of A.3287 indicates that the actual score for any given student could vary approximately A.3 points from the obtained score due to errors in measurement in the testing situation. This represents a possible error of 3.5% of the total score. The greater the reliability of a test, the smaller the SEM. If the reliability was equal to zero, the SEM would equal the standard deviation of 11.21A. If the test were perfectly reliable (I), the SEM would equal zero. Since the greater the KR # 20 value the greater the reliabil- ity of the test, a KR # 20 value of .8A81 indicates that if the same items were given to a similar group of students the probability of Obtaining the distribution derived from this testing is 8A.8l%. Thus the item analysis indicates that this component of the Student E.E.C.M. is a reasonably reliable test instrument. AB Component Student E;§.C.M. A Student Behavioral Checklist was utilized by the teacher to collect data necessary to determine the AB-score for each student. The maximum score for this component of the Student E.E.C.M. was 30 points. Table 18 indicates the frequency distribution of student AB-scores and provides statistical data describing this distribution. Figure 6 presents the frequency polygon derived from the above data. TABLE 18 Grouped Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistics For Student AB-Scores Scores Frequency Statistic Value 30-26 28 Mean 17.08 25-21 83 Median 16.75 20-16 12A Mode 20.00 15-11 132 Standard Deviation 5.AO lO- 6 3A Variance 29.13 5- l 6 Range 29.0 Maximum score ,30,0 Frequency 140 I30 120 I 10 100 90 80 70 60 50 30 20 l 0 113 l 1 1 L l l I L 1 l l l l l l 2 6,10 14 18 22 2630 Scores Figure 6. Frequency Polygon for Student AB-Scores. 11A Interpretation of the significance of these data requires consideration Of the nature Of this behavioral evaluation. Since the purpose of this evaluation was to determine entry level behav- iors prior to introduction of specific educational strategies, the interpretation of Obtained statistics differs substantially from those generally utilized for achievement-type post-tests. The mean AB-score of 17.08 represents achievment of only 56.93% of the maximum possible 30 points. The scores Of 296 students (72.91%) lie within one standard deviation of the mean. This means that 72.91% of the students achieved from 38.9A to 7A.92% of the maximum score without prior instruction. The frequency polygon in Figure 6 indicates that the distribution of scores approximates a normal curve and is skewed slightly to the left. Given appropriate educa- tional strategies in the affective domain it is probable that the distribution curve would shift sharply to the right. Such a shift would be the desired outcome for terminal behaviors stated in the performance objectives. Table 19 indicates the distribution of the mean class AB-scores and the resulting class ranks. TABLE 19 Distribution and Rank of Mean Class AB-Scores Section Class Mean Rank Section Class Mean Rank 617 23.33 1 309 17.96 11 516 21.AO 2 901 17.70 12 720 ' 20.9A 3 A12 17.56 13 297 20.25 A 310 16.73 1A 293 19.90 5 902 15.83 15 29A 19.67 6 295 15.12 16 311 19.52 7 515 13.6A 17 513 18.86 8 719 11.75 18 308 18.18 9 821 9.77 19 718 18.05 10 51A 8.09 20 115 Although data derived from a behavioral checklist do not lend themselves to item analysis in the same manner as data derived from multiple-choice questions, Table 20 provides information regarding number and percentage of students rated for each category of response for each item on the checklist. TABLE 20 Frequency Distribution of Student Behavioral Checklist Ratings Question Frequently. Occasionally Rarely Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent AB 1 111 27.3 118 h6.3 107 26.h AB 2 7h 18.2 201 h9.5 131 32.3 AB 3 65 16.0 153 37.7 188 l+6.3 AB A 1h3 35.2 219 53.9 44 10.8 AB 5 130 32.0 178 93.8 98 25.1 AB 6 102 25.1 179 hh.l 125 30.8 AB 7 51 12.6 136 33.5 217 53.0 AB 8 56 13.8 228 56.2 121 29.8 AB 9 28 6.9 156 38.h 221 Sh.h AB 10 #6 11.3 125 30.8 23h 57.6 Student ratings in the category "frequently” were well below those for ”occasionally” and ”rarely." Both the highest and lowest percent of observed behaviors were recorded in the ”rarely“ category. The frequency distribution for “occasionally” generally lies between those for ”frequently" and ”rarely” and may thus indicate a tendency of teachers to select this response option in evaluating the environ- mental education behaviors of their students. Additional experience in the use of the checklist might help to reduce this tendency and increase the validity of the behavioral observations. Total Student4§;§.C.M. The environmental education competency was obtained by combining the C-score and AB-score of each student. Tables 21 and 116 22 and Figure 7 show the distribution of student environmental education competencies and provide descriptive statistics relative to this distribution. TABLE 21 Grouped Frequency Distribution of Student Environmental Education Competencies Scores Frequency, Scores Frequency; 151-lh2 0 71-62 33 lhl-l32 0 61-52 11 131-122 1 Sl-hz 5 121-112 6 h1-32 0 111-102 54 31-22 0 101- 92 116 21-12 0 91- 82 101 11- 0 0 81- 72 TABLE 22 Descriptive Statistics for Student Environmental Education Competencies Statistic Value Mean 87.61 Median 88.93 Mode 85, 96.5 Standard Deviation 13.68 Variance 187.06 Range 81.00 Maximum score 151.00 Figure 7 clearly indicates that the distribution of student environmental education competencies closely approximates a normal curve as did the distributions of component AB- and C-scores. The mean score of 87.61 represents 58.01% of the maximum possible score of 151 points. 0f the students tested 285 or 63.55% scored within one standard deviation of the mean. This means that 63.59% of the students were able to demonstrate competency of 117 120 - l l l l l C) C) CD C) $2 00 a; S? CU Kouanbaig Figure 7. Frequency Polygon for Student Environmental Education Competencies 4O 60 80 100 120 140 160 Score 20 118 48.96 to 67.08% of the items evaluated without benefit of prior instruction. This further substantiates the conclusion that the behaviors specified and evaluated for environmental education competency are well within the range of capabilities of the third grade students tested and that, given appropriate instruction, the distribution of scores would be expected to shift sharply to the right in accordance with the desired terminal behaviors as stated in the minimal performance objectives. Table 23 indicates the distribution of mean class environ- mental education competencies and the resulting class ranks. TABLE 23 Distribution and Rank of Mean Class E2§.C. Section Score Rank Section Score Rank 616 10h.00 l 516 89.52 11 308 9h.68 2 29h 88.hh 12 720 9h.60 3 902 88.22 13 297 93.76 h 310 86.78 IA 295 91.94 5 821 8h.0h 15 309 91.50 6 901 83.90 16 293 91.h6 7 719 82.32 17 311 91.00 8 515 81.24 18 718 90.50 9 513 80.18 19 #12 90.12 10 51h 65.50 20 Cognitive Component Teacher §;§.C.M. Since the cognitive component of the teacher E.E.C.M. consisted of open-ended essay questions, the number of correct. responses varied with the perceptiveness of the teacher; therefore there was no upper limit or maximum score for this portion of the E.E.C.M. In order to minimize scoring bias two separate evaluations of each test were made and an adjusted cognitive score determined. Table 2% contains the raw score ratings of each evaluator and the 119 corresponding adjusted C-score and rank for each teacher. TABLE 24 Teachers' Adjusted C-Scores and Correspgnding Ranks Teacher Rating Rating Adjusted Rank No. No. 1 No. 2 Score 901 62 56 59.0 10 902 54 58 56.0 12 293 76 79 77.5 7 294 77 30 78.5 6 295 83 82 82.5 4.5 297 69 83 76.0 8 308 51 55 53.0 14 309 77 88 82.5 4.5 310 93 97 95.0 2 311 84 83 83.5 3 412 98 99 98.5 1 513 26 48 37.0 17.5 514 43 41 42.0 16 515 37 36 36.5 19 516 63 62 62.5 9 617 51 50 50.5 15 718 38 36 37.0 17.5 719 53 54 53.5 13 720 53 63 58.0 11 821 27 25 26.0 20 Table 25 presents a grouped frequency distribution of adjusted C-scores and descriptive statistics for this portion of the E.E.C.M. Figure 8 illustrates the frequency polygon derived from these data. TABLE 25 Grouped Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistics For Teachers' Ad'usted C-Scores Scores Frequency Statistic Value 100-84 2 Mean 62.23 83-68 6 Median 57.00 67-52 6 Mode 37,82.5 51-35 5 Standard Deviation 20.97 34-18 1 Variance 439.91 17- l 0 Range 73.50 120 The smaller the number of individuals evaluated the more difficult it is to assume a normal distribution of scores. In spite of this difficulty Figure 8 clearly indicated that the act- ual distribution of C-scores closely approximates a normal curve. Eighty-five percent of the teachers scored from 35-83 points on the test without prior instruction. Eleven teachers or 55% of the sample tested scored within one standard deviation from the mean and thus were within the range of 41.25 to 83.12 points. These data indicate that the instrument used to assess cognitive knowledge of the teachers was within the range of capabilities of the teachers tested. Although data derived from essay type questions do not readily lend themselves to item analysis, Table 26 provides infor- mation regarding the mean of the weighted scores for each item and the corresponding percent correct. Frequency l\) (:1 J> CD (I) ‘4 '00 1!) 121 5 T T o 102030405060708090100 C-Scores Figure 8. Frequency Polygon for Teachers' Adjusted C-Scores Percent/Item Analysis of Teachers' Cognitive E.E.C.M. 122 TABLE 26 Item No. Mean of Weighted Scores Mean Percent Correct 1 5.2130 52.13 2 5.0000 50.00 3 2.8570 28.57 4 0.7142 7.14 5 1.4286 14.29 6 3.0952 30.95 7 3.4011 34.01 8 4.0134 40.13 9 5.1667 51.67 10 5.4762 54.76 11 2.2223 22.22 12 3.6190 36.19 13 5.0476 50.48 14 7.8910 78.91 15 7.6978 76.98 16 3.9679 39.68 17 2.7456 27.46 18 3.4286 34.29 19 3.3333 33.33 20 7.8333 78.33 21 6.7857 67.86 22 4.4486 44.29 23 4.6557 46.56 24 6.1899 61.90 25 5.0000 50.00 26 8.2989 82.99 27 6.9041 69.04 28 4.2705 42.71 29 4.2381 42.38 30 3.4916 34.92 31 3.6190 36.19 32 3.8095 38.10 33 2.0633 20.63 34 7.6190 76.19 35 7.1428 71.43 36 3.8091 38.09 37 4.1795 41.80 The data presented in Table 26 indicate that except for seven questions the achievement levels (mean percent correct) are generally below the 70% level generally specified for minimal levels of competence. 123 AB Component Teacher:§;E.C.M. The AB-score for each teacher was determined through the use of a behavioral checklist which evaluated environmental education behaviors in terms of degree of concern/commitment. The maximum score for this component of the E.E.C.M. was 28 points. Tables 27 and 28 and Figure 9 indicate the distribution of these scores and the corresponding rank for each teacher plus present descriptive statistics regarding this distribution. TABLE 27 Distribution and Rank of Teachers' AB-Scores Teacher No. Score Rank Teacher No. Score Rank 901 15 19 412 18 13.5 902 24 3.5 513 23 5 293 17 16.5 514 17 16.5 294 18 13.5 515 19 10 295 18 13.5 516 24 3.5 297 18 13.5 617 l6 18 308 26 2 718 22 6 309 19 10 719 20 8 310 21 7 720 14 20 311 19 10 821 27 1 TABLE 28 Grouped Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistics for Teachers' AB-Scores Scores Frequency Statistic Value 28-26 2 Mean 19.75 25-23 3 Median 19 22-20 3 Mode 18 19-17 9 Standard Deviation 3.58 16-14 3 Variance 12.83 13-11 0 Range 14 10- 8 0 Maximum score 28 7- 5 0 4- 2 0 1- 0 0 IO- 124 l l l .1 “3 U7 25. What 26. And "leirlul)- l 191 is my job in the environment ? eat mosquitoes. put oxygen into the air. keep it warm outside. make things look pretty. am food for animals. is my job in the environment ? Earthworm A - I make tunnels in soil - so it stays soft. B - I let air and water into soil. C - I eat insect pests. D - I eat the roots of weeds. E - I suck blood from animal pests. ' my job 7 eat weeds. make honey. bring pollen from one flower to another. sting. build a fancy house. 192 27. What is my job in the environment 7 I make it safe to cross the street . - I put out fires. 1 arrest criminals. - I judge criminals in court . - I help lost children. monw> 1 28. Look carefully at these pictures. Something is changing - What is it 7 «'*¥ 713.25. $77.51;": 7: r. . 1. ' ,a‘ ;:-. -.—.-?”‘.qwt"s_r_lr_ 593?". .11 -. -~l- 44*... .. c ‘_ CRT-Qit 3“;th ;\¥z‘g"‘ l 34' - The time of day . — The season of the year. The number of clouds. - The amount of wind. - The amount of rain. A B c - D E 193 29. Look carefully at these pictures. Something is changing - What is it 7 E A - The kinds of plants v' and animals. B - The season of the year. C - The amount of rain. 0 - The time of the day. E - The temperature. , . ' \' i J , 527—.» - ~ I‘llli‘.'laftr'-I ~ fir" " . J 1.547171-‘(5335 ”(1 ll . ‘11-‘71 194 30. Look carefully at these pictures. Something is changing - What is it 7 - The kind of plant or animal. - The season of the year. The time of day. - The plant or animal is growing. - The temperature. menu) I 195 31. Picture # 2 shows a change that has taken place. What has changed? I u(«r-(‘3‘. rg/ ltg‘ )1 t . , iii 3» ‘ , «. I e r.. (A \u\- ' ‘|'( H. \‘ . ‘ ‘ *‘1‘ _ll "‘7 P' '; I‘ "I i ‘ 917%. 7" I t/ , "‘ a . '7‘. 3' R344“ '/ I // a": 1'2 '5 _\ fig‘ ' '1,‘ ' /’ ' "u'. p 1 .. Ir.“‘\~." ‘ 4" 2/ a \M ‘1“ elm-lit. /’ 9;” n 3.1:“ “El-391556 if '75”! fa...»\.~“,.:,} ”ll/fl ‘7‘ a l. I} '1 ll 4 ( g \ » at“ «In 1,7,4: . ‘ ti" '3 ‘ 1 v i. '3.” " l fli j R t I a 1'. i-‘Wm‘w, __ eg§;;:/ . , \‘figys, . sat-37 s. n. "22:72.1 :‘2- . _ ~s~ 2: ‘ «alas-1..- 5.... : I # 1 # 2 A — Insects got into the roots. B - Snakes made their nests under the roots. C - Erosion has taken sail away from the roots. D - Mice have made tunnels under the roots. - A boy has carried sail away. 1'" 32. Which order would you put these pictures in 7 (earliest to latest growth) onw> I 196 33. Which order would you put these pictures in? (earliest to latest growth? \ #4 .53.}— i I g , I _‘ - < f. ~ ‘ ‘ ‘ 4 I . n‘ ' ‘ A ea» ~49. -= e = "W :- . ' J: A 7 ‘ . ' we .. ~ . \ , ~. ‘ 1‘ ‘ ‘ l , V. l " s - . ‘p - A - l,2,3,4 B - 2,3,1,4 C - 3,1,2,4 D - l,3,4,2 34. Jack put two fish in his aquarium. One month later there were four fish J in the tank. ,- . .. 2 If there is plenty of food, how many I . l ' .4“, would Jack find in his tank if he .' 29 : looked again after one more month 7 ' A " 6 t 1%. B - 10 C - 12 D - 4 E - 8 197 35. Which changes in the environment were made by man 7 A - Beaver dam C - Slide ' 7 *4 -3 - ,v, I, — “.Mmm ‘ 4W3. ~“‘=‘e=:--—5"“ w . . 1‘ X p» “— 4, ~ st see—0,... ~53” k in? - .- , cm, '~ {f‘iihiizv , ~ Ar;; .~ .— ”-.- E - Strip mine D - Trash I98 36. Which of these cause AIR pollution 7 B - Cigarettes C i Factories D - Farming E - Cattle 199 37. Which of these cause WATER pollution 7 B - City wastes ':;_fl;,,_;,;7»#s. -‘ -.. ekw C - Speedboats I I!" - - .I r 'iiiaim'l” o - Mining E ' FaCt°ry 200 38. Which of these cause pollution of LAND 7 A — Airplane B — Strip mine C - Power plant D - Litter E - Junk yard 39. If this happened Forest fire to the place where Live What would happen to me 7 A - Many would die. B - Nothing - I would move someplace else. C - I would have less food and no shelter. D - Only baby deer would die. E - Only parent deer would die. 40. You see this sign but you go swimming anyway - What might happen to you 7 A - I might die. B - Nothing - I can wash after swimming. . C - I might get sick. 0 - Nothing - if my mother doesn't find out. E - Nothing- unless I swallow the water. Questions 41 - 45 : Name 5 natural resources. APPENDIX IV ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION BEHAVIORAL CHECKLIST 202 APPENDIX 1V ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION BEHAVIORAL CHECKLIST For Third Grade Students Name: Date Concluded: Please use #2 pencil to check behaviors HEY : Frequently - 1 Occasionally a 2 Date Begun: Rarely I 3 1. Voluntarily expresses feelings related to environment environmental problems is. wonder, sue, anger, fear, excitement, etc. 2. Voluntarily expresses concern for a healthy environment is. clean air, clean water, healthy organisms, etc. 3. Is proud 2: his concern for environment, proud of his conviction and defends it in front of others. 4. Gives evidence 2: caring about other organisms in his environment is. voluntarily cares for plants or animals in classroom, is gentle in handling living things that are a part of his immediate environment such as frogs, pets, trees, etc.. respects other peppls 5. Does N91 engage Ep littering. 6. Voluntarily picks pp litter. 7. Suggests beautification activities such as planting flamers, litter campaign, etc. B. Is able 3p recognize local environmental problems. 9. Voluntarily expresses concern about local environmental problems. 10..Voluntarily expresses interest pp desire pp pp something to solve environmental problems is work on clean-up campaign, recycle paper or bottles, write letter to congress, etc. REMARKS OR COMMENTS : STUDENT NUMBER 010115 131 2nd 3rd ‘Ih 5m 6m hr— 301 (DJ to: it: £13. at“ ,1 :- E‘s: ’, 5 in; (”1:31 1:32 .5“? 5 a,“ i. '05: - :41 :. ttl . :81 C 1.7): 7 a?! .1 7 1b) ,6 rIj :95 6 B! 49‘ .' .91 1. 10. , d . APPENDIX V ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION SURVEY FOR TEACHERS (with Key) Name: 203 APPENDIX V ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION SURVEY FOR TEACHERS (with Key) School: I. A VEGETABLE GARDEN CAN BE VIEWED AS A LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR MAN. la List the elements or components of this system. (I point per correct item). Examples: Water (rain) Plants (seeds) Soil (minerals) Animals (including man) Sunlight (energy) Air Make a diagram showing how the parts of this system are related to each other. (I point for energy input; I point for cyclic or web-like interrelationships of components indicated). Using the relationships you have just diagrammed, construct operational definitions (definitions that fit these particu- lar circumstances) for each of the following: (2 points per definition). Closed system - nothing escapes system, controlled, ideal or balanced, nothing added or taken away. Carrying capacity - the number of organisms an area can hold without destroying the environment. Limiting factor - anything which limits population growth and prevents over population. Natural resources - raw materials supplied by nature that are needed, used and valued by man. Take any organism (living thing) that is a part of this system and explain the effect(s) of an increase in the p0pulation of this organism upon the system. (I point per effect). Examples: A. - increase in the number of plants causes a decrease in soil minerals and results in limited food production. 8. - increase in number of tomato worms causes a decrease in the number of plants and a decrease in available fruit. 20h APPENDIX V A Vegetable Garden Can Be Viewed As a Life-Support System for Man. (Continued). 8. Could this effect use of the environment? A. (I point) _____Yes '_____ No If Yes, explain 525. B. (I point per reason). Examples: Too few nutrients for plants to grow. Plants die from overcrowding. No longer useable as garden. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH YOU LIVE 0R TEACH IS ALSO A LIFE- SUPPORT SYSTEM. 9. IO. ll. List the elements or components of this system. (I point per correct item). Examples: Energy Shelter Plants (food) Transportation (roads) Animals (including man) Communication Water Education Soil Recreation Air Medicine Clothing Make a diagram showing how the parts of this system are related to each other. (I point). Cyclic or web-like interrelationships. Take any organism that is part of this system and explain the effect(s) of an increase in the population of this organism upon the system. (l point per effect). Examples: A. - Increase in human population results in food, energy and water shortages, over- crowding and stress, increased resource use and increased pollution. B. - Increase in rats can cause increase in disease and decreased economic values. C. - Increase in number of trees can increase available wood, increase recreation and wildlifescover. 205 APPENDIX V II. The Neighborhood in Which You Live or Teach is Also a Life- Support System. (Continued) I2. Could this effect use of the environment? A. (I point) Yes No If Yes, explain how. B. (I point per reason). Examples: A. - Erosion. Pollution of air and water. Increase crime. Decrease quality of homes. Decrease quality of education and services. B. - Provide more raw materials. III. l3. List five (5) benefits that you personally derive from understanding our life-support system. (any 5 of the following) (I point per item). Better health. Provides jobs. Pleasure-recreation. Better able to improve environment. Appreciation of ALL resources. Wiser resource use. Better political decisions. Increase value of system parts. Knowledge regarding better life styles. Better self-understanding. Increased awareness of environment. Respect for law; natural and man-made. OQmVO‘U'I-PWN— ——a N— a 0 IV. THE OCEANS ARE AN IMPORTANT INTERNATIONAL NATURAL RESOURCE AND A VITAL COMPONENT OF OUR LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEM. Ih. List three (3) ways in which man is affected by the oceans. (I point per item) (any 3 of the following). I. Food. 2. Climate (weather, temperature). 3. Minerals and natural resources. A Recreation. 5 Oxygen. 6. Evolution. 7. Transportation; bridge and barrier. IV. 206 APPENDIX V The Oceans are an Important International Natural Resource and a Vital Component of our Life-Support System. (Continued). l5. List three (3) ways in which man affects the oceans. (I point per item) (any 3 of the following). O‘U'l-PWN" Pollutes - all types of pollution. Changes wildlife populations and types. Controls water level. Fills in shore lines. Changes temperature. Removes mineral resources. IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEMAND FOR AUTOMOBILES, NO LEGAL LIMITAf TIONS ARE PLACED ON THE YEARLY PRODUCTION OF CARS BY DETROIT. WHAT EFFECT(S) DOES THIS POLICY HAVE UPON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: (I point per effect). Examples: l6. Free enterprise system - Promotes, enhances, benefits system. Floods market with profit. Competition helps produce better products. Leads to lower prices. I7. Industrial complex - Encourages over-use of resources. Promotes steady employment. Increases profits of big business. Increases power of big business. Encourages growth-related industries. Permits growth of business. Creates new jobs. I8. Energy crisis - Negative impact-creates additional and unnecessary energy demands, encourages waste, and drains energy-producing resources. I9. Environmental quality - Increases pollution especially of air and solid wastes. Decreases environmental quality. Increases accidents. Increases number of roads and parking needs therefore decreases natural spaces. Water resources. 207 APPENDIX V VI. 20. List at least ten (IO) important environmental problems. (I point per item). (Any ten of the following). Wasteful life styles, consumerism, greed. Over population. Pollution (any type I point each). Environmental laws. Recreation and loss of natural areas. Climate modification. Land-use planning including transportation and housing. Habitat destruction. Energy crisis (oil, gas supply). I0. Endangered species. ll. Natural resource depletion. l2. Pest control. I3. Food production and distribution. IA. Social injustice. IS. Lack of environmental awareness and understanding. I6. Value crisis - economics most important. l7. Resource - use priorities. I8. Lack of international cooperation in resource conservation. l9. Neglect school site development. 20. Beautification. 2|. Soil erosion and fertility. \Doo \Immtwm— 0 o VII. A LAKE IS A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 2I. List three (3)problems often associated with this environment. (I point per item) (any 3 of the following). Water quality, sewage, stagnant water. Eutrophication, too many algae, too little oxygen. Changes in number and type of fish and aquatic organisms. ' Erosion - too much sediment. Over-use and abuse. Thermal pollution. Conflicting people useages. Drying-up. acumen: unto- VII. A Lake 22. 208 APPENDIX V is a Natural Environment. (Continued) What are some of the causes of these problems? (I point per response). Examples: Pollution causes stress on system. Increase human p0pulation. Attitude and value crisis. Nutrient levels (fertilizers). Lack of municipal sewers. Poor planning. Lack of law enforcement. Lack of awareness. Improper land-use practices. 23. _What are some of the effects of these problems? (I point per response). 24. Examples: Decrease recreation activities. Non-potable, unsafe water. Aging and death of lake. Non-esthetic environment. Health problems. Decrease property values. Increase costs of correcting problem. What are some possible solutions to these problems? (I point per solution). Examples: Environmental Education to develop under- standing, attitudes and awareness. Political activity. Modify surrounding land use including zoning. Enact and enforce strong laws. Control access and useages. Control pollution. Introduce biological and chemical controls. Money for research. Introduce sewage systems. 209 APPENDIX V VII. A Lake is a Natural Environment. (Continued). 25. What new problems may occur as a result of the solutions you have just suggested? (I point per problem). Examples: Economics - cost of prevention and clean-up and administration, also loss of jobs. Political problems. Injustice to property owners or non-owners. Who is responsible for solutions being carried out and who pays the bill? Inconvenience and restrictions on freedom. Lack of natural predators for introduced species. VIII. THE INNER-CITY IS A MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT. 26. List three (3) problems often associated with this environment. (I point per item for any 3 of the following). Examples: Disease - physical and mental health. Crime. POpulation over-crowding. Poor nutrition. Improper housing. Sanitation - sewage and solid waste. Noise. Rats. Exodus of business and industry. Poor air and water quality. Transportation. Social injustice. Economic problems. 27. What are some of the causes of these problems? (I point per cause). Examples: Crowding. Lack of education. Life styles. Lack of adequate housing. Money-poverty, low individual and family income (economics) Politics. Factories (industry). Lack of mobility. Prejudice. Difficulties and values. Lack of trust. 2IO APPENDIX V VIII. The Inner-City is a Man-Made Environment. (Continued). 28. What are some of the effects of these problems? (I point per problem). Examples: Decrease privacy. Increase unemployment. Increase crime. Increase hea..h problems. Stress - hostility. High costs of operation of cities. Limited recreation. Less production. Apathy. Drug abuse. Lack of educational opportunities. Pollution. 29. What are some possible solutions to these problems? (I point per solution). Examples: Research. Education. Change of life style. Population control. Legislation - housing regulations and pollution control. Better housing. Better social services (police sanitection). Mass transit. Neighborhood development. Human relations programs. 30. What new problems may occur as a result of the solutions you have just suggested? (I point per item). Examples: Increased taxes. Increase suburban exodus. Who are change agents? Who pays for change? Increase costs. Employment re-adjustments. 2Il APPENDIX V CHECK THE STATEMENT WITH WHICH YOU MOST STRONGLY AGREE (NO CREDIT) Nuclear power plants: are necessary for an industrial society. are necessary to prevent unsightly air pollution. are essential to prevent immediate depletion of other types of material resources such as coal, oil, etc. may be necessary but too expensive. should be erected in non-populated areas. are causes for changing environment. are extremely dangerous to health of man and other organisms and should never be used. What effect(s) does this choice have on: (I point per effect). Examples: 3I. You personally - Relate to cost and availability of energy for my use. Taxes. Investments. Concern for future including health. Recreation in terms of lake quality may be changed. 32. Our economic system - Cost of research and development Employment related problems. Effect on G.N.P. Development of industry effected. Effects supply and cost of energy. 33. Our social system - Political danger due to control of power production and distribution values. Change to bring about decrease in consumerism. Retraining for new jobs causes social disruption. More stress. X. XI. 2l2 APPENDIX V YOU ARE AN AVERAGE MIDDLE-CLASS CITIZEN OF A TYPICAL SUBURBAN COMMUNITY. A LARGE NEAR-BY CITY NEEDS ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR ITS INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. TO PROVIDE THIS POWER THEY WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A COAL-OPERATED POWER PLANT IN YOUR TOWN. 3A. 35. 36. 37. How do you feel about this possible action? (I point per feeling identified). Examples: Doubtful. Agree (Good, O.K). Angry. Resentful. Disagree. Apathy. Terrible. Unhappy. How do you think your cousin in the city feels about it? (I point per item). Examples: O.K. Good. Happy. Doubtful. Apathy. If your feelings differ, explain pp! and wh you think this is the case. (I point per explanation . Examples: No one wants this type of facility near home. Want others to beat cost of problem solutions. They depend more on that energy. Doesn't effect him or his neighborhood. What steps would you use to help your students clarify their values regarding the environment and its associated problems? (I point per step). Examples: Provide information on value-related topics. Explore and evaluate present feelings (values): Identify values. Learn about other values - explore differences of opinion. Help resolve conflicting values. Affirm own values publicly and repeatedly. Act on values held. APPENDIX VI TEACHER SELF-REPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS 2l3 APPENDIX VI TEACHER SELF-REPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS The following questions focus upon your environmental interests, concerns, and activities. I. Do you like plants? Yes No 2. Do you like animals? Yes No 3. Are you concerned about endangered species? Very Somewhat Not really A. Do you belong to any civic club or group? No Yes: Name(s): 5. Have you ever taken part in any of the following activities? Check if 'Yes'. Clean-up campaign environmental beautifica- tion or enhancement project environmental protection project community service project 6. Do you regularly re-cycle any of these materials? Check if 'Yes'. paper bottles cans or metal goods 7. Have you ever done any of the following? Check If 'Yes'. attended city or town commission or council meetings regarding environmental problem. written a letter to influence environmental legislation. written or called a company or organization urging attention to violation of good ecological practices on their part. 8. Do you think teaching about the environment and its problems should be part of the Third (3rd) grade public school program? Yes No In either case, why do you think so? APPENDIX VII TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS l0. ll. I2. ZIA APPENDIX VII TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Ecology has become a household word in recent years. How do you view the ”environmental crisis” we hear so much about? Have you ever discussed this view with family or friends? Do they share your view? Have you ever defended your position publicly? Do you have a garden at home? Yes No Keep household plants? Yes No Keep plants in school? Yes No Have any pets at home? Yes No at school? Yes No Endangered species: Concern for what species? In general? Causes of danger? Done anything about it? Civic involvement - types of activities, purposes, projects: Clean-up activities: Environmental protection: Environmental enhancement: Community service: Recycling: Where are centers in your community? Paper: Bottles: Cans: Problem Outcome Community meetings: Letter to influence legislature. Letter to company or organization. Teaching about environment. 'Yes'. How much time should be spent in this area? How approach topic? What have you done in past or what are you planning to do? You have identified as your major envir. concern. Have you been able to do anything about it personally? What? APPENDIX VIII TEACHER BEHAVIORAL CHECKLIST AB AB A8 A8 AB A8 A8 2l5 APPENDIX VIII TEACHERS BEHAVIORAL CHECKLIST Degree of Concern/Commitment Strong Moderate Weak Expresses feeling related to environment and environ- mental problems. Expressed concern for healthy environment. Proud of concern - willing to defend it. Evidence of caring about other organisms in environment- cares about plants, animals, concern for endangered species, concern for other people. Concern expressed through curriculum-teaches about environment and its problems. Motivation in regard to salient problem. General motivation: O, I, 2, 3. h: 59 69 79 89 99 '0- APPENDIX IX STUDENT ANSWER SHEET 2I6 APPENDIX IX STUDENT ANSWER SHEET WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT SCHOOL CODE # SC. # My Name Is Name 4 things that are part of our environment. 1. 3. 5-@0©@® 6'C‘DOGDG’DC'D I®0©®© e®°©©® a®°©©© m®0©®® n®°©©® n®°©®® u®0©®© n®0©®© m®0©©® m®0©®® .n®0©@@ m®°©®® u®°©®® m®°©®® n®°©®® n®°©®® Name 5 Natural Resources 41 43 44. n®0©®® 2«QDOGDCDDQ'ED m®0©©® n®0©®® n®0©®® n®°©©® n®0©©® m®0©©® n®0©®® n®0©®® n®°©®® u®°©©© m®0©©© m®°©®® n®°©®® m®°©®® n®°©®© n®0©©© APPENDIX X CODEBOOK STUDENT DATA TRANSFORMATIONS CODEBOOK STUDENT DATA TRANSFORMATIONS 2l7 APPENDIX X *R = Recorded Item Number **T = Transformed Item Number B"; 1.1. B .I. B. l. B .L l I II 35=llA 25 69=25A 37 IOI=37A 2 2 36=IIB 70:253 102:373 3 3 37=IIc 7i=25c 103=37c a 1. 38=I no 72-250 IOA=37D 5 5.5A 39=llE 23-255 IOS=37E 6=SB l2 A0 26 7A=26A 38 IO6=38 7=5c l3 tn 7 5-268 I07=38B 8=SD IA A2 76-22c 108=Bgc 9=5§__ an .-—-1 77-2 0 109=3 o 11:63 AS=ISC 27 79-27A 39 III=39 I2=6c A6-ISD A 80-278 ll2=39 l3=6D A =l E 8l-27C 113=39q IA=SE__ l6 A8=I6A 82=27D llA=390 16=7a so=16c 28 8A no 116 I7=7C 51:160 29 85 AI 117 I8=7D g52=I6E 3o 36 uz I18 l9=7E 3| 7 A3 119 ‘7 53"7A 32 88 an 120 8 2038A SH'I7B 33 89 H5 ‘2‘ 2l=8B 55=l7C 43A 490 2288C S6=l7D 23=8o S7=l]E, 35 9l-BSA ZA=§§__ ‘8 58 92‘353 9 25=9A 19 59 93‘3“ 26-98 20 60 94‘35° 27=9c 21 6| 95‘355 28:90 22 62 36* 98;36A 2953; 23. 63 97:363 IO 30=IOA 2A 6A-2AA 93‘325 3I=IOB 65=2ha 99:3 D 32-l0c 66=2AC '003365 33=Ioo 67=2uo APPENDIX XI IBM ANSWER SHEET AND KEY APPENDIX XI 2I8 IBM ANSWER SHEET AND KEY (Answer Sheet and Key INSTRUCTOR?» NAHE C09n I t Ive Component USE PENCIL ONLY. ERASE COMPLETELY WHEN NECESSARY. YOUR NAME Last Fin! Middle couess Studgnt secnon E.E.C.M. .— u- ..- .- - —- _e .— 0 J h d » '- 3 0 :3 D s '- U s! u H H V v— u 2 t):..t,:..s>s—4 .,,,_ '>'-‘--‘-i~" -4 ‘)’~-" ”'3“ E to)! -. :m’-— town 'zr- uni-n ‘m'l‘n tun-n teen tuna can. lm'w -.. to! I fit C n! l' f)! (n) L")! :02 I m C n) C!" In) t'fil to: : 3; K o: t :1; to: «Us '0’ r on t or - to! In,’ I?!” lm: (“I'D .' "4 Cf“! 7‘7.) :ma (1“ CT") (’4 ('71 C", p — e— c— H 5 fl hi 3 I! 8 8 n z 8 I 8 B x 2,34 ¢>a... (>14 (>34 a,a.¢ «)3... 3,34 e>x< .. tn 4 ewq cw (as... was... «0:1. away. egaq v. Dn-v --n -m an»... (:‘3 . -q. -o to: arm In: was en: r as to; cm to: the am at; to: to) con .0: to! to: '0’ to: to: to: to, e}: (in: cm.» In: _..., u-u xv: run : . em) - I” t a S 3 M £5 3 .5. u 9, 3 - u t; sw—Qtw—a u»-. s):_ ;)I.4 €).‘-< osq-. opt-v er.)- --a -— Cam [13“ two-u. y:- can—- I -n :1). -v- -- "min 2;: (a to: '0' IN '08 ‘1'” 30' '0’ CO! L’): ‘0’ cm «a c“: to: to: no: to: so: to! so: :91 to can ("I 1'1) ("1" ('fi: If!“ H“: c’la ' "I to"; e“: U'I It: CI! 9 an. _- O- 7‘ _ —: II. ’ N 2 3: 8 6 B .: a s 8 8 2 a (’34 I>3-< (ya-4 ¢>:-o :>a-4 :>: - m-c cxn-a can-q -- cud .- caa'n Imam two-n :mm sun-n up" ear-v. -1- -nn 2 a -1— eupq E cm was to cm can L'u - the so. r‘a one the E ‘03 It): CC! ‘5‘: can ‘C’ ‘0’ ID) ID: ‘7‘! '0’ ‘C" é um I or t"! ("a (H1! :m: cm: cf“) If“) r '3 "he s '3 ' u- - r- -' u- u .— .. U- r a :- ~ '9 o i 3 V 0 "' I: 3 =2 3 '- ~‘ 3 ‘ spa-4 x;a- «>34 «>34 e):-d sud-q -.. Ira-4 --. --. _— un-n (can can nuns- suam mean can. can .1! term I’m :3:- ct‘b an! em cnr so: to: an: cm of» cm m- cm to tt'fi ID “:3 30' ‘0! '0' CO! CD (a CC to! H'b cw (R's '3'“) U“: c’: un- r'h cm: s“: rm : “a .- >- r- -- e- r- e- : w B 3 8 t I 8 8 o 8 2 8 3 ore-uu-a cu-a i>a-d (’04 eyed-'0 -4 --a and ¢>a-1 -" ew'llup" tuneup“ earn etswew'fi can“ I021-“ corn em‘ trh at) «(a «r» or» arm ten t'» er» the art are so no can to: can so: ecp use so- to: - so: I". um um um um In: on. um am- «no I". flw '- u- u- - D- v- e- u— e- on N a 3 3 5 I 3 3 3 8 u 3 0 tie-0 tie-c 0,04 Ind c)I-4 end-4 -- --¢ --4 C’s-fl --i 1-1 (tun- cab-n “new: emu ll"! . eOe-n sup" can can“ can“ con"- urb urn «Ch um uh «a “a um um my .- r1 ' so 0"! (OJ an to: st“: IQ to to: to: so so: I"! I"! (MI 0'“: "no em: I"! an em cm: a". a"! all -- en —- u— u- on F" " 8 8 a r. 8 a: 8 u 2 8 8 8 3’34 urn-4 .>.-¢ g); .. 3).-i c): ¢-—o 1’34 -4-4 s):~ gnaw I out «OI-n «(la-n cairn so": cma'n fle-n -1 cue-n cos-1 -11 -1 a“ the m. In: an: :0: one the :03 the ch :0: I an IO: :0: ea «Us :0: 00: ca :0: «Q: ea IO] (’5 :"1 t": :‘a c'“: :"a I”: c“: 8'“: :fi :"5 t”: O 0 la,‘ '03 v": (”-4 cue-m (f)! : 33 (ml -4 ‘0’?! cm '9 (fl: «as-n the ID! If": 0))“. -1! cm '0 IN. I)!" -'“ In! «Me U' V c)3-4 ¢>s _, -w on: :0: cm: 3 - ’m)? (or lC-D (Ml c))4 -n :09 .0. If“! c’a" "-.. CO: CO- cl“: so"! the so: of“: .‘4 [.31 so: of": (flai‘. It.) 0": --. cm:- the c U! ,— cm to. C'”) can" :0! If"! e>n"‘ swam IO: (Us If“: _ v ---c u'h, f chu ')1-‘ -“ rm : 0’s -1 -" c6: [fie-I -"‘ .0- a“: MAKE YOUR MAIKS FIRM AND CLEAR; EXAMPLE A I C. D E ‘4 --« ‘7 lg“) n ‘1 i ‘4‘! ' l '31) K I 1“! pm» zen c 3 I00 0:.) (on em: J. .. -~ ran-n to: so. not err: NV.) 11 a '7’!“ -q -, rain TM 1: M ‘0' r!‘ :NH >. at .2 3,34 Kai-n -1 en: con to) to) c ‘. mu 3 o r>:-c -4 -- can: n): (O! ‘0' ‘0‘ cm: can ‘5 ,, ue—e-~ :zea- HUI-'2. :0: IO: :0: cc: ems M: 3 (>2- 9’!" -“ -‘I ta: :0! (O: :0: H": d“)