1 l I I I I v; I I I I I I ’II eat! as” flmmwwwwwm ’fikhigan Sam ’ Univcm'ty ‘K JJ w This is to certify that the thesis entitled A PROFILE OF ATTITUDES, ACTIONS AND COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS OF TEACHERS ENTERING AN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION EXPERIENCE presented by Douglas C. Covert has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MASTER Wdegreeinfiisherimnd Wildlife Robert W. George Major professor February 13, 1980 [AI-‘Nx Lv "“155”. . i- OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge from circulation records A PROFIIE 0F ATTITUDES, ACTIONS GOMNUNICATION BEHAVIORS OF 3539. ll‘BACHERS ENTERING AN WIRONMAL EDUCATION EXPERIENCE by Douglas C. Covert 3; 'I a descrip‘ . ‘ a 'i __’.IinenaioLe I .m.u.,~r We“ ‘ ( .fb‘ -_Y' , w'n-and 347"»; s. .' » quefltluhh1.m -S:L' runk~er0ar are War." ”Paul.” alum]. tandem i» , are: ‘1‘ are ”ms ". -. I'w;. incest, Pearson' E 3. “.7 T;LJ ' c)Submzlt’ced to Y c)an State University WWf‘thb‘vmfiim “W 931 fictefiffi m.- ange- . Waggogél ficficachat-i'L-mm ~ x :s'.;.‘ ‘ ‘gwmantal educatflion About mif -:-2 the mmmfienml \ ~._- , 9140338005 outdoor 51W. ABSTRACT A PROFILE OF ATTITUDES, ACTIONS AND COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS OF TEACHERS ENTERING AN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION EXPERIENCE By Douglas C. Covert This descriptive study measures a selected population along five dimensions regarding the environment: attitudes, actions, education practices, perceived scope of environ— mental education and consumption of mass media. A survey questionnaire of 88 items used Likert scale, multiple choice, rank-order and quantity self-reports. Statistical procedures were computer performed. Frequency distributions, central tendencies, degrees of diSpersion and confidence intervals are reported. Comparisons are made using chi square, t-test, Pearson's product—moment and nonparametric correlations. The population had strong attitudes favorable to environmental conservation with personal actions one—third as strong. Less than four percent of teacher-student contact time was given to environmental education. About half of the school curriculum was seen as related to environmental Odudltion with emphasis placed on outdoor programs. 5....paa . p \ .e...v..-- .Ir ‘I’ \ ve- Douglas C. Covert rimmed no preference between interpersonal and .-~i‘fvl*~,. _ for conflict resolution. . .rg‘m‘ ,I' ". M,“_ I y‘ "i I , I“ L . I ‘ hm; c r‘ . 1% 3h"? - fl ‘ ‘r.’ in the rnz'J y . r \‘w‘i‘iiflh l. _' "lff‘ ' . “hem w. ‘- n or U.) “A. » l p ‘- trues grs' 5i.“ ) i. . sect. Univ-r ' I , ',_10£:r as I ‘1 gratitude ‘_.~\ J . . . >4- + "U; 1V... ’1' of Ctfi‘larI-‘J 'Tni'm‘ ‘ w 0" ”al‘y‘ifilr‘fi fi‘u’i h l’J'. ‘ fl V q . ‘Mice. Depa" T488.“ . .=‘-" w , 1,-w"1aim whim Led to '. .. -- .- . v."'1. rt 1W0. are directed "A. a: ... are run... ”l.‘v "- W 13' Environ-mental Swat-”1., w R13 thll study. hut vino-:13: l‘. '~.t_ _ mien to the purposes 31’ “Otter; 1 l lug - r- ‘v. a “' '0 ‘I h.-. ...§ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Professor Robert W. George, committee chairman, and to other members of my committee, R. V. Farace, R. V. Hudson and D. I. Johnson for their guidance and encouragement, especially in the early stages of development of this study. I am also gratefully indebted to Professor J. F. Scotton of Marquette University for critical commentary on the methodology as it was being developed. Special gratitude is due Professors D. A. Bozardt and R. E. Righter of Oakland University and R. C. Wycoff of the University of Maryland and Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Department of Interior, for their interest and enthusiasm which led to this undertaking. Thanks. too. are directed to all of the faculty members of the TeacherS‘ Environmental School, not only for their assistance in this study, but especially for their Continuing dedication to the purposes of environmental education. ii - I “’ " .n- . k‘ .. “'N..- w , u. .. '.“H. q...‘ ’ . ~.. N o .- v . .AI‘. -- ~ “‘._ "' -- .. ‘_‘~~._ “‘ .“v--_ \ . h M ‘..‘n.. u. u-‘_-‘ I _‘ . --~‘Oy‘ -. -~.“_‘ o..’. *- A rA‘. .'L - I‘lv" ~._~ : h .c A ‘- c- 1" . .‘ \‘.,- V_~ -. \‘r b .3 ‘ \ U \. -“'.A~. I - ~~..V; " \“-‘R e -| ~ | ~, ‘ W -*.‘ H_.I I u‘ ”h. ~.‘ I a 5 ‘ i ‘I N by. \‘- l l \ . 4 y. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II PERSPECTIVE AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . 7 III SIGNIFICANCE AND USE OF THE STUDY . . . . . . 2h IV DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Hypotheses . . . . . . 26 Population Selection and Description . . . . 29 Experimental Design . . . . . . . . 32 Assumptions and Limitations . . . . . . . 33 Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Scoring Procedures . . . - 37 Statistical and Data Processing Procedures . 37 Statistical Procedures Used . . . . . . . 38 V DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF THE POPULATION . . #5 VI ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES PROFILE . . . . . . . 50 Environmental Attitude Profile—- Attitude Measure . . . . . . . . 53 Environmental Attitude Profile-- MPOS . . . . . . . 71 Environmental Attitude Profile-— "Crisis" View . . . . . . . 80 Environmental Attitude Profile-- Content Perception . . . . . . . 8h Environmental Attitude Profile-- Consolidated Index . . . . . . . 91 Environmental Attitude Profile—- "Urban" vs "Rural" . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 iii c..-.-..,. .v. - .-..~..|.‘. v. ~ _ ... ya ‘¢ -‘U..‘ n .' . -..o . ~‘. .7... V ~-'-.| .- Ir- 1 .’-| . ovu‘ ‘ ~-.C . "I‘ . \‘~.‘ ‘e' ‘\ n ”V- ~~l g - ~ F .. -‘ ", U '0 I .. '5 - 'Q ,4 T—‘——_———————_‘ VII PERSONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROFILE . . . . 97 Personal Action Profile-— Project Participation . . . . . . . . . . 100 Personal Action Profile-— Publicly Defend Views . . . . . . . . . . 104 Personal Action Profile—- Actively Recycle Wastes . . . . . . . . . 105 Personal Action Profile-— Activity Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . 108 Personal Action Profile-- Attempts to Influence . . . . . . . . . . 113 Personal Action Profile—— Consolidated Index . . . . . . . . . . 116 Personal Environmental Action-— Correlation with Attitude . . . . . . . . 120 Personal Action Profile—- "Urban" vs "Rural" . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 VIII ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PRACTICES PROFILE . . 126 Environmental Education Practices Profile-— Minutes per Week . . . . . . . . 129 Environmental Education Practices .Profile—— Outdoor Learning Experiences . . . . . . 13# Environmental Education Practices Profile-— Workshop Attendance . . . . . . . 141 Environmental Education Practices Profile-— Professional Membership . . . . . . 1h5 Environmental Education Practices Profile-- Involve Students Out— of— School . . . . . . 1u8 Environmental Education Practices Profile—- Consolidated Index . . . . . . . . 151 Environmental Education Practices Profile—— Correlation with Attitude . - 157 Environmental Education Practices Profile-- "Urban" vs "Rural" . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 II CONTINUING INFORMATION SOURCE PROFILE . . . . 163 Continuing Information Source Profile-- Exposure Quantity per Day . . . 166 Continuing Information Source Profile—- "Urban" vs "Rural" . . . . . . 171 Continuing Information Source Profile-— Magazine Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 iv v flnffi~r UvncwfiOO- v ""~--.— 1 \ _ l __ ‘ .....u‘._ ' .""‘II“' I ‘ .0’ ~ . b"--.la.‘ . I Inf-0. U- m ' ‘ W Y -‘;'.' 1 _ A . ‘1‘ 1 ~ ‘4 y I I“. is J h ‘ . «f "v. .“'1 ~ .‘1 Iv ‘ ix .‘A. ~ I H U a .).."\~“ ‘. ‘ 1 ~ ‘ in a“: d C 'l ‘ I" - J .. .‘ i p n u “g " 'i _ ‘s‘ . - N A ~. r—_——‘ Continuing Information Source Profile—- Quantities and Correlations . . . . . 184 Continuing Information Source Profile-- Source Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Credibility rating . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Objectivity Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Reliability Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Source Value Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 X INFORMATION CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROFILE . . . 207 XI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Environmental Education Content Perception 217 Attitudes Toward Environmental Affairs . . 218 Attitude Congruence with Significant Others . . . . . . . . 220 Personal Environmental Actions . . . . . . 222 Professional Environmental Education Activities . . . . . 223 Use of Mass Media Information Sources . . 225 Information Conflict Resolution . . . . 228 Environmental Attitude Profile Summary . . 229 Implications for Future Research . . . . . 230 APPENDIX A Environmental Attitude Profile Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 APPENDIX B Codebook Environmental Attitude Profile - 1978 . 242 APPENDIX C A Review of the 1965 George Study as it is Relevant to the Current Thesis . . . 254 APPENDIX D George Data Comparison . . . . . . . . . 260 APPENDIX E, Perceived Content Title Sources . . . . . 262 APPENDIX F Periodical Categorization System . . . . 263 APPENDIX G Periodical Titles Assigned to Categories 268 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 v " I .v--.F.'~ _ 1 v- "" .‘vt..1. . . “‘AP .‘ —,- p ‘v¢~..v‘ .. w“.- ,‘_ .\ r...‘ ""h..... . _ . f. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13' m. 1413. 15A. 15B. LIST OF TABLES Demographic Description, 1978 TES Teachers Environmental Attitude Profile, 1978 TES Teachers . . . . . . . . . . Responses to Attitude Measure Statements-- Frequency Distribution TES Attendance Influence, 1978 Teacher Mean Attitude Score Comparison, 1965 to 1978 . . . . . . . . DNR Mean Attitude Score Comparison, 1965 to 1978 . . . . . . . . Environmental Attitude Profile-—"Urban" vs "Rural" Attitudes . . . . . . . Attitude Measure--Bivariate Correlation of Parts A and B . . . . . . . . MPOS Environmental Topics--1978 TES Teachers Agreement of Friends and Family . . Environmental Attitude Profile--"Urban" vs "Rural" Attitude Items . . . . . . . . . Environmental Attitude Profile——TES Teachers vs TES DNR Employees . . . . . . Personal Environmental Action Profile-—1978 TES Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participation in Public Projects--Primary Order Participation in Public Projects——Self—scaled . Actively Recycle Wastes--Primary Order Actively Recycle Wastes--Self—scaled vi 48 54 59 61 63 64 68 7o 74 83 95 96 99 100 102 106 106 ‘ O . ,;.:.,.:1 ‘VOHIAI‘. O --v~A,., » . A ‘-5~.A.‘. . . . I r» ,. . ~ ‘- .‘D.v 0| s ' '-"“Y‘r- , . . ‘ ' "ob“.-- I . -.‘_ n ‘ L- on.-_ r ‘ ‘ ., :D'C’r: ugh...‘- ‘ I ""‘ w. uh! Y» .‘ Vn.‘ § I-Lu F. ‘ j ‘ , b ‘ *1 sn. ”h ‘ ‘ g I .k .' ‘ a “0 "r. ‘ ‘ a . .4 ‘1: “L Va. "§ r—_————‘ 16. Personal Environmental Action--Contingency Table Analysis, Public Projects by Recycling 109 17. Personal Environmental Action—-Contingency Table Analysis, Projects by Civic Groups . . 110 18. Personal Environmental Action--Contingency Table Analysis, Projects by Residence Time . 112 19. Attempts to Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 20. Attempts to Influence-~Perceived Effective . . 114 21. Attitude and Action--Bivariate Correlation . . 120 22. Personal Action Profile—~"Urban" vs "Rural" . . 122 23. Personal Action Profile-~Teachers vs DNR . . . 124 24. Environmental Education Practices Profile—- 1978 TES Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 25. Class Time vs Attitudes and Actions . . . . . . 133 26. Grade Levels as Percent of Sites Used . . . . . 138 27. Outdoor Learning Setting--Contingency Table Analysis, Grade by Urban and Rural . . . . . 139 28. Outdoor Learning Setting-—Contingency Table Analysis, Grade by Parks, School Sites, Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . 140 29. Workshop Attendance--Contingency Table Analysis, Minutes in School Program by Workshop Attendance . . . . . 143 30. MEEA Membership--Summary Contingency Analysis, Content Perception by MEEA Membership . . . . 146 31. Involved Students Out—of—School--Contingency Table Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 32. E.E. Practices vs Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . 157 33. E.E. Practices Profile——"Urban" vs "Rural" . . 159 34- Continuing Information Source Profile--Minutes per Day with Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 35. Continuing Information Source Profile--Minutes per Day with Medium, "Urban" vs "Rural" . . . 172 vii -Ln pa uh. .., * A "' *0. .‘ >- C. v‘,_ ' V’-vs... \ ."'r.-I-- .. ‘0‘..;‘ I .— “"e-J‘- ‘ V .-v\-.,_ .. . ' .u..d,.‘- ’v (f! “a...” . (I u.._‘- (Y- "‘ .fi. \ 36. News Exposure Times per Day-—"Urban" vs "Rural", Electronic Media . . . . . . . . . . 174 37. Periodical Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 38. Periodicals Read, Number Each Category . . . . 179 39. Hours Reading Periodicals per Month, by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 40. Intensity of Periodical Use by Category . . . . 181 41. Attitude Index vs Media Exposure . . . . . . . 185 42. Personal Action Index vs Media Exposure . . . . 185 43. E.E. Practices Index vs Media Exposure . . . . 187 44. Personal Action Index vs Magazine Groups . . . 187 45. Attitude Index vs Magazine Groups . . . . . . . 189 46. E. E. Practices Index vs Magazine Groups . . . . 189 47. Credibility Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 48. Objectivity Rank——"Urban" vs "Rural" . . . . . 199 49. Reliability Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 50. Source Value Rank Computation Matrix . . . . . 206 51. Conflict Resolution Profile by Media Use . . . 209 52. Conflict Resolution Profile by Attitudes, Actions and E.E. Practices . . . . . . . . . 211 viii ‘1 ‘ LIST OF FIGURES 1. Profile of Environmental Attitudes, Actions and Environmental Education Practices . . . . 52 2. Environmental Attitude Profile . . . . . . . 54 3. MPOS Environmental Topics-—1978 TES Teachers Composite Score Distribution . . . . . . . 73 4. MPOS Environmental Topics-—1978 TES DNR Employees Composite Score Distribution . . . 73 5. MPOS Environmental Topics-—Michigan Citizens, TES Teachers and DNR Employees . . . . . . . 76 6. Environmental "Crisis" View . . . . . . . . . . 80 7. Mean Agreement of Friends and Family . . . . . 83 8. Perceived Content by Topic . . . . . . . . . . 87 9. Perceived Content Inclusion Density . . . . . . 88 10. Perceived Content Topic Popularity . . . . . . 89 11. Personal Environmental Action Profile . . . . . 98 12. Environmental Education Practices Profile . . . 127 13. Minutes per Week Conducting Environmental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 14. Outdoor Environmental Learning Experiences . . 134 15. Site Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 16. Environmental Education Workshop Attendance . . 141 17. Involved Students Out-of—School--Number of Times Last Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 18. Continuing Information Source Profile . . . . . 165 19. Media Exposure Minutes per Day . . . . . . . . 168 20. Combined Electronic Media and Print Media Exposure Minutes per Day . . . . . . . . . . 170 ix a 'ug.‘/d---¢I I ‘9‘ 0‘. p.,..,. . - --.J-~--a ' o - II...-‘O\ "L" ..l. I u F'A..I... .. ’v uuug'. . ‘al .I. I' ‘r'- t :- "‘.-"0‘. ‘l .I. I’ ‘o-vn‘ ' A ‘5-..¢5“ q \ .-’“.. H‘ ‘ " as-‘ q \. H‘ Lfilposure Times per Day Electronic Media Qdieal Reading by Category . . . . . .. _fifiuvitynank .............. g utivity Rank Distribution . . . . . . . . } ffiibility Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -' "lability Rank Distribution . . . . . . . . “ fl3~¥rlation Conflict Resolution Profile-- flIlllnttnelow or Above Mean, Each Selection h‘ggiflgry ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < . Environmental Attitude Profile . . . Profile: Attitudes, Actions and -lnmbntal~Education Practices . . . . . ~t 9f Ln"r P ‘ . . (NS) .0: .WO. 1'; [Itateu " - . educat. A m- ‘ ‘M yeanH . 'm. pen-1am-.- mar:- fined-3. hm ___Ot'O-vand qunitsa" fiestas“ an '. s i 'J \‘I% :~2;' Ctmmotly Q ‘ ‘2',” ‘0 (la? 15:... 1... ,gud’ tal Educzhar‘ s: . ,1. 170 192 196 196 201 203 212 216 229 , .’ 313,103 A J lit-‘3 1;}. ' ‘ r , v_ ‘;{ ‘vnt of a citirenry L- 3 is“ I 11'": 67).".‘VL' Me .~. R ' 1.; 3.3192-..‘ . .- . "m the amulet“; _' “ 1, '1.in :9 ti Ii» m “.55? 1: lwrk VDVRI’A SCI-Jvlf. Ht‘ {“241 ”'312‘ {Caverncr‘ s Envi: onmenual Sauce and CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There has been accelerating growth in concern for the earth's biological and physical resources. This has resulted in proliferation of educational programs focusing on the biological and physical environment of people. Active development of both structured and non—structured instruc— tional programs, especially those directed at young people, has taken place. In the state of Michigan, the Department of Education has stated that . . . education has an important role to play now and in the coming years in helping people rationally solve some of the persistent problems 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, 1973, p. 1) This summation describes an essential view of educators toward the programs commonly termed "environmental education." In an effort to define environmental education, the Governor's Environmental Education Task Force in Michigan's Envigggmental Future said: ' 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. (Governor's Environmental Education Task Force, 1973. p. 14) o O . 0 \Q 0 h .5 .5 b ' I Q .n. ..u‘ .p.. . ’ D h u ..‘.-.>.‘ . § . r_r_ r "".v I. ' a W 'v~. ‘ W £0~Ar W a... ,.‘~ --.... : . _ n” "N .0. u “t 'o n... Ma. “‘ “I... FR-" . H‘ "515 C; .: -i“"“vlo-‘ “'-~—....,“ E ‘. . . O rt" ‘~' 4‘ ‘1. I I‘II- ‘ - ‘Du.y. c “ N ‘ . ‘t. ‘. Ia H " ....' h... ». u‘, _ " -... e... - ‘no. '44 r ‘1'" ..‘_l ‘. y ‘A-.. 'u ~ .F- 'I‘ '- 'ue . I. A u 15.: n.~‘ .. 0‘ Vag‘ - v ~. Fr- A u 1 "“v ~4 ‘ n. .\.~‘A \ I u ‘ r—‘_———‘ 2 It is these two principal statements from which this study developed. There has been rapid expansion of school curricula and instructional content supporting environmental education. Much of the material and many of the concepts have arisen from roots established over many decades. The beginning of environmental education in the United States is traced by some, such as Jones (1976), to Wilbur Jackman's Nature Study 1_ the Common Schools, published in 1891. Under a variety of names, nature study persists. The next chronological stage frequently cited is the outdoor education movement of the 1920s. Broad programs of outdoor education, often tied to specific school subjects such as biology, were developed and still retain popularity. The 1930s saw the rise of conservation education with its emphasis on wise use of natural resources. These programs received extensive although certainly inadvertent support from the severe economic struggles which spawned the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Adminis— tration. This period saw, too, the exposure of severely exploitive land use practices with a resulting emphasis on conservation practices. Many public and private institutions became devoted to promoting the wise use concept. Environmental education is an outgrowth of these. It is not revolutionary, yet neither is it evolutionary. It is, rather, a synthesis of these antecedents and of other disciplines. \év‘ . ‘ r ‘17 Al o .Dqtp<.' “r n , ......,..’ V” - . u - "‘V!AQR_.‘ , > . "“‘C'vobo- . no’, ‘ —~ I- .. _ .. ~.. ‘ v-. ., ._ . ~ .. _‘. . v- ‘ ' “V-~ ‘ \ ‘ .. '- b ' "V~- ~ .- a . ‘P"\. ._ It! (It A?! V—_—————‘ 3 Among those who have written about environmental education, one word of description stands out as a consensus: interdisciplinary. The biological and physical sciences are usually stressed as fundamental because they are studies of the all—encompassing environments which make up the earth and within which humans function. Some stipulate that there is only a single environment, indivisible, and call it biophysical. Yet all include the human—centered fields of study, or disciplines, with varying degrees of emphasis on the humanities, political science, social science, economics, psychology and the technological sciences. The broad scope of environmental education received congressional endorsement in the Environmental Education Act, Public Law 91-516, of October 1970, with a definition of environmental education echoed by the United States Office of Education: . . . the educational process dealing with man's relationship with his natural and man-made surroundings, and including the relation of population, pollution, resource allocation and depletion, conservation, transportation, technology and urban and rural planning to the total human environment . . . (U.S. Congress, 9lst, October 1970: Environmental Education Act). Further, the Senate of the State of Michigan in Concurrent Resolution No. 69 of June 1971 described environ— mental education as including . . . . teaching . . . of attitudes and skills involv— ing the relationship between man and the quality of his cultural and biophysical environment . . . understanding , of ecology and man's activities within the context of the natural community . . . our environmental heritage . . -preservation and enhancement of natural areas and recreatlon land for leisure time use; planning for wise . . . 'a-u. 1... ‘F --.---.1 ...... n r; '1‘» .... v... ‘ -. “ QuovA fi~0~ -. .. _ .- o..d-.I' i-.- .1." . ~ ' a . g . A r— .L.........- I- ' a m‘ ‘ s. fix ° Y“, ‘~ . '. "‘v-§,.‘ - F 1".““ . .. . k “’Y\s,_‘ g-‘o‘,‘ ‘1. . § u. D ‘y. F. C . "- P~ A e‘ ' F .. -.. . 3 \‘h. . -, ' a "c .. Q.." ‘ . b 3: :‘F‘P . ‘ ‘\~- q~>. \_‘:~ .5. . h .. It: “' ‘V A 14.3. v \u \ ha. ‘ h -|P‘ Q“ ~\‘ "¥C _\. -. . '\ '~- 1“; .-“ v .‘ \‘ ‘ n \‘ 9 s “' rh- 2"“ ‘ --‘ ~. \‘ 2"; \c“ F‘F ‘» ‘ . hk‘c . . .d 5... \‘ v.‘ L1 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). The combinations of generalities and specifics create an elusive definition which is better labelled description. A functional definition of more general value was offered by Stapp, et al., in 1971: Environmental education is aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environ— ment and its associated problems, aware of hgw to help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution. This was further amplified in description of other aSpects of environmental education which Stapp, et al., considered of equal importance. These aspects may be most readily summed up as human cultural institutions and man-made components, both of which have their technological aspects and often overlap. The definition previously cited from Michigan's Envirgnmenta; Future (page 14), to which report Stapp was an important contributor, was a further attempt at a concise, understandable and useful definition. A significant develop— ment was the additional emphasis on environmental education as a process. With the stress put on process, attempts at further development of definition were largely abandoned in favor of the more practical approach: the development of guidelines, goals and objectives for teachers to follow in their efforts at environmental education. 'fi‘w -- I u “'C'.~"A ‘ .. -'-o'c. I.‘ ”5‘ ‘I-vu-po- . _ ‘ «--._.....‘- n ,L .- .n 1':n., , .‘_“.‘.‘.. a “no.“ ." - "'nuc ‘.,,. ‘V‘ IAI‘A‘. -— TN§.'. .. 1.. ‘ :- "--..," U .‘." . ‘ I 1"- .. .9 v... ‘. \ a--. A “7“ a...‘v H,“ . ‘*~-. .. ‘ -. "a': no ’- J ‘8 :‘ . Q t ‘\. \“ .~ 5 ‘n‘ _v- ‘A ‘c b ‘- v\“ .\" A , \ ~~~.* x.“ ‘§ .‘ \~.‘_e \ u _ .4‘ _ . ‘i \ . .‘K' - “' ‘F - 0 ’— s“ . .‘. .. 'iv~¥- , 1 . -V‘ \'.\ - ‘~-~>~.. v‘ . \ \L .. a“ .x-‘ . x "\ ~\.~ ‘ V i 5“ ,« 5 —fi‘u,;1- }£r$‘8‘primary difficulty faced by the formulators of any ‘ . ‘2gfiV55ns, goals, objectives and guidelines is that ‘ tel» education is holistic. It is sufficiently 133U=6iplinary and interdisciplinary that it is an ét10n can and should be directed toward development of "'favorable attitude concerning the planetary environ- n§ome .writers, such as McNelly (1973), seem to contend ifSVorable attitudes will arise directly from a sound tion base. Research does not always support this view sea by Stamm and Ross (1966), Swan (1970), Tichenor (1971), Stamm and Bowes (1972) and others. Also, [5' attitudes may be less strongly held with increas- 7'3: cf a suitable planetary environment." The need {\f-‘v’ - *fl’distinction between knowledge and attitudes in r11< ‘1 »‘e§vironmental education programs is well— a hyuflungerford (1975) as he emphasizes the differ- study of ecology and the study of the 'A VLA 1V" *‘Feslegy is a science and is not value-laden; l . "“‘.’ T‘""""' ‘ C V r‘.~fl.nr.fi_‘ ,1 . -- ,4 ._ ' a- .- ..-..—.u n..- n ~ ~ 9 n--Q' r p M. ~... 4-... v t a X' ‘Y‘r' Ay- .. .u. 'Lbfioé‘v.‘ l ' ~ .. . . ? 'TJV‘O: All i..lo_‘.““‘ ‘V- ‘a . ' I v. . _. rq . ‘ “‘V' ~t‘ , c " a :.:I .,. .A.. w '- M \ N t on k." . u.“ , "“‘v . “-s-‘u ‘V‘ 96.. ‘e 1 Q .“ P: h «I ‘ \- Q 1 e. 5 “s \ r ‘- r‘\‘ e . ‘.~ 2 ‘ s C ‘. «‘7 2‘: \‘~.\- ' «4 . "I A? v” . .,‘ .‘ I . a “A t “g ( V \\ ~'| .' h‘ .. x. .1, .JH e. 11 ‘39 ‘wantal decision-making most certainly is!" h¢unlthough some would draw a careful distinction ‘eé'opinion and attitude. it seems pointless in the nmsntal context. Both assume judgment based on person- What is important is that knowledge of an environ— Q education audience requires knowledge of the audience ‘~ - 7391: toward the subject. This outlook is a blend of the :a,1me and affective domains when considering environment- §;§1ems. For most purposes it is useful to employ the wzg,o£ Rosenberg and Hovland (1960) and view attitudes itenm of choice. [e11cit change. Most of these have demonstrated that -§Lgrfistam3.(treatments) do indeed result in more .attitudes, according to the measuring instrument, “'lgfl to_3tudents. However, when applied to teachers, 7;2§§I§9und no basis for concluding that treatment -:ggg1changes,in student attitudes but did not ififigachers,.hThe obvious implication is that lrjstigantfichange (or that no attempt at well- ;gg§£q£ teachers was made, an unlikely } so:nr :' ‘p; ‘V u..vu ‘01 he I I ‘ n1- nx-y‘n‘ “"1! n__‘ A Q Il‘v .4. ‘y J. ... ‘Io a u w l ‘ ‘ I q‘. 9. ‘I . “"d‘ly \ V‘- a“ IV. . . A. ‘.' .'L-“‘ ~ .iv.vvv \‘v. ' it! ‘Q “|"n‘ I «U ”aga‘. wv \s‘-: 1 QM“; 9“,“ ‘i -‘-‘+ '5 N Aluq't, “:‘h; 5“. u A“ I I l‘ \ , ’A . I..‘~h “A“ - " II. ‘1. ‘-“ .'- hfi‘ ‘ '9 4 "" 3‘s . s» -. ”‘1 r,‘ ‘r‘di‘ c 3.x. \‘.: “ ‘Jr‘ S‘m: a... i .I; ‘~'I A «'1 Ta) ."I‘ ' F ”A 31‘th I “1: “Rf“: "-2 ‘n‘. . »\§:* 1 x“ |‘ "ski ‘ ‘1'. ~fl ‘ "J 5". ‘ i h_ u 12 #‘onain the test circumstances). Perhaps a different 5?:1measuring instrument would be more sensitive to :3‘or a different treatment program is needed for ' “hollc V Another consideration is expressed by Kelman (1958) jfijjfwaflWitude changes by teachers may be less durable than is of students in the absence of surveillance, meaningful "_onship or relevance. .Q4ietu:“Foerstel (1976) has been one of the few researchers 3:»gfrq ne the attitudes of a general population and teachers :iffiho same time. although that was not his primary intent. ‘* -.kndealt with specific problems rather than more .e'hxed.attitudes. While he found problem-ranking they within each grOup. he found little congruence ‘fi‘groups. One conclusion which may be drawn from his kitthat perception of environmental problem severity .imruch a degree that extrapolation from a group of sqparents, teachers or environmentalists to any of ‘sgrnnps is not valid. even within the same community. ibe'some congruence between groups if the attitudes .ane more general than specific. 31students and their parents will not necessarily R #1310 issues has also been suggested by Connell A I;e of acceptable beliefs is quite likely gained {pupatterns‘of«mass belief are more likely Wuthan familial. Connell's thesis is ‘idman, etwal. (1972). a e ?-——.~.._.__.e .1 a A ‘ . '7 t '09 p .-:o.!-r. .u-u:uo$" bJ ‘ 1 It. ' . I :- p‘?ur r l at I". U...‘ .mvo. lent o o .: 1‘“. +r~ _‘ .9 uuA-D . - : . _ '- . qw- tq. a. “A q“ 5" 0v. be ‘ r ‘.-~‘fl r; 111:“ b.” . R ..- .W‘A '57! ‘ . in ,...~ ..l' ‘1‘ ‘ I ' 1‘ .' 'h‘.’. ‘ Pl Y I N ...;... dv‘l . .. aw. ‘ .,’; : fiprc ( ..... _ “U. ‘Q 1.. v“. ‘q"‘ . . ‘ ‘ . " VP:‘ 1 '1 -‘ 'vu‘.‘ .‘ ‘r.‘~ . .._- :qo,:“ :- 'Ny"-' ‘ \‘V ....& F~RY\‘ .‘I‘~ h.-- 1 .yk“ O -‘ 3".” A: ‘ ' ' a \-&.' v‘ v u b .AxY‘Q‘ _- .bnw‘: . V .‘r’ \k~ r;‘ ’h»‘ s "A ‘ 1 v ‘ A", §.‘ 0.4 U ' . A, ' 34rs ‘ . new 215:“ "a“? '\ “:1 ‘7'”‘vv “-h 13‘" :1. I V . Vl~ \\:4.v"‘ “. o ‘ “:9- z“ \;. '2" amp :1» x. E i‘l IK'. . “. ~ V. LhL", u ' as . ‘ v .y ' a T“ (V, ‘I;‘ “‘5; ~.:n 5‘ N_ C ., 13 Iany issues, studied by social scientists, are viewed 5 arently by people from urban areas and those from rural b: 'Intl%»(3ettinghaus, 1977) Environmental issues would appear tdpthllow this pattern for secondary school students, as # ifiundhby Leftridge (1977), at least as far as perceptions are in _fimmterned. One might question whether or not this difference ‘fiotflh true for teachers from urban or rural circumstances. itsnight well be posited that teacher education programs fifihlate.a more consistent and cosmopolitan attitude not neces— f -;}ily}congruent or even compatible with students or parents 'F‘;8he‘community. This would follow from Bishop's point :fffidithat ideological consistency is a function of educa— 7-; experience. Although Leftridge found a difference fitvregard for "issue, geographic setting of the problem, f.~unt of educational background of the (student) OT: ” anti the working environment, professional colleagues, h. Jstylesand educational uniformity of teachers may result CF'” ‘ ;£ consistency of response without regard for differences .,Ii "I‘ “wirural surroundings of homes or workplaces. PC TF1" [ -In.addition, Murch (1971) found that Us“ C - 3 . inclination to identify pollution as a signifi- lem steadily increased as the reference moved m the respondent' s immediate surroundings. “:Jmay be reflected in the Leftridge study and may L; effect on teacher-student interchange in either 1 schools; the more cosmopolitan teachers would ‘b? incongruent with rural students and perhaps aunts as well. n a _ "7'1"”, -u'.. Vs... _ ' Q A “7...... H O;- I a 1‘ L . u ‘ use. vu 1. U ' u I -~ . .. ~ ','II IyIA o". \ "~-d‘.-v ud|-v I ’ O A m... ~ . ’- .. I to .1.....~| .1 v ‘ Nu . . ‘ . “’:.Y.‘\‘V‘~y-~y.. a“... n.--“-;.: :h ‘A “4'79 . I-.. IL :43. b . -.' "’";r+el , nfifiv‘ . (A. A “1,.“ ‘ h. I ,‘ '__." so I‘M“ l.;.' I... y“ . . u . ’v.‘ . \ »F‘ . “.:"ia‘.‘rr "V‘, -. r--"A1 "II-.11.“:‘L VI bl a... ’4‘. 14 "in (Environmental education programs may be constructed fwk;é&ently for urban and rural audiences of students but may P'?( re this same difference in approach for training of fa:rs. .If teachers are consistent in their outlook, they ‘;9_Mreless need to be aware of and react to the differences ”i.%heir audiences. This may well require adjustment in :flggféer-training programs so that the individual teacher may ~ 1g.usto adapt to student needs and student attitudes in the ~nmental area. As Tanner (1974) notes, "75 to 80 a It of our youth are geographically separated from the .. which must sustain them . . . ." Differences between |If6rientations of teachers and of their students toward 2x wwwental matters may be highly significant in the 3[Emerges of environmental education programs. .-fitattitude is generally defined as a learned prediSposi- on to respond to an object or class of objects in a iristently favorable or unfavorable way . . . (Gross Nisan. 1975. p- 358) leemPonent classes are generally accepted: cognitive 12"”: .affective (feeling) and behavioral. Gross and {L o . I .n- I .R . A 1 we ' -""“f‘ .,.. a Pveeoou‘- h . . . _ I «we ops-o ‘rf‘ . a . unn- sub - IUOIV ~ ‘Q -.~~: 2""r4 .......J Lyh,‘ . 1, I ':‘:"Arr ~ner ‘ F. ......¢Au&-.h -al D . ' ."r: . a r... . "V the, .. :i' .i'o. .f .I ' “TVA, ~37. :‘er. I . ; 16 aw.‘ . :3 Egoneral population. Steininger and Voegtlin (1976) tthat those "ordinary" people who performed an environ— 3;?f‘y Sound behavior (recycling, in their study) were ‘attonalizing a positive attitude yet were not otherwise ‘7eyfieu1arly distinctive from the surrounding population. In ‘tegroups, it seems that the doers are few while the talkers 9 apparently, environmental literacy advocates action 3.3} does not require it. 'zffifi‘ HTAnother aspect of the attitude-behavior relationship Ek‘tfieatendency of teachers with positive environmental j;-dos to conduct environmental education in their profes- 'tlives. While Ritz (1977) implied that personal land classroom practices fell within the same t19e~bahavioral construct, Cummings (1976) saw the behavior as a distinct behavior pattern. Some of I.r‘ication difficulty for both the investigators and ' Lfifictiteachers may lie with the definition of environ- 5 Question. the perceived scope of its content, ntal education." Howie (1974) demonstrated H I» 1 . 1 . A . .0. '7‘ 9", 4 F _'....--,.‘.u& v ! rn-‘yy'i H‘Y‘Ifl‘w‘. l \ ..... iv..‘¢l. 1.... a" o ' .:.f‘3.:.a all . I 'v-a.“.. Y' \ " "Nix-v... a., V. 7"‘4-0 .. I, ‘ :yuu-‘ :"-~- “.1“ 'D . ‘ Da~ 4 fl\-“‘l"w " '.“~‘4‘~In. ‘ . :"V’J'nv ,' 'Q - -— ..~u.,‘J \.n— . o 1? hzyugptal education program. A list of the inservice u'oonducted around the United States designed to :f tate1all teachers becoming environmental educators, .xindoors and out, would be very extensive. 'ufxcr1.luch of the reluctance of individual teachers to in- aq'te environmental education programs into their contin- '*QUgolassroom conduct is a perceived low level of their own 5d539$eney (Peyton, 1977; Ritz, 1977; Bozardt, 1976; Cummings, '.§{6: Hungerford, 1975: Howie, 1974). Because it is rarely {; vdathat all education is environmental education (McInnis, ‘iv}iathere may be serious questions raised as to the Ft! Of-any attempts at measurement of incorporation :gwmoasurements are confined to use of curricular mater— : Perceptions alone often prove to be highly deceptive. :r1¥e;qnvironmental educators, especially in non-science iloflhs study found only 18 percent of the teachers one -flfinterest in environmental education while 70 : ifeiopters of curricular materials. This latter ‘4§? compared with the 57 percent cited by Wint r_ ‘31??er ‘1“ unngs study is also of special interest in . o ,. A...'. A' 7"“ .. 4 .-‘OI.O£ halo. - .,.. ..ot~ _, ~... . ' I V‘ pf u....'..~-n..«.¢ ' ‘:“‘*r 0A or --.o..-¢s yy '- . \ -.m ." FD ' ":un... UV NV "1.. .1 N- '2“ t v. "Oh-A y 1"“ I l _ fi , 1‘ . u .4 F, «a. .. t v. A V‘s " "V U- . "Q- . Ar*§‘ oh‘ 7 L a..- "‘o." '-. n . A. . ‘14 kt. Gr 18 hg.beyadopted if they required little teacher—preparation ‘quassconsumed little class time and offered considerable «fflfléuotion to the students. As Cummings puts it, there gqugcns to be "a desire to 'spice-up' the existing curriculum Tijfihen.than to make substantive changes." Observations by T‘fifigardt (1976) also emphasize this attitude. f'wdli 1 .One of the situational variables to be considered in r »w:ting classroom practices is that environmental educa— "iflftis value-laden and may be a somewhat sensitive area for g7teaohers who "must serve a clientele holding diverse “ifs.” (Tanner, 197”). ;m1 'Another factor which may strongly affect teacher Y";:_;:‘o:f.environmental education, particularly school— ]:d-euzricular.materials, is psychological reactance. seg‘studies (1976) indicated that perceived attempts at ?h>ve:nsnipu1ation often result in reaction opposite to 12>:der's intention. §:scan escape environmental education . . . ~ms learns about the environment. But exactly people. learning? (Governor's Task Force, .—"G_'.’~_(‘L‘ \ :qr application in the classroom, or for their d1 .'.’ t .-' . f. usuld be somewhat selective in their sources ’ 3s studs ' , . L . - ...-."-o~ Ar ,- ....—\.~a-.»o- a.” to” a i \ .I-‘cl‘ Ir -. m.,u~.,l- ' . r ~. 5“ ‘cJ b...- b v 0 O "‘1- O-pu 0 _ a, V‘ y- “'Ffiiovoh‘an ‘ A . . . ;‘F'epo.... A El "°‘~-¢~.¢--§, . v? . :v-u‘...” V.“ - " ~. "“~‘. c.. v . . .. ,V‘ Fpfl“ . O - ».a-. a. . a. 4 ‘p r A . I h“, "e. sgfl‘ ; 5“ I‘"! .\_h PEA, . -l ‘r. ". . s h "J: U::‘ “ y‘a ..‘ D O ‘A . . h ‘ .'v:13 ‘ w ‘Q‘.. , 4. \‘ V‘ .5. Ls; 's . -. a "‘9 \‘h.. ~‘ ‘34 :“H-q . ‘o l \l 't‘.‘~ W‘ s . “~63 a '5} \ A .3 ". ‘h, .. I‘tfle ‘ ‘\ ‘8 t \ ."- \ \ . -. r. "L." v 19 cf information. There is little to indicate, however, that teachers are any more selective than a general population. Among Peyton's student teachers (1977). "only 20 percent of the participants reported belonging to an active environment— al organization or reading an environmentally—related periodical regularly" while "61 percent reported intentions to take future environmental action." The question must then arise as to the source of the information on which they will base their actions; and, whether this position is also true for practicing teachers as well as students preparing to teach. V McNelly relates information, attitudes and behaviors in a simple and basic statement: Information provides the raw material on the basis of which people form their beliefs, which in turn provide the basis for their attitudes and behaviors. (1973, p- 31) He proceeds to construct a conceptual case for information building a set of beliefs which, when related, form an attitude structure which then predisposes the holder to respond in a favorable or unfavorable manner. McNelly does not assume a direct or causal relationship in this system which would necessarily result in the predisposed behaviors but credits the situational variables with the final control. Nonetheless, he strongly promotes the proposition that information is the basis for attitudes and attitude changes with the information receiver playing an active role in the processing and the structuring. On the other hand, the 1966 Stamm and Ross study in Wisconsin found that "environmental . ‘ n 'r *r‘Pa til b. a ' n .-.-'.‘ A, a n . F.Y -...~..,“ .V. ,‘ ‘ > ‘ ~ I- ‘vfi‘ ,HA_‘ V ""4" vv . . 13;:Vfin ‘5. .h ”r “w": 5L. f, ,- . .n ' ”fiA-v.."" .51., , ~~s¥‘,~~..‘ - n I N‘ A3. I ' a \v I 'fi.’g." .A.."~‘ Q 'Q ‘.: ‘ a . . n. ‘H ““‘r a... Q; :‘Qafl ‘o‘ I ~ :. awn; .vu“‘*«ly ~ “.~'..,_ . ~ ‘ “ " "w: Mar ¢ 0 .Von 2%.! .. . a “'- u N u ' 0 ‘.".A“ vl‘vd '. "x. . - w. I ' '1» 0 \k‘uft‘ n . u ‘5‘; .3“! \ ‘- .. . 20 , g. 'gggef bore no relation to community members' attitudes." ‘Hrikfl iIrrtreating information acquisition, the "communicas flyfltility" of Atkin (1972) must not be overlooked. He 'WEGQ this Concept as "the anticipated usefulness of I gv?tion for future informal interaction with family, fi;:?% ~ ,‘co-workers and acquaintances." He suggests a :3gpgincy toward information seeking when interpersonal 3f§1 h cation is anticipated. This concept includes informa- :§§3nfrecsptivity as well as information searching. Perhaps Tgnfifilnticipation of communicatory utility rather than a =3rfi'in principles explains to some extent the popularity '}£:g}éw dance by teachers at how-to environmental education ’rILQ..u. when a subsequent increase in classroom environ- ,ijifi;hednoation does not appear. ;;§39.¥Theirole played by environmental educators in the h-" _hcommunication system disseminating information about ‘5“ a1 matters is distinctive. The term "quasi—mass ;?%ion” cited by Davison, et al., (1976, p. 122) seems The rather standard messages delivered ’ =iacross the country make teaching resemble a jfLWoation system. At the same time, the messages 71'Evflin'face-to«face encounters with some opportun- 'ifisncs feedback and so teaching resembles interper- wa‘ation terminology. *yr‘ésntalfeducatOr may be an effective . u 2.2..“ 2"" ,- .p¢.u-vo an.“ E ' ~ 0 -n--. Q0. ’ .- -.|1.~. ~ .. ‘ . _V‘\ w ""‘c‘osy y. ‘ -- n...-. d‘\\ r?“ ......~I .sev- _' n ' O. . It... "V‘A fl "“1 ! oc.‘ V -\ p "'I .: _:_ vr “--V U ... . f‘.¢ I I__' ‘ 'io.‘ . O A A - ‘-.;. WD~ 7" '¥-~«...u.‘ ‘4 __ " ‘p o '-c ’ ‘ ....e ., 11* L r»; ‘ \, 1“? ‘I “NJ-l" h ._ m. “a- ‘.‘: ( I'év \ . I mp “‘5 " 1.;th ‘ L~ .‘Z‘u \{ 3!“ "C CV9. 5 hp." ‘u \ I a- \ . ,‘A.\ “at, l , \) K” \.. 0 '\V I5 . ‘. h. P ‘p‘ ‘ w c.‘ I 1“ .-.\‘ . n‘ ,. x r.» w"; .: .u I ‘ l ... ..v‘. "< .5 s.‘ ~ O“; EVV “Q \ D . 3. ‘. :5 u *5 thank“ § “§. * V C‘~ l“' . . h \f ‘ '\ “-\.,s V‘ 21 regulator and gatekeeper in the quasi—mass communication system involving students. As educator, however, the teacher also serves as a redistribution system which McNelly (1973) considers of vital importance to the total communication process. There is also a special opportunity for coorienta- tion of teachers and pupils with the potential for agreement, accuracy and congruency relationships (Chaffee and McLeod, 1968) largely unexplored in the environmental arena. Witt (1973) recognized the complex nature of environ— mental communication and expanded on traditional models of communication. He was especially concerned that even the Westley-MacLean model did not accommodate, in science and environmental communication systems, to receivers being at the same time sources. The Witt model will readily accom- modate the agenda-setting influence of environmental educa— tors, the importance of which is noted by Schoenfeld (1977), which other models do not. The complexity of environmental mass communication and its possible effects, and the questionable potential for changing environmental attitudes, has been underlined by Stamm (1972). He further suggests that environmental educa- tion efforts may have little or no cognitive change effects involving high salience objects. Schoenfeld (1975), however, seems convinced that mass media have abundant potential for changing environmental attitudes toward nearly all objects. The apparent discrepancy seems to be due to Schoenfeld's optimism and Stamm's reluctance to predict without effective :;$§‘ v n ...n “”7" - ya ..- p -O‘--tb'- ...» V ‘7' .I "F“; ‘l' av- -~£'-~~ ...... ‘ l "-v-.,.‘ A‘ A ...b.-"'-.‘ ‘ ~. “"’F A. . ' _ I ".-II V. v , II‘.‘ ‘ “‘ 5'.“ ' w 4,. v... . \. \ o \, ~ 5" \"“.p\, H: “4": o.“ ‘ “I‘- \‘. I p. "sue. \. \.':: A“ h .‘ \ ‘V.. “I "c r N. ..r- P ._, a. ‘1: . Yo' .‘ fl '1‘ ~kyfi. ,1 “‘ ‘3, . \z‘ ‘5‘» “J;¢ 'r'. N c f.‘ .s.‘\ ‘Q '( ~ ~_' ~ «CY ‘\ l .' ‘ 55‘: ‘ u A‘ ‘ \~:‘fl I L C) (’3 22 ; instruments and much further study. . iflf the environmental attitudes of teachers and, :5 . ughthem, their students can be changed, reinforced. fi;;r1£iedsi"agendized" or otherwise manipulated by mass .;:¥ihlunication, it would seem appropriate to identify the .Hfitrsngth of media impingement. Sellers and Jones (1973, _gfif 53) cite an instance where mass media were avoided in an Aigndronmental influence campaign and efforts to sway f 3&1tudes were directed at the interpersonal and quasi-mass rounication systems. Stamm (1972) described selected ~‘flonmental campaigns and the communication problems which 1~ evident during the efforts. Schoenfeld (1975a) points -5 success-record in communicating of the federal bureaus sk‘ ffisrhaps the work described by Dawkins and Krebs in -Q}of behavioral ecology, as noted by Wilbur (1979), I- q o ‘l I- A '7‘ c A... u.“ I." ' t l v "“r1r4-~v1 “...-..4-‘ - q 0 leng'..‘. "V‘ U.. 'iv‘dol‘ng. A I I ‘|' an»: or; “nu—w u..- l Vl)‘ nu .5. , u ‘ u: 1.2“, J C I 'A AC. .. . .‘1\“‘n ".v ¢~-v..‘ ‘ a o “_"v~~~ ac. , “‘--~&-3 v-‘\ . 23 C View of animal communication is that of ndividual cooperation as the product of ution of actor and reactor in which each ._ the other of its internal state. In the V s", in animal communication, as in commercial .ision, the key word is not information but w-‘ula‘tion, persuasion, or advertisement. ’5. f :7 rM‘i .s' ,. '(j hm; i‘p‘j“l "f; 1:817“. tutu ' 34' . 4 . . - Gym/u; .1 ..‘93;‘ -_.v . its "3 ‘ri'fii'i :'E‘.’.I . ‘:‘r.‘ .; 3mg“! ; N9. \ Id-. -9 Q "" no. >. ‘ \ .u6-~ ~ ‘ "to ~ - I A ‘7’. '0'» ~‘ ' a ' A I ‘ \I \""¢v.&.. ‘ I .‘“‘--V\$. .- .I .t."'b .- . o g . n‘-..‘. s. I "£311? ’ 0 CHAPTER III I-_;de X‘s-2 3,. d 0;: SIGNIFICANCE AND USE OF THE STUDY :1}?69 This study was developed to determine the character- st of'a Specific population of teachers along five 5.5.1» ions: -<0&t perception of the scope of environmental education; 5 z;»‘;cattitudes toward environmental affairs; 4 ’1' 5 ,7. personal environmental actions; w (‘33;1prbfessional environmental education activities; and, . ‘10! >zsfof mass media information sources on a continuing .’ L- . . ;_': £47k: 'gnmuo pepulation selected was to enter an environmental ' (Laisxperience designed to assist teachers in beginning ”4'1ng environmental education in their classrooms. A courriculum is . . . focused on providing teachers in understanding of critical issues dealing with the ? hip between man and his environment. Teaching use will be discussed by teachers who have put tflvpractice and special emphasis will be placed on ' Aprograms for the metropolitan areas where most to: (Teachers' Environmental School,1978, :.ive brochure.) c .(«u - x) $33 assumed that this population would be demon- '1'9”. _. ggh behavior, a special interest in the bio- en v 1L. g. ,Lrience required commitment to a five day, i"' I 1 21+- . . . “V""gnngq! r .4 A ovoi‘IU. " g I 0 ~-..,. r-,»‘-,,.,‘ 4-. A A ... . "“ “vs-is..- ... v-O . . ‘ >1 "~“V"""~ ‘ ‘ - ~ 7“ “~v..o-J-\, v‘ -" a. . .Ahg‘ r.- , _Y‘ a ,. "‘ Us... L... I "7-... a _“|-\ :‘Q - CV ....s,'.‘ -11 .. ;: .::' Aar4‘ .. Vqu f ‘ :12“: ‘r V‘. U.. V“... . ‘ “I .-‘¥~'I . v 0.. ”A: . ".fi“ c ‘i‘hfl ‘r : ‘ “a: x. i 'w .‘ “5:232. ,~~~ . p.. h . a; :2.“ . u ‘x‘: :6“. V“ . \' .. ' s? I...J 1h‘fi‘. s,‘ - 25 ?4 academic years. While enrollment in this program I -distinguish the study group from an average of *” a? ers, it could also be expected to intensify some of the Iiwnkx results. It was expected that some of the findings .j “aid offer a basis for inference extending to teachers less Liberssted in environmental or ecological matters. ‘ ' * Little has been reported to date about the general ifififscteristics of teachers as they enter an environmental 'fmdl ion experience although a number of studies of details been conducted. 3;”334rfihen those teachers expressing interest in "environ- “ ering” their teaching or volunteering for training in , xiiimental education are not a well described audience. " 17””?indings of this study could indicate potential ' £363 in the needs of teachers and of students ‘fising in environmental education programs. "ifisséssment of teacher use of mass media on a contin- "=‘60uld indicate the significance of various media v. . VA ‘ 3?...” a ‘LL... s‘ .'. ~ ~ . 0 arm.“ V-Xl‘- ., ' 5“."“‘F~ - “ . N.“‘ .v‘ u - V a . ‘ 4 aPa- fl.» h "1'“ u- ‘ ‘2)" \ sen-\V..' ‘ ‘s. i I" "‘ 4,. 5n ‘Cb “ ‘ I. §‘-_“:r~ . I.» .\5‘ ‘.‘~ I ‘! .>‘.‘ .’ A‘“ n‘ \H‘dt.‘C::~ 3“ fl . .. “1“,,“ .u ~ h V \‘J l ‘. \ L, N ‘H: x 3“ “‘AA. : ‘r I «54... T‘ 'L a 1. {a ~ and CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY W . :ntuwhe purpose of this study is to develop a quantita— 1;: a special interest in their biophysical surround- 1,. ‘ nhnenvironmental education or in both. The information -. ng to. this profile was derived in response to three _ ; %._questions: "‘1" Shut. doteachers perceive as being within the scope of ~ ., viJll\l.L ¢. rflgl. education? 'tdo teachers do, personally and professionally, in a in; to, environmental improvement? remade: teachers get the information which continual- " "into the classroom? l-« .t . , gafleiugypis primarily a descriptive. case-study gégeggriptive rather than predictive. 99939393991. the: study.“ several operational 26 l . ‘ " R ch A a: ‘\p“ “...“: Dutch-Vent v. ‘ u M... . 'Vnn‘ F~ Cl """o v‘vuu- o .10 ‘2'“. ~'_ A ‘ "" «nu V . ‘ . ..n.-.,\ H“ n. \ in... ': I NI' . ' ‘3: r. ..‘.~‘~l .... '5 a A ... ' r: ‘a '3’ u, t. V. I. A "nl'. N 1‘ I. I.?"".“ f‘ "“4 ‘ c.“ ‘ - - l‘.. ‘ ' ' ‘3' Q! "\ :'\::"\‘: 'h'f ‘ ‘\ 'I .. - v- ‘ .‘Chfi‘. ‘i“ ‘A ‘~‘J} ‘rl ‘ A‘: S‘~.~. i '4" J \ I 'r:~:~ “‘39 2? waivers made leading to singular, descriptive GZVtions common in the physical and biological sciences Zleertain characteristics can, or cannot, be measured and "ménl££ed using researcher-selected methods. These proposi— .9; flay be divided into two classes, assumptions and lQEies. The assumptions are extensions and adaptations of vinrk of prior researchers to meet the particular needs of _ sway. I“_L§§nan§igg_1: An existing attitude measuring instrument ;“ itill reliably measure the environmental attitudes of - I ¢**&ggghers who have self-selected for their interest in { Lilflzim'onmental education. 1 .$Iiflfllniifln_§' The teacher-perceived scope of environment- ducation can be measured using a list of common inwicvtopics. ’zwu- ., : Mass media use and valuation patterns of finspimc‘ted population may be measured using self- gen responses. ‘ig Environmental attitude measurement and perceiv- 3etcf envirOnmental education may be combined into IT:3§ index with utility for comparative purposes. jwqierscnal environmental actions of the selected ug‘wfy be combined into a quantitative index with “comparative'purposes. :- remnantal education practices of the . . ... ‘r ...dvlfc “O “‘ .y -\ p R7 v: ’A ‘rn l ' Fl --. uni iA-v no. 0 q Oar AFWV“ v- -q a n y ‘y .., ow. \ ~- v. ," bt‘2A‘Y.R‘ a u . HQ- 28 selected population may be combined into a quantitative index with utility for comparative purposes. Application or modification of the measuring instru- ment and the operational propositions will offer a basis and means for comparative studies. Four hypotheses are central to this study. Stated in the null form, they are: Hypothesis 1. There is no significant relationship between personal environmental actions and environmental attitudes of the selected teacher population. Hypothesis 2. There is no significant relationship between environmental education practices and environ— mental attitudes of the selected teacher population. Hypothesis 3. There is no significant relationship between media use patterns and environmental attitudes, personal environmental actions or environmental educa— tion practices of the selected population. Hypgthgsis h. The selected population shows no source preference in resolving conflicting environmental information received. During development of the profile and the measuring instrument, two additional hypotheses were stated comparing the study group with other population sample groups and one additional hypothesis exploring an internal subdivision of the study group. fiypgtng§i§_j. There is no significant difference in attitudes between the selected population of 1978 and u a... &. 1 cu....‘ I!) (H i u “ ~~,0A.‘ ‘h _ J 51‘s.... WAS" :Vn‘. “Etta. “ “‘ :‘.:"";n~ "5. "‘Mtl‘ - i Q - -. "C. 1 “"v J "I a \: »:,:"Y= ‘ ~y‘.~ ‘ ‘~.' ‘4 Y:- P ‘1‘ .~«.~-L‘:.A ‘ ._‘_ M“. ‘h .59 . _ \.‘ .‘ " v- *‘1 I :I .‘ s“ “1:. a a u .I A U. \I‘. _.'. aft” N... V‘, N a \f‘ s k’ a» ‘.‘c .w.‘ , ‘» N ~ ng‘ V ‘- .‘t\ n A . .4“. h N... ‘vp. “L.‘~ V I“ ~ ~. \- ‘r‘e‘ '- ‘\:¥.Q‘ \ bl \- \- \ ‘-r "W Ch. 3.\: 1.- \';\‘. 't‘.\ RFC... :. "6‘7 ' 3:1 29 a similar population of 1965. Hypothesis 6. There is no significant difference in attitudes between the selected population and a randomly selected sample of Michigan citizens measured in a 1975 research project. Hypgthesis 2. There is no significant difference between urban and rural segments of the selected population in attitudes, personal actions or professional practices. Population Selection and Description The population selected for this study consisted of the persons attending any one of four one—week "Teachers' Environmental School" (TES) workshops conducted during the summer of 1978 at the Ralph A. MacMullan Conference Center operated by the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Michigan. Each of the four week—long workshops was conducted by a different Michigan university: Michigan State University. Eastern Michigan University, Wayne State Univer— sity and Central Michigan University. The staff of each workshop session is composed of university faculty members, sometimes supplemented by graduate assistants, from the spansoring university. Graduate and undergraduate credits are offered for each session and are interchangeable and transferable among the several participating universities. The university faculty staffs are augmented and supported by an environmental specialist from the Michigan Department of $\n 3' v r‘A.- ,- . I .>~ .‘Y‘ we.“ Hysv ... fi- "n. can», .6 ”"1 AV. Vv-».,. ... ' I. 1‘ PI: afiva “.A“ hon... ... ‘.H. ' I " Q A " \C.\:' "F I In... 5"~.V.‘, ' ' o :aqau,‘ ”‘r'; :u...v '“L‘.-‘ . O F‘vo‘ .r" ... ‘ ...» "Vau. . . ‘1" :0 q M :Y “with . In... ". Mn ““361 \- I'Ivr"‘v.‘ .‘ ' v 4.“ by + 91 \- \ " ‘0‘ u .‘::S‘ 30 Natural Resources. The "Teachers' Environmental School was born of the need for better understanding of the relationship between man and his environment in these dynamic times." (TES, 1978) Each session, although based on the same theme. had its own specific emphasis as indicated in the titles and course descriptions. Pertinent excerpts from the course descrip— tions follow. Michigan State University: Basic Environmental Concepts, Exploring basic concepts of environmental conservation to meet goals and objectives of environ- mental education. (TES, 1978) Eastern Michigan University: Workshop in Conserva- ti n. The focus is on the concept of this Spaceship Earth as an ecosystem and on the impact of man and his tech— nology on the delicate balance of the system. (TES, 1978) Wayne State University: Understandipg Our Environ— ment, Emphasis will be placed on field studies of the interrelationship of living organisms and their environ- ment. . . . an opportunity to improve your understanding andaattitudes about the environment and people. (TES, 97 Central Michigan University: Environmental Educa- tion--Togls. Techniques and Philosophy, Encourages the 'hands-on' 'real experience' method of teaching. Instructor will advocate the broad view of environmental education applicable to teachers in and out of the natural sciences. (TES, 1978) Enrollees at each workshop could expect to have opportunity to learn concepts and details useful in their professional practice of environmental education. These populations were selected for study because they were made up of self—selected representatives of the teaching profession who were demonstrating through behavior on interest in their biophysical surroundings, environmental L | .....-1 A.” 46.- ..vo‘a . .. ....-s... ”V A -t- ‘w-vo a. g 2 q.--._... ~~ . r 0...-.-J . . . . ......‘U’1 ’ —“l-.“ ‘ (n >.';'5 ‘Phy ‘ ’- "‘ ’DO‘. . ‘-“h-..' ‘ . ”"‘«-; v. . .‘h‘*y’~ . . *w-..,~ ‘ . "‘~-1 ..,‘ ‘“ 3"“a ._ 4. ~'.:. ... y! . n.. it“ - ....» ' . " “an ..‘~ A... \ A ‘0! ‘4 . - \. '-‘\ . . ‘- h‘,‘ ‘-:H A. ~' " \— 5. ..V‘..~ '§-~." I \F V w“ 4 ‘1 .‘~)\“ K. L. 4 ‘\ Qn V i H . I '1‘ .“\: s. ‘. ‘ "xv'Q \- 3-. . '.“. I ‘atx‘ A \‘ . \ _- K-e .‘ 3‘ ‘1 ‘c g .“ s; A .Q»‘. 31 education or both. Intensity of this interest and individual motivations for attendance were not determined and may possibly have affected other characteristics measured on an individual-variation basis. Some of the reasons for attendance may have been other than educational. Among these may have been social opportunities, a "painless" way to earn academic credits, an inexpensive vacation week in an outdoor setting combining other amenities with learning opportunities and a general interest in nature and natural history with intensive "guided tours" available. However, post—data-collection interviews and observation by the researcher indicated that the princi— pal reason for attendance was educational; non-educational purposes were secondary. This was in keeping with the 1977 report by Born and Clark which indicated that teachers enrolled in environmental education workshops primarily "to learn how to environmentalize their teaching" and to receive college credit. It is reasonable to assume that teachers attending the TES represent teachers with a higher than average interest in the subject area encompassed by environ— mental education. . These groups of TES teachers were, in effect. a ”captive audience." The fact of their attendance in an academic program assured a high return of the questionnaire used as a measuring instrument and encouraged thoroughness in its completion. The "captive" situation might have been conducive to unwanted bias in responses but analysis of the . I. A 1‘. -. '2’: q,’ H w -l‘ evofivu 5v .. . , "'~-O'~ v" or u .. w . .....Lv - ..1 ' q. I "‘ a n .. P i p —u-l ...-» \1 ' ;,...' ‘1“.9‘ '- "uuu gaic c e 1 ‘ t'Po: eF‘-g\z‘ n...“ V‘ VDA P-« e T .14 L a -\ ...' I n “9“- y ‘3‘} 'VJuE'. . .. ‘ Man i: we‘AP—JAY .'~"'"~'J:. . 12‘. 14%» W" "chm: \ A I one ! ‘v Q ~. yaw, "iv-LETS ..- Q: ‘ 4 ' \e “,H ‘, \u 'u Lk 19: V ..t':r. “WE h. \ § ‘ C . r. . .K.~g ed ‘b t "‘M‘ 'Q .‘J. ”ta? 4': e‘vue a \ :1: "\ a U‘ a N " v4, '5 ‘4 '.‘ ."‘v "‘91 £8 ”mp-"N ‘D an“ .“I 'I § 1. I V“, n ‘4“, ‘ . \. ‘s \ (‘. 32 fie. This claim is supported especially by the Personal ”pitfisn,data and the self-report of time spent in environ- ',:zfltal education. l§pth :. The principal faculty member for each session was féiQLoly cooperative and encouraged the full cooperation of 1*f:: respondents without influencing their responses beyond iu‘t which would be expected from the setting itself. Experimental Desigp f~.° wg'Qne hundred eighty persons attending four sessions of “L “7‘4 .. ..‘T . A:Teaehers' Environmental School during the summer of 1978 itanof a brief introduction and collected by the ‘gmet'aB.1t was completed by each person. ~. 45.;‘ 'gifigfimpeare8ponses of each person were coded by the . {arzand analysed by statistical procedures, computer ‘ ‘tstrovide a view of the population as they per- ‘té7ves in-six major categories. These categories c 4 O 1 ..- . ~ 0'7 H a. 3 v u- ‘ IO. U H '- .1: no, '1 w 3"”. . ‘bu ' T ““‘wn . - ~- .../.1. . . c ‘1 . .. ~ arc ’5' " w.»v .. ‘ -.’ . l,. rY‘C: .-;u D... v v 4 "1 . .l O“ ‘ V czar ._‘ 33 III. Environmental Education Practices IV. Continuing Information Source Use V. Continuing Information Source Value VI. Demography of the Population. Data evaluation included descriptive statistics and both parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures for two primary populations and two secondary populations within one of the primary populations of respondents. Relationships with three additional populations were also studied. Assumptions and Limitations In this study the following assumptions have been made which have or may have some effect on the findings: 1. The teacher population self-selected for interest in environmental education; 2. All members of the population self-identified as teachers were currently, had been or were to become teachers in Michigan schools with grades K-12; 3. Uncontrolled variables of the demographic character- istics would tend to distribute their effects widely throughout the experimental population and in a manner similar to that of Michigan teachers in general; A. The completed measuring instruments accurately reflected the perceptions of the respondents at the time of measurement; 5. The data collection instrument measured the character- istics desired; uvfi“ .yun“ A‘ I. .Hj tr U'» ri‘p I». Q o u N . p. d'nd “ or” 34 6. Variations in the effects of the instrument adminis— tration timing would be broadly distributed throughout the responding population. The following limitations of this study have been recognized but the possible effects will not be delineated. 1. The measuring instrument encompasses a small part of the range of knowledge and perbeptions which might be used to describe the responding population; 2. The measuring instrument may benefit from alteration or modification in some or several of its items; 3. Some portions of the instrument may have affected the reliability of responses; 4. The season chosen for measurement may have affected responses in some portions of the instrument. These assumptions and limitations should be weighed in evaluating, applying or extending the findings of this study. Operational Procedures The data collection stage of the study was scheduled by Dr. Robert W. George, chairman of the researcher's graduate committee and principal faculty member of the Teachers' Environmental School session conducted by Michigan State University. Dr. George arranged with the faculties of the other three TES sessions to allow data collection at the beginning of each of those sessions. The faculty members Q‘ at. ,gr‘ F. _ 1 o}- “VI‘OUIO‘U U “A... Inn-‘3’ ' e F H’; " at“ 7’9""! M- :- “'vhoav‘y“ c e no u ..A -- ...t “5‘" - - 1 ~""~- ~ “‘2‘? \ b . . ‘4‘, b h. . p. p. 1"" p 2 U) :5; 01' y 35 from all of the participating universities considered this an excellent opportunity to learn more about their students as a group. Each TES session began with registration late Sunday afternoon and concluded at noon the following Friday. Sunday evenings were used to acquaint the students with the facili- ties, the living procedures, the faculty members, the nature of the week's program and with each other. The instructional programs began early Monday mornings. The survey's measuring instrument was to be adminis- tered either at the conclusion of the Sunday meeting or at the beginning of the Monday program. The researcher was present during the registration and the Sunday evening overview as a non-participating observer to evaluate the activities preceding data collection to subjectively judge the potential for contamination of responses. The activities were judged as enhancing the receptivity of those attending with minimal likelihood of survey contamination. Immediately preceding the administration of the questionnaire, the researcher was introduced by the principal faculty member of the session as a graduate student from Michigan State University conducting a research project. The faculty member encouraged the audience to COOperate and offer- ed no other guidance. The researcher then briefly introduced the questionnaire approximately as follows: This questionnaire will help us find out where we are as leaders in environmental education. We need to know what we have as we enter this workshop. By taking A. .‘utv 7-15" '1" ‘v u‘ be usa¢¥ 36 inventory of ourselves we can better fit new information and new approaches into the conceptual patterns already established. This questionnaire is not a measurement of what we know. It is not an evaluation of what we do. Instead, it will help us get a clearer picture of our present practices and attitudes in environmental education. It will help us prepare ourselves to get the most out of this week's experience. It will take between 15 and 30 minutes to complete. Please answer not what you think you should, but your actual thoughts and practices. The questionnaire was then distributed. The research— er remained in the room and collected each questionnaire as it was completed. Respondents left the room as they handed in their questionnaires. In each of the four sessions, the first questionnaire was completed within one-half minute of 15 minutes and the last questionnaire was completed at 32, 30, 31 and 32 minutes. In each session, the last completion was two to three minutes later than all others in that session. Only three of the 180 reSpondents asked for clarifi- cation of any questions during the process. Each of these questions was different although all three related to the information source portions of the questionnaire. Two women respondents objected mildly to the inclusion of sex and marital status identification in the demographic portion of the questionnaire. Because these items appeared in the middle of the last page, the objections were considered to have had little or no contaminating influence on the ,- -q\ ' oh. ’1 .....l“' 0 I u n~0~ on '1 ’1 s veg--v-~ ""fi‘r- 5‘ J A ..." V‘ . p ' ‘1", ‘A .q. ': . . .Ng . m ,'~. v. . ‘Q u\ l n) '1 37 preceding portions. In any event, the comments were made in the manner of a friendly reproach rather than a serious criticism. Scoring Procedures The questionnaire results were coded and card- punched by the researcher for computer tabulation and analysis. The coding process recorded case identification and responses only, without interpretation other than class- ification. Some scoring was performed by the respondents as an integral part of the response process. Other scoring was performed during the process of analysis by computer and some as a result of researcher requests for computer re-scoring. Unusual scoring procedures will be explained with the presentation of the data analyses and interpretations. The codebook for coding and card—punching is included in Appendix B. Statistical and Data Processinngrocedures Data analysis made use of the Statistical Packggp,fgp ppg Social Sciences (SPSS) version 7.0 available to the Michigan State University Computer Center, using a Control Data Corporation 6500 computer system, from the Vogelback Computing Center, Northwestern University. The questions of primary interest in this study and the hypotheses generated from them relate especially to .-q..y\ --A\ .-u A. .V‘ ...b.. . ...“- u . "'0‘.“ v..- OH ‘-I-~. -..... *- . .v.‘ . :Y. ‘44,, V.‘ ..V‘c ...y" Ir “h. .. .c“ . ‘ I ‘2‘. . N 1‘ 38 measures of central tendency and dispersion. From these, a profile of characteristics has been developed to broadly describe the population surveyed. The descriptive data obtained from simple-frequency analysis of the information collected indicates the average characteristic of the total population and the relative degree of variability within that population. Additionally, error limits, at a 95 percent confidence interval, indicate the degree to which the group measured would serve as an adequate simple random sample. Several methods of investigating relationships were undertaken depending on the kinds of relationships of special interest and whether the data were nominal, ordinal, interval or ratio in nature. Statistical Procedures Usgg Throughout analysis and interpretation of the data collected in this study, central operating principles of scientific research have been maintained. As Krebs (1979) has noted, the key information of research can become lost in a welter of interesting but trivial information. So, too, can sophisticated statistical analyses conceal usefully simple information. Therefore, two basic and commonly expressed elements of good research have guided the analysis and interpretation of the data; first, 'the simplest, most straightforward method of study and of explanation is usually best' and, second, 'keep it short and simple.’ The quantitative profile to be developed through this 79 a" (I) «h ‘ v ..‘a a t .- .IOD“. .J‘ n n... 0 cu — ....f. - - ......-l e A! .14 -. ... 0" ....I _.,!j " ‘F O 1"? Y: “ "H-o eh. I u. L ..h u _ I" u“ a“: v 39 study is essentially a product of descriptive research, an effort to describe the population as it existed at a given moment. Frequency distributions, central tendencies and degrees of dispersion offer the primary descriptive informa- tion. The mean has been selected as the preferred indicator of central tendency because it is based on all the scores for any one item and the quantity value of each score. In some cases the frequency distribution shows one or more modes which may have special informative value and will be included in the data presentation when appropriate. The measure of variability used in this report is the standard deviation (SD) because it has more intuitive value than the variance from which the SD is derived. The 95 percent confidence interval (0.1.) is noted because it is a useful reliability indicator for the measure- ment data summaries. It is expressed as data values and as a percentage of the mean, the latter for its ready intuitive value. The 0.1. is commonly used to indicate how closely the group measured would approach being a simple random sample adequate for inference to a larger population. It differs from the "confidence level." A 95 percent confidence level for this study would have about 9 percent error tolerance, based on the sample size. If the group measured is assumed to be a sample of all teachers who have enrolled or would enroll in the TES, then the mean values of a sample of this size, 123 respondents, would be within 9 percent of the larger pOpulation 95 times 40 out of 100. As a crude but utilitarian "rule of thumb," the lower the 95 percent C.I. percentage value, the more reliable the mean and SD figures are. C.I. percentage values less than 9, the error tolerance, are not approaching sampling perfection but narrow the gap at an ever faster rate between the summary figures of the sample and the 95 percent probability of sample accuracy. In other words, for this study, if the C.I. is 9 percent or less, the mean and SD values may be consider- ed reliable measurements of the group studied and are good representations of a central tendency. The standard error statistic may also be included for interval-level measurements to indicate the potential degree of discrepancy between the mean as a sample mean and the mean of the unknown population. Student's p,is the statistic used in some compari— sons. The t-test indicates whether or not the difference in measured values between two sample means is significant. This test is customarily used when two groups are compared, on the basis of their means, in one dimension. In this study, the groups are not experimental but pre-exist with the distinction drawn based on some one differentiating charac- teristic. For the t-test comparative procedure, the null hypothesis is stated and accepted or rejected on the basis of the t-test results. The null hypothesis typically states that the means of the two groups for one set of values are the same. The 41 t—test indicates the probability that the value differences between the two groups subjected to test are due to chance, or sample variability. If the t-test indicates that there is a significant probability of the difference being due to chance, then the null hypothesis of equality is accepted or at least not rejected. If the t-test indicates that the difference is probably pp: due to chance, then the null hypothesis of equality is rejected and the difference is assumed to have a strong probability of occurring with any other pair of samples. The t-test significance level con- sidered acceptable in this study is .05. Errors of rejection or acceptance of the null hypothesis when the opposite choice may in fact be true may dictate the use of a different level of significance. Where these potential errors may have some important consequence, they will be noted in the presentation of the data. In applying Student's t to the data analysis, the F value is computed. This value relates the variance between the groups to the variance within the groups and is used in multiple regression analysis procedures as well. The F value may also be used to test the null hypothesis. The TES groups showed, in some dimensions, such wide variance within groups that the F statistic was used as a screening device for the t-test rather than relying on it directly. Regression analysis was not used in this study. Although much interesting information might have been developed, the straightforward profile development was ...-r" —¢-d" -u 2‘ C. C. ... . . . Cc 2c .. . 3.. ac a. a r“ n . . . es” .. . a: . . ... 1. . - 1 p _ v. . .. . Ab FL. I. ~\§ 2o~ ~.‘.l. m I ‘Q ‘Q 2.. A 11‘. :u ...r... .r.. E § s o!‘ u. 'za‘l‘ ' s g I‘ 14. A: s L l r A ‘5. u A.” y u ‘- 42 maintained without obscuring the central purpose amidst relationship studies of peripheral or tangential value. Such statistical studies are more appropriate to a secondary analysis of the data collected. Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson's r) is used here to indicate the strength of any linear relationship which may exist between two variables. As the square of this value, r2, is generally considered a more readily interpreted value when the direction of the relationship need not be expressed, r2 is noted for conven- ience along with Pearson's r. Because this coefficient is designed for interval-level variables, its use with ordinal- level variables is subject to question. However, when supported by other correlation indicators and viewed with some skepticism, it may have some utility. Spearman's rho and Kendall's tau rank-order correla- tion coefficients are more suitable for ordinal-level data than Pearson's r. Because the SPSS produces tau but not rho, Kendall's tau is the value used to indicate strength of ordinal-level linear relationships. Gamma may also be noted because its value is considered very intuitive, although it would appear to be advisable practice to use gamma only when tau is also available for verification purposes--unusually high values of gamma may be deceptive as to linearity. Many comparisons in this study relate data that is only nominal-level. Contingency tables, crosstabulations, are displayed and interpretive statistics are offered. The r1 ... .. 2. 2. r; a}. . . 2. ...,w . . m1 Malta. mi. a. ... .rflw . . - - by. u. .. . a. « . v: c. .5 r“ .5. VJ ... 3. hi. 9. n: ... , . . :7 n. 2. >— ..u .pu . c v“ 2‘ C. in -7. A!» as «C ..nu V.. Y... e u .l . n. . r .. w . .. . ...!u a . .. . -. . u. FL 1 a .. c 5.. n. a .. a a 5 -Ti and 1 43 SPSS program supplies a variety of statistics for these bivariate correlation procedures some of which may prove to be inapplicable to the values as, for example, when Pearson's r is computed for nominal-level data. Choice of statistics presented will be in keeping with the nature of the data. Chi-square, X2, indicates whether a systematic relationship exists between two variables with a large value implying a relationship of some sort, but not defining it. Whether the "large value" is significant or not is shown by the significance value computed by SPSS with .05 being considered the critical maximum for this study. The strength of a relationship which chi-square may indicate exists is shown by Cramer's V. Although chi-square may possibly show high significance, it need not be a strong relationship unless Cramer's V so indicates. Two other statistics for nominal data may be included in the analysis presentation, lambda and uncertainty coeffi- cient, but only if they have Special pertinence and strength. Eta-square, the cOrrelation ratio, is also noted for contingency table analysis. It is included primarily because it has a general interpretive utility. The assumption in its use is that at least one of the data sets is interval-level. The reliability of correlation data may often be best interpreted from eta2 when chi—square is significantly high and Cramer's V is in doubt. . In most of the contingency tables, the greatest interpretive value lies in inspection of the table. 44 Interpretations may then be supported or refuted by the statistics, or the statistics may be meaningless. Still, the descriptive value for the study group remains despite the loss of inferential or predictive value. . nw 'O.‘ J I o yew-.k. Ii\ \IQ ‘1‘ C a.-. ...r. as h . A.%v «we 2609‘ , F CHAPTER V DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF THE POPULATION The total population attending the four sessions surveyed at the 1978 Teachers' Environmental School was stratified on a single dimension, vocation, for primary analysis. The identifications chosen established three strata: teachers, employees of the Department of Natural Resources and others. Stratification is a method by which investigators such as economists and sociologists subdivide p0pulations. These subdivisions or strata may be based on Specifically controlled conditions, by qualifying actual conditions or through pre-existing characteristics. The attempt in strati- fication is to define limits of groups in an effort to approximate homogeneity within each stratum. The stratifi- cation not only results in samples with smaller sampling error but also permits statements about a specific stratum which may not apply to others in a heterogeneous population. Because this research was focused on teachers, all of those not perceiving themselves as teachers were separated from the group of central interest. Those who perceived themselves as teachers, without regard to titular status, made up the population which this 45 “n“- pm (I) (I) “A‘ ..- [n I! q x‘?‘ ~51. .‘Fr "~e. '1 (D ('1') S.“ 4- 18 46 study was devised to describe and analyze. Consequently, a curriculum coordinator, an elementary school principal and an assistant superintendent in a small district were included as teachers. Although some of these might not have been cur- rently active in the classroom, they were perceived by the researcher as having direct influence on environmental education in the schools and therefore appropriate to be included. This population, subsequently to be referred to as Teachers, totalled 123 respondents. Post-high school instructors such as college profes- sors were considered to have an indirect influence on the conduct of environmental education in the K-12 schools and were categorized along with employees of nature centers, students, staff members of the TES and others in the 26 member group referred to as Others. Employees of the Department of Natural Resources regularly attend the TES as a part of ongoing in-service training. ~Although some of these employees would choose to attend, Department policy requires it and there were, there- fore, several who attended reluctantly. Questionnaires completed by these employees were carefully scrutinized by the researcher to detect questionnaires which might obstruct meaningful analysis. One such was found and, along with two insufficiently complete to be useful, was considered invalid. The elimination of these three reduced the group referred to as DNR to 28 respondents. 47 The group of essential interest, Teachers, is described in Table 1. From this it can be seen that those attending the 1978 TES sessions may be typified, for the most part, as young, white, women, married, probably without children at home and with at least a bachelor's degree. They have lived most of their lives in cities or small towns, with well-established residences in their current communities although not necessarily active in civic groups, are very likely members of two or more professional associations, and are probably teaching upper elementary grades now and have done so in the past. These characteristics are in keeping with the traditional, stereotypical image of a teacher portrayed for decades in the entertainment media. The one exception might be the lack of civic group membership. The reported charac- teristics did not depart significantly from the general expectations of the researcher. No inferences should be drawn, however, that this group of teachers is representative of a larger pOpulation without appropriate qualification. 48 TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION, 1978 TES TEACHERS Approximation Item Percent of 95% C.I. Age (N=122) 7.4% 19-34 54.1 35-49 38.5 50-64 7-4 Sex 1N=1211 12.5% Female 67.8 Male 32.2 Ethnic group (N=121) White 97-5 Black 1.7 Other .8 Marital status (N=122l 12.5% Married 67.2 Not married 32.8 Children in household (N=1211, 19 1% No 52.9 Yes 47.1 Education completed (N=121) 2-7% Bachelor's 60.3 Master's 38.8 Ph.D. .8 Youth life community 1u=1211 City 33-9 Suburb 19.0 Small Town 27.3 Country 19.8 Adult life community (N=121l City 28.9 Suburb 22.3 Small Town 28.9 Country 19.0 49 TABLE 1 (cont'd.) Item Percent ‘ Apprgéimgtion eresident ppesent community (N=1221 6-5% O —5 years 23.8 5 —10 years 24.6 more than 10 years 51.6 Cletvic group memberships (N=123), 24.5% 0 54-5 1 21.1 2 15.4 3 2.4 ID<32re than 3 6.5 1:’3!:‘<>fessional organizations (N=123i 9-3% () 4.9 g 28.5 33-3 :3 22.0 UQCDIe than 3 11.4 Sigzades presently taught (N=1231 8.9% K~3 22.8 LP~6 35-0 (Tie. High School 12.2 I“Iigh School 17.1 Ipecial assignments 13.0 $‘ades previously taught (N=491 12.7% K~3 22.4 Jr. High School 16.3 1“‘Iigh School 18.4 CHAPTER VI ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES PROFILE The purpose of this and the next two chapters of the sstudy was to determine, for the particular population, Einswers to questions which may be most simply stated as: anhat do actively interested teachers think about environ- ITlental affairs?, What do they do personally?, and, What do ‘13hey do with their students? The questionnaire, Appendix A, Galicited self-reporting based on facts recalled and self- ‘IDerceptions. It is essential to place emphasis on self-perceptions. lilthough the participants were urged in the introduction to fiche questionnaire to "answer pp: what you think you Should, Tbut your actual thoughts and practices," there is little (ioubt but that some bias toward the expected views of the 1?esearcher and the TES appeared. It is also probable that ‘the admonition and efforts to report accurately and without ‘bias faded to some extent during the time it took to complete the questionnaire. Without observational follow—up, there ‘may be significant biases present in the data. However, it ‘will be seen from reports by the Teachers of lack of action a surprising candor which must lend credence to the overall self-evaluative technique. 50 51 The overall attitudes and actions profile is depicted in Figure 1. The data for each item have been selected and adjusted to represent per centum values for ready comparison. {This chapter will present only the Attitudes portion; detail- eed information and interpretations are presented in separate ssections and subsequent chapters of this report. 52 percent 0 20 40 so so 100 Attitude Measure Opinions on Issues 'Crisis" View Env. Ed. Content Perception Consolidated Attitude Index Participate in Public Projects Publicly Defend Views Actively Recycle Wastes Attempt to Influence Local Government Attempt to Influence Legislation Attempt to Influence Non-Gov‘t.lnstitutions Consolidated Action Index Conduct Env. Ed. in School Program Conduct School Outdoor Learning Involve Students Out-of— School Attend Env. Ed. Workshops Member MEEA Consolidated Env. Ed. Practices Index o 20 40 so 80 100 percent Figure 1. Profile of Environmental Attitudes. Actions, and Environmental Education Practices 53 Environmental Attitude Profile-- Attitude Measure The Environmental Attitude Profile shown in Figure 2 is derived from the data presented in Table 2. The Attitude Measure used in this study was taken :from the George study administered in 1965 (George, 1966). ll discussion of the George study and related literature is jgncluded in Appendix C. The George questionnaire contained €S# items organized into four parts. George describes the i?our parts as: . . . a revision and rearrangement of the testing instrument developed by Laug and later refined by Whiteman. The questionnaire was organized into four parts and color-coded as follows: Part 1 (white) - Sixteen statements dealing with general attitudes regarding conservation problems, the importance of conservation in our society, and the recognition of what we mean when we see or use the term conservation. Part 2 ink - Sixteen attitudinal statements dealing with conservation problems of our forest resources and wildlife resources. Attention is directed to attitudes concerning management of the resources and to their interrelationships, as well as further recognition of the meaning of conserva- tion and conservation practices. Part reen - Sixteen statements related to attitudes toward soil and water resources, the need for conservation practices, and the conservation movement in a democracy, as related to personal freedom and economics. Part 4 (yellow) - Sixteen attitudinal statements concerning the role of the individual in conserva— tion, as well as general attitudes toward conser- vation problems, the importance of conservation and what we mean when we use the term conservation. 54 percent 0 2O 4O 60 80 100 Attitude Measure Opinions on Issues 'Crisis" View Env. Ed. Content Perception Consolidated Attitude Index Consolidated Attitude Index - Part A Figure 2. Environmental Attitude Profile TABLE 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDE PROFILE, 1978 TES TEACHERS 95% C.I. Mean N Mean SD adjusted + or - % to 100% Attitude Measure 123 102.30 13.82 2.07 2.4 79.92 Opinions on Issues 123 29°56 u-07 0-73 2-5 82.11 Environmental Environmental Education Perception Consolidated Attitude Index 123 75-46 10.49 1.87 2.5 75-46 Consolidated Attitude Index 123 71.31 11.75 2.10 2.9 71.31 Part A 55 For the current study, only the first and last parts were used in order to reduce need for factual knowledge on the part of the respondents. These are identified as Parts A and B in order to avoid confusion or direct interchange with George's Parts 1 and #. Subsequent analysis indicated that the use of George's Part 1 alone might well have been sufficient and the results have been included in this report for the possible benefit of future researchers. It is important to describe one major change made in the George questionnaire content. The word "environment" was frequently substituted for the word "conservation." In the period intervening between the 1965 George study and this in 1978, the word environment has become the all-encompassing term for human surroundings and also, when modified by such words as protection and impact, for the interaction of humans with their surroundings (Bozardt, 1976). This last, the interaction, is the role formerly filled by the word conservation. In state-level curriculum considerations for Michigan schools, conservation education has been relegated to a position secondary to and indeed only a part of environmental education (Governor's Task Force, 1973; M.E.E.R.C., 1978). Conservationists have become environmentalists in many of our institutional proceedings. Conservation has gradually come to refer to use of resources within the overall considera- tions of "the environment." Thus the substitution of words, where appropriate, was an effort to keep up with changes in 56 the living language and an effort to avoid narrow interpre- tation of statements where a broader interpretation was desired. Item analysis was considered as an attempt to evalu— ate the effects of this wording change. External validation would then have been necessary (Babbie, 1973). It was decided that these two valuations would not be truly meaning- ful unless paired questionnaires were administered to paired sample audiences drawn in 1978. As the change effects were not an essential purpose of the study, it was decided that such analyses could be omitted without invalidating the measuring device. There was also some concern that the intensification referred to by George, and subsequently evident in this report, would mask effective item evaluation anyway. The comparative results presented later indicate both deductively and intuitively that the effects are probably minimal. Scoring procedure for the Attitude Measure followed that of the George study including examples as follows. Method of Scoring In an effort to further explain and identify the nature of the statements, as revised, in each of the four parts of the questionnaire, attention is directed to two sample statements from each part. Associated with each is an example of the method of scoring. The following examples show the first and eleventh statement for each part of the questionnaire. The underlined response indicates full agreement with a most favorable attitude toward conservation. 57 Part 1 (white page): SA-Strongly Agree; A-Agree: U-Undecided; D—Disagree: SD-Strongly Disagree: SA A U D SD 1. Progress in our country will be retarded if we use effective conservation measures. SA A U D _D 11. The subject of conservation just doesn't interest me. Part 2 (pink page): SA A U D SD 17. Hunting is very poor conservation. SA A U D SD 27. When a forest is managed for conservation purposes, it means that no trees should be cut. Egrt 3 (green page): SA A U D SD, 33. A man should be allowed to use his land as he sees fit. SA A U D SD 43. An effective method to bring about conservation measures is to prove to the farmer that they will make the farmer more prOSperous. Part 4 (yellow page): SA A U D SD 49. I am only concerned with our present standard of living. Future genera- tions will be able to take care of their own. SA A U D SD 59. To practice conservation within the home is too time consuming. In scoring the questionnaire statements, 4 points are given for each item that is in full agreement with the underlined response. Thus, a participant selecting all the responses as underlined, would receive a total of 32 points for the eight items. If, for example, the response of Agree (A) was selected for all eight items, the scoring would be one point for each of seven items and 3 points for the item numbered 43, making a total score of 10 points. A response of Undecided (U) is scored with 2 points, being just two steps removed from full agreement with the Strongly Disagree (SD) or Strongly Agree (SA) response, and would give a total score of 16. 58 The full agreement responses are indicated on the sample questionnaire in Appendix A. The frequency distri- bution of responses for each statement, numbered 14 through 45 on the 1978 questionnaire, is tabulated in Table 3. Inspection of individual questionnaires revealed that the Low and Very Low reSponses were well scattered among reSpon- dents and did not consistently emanate from the same individuals. The Attitude Measure contains a total of 32 state- ments. As each reSponse has a maximum score of four points, the total possible score for the Attitude Measure is 128. A maximum score would then reflect very strong agreement or very strong disagreement with each statement. The midpoint, the Undecided response, chosen throughout would offer a total score of 64. Scores on the Attitude Measure ranged from a low of 74 to a high of 124. As reported in Table 2, the Mean of 102.30 was accompanied by a Standard Deviation of 13.82. This mean is strongly supported by a Median of 102.40 and an unduplicated Mode of 103. Adjustment of the mean to a base of 100 gives the mean percentage score of 79.92. This score is in keeping with the self-selection for interest in the subject area. Distribution of scores throughout the range was very broad, producing a rather flat distribution curve, thus departing considerably from a normal distribution as indicated by a kurtosis of 23.7. This was the first indication that RESPONSES TO ATTITUDE MEASURE STATEMENTS-- 59 TABLE 3. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION Favorability Percent (N=122) Statement Mean Number {35y Low Med. High KEEN Score 14 4.1 18.0 5.7 43.4 28.7 2.75 15 .8 1.6 . . . 16.4 81.1 3.75 16 1.6 14.8 22.1 29.5 32.0 2.75 17 .8 4.1 9.0 53.3 32.8 3.13 18 .8 7.4 8.2 47.5 36.1 3.11 19 .8 5.7 10.7 50.0 32.8 3.08 20 106 908 106 [+501 #108 3016 21 .8 9.0 4.9 52.5 32.8 3.07 22 1.6 4.1 9.8 53.3 31.1 3.08 23 1.6 8.2 13.1 54.9 22.1 2.88 24 . . . . . . .8 34.4 64.8 3.64 25 3.3 9.8 51.6 35.2 3.19 26 . . 7.4 9.0 51.6 32.0 3.08 27 .8 2.5 4.1 63.1 29.5 3.18 28 7.4 9.0 14.8 45.9 23.0 2.68 29 . . . . . . . . 27.0 73.0 3.73 30 . . . . . .8 27.0 72.1 3.71 31 .8 2.5 1.6 50.0 45.1 3.36 32 . . 2.5 2.5 70.5 24.6 3.17 33 4.1 . . . 41.0 54.9 3.47 34 . . . 1.6 4.1 60.7 33.6 3.26 35 . . . 3.3 4.9 67.2 24.6 3.13 36 . . . .8 4.1 65.6 29.5 3.24 37 . . . . . . . . 27.9 72.1 3.72 38 1.6 .8 1.6 45.9 50.0 3.42 39 1.6 .8 23.0 51.6 23.0 2.93 40 . . . .8 .8 58.2 40.2 3.38 41 .8 4.1 8.2 55.7 31.1 3.12 42 .8 1.6 5.7 67.2 24.6 3.13 43 .8 1.6 4.1 62.3 31.1 3.21 44 . . 4.1 6.6 62.3 27.0 3.12 45 .8 .8 4.1 36.9 57.4 3.49 60 what might have been anticipated to be a fairly homogeneous group would prove to be quite heterogeneous. In addition to its use as an established instrument for measuring attitudes of groups such as TES Teachers, the Attitude Measure was intended to be used to compare the similar group measured in the 1965 George study. The 1965 group was described as ". . . teachers and leaders who had not had the conservation workshop experience." (George, 1966, p. 36) This group, upon entry to the work- shop, would be directly comparable to the 1978 TES workshop group. Participants from the preceding year’s workshop (1964) were asked ". . . to choose a person in their area of interest who had never attended the workshop." (George, 1966, pp. 36-7) These persons would then complete George's atti- tude survey. This group offered an unusual opportunity for comparison and for testing the discriminatory ability of the attitude measuring instrument. Although the no-workshop teachers had not self-selected for interest nor committed themselves to workshop attendance, it is reasonable to assume that those completing the questionnaire and returning it would be likely candidates for subsequent workshop attend- ance. This assumption is supported by the Table 4 data which indicates that colleague influence was the dominant factor in 1978 TES attendance. 61 TABLE 4. TES ATTENDANCE INFLUENCE, 1978 Influence % selecting (N=122) Colleagues 48.4 Scholarship availability 27.0 Meeting academic requirements 24.6 Other 15.6 Mailed notice 12.3 Newsletters 10.7 Administrative encouragement 5.7 While not a control group in the customary sense, the no—workshop group offers a tighter control for discriminating between those who might attend and those who actually do attend. If the no-workshop group scores are lower than both of the other group scores, there is then a strong suggestion that the Attitude Measure is a valid instrument, measuring what it is purported to measure. In addition to simple descriptive statistics, compar- ative analyses were performed using basic inferential pro- cedures. To determine if a difference between two mean scores was statistically significant, the null hypothesis of equality and Student's t tests were applied. As the publish- ed George data was properly concerned with the overall test instrument rather than its parts, variances for the several sections were not included. Therefore a reasonable procedure 'KT‘ ll‘ 'r1 62 for comparison was devised and t calculations were then performed. A description of this procedure and its rationale are included in Appendix D. The results of these comparative analyses are presented in Table 5. Additionally, employees of the Department of Natural Resources were measured both in 1978 and in 1965 so that comparative analyses of these groups were also made and are shown in Table 6. The Department of Natural Resources was known in 1965 as the Conservation Department with a somewhat narrower range of reSponsibilities. The possible effects of this are noted later. Unfortunately, the 1965 group offered no DNR no- workshop comparison. However, certain intuitive interpre- tations may be tentatively made by comparing the two data arrays for Teachers and DNR employees. It would appear that attitudes of 1978 TES Teachers as measured with this instrument are Significantly different statistically from those of 1965 TES teachers in both groups. This difference may be viewed as not very great with only modest significance. Because of the uncertainty of the statistical base, it is quite possible that a Type I Error would occur if the null hypothesis of equality were rejected, however. Therefore it is reasonable to assert only that the 1978 p0pulation showed an increase in score of 2.83 points over a 1965 population of teachers without workshop exper- ience, an increase of 2.8 percent, and a decrease of 2.46 points below a 1965 population of teachers immediately after 63 om.o om.o Ho.o mozNOfiMHnmflm om.a Ho.fi ma.m mm mama op Hmsem mm mama .msam> » .mHm .Nwm .nmm Soocmum mo mmmnmmc mm.H mm.H mm.H mononmmman came mamemm mm.oma mm.oma mm.omfi mm mama op Assam mm mean .mosmasm> emaoog oH.o no.0 Ho.o mofidcamflGMwm mm.fi No.m Hm.: mm umsowpnomonm .csam> P .mam .Nom .Smm - aocomum mo mmmpwmo Nw.H NN.H oH.H mononommflu same mamemm mm.o¢~ 3m.HNH on.mm om concepnomonm .mocmwam> cmaoom mm.~ + ws.m mm.nH om.moa mma scene we mnmaommp mama mm.m + Sm.m om.eoH Hem scene as msmnommp moms Se.m us.am mm nonmanos escapas mpmaommp moms zapswpmmma anszwpmuaa supswpmema mm cum: 2 one: mead znpcm mwmfi one: mwmfi m + < m + ¢ mmma OB mwma .zomHmdmsoo mmoom mnDBHBB< z¢m2 mmmoi.,>O.. (— vi....L.“HC. L... “if HWJ....111.H1. C . - . l lllIl-ll’IILI» I‘llln'l A u, H I: l . l L . . . /.4 _ .1 a _,,. _ 1 tr e r. . V ‘\.¢ 714.1 . . . . _u. u _ . e an I. a 4 1. .fi . . .< L f. ,. . . l. . . A . x. . I . a .rV L a i I a I: ..-llll i II II II II - - x c s \ I ' \ I . t . \ x . . . . . . O s C \ 1 . .r i . Ii . -Jl It -1 ll . . _ _ . . ‘ a . , _\ . .\ \y u u . o _ e . . . l . I .. i I i l . i .. Illiili " _ e t , u . . _ t . . .a . ,I .l .l li-..l.li ll. - Ill lilil . .. .... 64 TABLE 6. DNR MEAN ATTITUDE SCORE COMPARISON, 1965 TO 1978 N MeanB ASD B 1965tgntry 1978 entry 1965 DNR at entry 66 105.81 8.47 1978 DNR at entry 28 97.04 8.36 - 8.77 pooled variance, pr0portioned SD 71.20 sample mean difference 1.90 degrees of freedom 92. t value, proportioned SD - 4.62 significance 0.01 pooled variance, 1965 SD equal to 1978 SD 69.89 sample mean difference 1-89 degrees of freedom 92. t value, 1965 equal to 1978 SD - 4.64 significance 0.01 65 arrival at the TES, a decrease of 2.3 percent. However, the score differences do indicate that the Attitude Measure as administered is a valid instrument with continuing utility for comparative purposes. The DNR employees show a marked decrease, using this measuring instrument, which is statistically very significant even if the derived values lack somewhat in desired accuracy. The two groups are not wholly comparable. The scope of the Department of Natural Resources expanded along with its change in name from Conservation Department. The broader range of activities doubtless affected the personnel charac— teristics. A sampling of all personnel, although emphasizing field employees, attends the TES. There is also some likeli- hood that the occasional change in terminology from "conser- vation" to "environment" may have had a greater effect on the employees of the Department of Natural Resources than it did on the Teachers. By using the Teachers data as a reference framework, one might infer with confidence that Conservation Department employees entered the 1965 workshop experience with not only higher attitude scores but also more strongly held attitudes than did the 1978 group, a decline during the period of about 8.3 percent. Despite the unavoidable weaknesses of this compara- tive analysis, the Attitude Measure offers a base line reference for measurement and comparison of subsequent TES groups. 66 The first operational proposition, Assumption 1, stated that: An existing attitude measuring instrument will reliably measure the environmental attitudes of teachers who have self-selected for their interest in environmental educa- tion. The analysis of comparative data indicates that the measuring instrument used in this survey may be expected to measure attitudes in a consistent manner. There is insuf- ficient comparative data available to indicate conclusively that the instrument will reliably show differences between groups: there may in fact be little real difference between the two entry groups measured. The high kurtosis of the frequency distribution showing a broad and fairly flat curve may suggest a weak instrument. However, the SD of the mean would suggest that the instrument is not at fault but rather that the total population measured is more heterogeneous than homogeneous in its attitudes with the instrument remaining a reasonable measure of the individual's attitudes. The validity of the instrument is partially confirmed by compar- isons of the three groups. Perusal of the literature, as reviewed by George and subsequent material by this researcher, would indicate that this attitude measuring instrument is at least adequately effective for similar populations and has the special virtue of offering a reasonably sound comparison through an impor- tant time span. Hypothesis 5 stated: There is no significant differ- ence in attitudes between the selected population of 1978 and 67 a similar population of 1965. The comparative data in Table 5 indicates that assumption of a statistically Significant difference is untenable. The change in raw score value of less than 2.5 percent is insufficient to be considered important. Many workers in environmental education assume that those, including teachers, living in high-density population areas have quite different attitudes toward environmental matters from those living in lower p0pulation density areas. (Bettinghaus, 1977: Bozardt, 1976; Murch, 1971) Often these differences are referred to as urban versus rural. A group- ing commonly expressed when one makes more detailed inquiry is "city-suburb" versus "small town-country." Support for this latter grouping is found later in this report on page 9} [Eta in this study were frequently analyzed to determine if in fact there were statistical differences between the high-density dwellers and the low-density dwellers. In the Attitude Measure, comparison of the 1978 TES Teachers divided into high and low density groups reveals no statistically significant differences, according to t—test procedures, even when the two parts of the Measure are treat- ed separately. One point that may be made as a result of this comparison is that there is considerably less individual variation within the "rural" population of TES Teachers than within the "urban." This data is presented in Table 7. pamoamacwam 962 u .m.z . . . . . . . e m mm.« on.: me.mm Ammv on m mgoom poem m z amm no a ma ooo mm m m s ma.m sm.m mm.mm Amev am mmsmzm .N. mam/«B 69 It was considered desirable to explore simplification of the total measuring instrument to reduce the time necessary for future respondents to complete it. Bivariate correlation procedures were conducted to determine if the first half of the Attitude Measure (Part A, George's Part 1) or the last half (Part B, George's Part 4) might substitute for the 32 item Measure. Pearson's r correlations indicate, as shown in Table 8, that either Part might well take the place of the whole. Perusal of the frequency distributions in Table 3 and the scattergrams for the two correlations lead this researcher to recommend that, should the Attitude Measure be shortened, Part A would offer more useful distri- butions of responses than Part B. ATTITUDE MEASURE--BIVARIATE CORRELATION 70 TABLE 8. OF PARTS A AND B Pearson product-moment correlation (N=123) Pearson's r 0.9589 Part Score A 2 with Total Score r 0'9195 significance of r 0.00001 Standard Error of estimate 2.1088 Pearson's r 0.9545 Part Score B 2 with Total Score r 0'9110 significance of r 0.00001 Standard Error of estimate 2.1088 Pearson's r 0.8306 Part Score A 2 with r I 0.6899 Part score B significance of r 0.00001 Standard Error of estimate 4.1384 71 Environmental Attitude Profile-- MEQE Although this study was centered on a particular group of teachers, the availability of data sampling the entire citizenry of the state of Michigan offered an oppor- tunity to compare the study group with Michigan citizens in general. The TES Teachers are a part of the total Michigan citizenry and experience an affect and behavior interchange with others in their communities. The question posed was: Do these teachers hold environmental attitudes especially different from the general population and, if so, in what way? "The Michigan Public Opinion Survey was undertaken to determine how Michigan residents feel about a variety of community issues . . . "(Kimball, et al., 1977. p- 1). The Michigan Public Opinion Survey (MPOS) was mailed to 21,792 randomly selected Michigan households in late 1975. The questionnaire was to be completed by one adult from each household. Usable responses totalled 13,296, a response of 68 percent, and the statistical error tolerance of the data is less than one percent. The MPOS may be considered a representative sample of Michigan citizens. Of the 55 content items categorized in the MPOS, 12 were selected for inclusion in this study. These 12 included all of the items, eight, which related in a straight- forward fashion to environmental problems and which it would be expected most respondents would so identify either 72 directly or indirectly. Additionally, four items from the MPOS were included which related to perceptions of community spirit and would be expected to reflect the willingness of a community to undertake action to improve its own habitat. It was expected that the TES Teachers groups would consider these t0pics to be generally more serious problems than would an average population sample of the state. Further, it was expected that, although responses would differ in intensity, the relative perceived seriousness of problems would probably follow the same pattern. In other words, a problem seen as SERIOUS by a TES group might be seen as MODERATE by the MPOS sample. A problem seen as MODERATE by a TES group might be seen as NOT a problem by the state- wide sample. The basis for this expectation lay in the self-selective nature of the TES groups. Teacher attendance at a learning session in environmental education demonstrates a concern for the problems and solutions of environmental matters which is probably accompanied by increased intensity of problem ranking. The inherent nature of the TES groups was expected to Show a response-difference in degree but not necessarily in between-item relationships when compared to the MPOS sample population. The composite score distribution for TES Teachers is displayed in Figure 3 with individual item score distribution arrayed in Table 9. Figure 4 displays the composite score distribution for the DNR employees. The similarity between the two groups is particularly striking. 3828’» 28 28 24 22 2O 28 28 24 22 SCOI‘O Figure 3. 3823 28 28 24 22 2O 28 28 24 22 Score Figure 4. 73 O 5 1O 15 2O 25 I Mean - 29. 56 SD - 4.07 Std. Err. - O. 367 9590 C. l. — 1' O. 73 95% C.I. - 32.5% N - 123 MPOS Environmental Topics -- 1978 TES Teachers Composite Score Distribution 0 5 ‘IO -15 20 25 , Mean - 26 .93 ,x" so - 4.63 > Std. Err. — 0.874 95% C.I. — 11.79 I 95% C.I. — $6.669; I N — 23 l I MPOS Environmental Topics -- 1978 TES DNR Employees Composite Score Distribution 74 TABLE 9. MPOS ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS--1978 TES TEACHERS Score Distribution by Percent (N=123) NOT a SLIGHT MODERATE SERIOUS Problem Problem Problem Problem Air Pollution 0.0 3.3 23.6 73.2 Water Pollution 0.0 0.8 11.4 87.8 Water and Sewage Treatment Facilities 0‘0 “'1 32‘5 63'“ Trash and Garbage Collection and 0.0 8.9 43.1 48.0 Disposal Land Use Conflicts 0.8 6.5 39.8 52.0 Citizen Participation in 2.4 15.4 49.6 32.5 Community Decisions Pe0ple Willing to Work for Good of 4.9 16.3 42.3 36.6 Community Community Planning 0.0 15.4 56.9 27.6 Community Spirit and Pride .4.9 26.8 45.5 22.8 Energy Cost 0.0 3.3 16.3 80.5 Energy Supply 0.8 2.4 11.4 84.6 Unnecessary 0.0 4.1 10.6 85.4 Energy Use 75 The comparison of special interest is shown in Figure 5 and it is this latter which will be discussed here. The t0pics in Figure 5 are arranged, not as they were presented in the questionnaire, but in a descending hierarchy as the Teachers viewed them as serious problems. No attempt was made to distinguish between the attitude that "we should do something to correct the problem" and the attitude that "we're doing too much and that's the problem" since such distinctions were not made in the published MPOS survey. The response only indicates perception as "a problem" to be dealt with in some fashion. In Figure 5 the responses of MODERATE and SERIOUS have been collapsed into a Single value for the Teachers since this method was used for the MPOS. Although this data collapse sacrifices accuracy, it is sufficient for present comparison. As anticipated, the Teachers saw the selected problems as more serious than did the general citizenry of the state. Although there appears to be a similarity in the trends of the lines, care must be exercised since this is an artificial ranking and an apparent trend may well be an anomaly of the technique. Also, a general caution is in order regarding the patterns in citizen responses. Several of the MPOS questions and responses may have been influenced by the source of the survey. Note that it is the Michigan Public Opinion Survey, that it is introduced as statewide, conducted by the 76 mm mm mm cm 3 mm mm mm mm hm mm mm mcosocoh eee>o_aEm :20 use 63:03... mm» 5.33:0 5322—2 .... 333. .auceEcozzw mOas. .m 0.53.... me we ms. cm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm .420 aceocoa 0% 9V we mV h— 3 mu mt m¢ ms cm mm 23:6 2.9128.me octet; 9.2.3: .3233: mu. ..Ilolll 3.213563. 9.23:. nee>o.aEm :20 mm -.-:ti..- mum? 3e. 6:328 c.9225. www.m— ll.ll 035 a 3.3m 3:55:50 :33 2 95...; sienn- oco_m_oeo E cotanZEen— 5:20 05.22.... 3325.30 3.3130 00.330 can seat. 322.30 on: 2:3 «23:03. 03.50%. a .325 on: socecw 33:00ch 22:5 xocecw uooo >936 5:33.“ .2 c0233.“. 33>) ‘||I‘.\ 00. on On 0' ON 0 9.35: 3:02;. 3 2:0... .mmm ddO—z aceucea 77 Department of Resource Development (a name easily associated or confused with the state Department of Natural Resources) of Michigan State University, and questions about Public Spending Needs are included in the MPOS. Respondents may well have viewed some of the problems as potential imposition of additional taxes and state government control. At the time of the MPOS distribution, there was considerable publicity about State Land Use Planning and much Opposition to state interference in local affairs was being vocalized, eSpecially in non-industrial communities. Nonetheless, there are two comparisons of special interest: energy and community activity. The TES Teachers viewed the three aspects of energy--cost, supply and use-— as equally serious. Michigan citizens as a whole disagreed. The most ready interpretation is that the Teachers were better informed about declining energy supplies and the role unnecessary energy use plays. The MPOS was answered by adults. With many environmental education programs focused on the problems of energy, it may be possible that young- sters and their teachers are better informed than the parents. It should also be kept in mind that the 1973-75 period saw widespread publicity about citizens' views that the energy shortage was a "conspiracy" and there was a back- ground specter of limitations on personal use of energy supplies. Such variably influential factors as these point up the problems in comparison of data collected during different time periods. 78 The DNR employees were, expectedly, concerned about the energy supply although showing slightly less concern for unnecessary energy use. The small sample of DNR employees should not be considered as depicting a trend for all employees of the Department. The teachers in this study become more like the citizens of the state in their evaluation of communities. There were still important disparities with the Teachers seeing the problems as 70 percent more serious than the citi- zens. The Planning discrepancy has been noted earlier as perhaps being strongly influenced by other factors. The Teachers' opinion may be the result of an elitist view or a theoretical view on the part of the Teachers rather than the personal views of participants. The demographic data Show little inclination by Teachers toward civic group membership (see Table 1). Table 14A,to be presented later, will show that 30 percent of these Teachers do not take part in clean- up campaigns, beautification projects or environmental protection projects. In evaluating communities, the DNR employees appear to take a compromise position between the Teachers and the citizenry as a whole. The small sample size tends to emphasize the changes as displayed in Figure 5. In summary, this comparison shows a Teacher reSponse very different from the general citizenry of the state with the TES Teachers viewing this selection of topics as consid- erably more serious. The decreased concern with the 79 generalized topics regarding communities may be a reflection of the greater ease with which one may focus concern when a topic is well-defined and specifically identifiable. Hypothesis 6 states: There is no significant difference in attitudes between the selected population and a randomly selected sample of Michigan citizens measured in a 1975 research project. The comparative data tabulated and diSplayed in Figure 5 shows that there is a large difference in attitudes toward specific environmental issues and even toward affective aspects of the social community. 80 Environmental Attitude Profile-- "Crisis" View It was posited during questionnaire construction that there would be a difference in the view toward the serious- ness of a problem when that problem is narrowly identified and when it is broadly described. Therefore, a rating ques- tion was posed concerning the overall view of the TES Teach- ers toward environmental problems in general: Ecology and environment have become household words in recent years. How do YOU view the 'environmental crisis' we hear so much about? It must be recognized that there was a strong likeli- hood for bias in responses to this question considering the environment in which the reSponses were made. Figure 6 shows the perception of the TES Teachers in responding to this question. percent perception percent value 0 20 4o 60 so 100 °°d° i 1 8581003 Problem 77.0 3 MODERATE Problem 21.3 2 SLIGHT Problem 1.6 1 NO Problem 0.0 0 Ranking Value: Mean = 2.754; SD= 0.469; 9590 C.l.=1'0.084. 3.1% Figure 6. Environmental “Crisis” View 81 By referring to Figure 2, page 54, one may see that this generalized question received a strong reSponse notice- ably exceeding the scores on the Attitude Measure and the collection of MPOS issues. With the items concerning communities excluded from the MPOS list, there is a closer correSpondence, the specifically identified issues of the MPOS then scaling 95.5. In reviewing the statements of the Attitude Measure, one will find many which call for a response based on expression of a personal value system. The "crisis" view question avoids this problem. It appears that these Teachers' general view of environmental problems is not yet fully supported by adjustments of their personal values. There is, in this comparison of Attitude Measure, MPOS issues and general view, support for the contention that identified issues receive stronger opinion reSponse than generalized statements. Yet this comparison also demonstrates that response strength varies significantly when expression of the respondent's personal value system is involved. This is in accord with Schoenfeld's discussion of filters (1975, p. 23) emphasizing attitude reversal potential as a result of the personal-value impact. It also exemplifies the potential effects of cognitive dissonance on environmental problem evaluation as discussed by Feather (1963), with a conflict between simplistic idealism and personal human involvement in the problem as noted by Murch (1971, discussed by Sellers and Jones, 1973. P. 54). 82 Further exploration of this point inquires: "Do your friends share your view?" and "Do family members share your view?" The first was intended to determine if environmental views played any particular part in the selection of friends and the second to indicate how influential a TES Teacher was in influencing other members of the family. By referring to Figure 7 one may see that both tend to receive a middle-ground response. Table 10 illustrates the more specific breakdown. By looking at each respondent, with the aid of the computer, and averaging the agreement of friends and family members for the individual Teacher, the middle-ground position is even more striking. From this data it becomes apparent that these Teachers are not eSpecially influential within their own families and either do not choose friends based on corresponding views about the environ— ment or are not particularly influential upon them, or both. This, then, poses a further question: If these individuals with strong views about the seriousness of envir— onmental problems have such modest influence upon their families, can they be expected to have a strong influence on their students? Hess and Torney (1968, p. 15) make the point that: . . teachers are important representatives of the attitudes toward which children are socialized. They also transmit ideals of citizen behavior and teach some of the skills necessary to fill these requirements . . . 83 scale Family (1.364: 8.4%) Friends (1.174 16.5%) Average. Family Plus Friends (1.0501‘ 7.3 96) No Some Yes Figure 7. Mean Agreement of Friends and Family TABLE 10. AGREEMENT OF FRIENDS AND FAMILY _ Family (N—121) Friends NO SOME YES Totals NO 008 008 e e 0 1'7 Friends SOME 5.0 41.3 33.1 79.3 YES 2.5 5.0 11.6 19.0 Family Totals 8.3 47.1 44.6 10.43; df = 4; signif. = 0.03 0.208 Chi Square Cramer's V Gamma = 0.31 ’ Kendall's tau b = 0.145: signif. = 0.049 Pearson's r = 0.136: signif. = 0.068 Eta square = 0.038 84 Environmental Attitude Profile-- Content Perception There has often been difficulty with attempts at the definition of environmental education, among teacher groups as well as others. Stapp: et al., in 1971, emphasized the biophysical environment. Many others, both before and after, have also emphasized the biological and physical aspects of the earth as the central focus of education about the environment. Deve10pment of the environmental concept in other disciplines such as sociology and economics has led advocates of environmental conservation such as George (1979) to adopt a view of holism, that environmental education has a reality independent of and greater than the sum of its parts. In 1973, the Michigan Department of Education described a nearly holistic approach to environmental education. The more appropriate approach, however, is for environmental concepts to be integrated throughout the curriculum, emphasizing man's total environment. While terms such as "conservation education," "outdoor educa- tion," and "nature study" are used by some educators, environmental education is more than this. It is a process. It is learning how to deal with environmentally associated problems. Environmental education is inter- disciplinary, with its content drawn from all fields-- the humanities, social sciences, economics, psychology, the biological and physical sciences, etc. Environment- al education is total and comprehensive in its scope: it is part of all subject areas and should be included at all grade levels. (Michigan Department of Education, 19739 Pp' “‘50) It was considered especially desirable to determine the perceptions of the 1978 Teachers' Environmental School teachers as to the content of environmental education. To arrive at some determination of the scope perceived by the 85 TES Teachers, the list of topics in item 1 of the question— naire was synthesized. The specific subject titles selected were derived from several sources (see Appendix E). These listings often used broad titles such as "social sciences," phrases such as "cultural and economic dimensions," clauses and whole sentences to delineate the scope of environmental education. An integrated assembly of these listings produced 69 subject areas. In order to reduce this list to a manageable size and clarify the topics into titles with easily recognizable specificity, the 69 subject area listing was subjectively correlated with listings of academic and non-academic subject titles from several local school districts, intermediate school districts, community colleges and universities. The distinctions between subject areas were sometimes difficult to draw and are to that extent arbitrary. In the end, the topics were titled as the researcher anticipated they would be distinct in the minds of the respondents. The resultant school-subject list is considered representative of the range of subjects readily identifiable by most educational institutions and teachers and included by state, national and international organizations within the scope of environmental education. Response to such a list does not, of course, measure holistic perception. It does, however, measure a perceived scope of environmental education and thus the potential for a holistic view. 86 The percentage of individual Teachers including each topic in their perception of the scope of environmental education is presented in Figure 8. The listing is by descending rank. The average of somewhat more than half of the topics offered was heavily weighted by those who selected all 28 topics. For a more useful representation of the distribution, an inclusion density histogram was developed and is presented in Figure 9. From this it can be seen that the second most popular number of topics included within the scope of envi— ronmental education was 12. The obvious conclusion is that, although 13 percent of these Teachers view environmental education as encompassing all subject areas, most have a very unholistic view. With the appearance in Figure 9 of a second distri- butional mode, it seemed desirable to determine if there was some consistency in the topics selected at this level-- perhaps there might be a "threshold" of holism perception potential. Topic p0pularity was explored at the mode 12. To accommodate minor differences which would be expected, modes 11 and 13 were also analyzed to determine a range for each t0pic. The results are displayed graphically in Figure 10. Although there is some degree of consistency in the "t0p 8" choices, subsequent variation in t0pic selections is widely distributed. Even in the top 8 there is notable variability. The small number of respondents precludes projection of these latter findings to a larger population. 87 percent of respondents Including 0 20 40 so so too Conservation Ecology Nature Study Outdoor Education BIOIOgy Botany Geology Zoology Agriculture Geography Chemistry Economics Health Science Nutrition Animal Husbandry History Vocational Education Family Management Business Physics Sociology Physical Education Political Science Art Math Psychology Language Music 0 2O 40 60 80 100 Score — Maximum 28 (N=123) Mean— 16.17 Range 4 to 28 s o - 6.72 95%C.l.1' 7.41: Figure 8. Perceived Content By Topic 27 23. 16. umbmwNNooNdummmwmmuhflommflmb 100.0 98. 97. 96. 93. 87. 87. 83. 76. 66. 62. 54. 53. 52. 48. 45. 44. 43. 40. 39. 39. 38. 38. 33. 27. 88 20 18 All Teacher Respondents (N=123) 16 12 r- "3.0“.” ON&QO -r-l"| N O N aaxsseezeea * ° Number of Topics Figure 9. Perceived Content Inclusion Density 89 percent including 0 1O 20 30 40 50 80 '4. mode 12 mean (N=15) 0—-0 modes 11 to 13 rangeIN=28)i---IP P-- h--- --1 ...... ... P ....... --.-d ----------- 4 - an ----.-- -4 .......... ... F.-- ---4 ...q ........ .g ----- --4 ----4 70 80 90100 Conservation Ecology Nature Study Outdoor Education Biology Botany Geology Zoology Agriculture Geography Chemistry Economics Health Science Nutrition Animal Husbandry History Vocational Education Family Management Business Physics Sociology Physical Education Political Science Art Math Psychology Language Music 0102030405080NNOO100 Figure 10. Perceived Content Tapic Popularity ATTITUDE MEASURE--BIVARIATE CORRELATION 70 TABLE 8. OF PARTS A AND B Pearson product-moment correlation (N=123) Pearson's r 0.9589 Part Score A 2 with Total Score r 0'9195 Significance of r 0.00001 Standard Error of estimate 2.1088 Pearson's r 0.9545 Part Score B 2 with Total Score r 0'9110 significance of r 0.00001 Standard Error of estimate 2.1088 Pearson's r 0.8306 Part Score A 2 with r 1 0.6899 Part Score B significance of r 0.00001 Standard Error of estimate 4.1384 71 Environmental Attitude Profile-- MEQE Although this study was centered on a particular group of teachers, the availability of data sampling the entire citizenry of the state of Michigan offered an oppor- tunity to compare the study group with Michigan citizens in general. The TES Teachers are a part of the total Michigan citizenry and experience an affect and behavior interchange with others in their communities. The question posed was: Do these teachers hold environmental attitudes especially different from the general population and, if so, in what way? "The Michigan Public Opinion Survey was undertaken to determine how Michigan residents feel about a variety of community issues . . . "(Kimball, et al., 1977. P. 1). The Michigan Public Opinion Survey (MPOS) was mailed to 21,792 randomly selected Michigan households in late 1975. The questionnaire was to be completed by one adult from each household. Usable responses totalled 13,296, a response of 68 percent, and the statistical error tolerance of the data is less than one percent. The MPOS may be considered a representative sample of Michigan citizens. Of the 55 content items categorized in the MPOS, 12 were selected for inclusion in this study. These 12 included all of the items, eight, which related in a straight- forward fashion to environmental problems and which it would be expected most respondents would so identify either 72 directly or indirectly. Additionally, four items from the MPOS were included which related to perceptions of community spirit and would be expected to reflect the willingness of a community to undertake action to improve its own habitat. It was expected that the TES Teachers groups would consider these topics to be generally more serious problems than would an average population sample of the state. Further, it was expected that, although responses would differ in intensity, the relative perceived seriousness of problems would probably follow the same pattern. In other words, a problem seen as SERIOUS by a TES group might be seen as MODERATE by the MPOS sample. A problem seen as MODERATE by a TES group might be seen as NOT a problem by the state- wide sample. The basis for this expectation lay in the self-selective nature of the TES groups. Teacher attendance at a learning session in environmental education demonstrates a concern for the problems and solutions of environmental matters which is probably accompanied by increased intensity of problem ranking. The inherent nature of the TES groups was expected to show a response—difference in degree but not necessarily in between-item relationships when compared to the MPOS sample population. The composite score distribution for TES Teachers is displayed in Figure 3 with individual item score distribution arrayed in Table 9. Figure 4 displays the composite score distribution for the DNR employees. The similarity between the two groups is particularly striking. 36 32 3O 2 8 26 24 22 2O 28 26 24 22 Score Figure 3. 3823 28 26 24 22 20 28 26 24 22 Score Figure 4. 73 fiO 5 1O 15 2O 25 Mean - 29. 56 SD - 4.07 Std. Err. — 0. 367 9590 C. I. - 1' O. 73 95% C.I. — 32.5% N — 123 MPOS Environmental Topics -- 1978 TES Teachers Composite Score Distribution n 5 1o .15 20 25 1 M93" - 26 .93 ,x" so — 4.63 > Std. Err. - 0.874 95% C.I. - 1:1. 79 i 95% C.I. - 26.66% I N — 28 l I MPOS Environmental Topics -- 1978 TES DNR Employees Composite Score Distribution 7% TABLE 9. MPOS ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS--1978 TES TEACHERS Score Distribution by Percent (N=123) NOT a SLIGHT MODERATE SERIOUS Problem Problem Problem Problem Air Pollution 0.0 3.3 23.6 73.2 Water Pollution 0.0 0.8 11.# 87.8 Water and Sewage Treatment Facilities 0'0 4'1 32-5 63.4 Trash and Garbage Collection and 0.0 8.9 43.1 48.0 DiSposal Land Use Conflicts 0.8 6.5 39.8 52.0 Citizen Participation in 2.4 15.h #9.6 32.5 Community Decisions People Willing to Work for Good of 4.9 16.3 42.3 36.6 Community Community Planning 0.0 15.4 56.9 27.6 Community Spirit and Pride .4.9 26.8 95.5 22.8 Energy Cost 0.0 3.3 16.3 80.5 Energy Supply 0.8 2.# 11.4 84.6 Unnecessary 0.0 4.1 10.6 85.4 Energy Use 75 The comparison of special interest is shown in Figure 5 and it is this latter which will be discussed here. The tOpics in Figure 5 are arranged, not as they were presented in the questionnaire, but in a descending hierarchy as the Teachers viewed them as serious problems. No attempt was made to distinguish between the attitude that "we should do something to correct the problem" and the attitude that "we're doing too much and that's the problem" since such distinctions were not made in the published MPOS survey. The response only indicates perception as "a problem" to be dealt with in some fashion. In Figure 5 the responses of MODERATE and SERIOUS have been collapsed into a single value for the Teachers since this method was used for the MPOS. Although this data collapse sacrifices accuracy, it is sufficient for present comparison. As anticipated, the Teachers saw the selected problems as more serious than did the general citizenry of the state. Although there appears to be a similarity in the trends of the lines, care must be exercised since this is an artificial ranking and an apparent trend may well be an anomaly of the technique. Also, a general caution is in order regarding the patterns in citizen responses. Several of the MPOS questions and responses may have been influenced by the source of the survey. Note that it is the Michigan Public Opinion Survey, that it is introduced as statewide, conducted by the 76 mm mm mm cm 5 mm mm mm mm hm mm mm mcosoooh 3:235 :20 can 63:03... mm... .mcoNEO conic;— II «030... .3:oEco.:>cm wOa—z .m 953.... me mm ms #0 mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 120 acouuoa 0v mt mv mfi t 5‘ am we m? ms vm NM 2.0330 2.913562. 05.35 Cosoooh cog—.022 mm. I'lll manEEduh octet... «2.63:5 :20 mm ...--.tl..- m8. 3.: 552:0 5323.2 mama. ll.II coin. a 2.3m 3:58:80 :33 2 95:3 aloud 2.23000 5 .3233:qu 9.03:0 0553:. 3:58:30 .3235 2:330 use :22... 302230 on: ace.— ofizzoon— oooiom a 33>) on: ausocw booaooocca Ecuam xauocm “woo 3.25 533.9. .2 .3233.“ .033 ‘III‘.\ 00p 00 on 0? ON 0 9.35: 3:03.» 3 Book .mmm ado—2 accuse: 77 Department of Resource Development (a name easily associated or confused with the state Department of Natural Resources) of Michigan State University, and questions about Publig Spending Needs are included in the MPOS. Respondents may well have viewed some of the problems as potential imposition of additional taxes and state government control. At the time of the MPOS distribution, there was considerable publicity about State Land Use Planning and much Opposition to state interference in local affairs was being vocalized, especially in non-industrial communities. Nonetheless, there are two comparisons of special interest: energy and community activity. The TES Teachers viewed the three aspects of energy--cost, supply and use-- as equally serious. Michigan citizens as a whole disagreed. The most ready interpretation is that the Teachers were better informed about declining energy supplies and the role unnecessary energy use plays. The MPOS was answered by adults. With many environmental education programs focused on the problems of energy, it may be possible that young- sters and their teachers are better informed than the parents. It should also be kept in mind that the 1973-75 period saw widespread publicity about citizens' views that the energy shortage was a "conspiracy" and there was a back- ground specter of limitations on personal use of energy supplies. Such variably influential factors as these point up the problems in comparison of data collected during different time periods. 78 The DNR employees were, expectedly, concerned about the energy supply although showing slightly less concern for unnecessary energy use. The small sample of DNR employees should not be considered as depicting a trend for all employees of the Department. The teachers in this study become more like the citizens of the state in their evaluation of communities. There were still important diSparities with the Teachers seeing the problems as 70 percent more serious than the citi- zens. The Planning discrepancy has been noted earlier as perhaps being strongly influenced by other factors. The Teachers' opinion may be the result of an elitist view or a theoretical View on the part of the Teachers rather than the personal views of participants. The demographic data show little inclination by Teachers toward civic group membership (see Table 1). Table 1hA,to be presented later, will show that 30 percent of these Teachers do not take part in clean- up campaigns, beautification projects or environmental protection projects. In evaluating communities, the DNR employees appear to take a compromise position between the Teachers and the citizenry as a whole. The small sample size tends to emphasize the changes as displayed in Figure 5. In summary, this comparison shows a Teacher reSponse very different from the general citizenry of the state with the TES Teachers viewing this selection of topics as consid- erably more serious. The decreased concern with the 79 generalized topics regarding communities may be a reflection of the greater ease with which one may focus concern when a topic is well-defined and specifically identifiable. Hypothesis 6 states: There is no significant difference in attitudes between the selected population and a randomly selected sample of Michigan citizens measured in a 1975 research project. The comparative data tabulated and displayed in Figure 5 shows that there is a large difference in attitudes toward specific environmental issues and even toward affective aspects of the social community. 80 Environmental Attitude Profile—- "Crisis" View It was posited during questionnaire construction that there would be a difference in the view toward the serious- ness of a problem when that problem is narrowly identified and when it is broadly described. Therefore, a rating ques- tion was posed concerning the overall view of the TES Teach— ers toward environmental problems in general: Ecology and environment have become household words in recent years. How do YOU view the 'environmental crisis' we hear so much about? It must be recognized that there was a strong likeli- hood for bias in responses to this question considering the environment in which the responses were made. Figure 6 shows the perception of the TES Teachers in responding to this question. percent perception percent value 0 20 40 so so 100 W“ i ] semous Problem 77.0 3 MODERATE Problem 21.3 2 SLIGHT Problem 1.6 1 NO Problem 0.0 0 Ranking Value: Mean = 2.754; SD= 0.469; 95% C.I.=1’0.084, 3.1% Figure 6. Environmental “Crisis” View 81 By referring to Figure 2, page 5h, one may see that this generalized question received a strong response notice- ably exceeding the scores on the Attitude Measure and the collection of MPOS issues. With the items concerning communities excluded from the MPOS list, there is a closer correSpondence, the Specifically identified issues of the MPOS then scaling 95.5. In reviewing the statements of the Attitude Measure, one will find many which call for a reSponse based on expression of a personal value system. The "crisis" view question avoids this problem. It appears that these Teachers' general view of environmental problems is not yet fully supported by adjustments of their personal values. There is, in this comparison of Attitude Measure, MPOS issues and general view, support for the contention that identified issues receive stronger opinion response than generalized statements. Yet this comparison also demonstrates that response strength varies significantly when expression of the respondent's personal value system is involved. This is in accord with Schoenfeld's discussion of filters (1975, p. 23) emphasizing attitude reversal potential as a result of the personal-value impact. It also exemplifies the potential effects of cognitive dissonance on environmental problem evaluation as discussed by Feather (1963), with a conflict between simplistic idealism and personal human involvement in the problem as noted by Murch (1971, discussed by Sellers and Jones, 1973. P. 5h). 82 Further exploration of this point inquires: "Do your friends share your view?" and "Do family members share your View?" The first was intended to determine if environmental views played any particular part in the selection of friends and the second to indicate how influential a TES Teacher was in influencing other members of the family. By referring to Figure 7 one may see that both tend to receive a middle-ground response. Table 10 illustrates the more specific breakdown. By looking at each respondent, with the aid of the computer, and averaging the agreement of friends and family members for the individual Teacher, the middle-ground position is even more striking. From this data it becomes apparent that these Teachers are not especially influential within their own families and either do not choose friends based on corresponding views about the environ- ment or are not particularly influential upon them, or both. This, then, poses a further question: If these individuals with strong views about the seriousness of envir- onmental problems have such modest influence upon their families, can they be expected to have a strong influence on their students? Hess and Torney (1968, p. 15) make the point that: . . teachers are important representatives of the attitudes toward which children are socialized. They also transmit ideals of citizen behavior and teach some of the skills necessary to fill these requirements . . . some No Some Yes 83 Family (1.3641 3.4%) Friends (1.174 16.5%) Average. Family Plus Friends ”.0503 7.3 96) Figure 7. Mean Agreement of Friends and Family TABLE 10. AGREEMENT OF FRIENDS AND FAMILY _ Family (NI121) Friends NO SOME YES Totals NO 0.8 0.8 . . . 1.7 Friends SOME 5.0 ”1.3 33.1 79.3 YES 2.5 5.0 11.6 19.0 Family Totals 8.3 #7.1 44.6 Chi square 10 43: df = 4; signif. = 0.03 Cramer's V = 0.208 Gamma = 0.31 Kendall's tau b = 0.145: signif. = 0.0h9 Pearson's r = O. 136; signif. Eta square = 0.038 = 0.068 84 Environmental Attitude Profile-- Content Perception There has often been difficulty with attempts at the definition of environmental education, among teacher groups as well as others. Stapp. et al., in 1971, emphasized the biophysical environment. Many others, both before and after, have also emphasized the biological and physical aspects of the earth as the central focus of education about the environment. Development of the environmental concept in other disciplines such as sociology and economics has led advocates of environmental conservation such as George (1979) to adopt a view of holism, that environmental education has a reality independent of and greater than the sum of its parts. In 1973, the Michigan Department of Education described a nearly holistic approach to environmental education. The more appropriate approach, however, is for environmental concepts to be integrated throughout the curriculum, emphasizing man's total environment. While terms such as ”conservation education," "outdoor educa- tion," and "nature study" are used by some educators, environmental education is more than this. It is a process. It is learning how to deal with environmentally associated problems. Environmental education is inter- disciplinary, with its content drawn from all fields—- the humanities, social sciences, economics, psychology, the biological and physical sciences, etc. Environment- al education is total and comprehensive in its scope; it is part of all subject areas and should be included at all grade levels. (Michigan Department of Education, 1973. pp- 4-5-) It was considered especially desirable to determine the perceptions of the 1978 Teachers' Environmental School teachers as to the content of environmental education. To arrive at some determination of the SCOpe perceived by the 85 TES Teachers, the list of topics in item 1 of the question— naire was synthesized. The specific subject titles selected were derived from several sources (see Appendix E). These listings often used broad titles such as "social sciences," phrases such as "cultural and economic dimensions," clauses and whole sentences to delineate the scope of environmental education. An integrated assembly of these listings produced 69 subject areas. In order to reduce this list to a manageable size and clarify the topics into titles with easily recognizable specificity, the 69 subject area listing was subjectively correlated with listings of academic and non-academic subject titles from several local school districts, intermediate school districts, community colleges and universities. The distinctions between subject areas were sometimes difficult to draw and are to that extent arbitrary. In the end, the topics were titled as the researcher anticipated they would be distinct in the minds of the respondents. The resultant school-subject list is considered representative of the range of subjects readily identifiable by most educational institutions and teachers and included by state, national and international organizations within the scope of environmental education. Response to such a list does not, of course, measure holistic perception. It does, however, measure a perceived s00pe of environmental education and thus the potential for a holistic View. 86 The percentage of individual Teachers including each topic in their perception of the scope of environmental education is presented in Figure 8. The listing is by descending rank. The average of somewhat more than half of the tOpics offered was heavily weighted by those who selected all 28 topics. For a more useful representation of the distribution, an inclusion density histogram was developed and is presented in Figure 9. From this it can be seen that the second most popular number of topics included within the scope of envi— ronmental education was 12. The obvious conclusion is that, although 13 percent of these Teachers view environmental education as encompassing all subject areas, most have a very unholistic view. With the appearance in Figure 9 of a second distri- butional mode, it seemed desirable to determine if there was some consistency in the topics selected at this level-— perhaps there might be a "threshold" of holism perception potential. Topic popularity was explored at the mode 12. To accommodate minor differences which would be expected, modes 11 and 13 were also analyzed to determine a range for each topic. The results are displayed graphically in Figure 10. Although there is some degree of consistency in the "top 8" choices, subsequent variation in topic selections is widely distributed. Even in the top 8 there is notable variability. The small number of respondents precludes projection of these latter findings to a larger population. 87 percent of respondents lncludmg O O 20 4O 6O 8O 20 40 60 80 100 100 Conservation Ecology Nature Study Outdoor Education Biology Botany Geology Zoology Agriculture Geography Chemistry Economics Health Science Nutrition Animal Husbandry History Vocational Education Family Management Business Physics Sociology Physical Education Political Science Art Math Psychology Language Music 100.0 98. 97. 96. 93. 87. 87. 83. 76. 66. 62. 54. 53. 52. 48. 45. 44. 43. 40. 39. 39 . 38. 38. 33. 27 . 27 23. 16. wmoamwNNOON-bqmmmqmmugwommump Score — Maximum 28 (N=123) Mean- 16.17 Range 4 to 28 s o - 6.72 959501.: 7.4:: Figure 8. Perceived Content By Topic 88 20 18 16 14 12 1-1 All Teacher Respondents (N=123) "3.0“.” Tn OD NOQGVNOOO'NO v-v- ON‘QO NuaNNPv-v- Number of Topics Figure 9. Perceived Content Inclusion Density 89 percent including 0102030405060 708090100 ----4 mode 12 mean (N=15) 0—-0 modes 11 to 13 range(N=28)I---1'_ Conservation Ecology Nature Study Outdoor Education 8io|0gy Botany Geology Zoology Agriculture Geography Chemistry Economics Health Science Nutrition Animal Husbandry History Vocational Education Family Management Business Physics Sociology Physical Education Political Science Art Math Psychology Language Music 0102030405060NNOO100 Figure 10. Perceived Content Tepic Popularity 90 It is apparent that the SCOpe of environmental educa- tion is not consistently viewed as all-encompassing or as nearly all-encompassing. There is reason to believe that those with a less than holistic view are not consistent in their perception of the curricular scope. Operational proposition identified as Assumption 2 states that: The teacher-perceived scope of environmental education can be measured using a list of common academic topics. Figures 8 and 9 show that a list of academic topics will demonstrate the scope perceived by a group of teachers, that the range of topics an individual teacher includes may vary from few to all, and that the group distribution may be bimodal with one mode including all of the topics on the list. Figure 10 illustrates that there is little consist- ency of topic choices in the mid-range mode. This list of topics is a useful indicator of the perceived scope of environmental education of a group of teachers. Exploration of the potential for correlation between the strength of the Attitude Measure score and the perceived content score showed a negligible relationship according to the Pearson's product-moment correlation procedure. An r2 value of 0.031, with a significance of 0.053, indicates that high content scores should not be assumed to suggest high attitude scores--nor the reverse. 91 Environmental Attitude Profile-— Consolidated Index It was considered both desirable and useful to consolidate the information gathered about TES Teacher attitudes toward environmental affairs into a single, arbi- trary index for comparison with subsequent data and possible future group or individual measurements. Of the four attitude aSpects measured, two were selected as having continuing utility: Attitude Measure and Perceived Content. The Attitude Measure alone might well serve most purposes. Since teachers with an expressed (by TES attend- ance) interest in environmental education were the subjects, it was deemed important to include their views on the scope of environmental education in any meaningful index. The MPOS issues were excluded because they were subject to strong influence of current events. The overall "crisis" view was a general measure, difficult to support with other data and also highly subject to the vagaries of both current events and the environment of the response arena. Thus only the Attitude Measure and Content Perception were included. The Consolidated Attitude Index was automatically weighted as a consequence of the items and its maximum value was then adjusted to 100 for greater convenience. The following formula for determination of the Index value was used. Attitude Index = (Attitude Measure + Content Perception) 1% H O O\ 92 The maximum possible score on the Attitude Measure was 128 and on Content Perception the maximum was 28. This ratio of about 5 to 1 was considered not excessively dis- proportionate for two reasons. First, attitude was the value of primary interest. Second, content perception is to a great extent a function of cognition. The Teachers attend the TES, it is assumed, to expand their knowledge and, since the Index is intended to measure attitude more than knowledge, weighting is considered desirable to reduce the impact of ignorance. Acceptance of the 5 to 1 ratio is arbitrary and others may prefer a different ratio. Consolidated Attitude Index A, again with a maximum value of 100, is included for its twofold function. First, it represents a reduction of the total Attitude Measure used in this study to partscore A to reflect the alternative acknowledged earlier in the discussion of the Attitude Measure (page 69). Secondly, this reduces the ratio between Attitude Measure and Content Perception to the order of 2.3 to 1 without further manipulation. The acceptance of this latter ratio is again arbitrary but would appear to have advantages when evaluating environmental education teachers. Inclusion of both of these Indexes was deemed sufficient without attempts to further justify either as acceptance of either remains an arbitrary decision. 93 Environmental Attitude Profile-- "Urban" vs "Rural" Several further treatments of data were conducted in an attempt to distinguish between those Teachers living in high population density areas and those living in low population density areas. Again, the artificial distinctions of urban and rural being equated with city-suburb and small town-country should be noted. Of course, more clearly defined distinctions might have been made, but general perceptions were sought in this study and the artificial categories were considered adequate. To verify or refute the researcher's initial assump- tion as to the label equivalency, six Teachers were chosen randomly at each of the four sessions, after the question- naire was administered, and asked variations of the following question: If you were going to divide place of residence into urban and rural instead of city, suburb, small town and country, how would you group them? At the time, the question was considered more academic curiosity than applicable, and trivial to this study. Its relevance only became evident during the processing of data and analysis of survey significance. Asking the question in an organized manner was a serendipitous product of academic training and demand for thoroughness in the process of investigation. The answers were, without exception, to place city and suburb into the urban category and the small town and country into the rural category. 94 The results of data analysis for each attitude area are presented in Table 11. In no instance were differences between the two groups of any statistical significance. In the area of attitudes, at least, there would appear to be no distinctions which may be readily drawn to distinguish the two groups. A similar set of comparisons was also made between the Teachers group and the DNR employees. In each area, the Teachers scored consistently higher by from 5 to 17 percent with the differences being statistically either significant or very significant. An important qualification should be made in interpreting these differences. Earlier in this report the point was made that greater knowledge appeared to correlate with less strongly held attitudes (Kupchella and Levy, 1975). It may well be that the lower DNR scores reflect less strongly held views as a consequence of these individuals being better informed. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 12. 5 9 psmoHHHcmHm 902 u .m.z . . . . . . . m.m no.m mm.m mm.mn Hmmv 6H xmmzH moseHeea m z mom NH 0 moH Hoo an m N.: nH.m om.mH mH.on Hmov Hm mmeaoHHomzoo . . . . . . m.oH mw.H mm.w ms.mH Hmmv oH ZOHemmommm m 2 0mm mo mHH mom an H H.HH sm.H mm.n mm.oH Hmov H: Hzmezoo . . . . . . o.m sH.o mm.o mu.m Hmmv 6H m z sow mm mHH moo cm H m.m HH.o ms.o an.m Hmov H: 3mH> .mHmHmo= . . . .- . . s.m mo.H um.m mm.mm Hmmv 6H mmammH moms m 2 one an mHH Hmm mm H m.m oH.H sm.s as.mm Hmov Hz 20 mZOHszo . . . .1 . . . m.m om.m mm.m mm.NoH Hmmv 0H m z HHm HH n no ooo mm m m.: mm.: NH.uH mm.moH Hmwv Hm mmom =zzm .HH mqm¢9 96 Homo o.o mm.m om.o om.oo mzo xmozH mQDEHae< .m.> mHo. Ho.m ooH omH. Ho.H HmmHv ome NCO. hfiom wdfi OWH. miofi ANNHV 3mH> :mHmHmU: H.m oo.o mo.o mo.m meonomoe Homo m.o mu.H no.3 mo.om mzn mmpmmH moms .m.> moo. Ho.m ooH mmm. om.H HmmHv zo monszo m.m mo.o no.6 om.om mnogowoa m m m n no Homo . mm. o .o so. mzo o.m o:.m mm.mH om.moH meonomos & 1 Ho + momdov .mHm o p Ho 6 H mm coo: pHmsoo .H.o «no .NH mflm¢a momhoamsm mzm mma m> whonomme mme numflHmomm mnDeHBe< Hzm CHAPTER VII PERSONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROFILE The teachers attending the 1978 Teachers' Environ- mental School, according to measures in this study, have a rather strong set of attitudes favoring environmental conservation. They also view environmental issues as moderate or serious problems deserving of attention. The question then to be asked was: Are the personal actions of these TES Teachers in consonance with their attitudes? Several levels of activity were explored ranging from public demonstrations of concern to private, anonymous actions. The profile of personal environmental actions shown in Figure 11 was derived from the data in Table 13. Figure 11 has been incorporated into Figure 1. 97 98 percent participation 0 20 4O 60 80 100 Participate in Public Projects Publicly Defend Views Actively Recycle Wastes Attempt to Influence Local Government Attempt to Influence Legislation Attempt to Influence Non- Govt. Institutions Consolidated Action Index Figure 11. Personal Environmental Action Profile 99 6x6» oom* m.oH mH.o No.mm mm.mm NNH wzHHmom1HH6m* o.mH um.o Ho.om no.5m «NH wsHHmom HamsHHm* .<.z HooHio omsomv xaozH oneo< omeoo12oz o.mH HHio owzomv mozmoqmzH o9 omzmaoa m.mm oo.o mmo.o mmm.o mmH ZoHoHoo< o.mH oo.o Hom.o mmm.o NNH mzmH> HaozmzzomH>zm m.mm HHio owcmmv ozmmmm HHoHHmom m.mH mm.o oo.H om.H mNH mcHHmomioHom* N.oH o:.o o:.m om.m mNH msHHooo HumeHHm* o.oo Ho-o owcmmv moomoomm oHHmom zH meomHoHamzm Q¢zommmm .ma mam¢e 100 Personal Action Profile-- Project Participation A question posed to the TES Teachers about their participation in community-type projects, number 71 on the questionnaire, appeared quite modest but offers an interest- ing picture upon elaboration. As the respondents could check more than one of the three activities presented, the several combinations of possible answers were tabulated. The eight possible answers and their frequency of selection are displayed in Table 14A. TABLE 14A. PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC PROJECTS--PRIMARY ORDER Project % Paiiiiéiiting 321i: None 30.1 0 Cleanup campaign 22.8 1 Beautification project 8.1 2 Environmental protection project 4.1 3 Cleanup AND beautification 14.6 4 Cleanup AND protection 5.7 5 Beautification AND protection 1.6 6 Cleanup, beautification AND 13.0 7 env1ronmental protection Other categories could have been used, of course, but the three categories of cleanup campaigns, beautification projects and environmental protection projects were perceived 101 by the researcher as being typically common classifications and sufficiently all-inclusive to offer meaningful responses. No attempt was made to clarify the meaning of environmental protection project: the primary reason for its inclusion was to encompass any activities requiring more intensive "feelings" about the environment than would be required by community cleanup and beautification activities. Caution is needed in the interpretation of reSponses to this item. These projects are generally sponsored and organized by community groups or whole communities. Participation would, then, be dependent on the opportunities available. Lack of participation may well be a function of the community rather than the individual. The public projects item depicted in Figure 11, the overall profile of actions, represents the percentage of all Teachers who indicated any participation in public projects, regardless of type. To evaluate the tendency to participate, a scaling of responses was arbitrarily devised. Any such evaluation is, of course, a combined measure of the individual and the community of residence or employment. It was assumed that cleanup campaigns and participa- tion in them would be most common and participation the easiest, beautification projects less common and requiring more effort, and environmental protection projects uncommon and more demanding. Combinations of these filled out the scale of values from zero to seven. A mean value was computed as a simplistic evaluative tool. 102 Examination of data tabulations indicated that a different rank order might be more apprOpriate. While not refuting the original evaluation order, modifications were introduced to reflect the activity ranking revealed by the data. A new set of scale values was then assigned based on the revised order. This resulted in a self-ordering and self-scaling, established by the respondents, and is presented in Table 14B. The mean value for this self- scaling was computed. Both means are included in Table 13. TABLE 14B. PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC PROJECTS--SELF—SCALED . % Participating Scale PFOJGCt (N=123) Value None 30.1 0 Cleanup campaign 22.8 1 Cleanup AND beautification 14.6 2 Cleanup, beautification AND 13 0 3 environmental protection ' Beautification project 8.1 4 Cleanup AND protection 5.7 5 Environmental protection project 4.1 6 Beautification AND protection 1.6 7 The existence of a self-ordering of activities indicates that future research exploring the reasons behind participation in these kinds of projects, including non- participant judgment of the worth of the activity, would 103 offer valuable insights into the attitudes and social behaviors of similar populations. With 30 percent of the TES Teachers indicating no participation in these kinds of public projects, one is led to conclude that interest in environmental education shown by attendance at the TES does not necessarily indicate the probability of an active role in community-type environment- al projects, either esthetic or protective. Although the qualification of project availability must be maintained, modification of this qualification is appropriate. Strongly interested persons initiate community projects. The lack of community environmental involvement, such as the foregoing examples, would indicate a lack of the necessary leadership, a role which these TES Teachers might be expected to play. The information collected in this study indicates that this group of TES Teachers does not make a notable contribution to such a community leadership role. 104 Personal Action Profile-- Publicly Defend Views There may be limited opportunities to publicly demon- strate active interest in environmental affairs through com— munity participation in environmental "service" projects. There may be more opportunities to simply talk about one's environmental attitude. Do these Teachers take a public stance in defense of their environmental views? Apparently not, since about as many answered "no" as answered "yes" when asked. Perhaps TES Teachers are aware of their limited knowledge and refrain from public airing of their views be- cause they believe they do not have the information necessary to substantiate their position. Or perhaps these Teachers prefer a "low profile." Or perhaps their views are suffi- ciently different from those of the rest of the community that they prefer to avoid conflict with their neighbors. More detailed study of these points would be useful in explor- ing the role environmental education teachers play in influ— encing adults within the community. The relationship between voicing of environmental views publicly and the conduct of environmental education for school youngsters would also be of value in future studies. It is noteworthy that public defense of their environ— mental views is less common than both participation in public projects and the more personal action of recycling wastes, a comparison displayed in Figure 11. 105 Personal Action Profile-- Actively Recycle Wastes Participation in public projects is dependent on the project availability and a generalized community tendency toward such activities. It is reasonable to assume that there is less of this dependency when it comes to waste recycling activity. Few school districts would oppose the organization and conduct of recycling centers within the districts whether or not there were already recycling activities functioning in the associated city, town, township or county--if someone is willing to initiate and conduct the program. Thus a basic assumption is that recycling of paper, bottles and cans is a function of choice for these Teachers. If the opportunities are lacking, teachers are in an excel- lent position to create them and promote their use. Failure to recycle is failure to behaviorally express positive attitudes toward recycling. Table 15A diSplays the responses of these TES Teachers to question 70: Do you regularly recycle any of the follow- ing materials? -- paper, bottles, cans or metal goods. As with the participation in public projects item, an arbitrary scaling of responses was devised. The scaling was based on the assumption that paper would be the easiest to recycle and cans the most difficult. The combinations then completed the scale from zero to seven. The mean value serves as a simplistic indicator of willingness to put effort into recycling wastes. 106 TABLE 15A. ACTIVELY RECYCLE WASTES--PRIMARY ORDER Waste Category % Pafjigggjting 333$: None 36.6 0 Paper 21.1 1 Bottles 5.7 2 Cans 3 Paper AND bottles 22.0 4 Paper AND cans 0.8 5 Bottles AND cans 0.8 6 Paper, bottles AND cans 13.0 7 TABLE 15B. ACTIVELY RECYCLE WASTES--SELF-SCALED Was.e c...gory % Pafjigggjting sgiig None 36.6 0 Paper 21.1 1 Paper AND bottles 22.0 2 Paper, bottles AND cans 13.0 3 Bottles 5.? 4 Paper AND cans 0.8 5 Bottles AND cans 0.8 6 7 Cans 107 Again the responses indicated that a re-ordering and re-scaling might be of value, as in the case of the public projects. Here a decision was made to reverse the positions of two categories in the re-ordering. It appeared that the key item in recycling participation was paper and that a parallel could be drawn with the public projects key-item of cleanup campaign. In addition, the order of these two items was dictated by a single respondent. An intuitive and arbitrary decision, its justification awaits subsequent study. The modified self-ordering and self—scaling is presented in Table 15B. Both means are included in Table 11. Even fewer of these Teachers recycle wastes than participate in public projects, yet they are less dependent on externally offered opportunity. Perhaps the social approval resulting from public participation encourages activity. Again, one is led to the conclusion that interest in environmental education, as indicated by attendance at the TES, does not necessarily indicate a tendency to personally support practices which environmental education programs espouse. 108 Personal Action Profile-- Activity Contingencies It was deemed apprOpriate to explore some of the factors which might have interactive relationships. The first such contingency table analysis arrayed public project participation and waste recycling activity, shown in Table 16. The chi-square value significance suggests that any ordered relationship between the two activities, public and personal, is difficult to detect. Inspection of the cell values in Table 16 indicates that nearly one out of seven of the respondents takes no part in either personal environment- al improvement activities or in socially approved public environmental projects. It would also appear that the tendency of those who do take action is to choose the easiest. The possibility that there might be a positive correlation of statistical significance between participation in public projects and membership in civic organizations was also investigated. A statistical relationship appears to exist. However, the value of Cramer's V indicates the relationship is modest at best and the correlation ratio, eta squared, demonstrates that it would be unwise to place any emphasis on its statistical value. The data is arrayed in Table 17. With more than half of the TES Teachers belonging to no civic groups, it would seem that this group is not particularly inclined to take an active part in organized community activities. 109 TABLE 16. PERSONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION-- CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS, PUBLIC PROJECTS BY RECYCLING (Cell value is percent of total, N=123) No Recycling Paper Paper and Bottles Paper, Bottles and Cans Bottles r Paper and Cans Bottles and Cans Cans No Projects |-‘ U 00 A) c- h) :- Cleanup Campaign \1 b.) 6.5 1.6 5-7 0.8 0.8 Cleanup and Beautify 5-7 2.# 4.9 1.6 Cleanup, Beautify, Protect 3-3 3-3 3-3 1.6 1.6 Beautify 1.6 2.A Cleanup and Protect 3-3 0.8 0.8 0.8 Protect 1.6 0.8 0.8 Beautify and Protect 0.8 Chi square Cramer's V Eta squared = significance = 0.65 110 TABLE 17. PERSONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION—- CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS, PROJECTS BY CIVIC GROUPS Memberships Count Percent Total (N=123) . Action More % None 1 2 3 than 3 No Public 25 7 3 2 ProaectS 20.3 5.7 2.4 1.6 30.1 Cleanup 16 3 8 1 campaign 13.0 2.u 6.5 0.8 22.8 Cleanup 9 4 A 1 and Beautify 7.3 3.3 3.3 0.8 14.6 Cleanup, 7 4 1 2 2 Beautify and ' Protect 5.7 3.3 0.8 1.6 1.6 13.0 3 3 3 1 Beautify 2 A 2 A 2.h 0 8 8 1 Cleanup 3 h and Protect 2.4 3.3 5.7 2 1 2 Protect 1 6 0 8 1.6 4 1 Beautify 2 and Protect 1.6 1.6 Memberships Total % 54.5 21.1 15.u 2.h 6.5 Chi square = h1.35; df = 28; significance = 0.05 Cramer‘s V = 0.290; eta squared = 0.08A 111 Considering that length of residence in a community might play an important part in influencing these Teachers to participate in public projects, the contingencies were devel- oped as displayed in Table 18. Again, statistical correla- tions are negligible. There is an indication, however, through inspection of the table, that length of residence does have some effect. After a sufficient time, there may be some tendency to demonstrate an active interest in the community, providing the project requires only modest effort. 112 TABLE 18. PERSONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION-- CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS, PROJECTS BY RESIDENCE TIME Time Count Percent Total (N=122) Action M o 0‘5 5'10 tfiii 7 years years 10 years No Public 12 10 15 PrOJects 9.8 8.2 12.3 30.3 Cleanup 3 11 1” campaign 2.5 9.0 11.4 23.0 Cleanup 4 3 10 and Beautify 3.3 2.5 8.2 13.9 Cleanup, 3 4 I 9 Beautify and Protect 2.5 3.3 7.4 13.1 2 8 Beautify 1.6 6.6 8.2 Cleanup 2 5 and Protect 1.6 4.1 5.7 2 2 1 Protect 106 106 008 “’01 Beautify 1 1 and Protect 0.8 0.8 1.6 Time Total % 23.8 24.6 51.6 Chi square = 16.84, df = 14; significance = 0.265 Cramer's V = 0.263; eta squared = 0.055 113 Personal Action Profile-- Attempts to Influence Item 72 of the questionnaire distinguished between three different types of organizations which might be influence targets of environmentally interested people: local government policy-making and law-making bodies, the state government law-making body and non-governmental institutions either commercial or not. The manner of communication was specified as some later weighting of responses was anticipat- ed. The response pattern is recorded in Table 19. TABLE 19. ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE % Attempting Target Group to Influence (N=123) Local government 23.6 Legislature 33-3 Non-government 13.8 Further, the respondents were asked to indicate their feelings as to the effectiveness of their attempts to influence--whether the respondents thought such actions were generally worthwhile. Only a generalized evaluation was desired. The results are arrayed in Table 20. 114 TABLE 20. ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE-~PERCEIVED EFFECTIVE Affected Outcome Perception % Target Group No Maybe Yes Local government (N=30) 20 3° 50 Legislature (N=42) 19 55 26 Non-government institution (N=17) 29 47 24 The attempt to influence local government Specified attendance at a meeting. Requiring a personal appearance regarding an issue, while it may have been loosely inter— preted by some respondents, places the individual in a visible position where views become known by several persons other than family and friends. This attempt to influence was considered to have a greater "degree of difficulty" than the other two. Of course, as this may often be a group appear- ance, some measure of anonymity may often be retained. A letter to a legislator doubtless permits the perceived retention of anonymity in most cases. It may, however, require considerable commitment to a point of view to compose a letter attempting to influence a legislator rather than join with social or professional peers in a public appearance, especially if someone else is the spokes- person for the group. 115 Perhaps the perceived potential for effectiveness discourages communication with non-governmental organizations or institutions. Again, anonymity perception may be high. The need for support of an opposition view based on knowledge or other avenues of influence may be perceived as high when communicating with public utilities or business enterprises thus imposing internal limits on the potential for this action. There is considerable difference in the attempts-to- influence participation of these TES Teachers. Opportunity may play a role but non-participation is dominant, offering support to a growing view that these Teachers, although expressing interest in environmental matters, do not take an eSpecially active part in affecting the course of environ- mentally significant events. Do those attempting to influence consider their efforts worthwhile? Table 20 indicates that appearances before a local policy- or law-making body are considered effective. There is less confidence in the effect of a letter on legislation although it is the more popular course of action. The evaluation of effectiveness when attention is directed toward non-governmental bodies decreases, yet the majority of those who made the effort did not consider it necessarily wasted. Considerably larger samples would be necessary to infer more. 116 Personal Action Profile-— Consolidated Index It was judged to be both useful and desirable to consolidate the several categories of information regarding TES Teacher personal actions concerning environmental matters into a single index. This would allow convenient comparison with other data and future group or individual measurements. Of the six action categories, all but one were considered meaningful and of continuing utility. The following formula for determination of the Index value was used. Consolidated Action Index = ((Defend x 7) + (Recycling x 2) + (Local government x 28) + (Legislation x 14) + 199 77 (Non—government x 14)) The maximum value sequence within the formula is 7, 14, 28, 14 and 14. The maximum value of the Consolidated Personal Action Index is 100. The participation in public projects category was judged subject to excessive opportunity influence for consistent use. Although these Teachers might have an important bearing on the occurrence of such projects, there are many variables over which they would have little or no control and which would change depending on the community. It was, therefore, excluded for the index. It may be argued that public defense of environmental 117 views is also a matter of opportunity. This category was retained, although given only half-weight. This reduction was applied first, because interpretation of the item by the respondents could have allowed an affirmative reSponse when the defense was made anywhere, including the classroom, or before a sympathetic audience. Secondly, vocalized views were judged by the researcher to have less significance than actions which required deliberate thought and an input of time and energy. It also appeared that a reduction in value because of reduced opportunity-to-defend would be offset by opportunities-to-proselytize. This inclusion with value reduction appears appropriate to the purpose of the index and within a reasonable range. Whereas public projects are often a matter of oppor- tunity, waste recycling is much more under the control of the individual teacher. Here their own enterprise is the prin— cipal factor since there are institutional means available in a school system to support and expedite recycling programs which may otherwise be unavailable. The more comprehensive the recycling activities, the more value is assigned through the scaling mechanism of this item. Attempts to influence were judged to be positive actions extending beyond customary personal activities and interpersonal exchanges. All three require some knowledge and ability to communicate knowledge. Teachers were assumed to have both. Of course, specific knowledge of an environmental 118 matter may be missing from an individual teacher's repertoire of cognitive skills. However, by education and experience they were judged capable of acquiring the necessary informa- tion on a particular topic which would enable them to voice their views cogently and coherently. The Teachers' Environ- mental School experience would provide an enlarged conceptual framework as well as some Specific skills for application in the school setting. Although one may point to attendance at the TES as recognition of lack of knowledge upon which to base an attempt to influence social, political and economic institutions, it should be pointed out that many of the environmental matters may be approached from the standpoints of social effects, economic effects and political effects, not just biOphysical effects. These Teachers should be able to find sufficient knowledge in at least one of these areas upon which to base an influencing argument. The ability to communicate knowledge is assumed an essential characteristic of a Teacher. The attempt to influence local governing bodies was given double weight in the index. This decision was based on the assumption that it requires more knowledge, more commitment and more time than the other attempts to influence. The high visibility of this action was deemed worthy of considerably more weight than the personal action of recycling as the latter would take place either privately or within the more comfortable structure of the professional sphere. The other two attempts to influence were considered 119 less demanding than the local government attempt and were thus given "base" weighting. The Index values in Table 13 display both the primary scaling and the self-scaling effect when the Index value is computed using the two values of the waste recycling item. It is the judgment of the researcher that the use of self—scaling values has less utility than an arbitrary scale in the evaluation of this and other groups which may be studied in the future. Re-ordering based on group valuation at the time of measurement creates analysis complications which seem to offer little benefit. It will be of value to reassess the scaling system for this item when the effects of bottle and can return laws become established. The bottle and can return laws may well place these item classifications in positions of approximately equal scale value and could, in fact, make separation of items of little or no signifi— cance in a valuation index. Subsequent research will be of assistance in clarifying this point. The Consolidated Action Index is considered suffi- ciently reliable and useful for comparative purposes within the scope of this survey. It includes both verbal and physical (through verbal reSponse) expressions of a position on environmental matters and emphasizes overt behaviors. The items and weighting within the Index formula will affect its general utility for other researchers. 120 Personal Environmental Action-- Correlation with Attitude In an effort to determine if there was a correlation of statistical significance between the attitudes and the personal actions of these TES Teachers, a bivariate correla- tion procedure was performed. indicate, as shown in Table 21, Pearson's r correlations that there is little or no correlation between the indexes used for the comparison. TABLE 21. ATTITUDE AND ACTION-~BIVARIATE CORRELATION Pearson product-moment correlation (N=123) Attitude Index Pgarson S r 0'276 with Action Index r 0.076 (with primary significance of r 0.001 scaling) Standard Error of estimate 10.096 Attitude Index Pgars°n's r 0'261 with Action Index r 0.068 (with self— significance of r 0.002 scaling) Standard Error of estimate 22.386 Hypothesis 1 states: There is no significant relationship between environmental actions and environmental attitudes of the selected teacher population. correlation confirms this hypothesis. achieved high scores on the Attitude Measure. The bivariate These teachers However, they do not support these attitudes with personal actions favorable to environmental conservation. 121 Personal Action Profile-- "Urban" vs "Rural" As with the Environmental Attitude Profile, several statistical procedures were performed in an effort to distinguish between TES Teachers living in high population density areas and those living in low population density areas. The artificial distinctions were again drawn equating urban with city-suburb and rural with small town-country. Although clearer definitions might have been drawn, the general perceptions were deemed adequate for this study and matched the delineations used in analysis of attitudes. The data analysis for each personal action area is displayed in Table 22. In no instance was any difference of statistical significance identified. The higher raw scores for urbanites in the public projects and recycling segments may well be evidence of increased opportunity for participation in areas of high population density. It would appear that these "rural" dwellers are more inclined to attend meetings of local government and make their views known, at least by their presence. Perhaps it would be more usefully descriptive to say that the "urban" dwellers are less inclined to take this step since neither portion of the population exhibits especially strong tendencies to such activity. High-density dwellers among these TES Teachers may be more inclined to write letters of complaint to their state 122 pcdeHHHcmHm 902 u .m.z mzHHeom shestme . . . . . . m.:m om.o :Hs.:m on.em Hmmv oH *xeecH dOHpo¢ m 2 mm :H mHH an AH H m.Hm ms.m mom.mm mom.om Hmov H: eepmeHHomdoo . . . . . . n.ss mo.o som.o moH.o Ammv 0H ecesnum>om-doz m z mm mm mHH mH e: H :.mm mo.o Hum.o HmH.o Hmev Hm eocosHHdH pddepp< . . . . . . m.me NH.o m::.o mmm.o Hmmv 0H :OHedeHmmH m z mH on H mHH N: :m H m.~m NH.o Hm:.o smm.o Hmov H: moaesHHdH edempy< . . . . - . . H.m: NH.o Hm:.o eem.o Ammo 0H unmadpe>ow HeooH m z om mm H mHH mm um H m.:m oH.o mmm.o BAH.o Hmmv Hm modeszcH pestep< . . . . . . .mm mm.o mm.m ooo.m mm 0H wepmdz m z an no mHH mm mm H m.sm no.0 wee.m mm:.m Mmow Hm eHeseem HMe>HHo< . . . . u . . 5.3m mH.o mom.o amm.o Hmmv 0H mseH> .coHH>:m m z on um mHH mm 00 H o.mm mH.o som.o oom.o Hmev Hm esteem HHoHHpsm . . . . . . m.om 26.0 em:.m moH.N Hmmv 0H empeemoum OHHpsm m z mm 00 H mHH we Ho H m.:m No.0 H::.m mem.m Amev Hm nH meddHOHeHdm R a .3 + memmov .mHm d p me a m am new: pHmddm .H.o Rmm .- imam-g m> .. z u .m > pqmoaaficmfim u .m mm u z prop mzm pzmonHdem 002 u .0 z 00H n 2 H0000 00000000 . . . . - . . . 0.00 H0.0H 000.00 000.00 020 x00cH doHpo< m > H0 00 0 w 00 00 00 H 0.00 0H.0 000.00 000.00 .00000 00000HH00200 . . . . 1 . . . 0.00 0H.0 000.0 000.0 020 000ecu0pom-doz m 2 HH 00 H 0 00 00 00 H 0.00 00.0 000.0 00H.0 .00000 00d00H00H 0000000 . . . . u . . 0.00 0H.0 H00.0 000.0 020 20H00H0H00H m z 00 00 00H 00 0H H 0.00 0H.0 000.0 000.0 .00000 00¢00H02H 0050000 . . . . u . . 0.00 0H.0 000.0 0H0.0 mzm pd0sgp0>00 H000H m > 000 H0 0 00H 00 00 H 0.00 HH.0 000.0 000.0 .00000 00:00H02H 0000000 . . . u . . . 0.00 00.0 0H0.0 000.0 020 000003 m 00 00 0 0 H0 00 00 0 0.0H 00.0 000.H 000.H .00000 0H0000m 0H0>H000 . . . . u . . H.0H 0H.0 000.0 0H0.0 mzn 0:0H> .c00H>cm m z 00 00 H 00H 00 0H H 0.00 0H.0 H00.0 000.0 .00000 000000 0H0HH000 . . . - . . 0.00 00.0 000.0 000.0 020 00000000 0HH000 R I .Ho + .mHm 0 p 00 0 0 mm :00: 0:000 .H.0 000 mzn m> mmmmommemmwmm 0.00 H.0H 000.0 000.0 HHWW00m0000 0HH mpswmmmmmwwwwme .... .... ...... 0... 00.0.... .0 000000000 *0.H0 H.00 00.0H 00.00 H000mw.ww0000 00 000WMMM0%0mmmmcmm ovNQwoaphmm R i ho + pSoopom .H.o 0mm mm :00: z mmmmu¢me mme mnmfi irmHHmomm mmoHBozm . 0:0. 0.39; 129 Environmental Education Practices Profile—- Minutes per Week An especially pertinent question in attempting to measure environmental education practices is the amount of time these Teachers Spend environmentally educating their students. In formulating the questionnaire, considerable attention was devoted to arriving at one or more questions which might elicit this information with minimal bias, maximal validity and maximal reliability. Observation would, of course, be a highly desirable method, yet this, too, offers a number of variables and intangible effects. After consideration of the literature on the subject, the scope of the survey, the length of the questionnaire, the environment of the questioning, the purpose of attendance at the TES and the purpose of the survey, the decision was made to approach the subject in a straight-forward manner and judge success when the results were in. Thus the self-reporting question 61, and its companion question 62, was posed. Evaluation of the response patterns indicates considerable candor implying modest bias. Perhaps this was due in part to an inability of the respondents to anticipate what might be considered the "right" answer. Again it should be emphasized that perceptions of content as well as time are essential in responding to the question: About how much time do you spend, on the average, each day or each week on environmental education?" The companion question about average teachers in their school offers an interesting 130 comparison without Special inferences in this report. It would appear that the self—evaluation is supported by the "others" evaluation. The Pearson's product-moment correla- tion of the perceived-time others spend on environmental education compared with the time the TES Teachers reported for themselves shows a modest linear relationship. The r2 value of 0.218, with a Significance of 0.00001 (N=81), suggests that Teachers who spend time conducting environment- al education themselves are inclined to see others as also giving some time to the subject. However, inspection of the scattergram representing the Pearson correlation distribution indicates that low values so dominate the data that no further conclusions Should be drawn. Figure 13 displays the range of estimates in answering both questions. Half of those Teachers responding with more than 150 minutes per week, four teachers out of eight, also included in the grade—taught or subject-taught item some reference to outdoor education, conservation or environmental education. Perhaps those respondents estimating other-teacher time at two hours per week or more have an increased view of environmental education as holistic, although their range of content topics selected did not exceed the mean for that item. Or, the other-teachers may have been the colleagues influencing TES attendance. Some of the response pattern modes detailed in the Figure 13 histogram are probably a result of teachers thinking in terms of class period units, or hours and their 131 coZaoanm _oucoEco:>:m 9:330:00 xoo>> Eon. 033.22 .9953... on 2m "20 moan—:5 um «:00: ”wmthO n— or or Rom "20 03:58 0m u cues. Huqmm up L¢>O Omp our 00w magma on .54. 00.800 an Ono's magmas mp Or a O 23:58 wowed 132 subdivisions into halves and quarters, and reflecting this in their responses. The percentage Shown in Figure 12 as conducting environmental education in the school program includes all of those reporting any time at all, from five minutes per week to 300 or more. In converting this so as to represent mean time as a percentage of maximum time, it is necessary to establish a maximum. Excluding the one full-time specialist and the three who reported more than 500 minutes, the next lowest potential maximum appears at 300 minutes, with four reSponses at 300, two at 250, one at 200 and others as shown in Figure 13. Using this arbitrary upper limit of 300 as a maximum, the mean to maximum percentage is 19 and is represented in Figure 12 by the hachured area. Nearly 21 percent of these TES Teachers reported 30 minutes per week spent in conducting their perception of environmental education. The form of the question and the approximation probably contributed somewhat to the popularity of this mode. It should be kept in mind that this represents about 6 minutes per day out of the reported five to Six hours per day of class-teacher contact time. The mean represents about 12 minutes per day for these Teachers, not an especial— ly large increase over the five-plus minutes per day estimat— ed for the average teacher in their school. The 57 minutes per week mean represents less than four percent of the total, average, contact time per week. 133 With the possibility that there might be a correla- tion between the amount of time reported spent on environ- mental education and attitudes or even actions toward environmental affairs, bivariate correlation procedures were performed. The Pearson's product-moment correlations are Shown in Table 25. TABLE 25. CLASS TIME vs ATTITUDES AND ACTIONS Pearson product-moment correlation Minutes per week Pgarson S r O 014 with r 0.0002 Attitude Index significance of r 0.445 (N=96) Standard Error of estimate 70.867 Minutes per week Pgarson S r 0'146 with r 0.021 Action Index Significance of r 0-079 (N=95) Standard Error of estimate 70.245 There appears to be no correlation of statistical significance between time Spent conducting environmental education in the classroom and either attitudes or actions toward the environment. This was a quite unexpected finding. The research hypothesis assumed that either strong attitudes or strong actions would correspond with a perceived import— ance attached to classroom environmental education and be expressed in an increase in classroom time. There is appar- ently no such relationship and thus the null hypothesis, part of Hypothesis 2, would prevail. 134 Environmental Education Practices Profile—- Outdoor Learning Experiences Three-fourths of the 1978 TES Teachers surveyed indicated that they conducted outdoor environmental learning experiences for their classes. It would seem that they consider outdoor experiences to have some value in learning about environmental matters. Reservation is appropriate here as some Teachers may have included a positive answer to this item because of the workshop setting of the questioning. They may also have converted a restricted biology-experience in the outdoor arena to the broader-based environmental education. The converse of the latter may also have been true in that some of the one-quarter remaining may have used the outdoors as an extension of the classroom but considered it too limited an experience to fit their perception of environmental education. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that Figure 14 fairly represents distribution of use of the outdoors, with the survey setting biasing reSponseS somewhat toward a "yes" response. percent 20 40 60 80 100 O t 1 was 74.3% (N=89) :1 NO 25.2% (N=30l Figure 14. Outdoor Environmental Learning Experiences 135 In order to more clearly delineate categories of use of the outdoor learning arena, gross subdivisions were generated as to type of site. A research hypothesis assumed rural sites would be more popular than urban sites, in general, but posed a further question as to use of available areas. Figure 15 summarizes site-use practices of these TES Teachers. percent (N = 89) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Urban 20.2% Rural 41.6 96 Parks 32. 6% School Sites 78.7% Natural Areas 66.3 % Figure 15. Site Use Although more detailed information could have been requested, it was decided that only major emphases would be sought within this survey. It was a concern that the classification of small Sites actually used into the urban-rural dichotomy might create serious perception problems for the respondents and thus result in misleading data in a Simple urban-rural distinction. The provision of additional alternatives within the question, it is believed, offered opportunity for the respondents to modify their urban-rural responses so as to 136 clarify the data for subsequent interpretation. The three categories of parks, school Sites and natural areas, allowing response to "all that apply," offered very general divisions so that major emphases could be determined. The tendency to use of school sites was of special interest to the researcher. As expected, more of these TES Teachers indicated use of rural areas than urban areas. With only 62 percent of the respondents checking either, it appears that the concern for dichotomous-distinction problems was warranted. There may well be serious variations in transporta- tion availability for individual schools and for whole school districts, thus affecting site choice and use patterns. However, urban sites are decidedly less popular, among those who made the distinction, implying that these Teachers consider rural areas more suitable for the conduct of outdoor environmental learning experiences with their classes. Inference may then be tentatively drawn"that these Teachers do not see urban areas as having the environmental learning Significance of rural areas. This is, of course, in conflict with the concept of holism. It might well be explored in more detail in further studies and should be considered during development of detailed curricula. Figure 15 illustrates both the urban—rural usage and the other-site use categories offered to the respondents. It is readily apparent that these Teachers are heavy users of school Sites, if they conduct outdoor learning at all. There also seems to be a tendency to prefer those areas identified 137 as natural. School sites may be "natural areas" away from the school building and owned by the schools. Areas perceiv- ed as natural may also be tiny plots in a corner of the school yard. Better definition is needed for further inferences. The popularity of school Sites is a useful indicator for administrators and educators to consider in both Site and curriculum planning. When the question is asked as to who uses what areas, the data offer a general pattern, shown in Table 26. The data for grades K-3 support the contention that convenience is important for young children with the relative emphasis on urban locations and school sites. Upper elementary grades, on the other hand, make more use of areas away from the school itself, to judge from these quantities of use. It appears that these Teachers find field trips for upper elementary pupils of value whereas Teachers of early elementary pupils prefer the school's grounds. Data Shown in Table 26 are in agreement with opinions expressed by many individual teachers who consider the problems inherent in field trips for early elementary pupils and the merits of field exercises when contrasted with the controlled conditions of the classroom. Many factors would influence outdoor learning opportunities at the junior high school and high school levels, not the least of which would be the time constraints of curriculum structures. 138 TABLE 26. GRADE LEVELS AS PERCENT OF SITES USED School Natural Urban Rural Parks Sites Areas (N=a9) (20%) (02%) (33%) (79%) (66%) Grades taught K-3 47.1 35.3 22.2 37.3 30.2 4-6 29.4 44.1 48.1 37.3 45.3 Junior high . . . 5.9 7.4 7.5 9.4 High school 23.5 14.7 22.2 17.9 15.1 Total 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 Assumptions of correspondence must remain essentially intuitive at this point. The contingency table analyses of Tables 27 and 28 Show low or very low correlation ratios (etaz) with unimpressive chi square and Cramer's V values, except in the case of school Sites. Kendall's tau 0 does show some tendency for both school sites and natural areas to lose popularity with higher grade levels. would also hold for urban and rural areas, The latter point a reflection of a decrease in outdoor learning experience as a whole rather than location preference. The techniques for these analyses is tentative and the data Should be used only as indicators. Refinement in data collection methods and analysis procedures is recommend- ed if further exploration in this area is desired. 139 TABLE 27. OUTDOOR LEARNING SETTING-- CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS, GRADE BY URBAN AND RURAL (N=107) Urban Rural Not Not Grade taught used Used used Used K-3 20 8 16 12 18.7% 7.5% 15.0% 11.2% 4-6 38 5 28 15 35.5% 4.7% 26.2% 14.0% Middle school or junior high 15 13 2 14.0% . 12.1% 1.9% High school 17 4 16 5 15-9% 3-7% 15.0% 4.7% URBAN: Chi Square = 6.945; df = 3; significance = 0.074 Cramer's V = 0.255 Kendall's tau 0 = -0.115; Significance = 0.071 eta squared = 0.065 RURAL: Chi square = 4.746, df = 3; significance = 0.1914 Cramer's V = 0.211 Kendall's tau c = -0.188; significance = 0.029 eta Squared = 0.044 140 TABLE 28. OUTDOOR LEARNING SETTING--CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS, GRADE BY PARKS, SCHOOL SITES, NATURAL AREAS eta squared = 0.037 Parks School Sites Natural areas Not Not Not Grade taught used Used used Used used Used K_3 22 6 3 25 12 16 20.6% 5.6% 2.8% 23.4% 11.2% 15.0% 4-6 30 13 18 25 19 24 28.0% 12.1% 16.8% 23.4% 17.8% 22.4% Middle school or 13 2 10 5 10 5 Junior high 12 1% 1.9% 9.3% 4.7% 9.3% 4.7% High school 15 6 9 12 13 8 14.0% 5.6% 8.4% 11.2% 12.1% 7.5% PARKS: Chi square = 2.034; df = 3; Significance = 0.565 Cramer's V = 0 138 Kendall's tau 0 = 0.013; Significance = 0.443 eta squared = 0.019 SCHOOL SITES: Chi square = 14.640; df = 3; Significance = 0.002 Cramer's V = 0.370 Kendall's tau 0 = -0.312; significance = 0.001 eta squared = 0.137 NATURAL AREAS: Chi square = 4.001; df = 3; significance = 0.261 Cramer's V = 0.193 Kendall's tau c = -O.181; significance = 0.045 141 Environmental Education Practices Profile—— Workshop Attendance The avowed purpose of environmental education work- shops is to enable teachers to better prepare themselves to conduct environmental education. It is eSpecially noteworthy that 36.9 percent of the 1978 TES Teachers surveyed attended one or more environmental education workshops or seminars during the year immediately preceding their attendance at the Teachers' Environmental School. This would seem to indicate a rather strong interest in improving their abilities in environmental education. The distribution of this attendance is Shown in Figure 16. The mean attendance noted here is represented by the hachured area in Figure 12 and used a maximum of five workshops attended for its determination. percent 0 20 ‘0 .0 50 100 Number 0 ? 63 .l of 1 23.0 Times 2 :3 8.2 Last 3 p 4.9 Year 4 0.0 5 I Q8 (N = 122) MEAN = 0.582 3.0. = O. 935 95% C.I. = 1' 0.168, 28.996 Figure 16. Environmental Education Workshop Attendance 142 In order to explore the probabilities of correlation between an effort to improve their abilities and their tendency to conduct environmental education in the school program, a contingency table analysis was conducted and is presented in Table 29. Several points of interest become apparent from a study of this table. The diSpersion center method of categorization was used to reduce the range of minutes per week to a manageable system. The groupings still represent considerable diversity. One-third of these TES Teachers spent ten minutes or less per week on environmental education yet one-quarter of this same group attended workshops or seminars during the year preceding the 1978 TES. More than one-quarter of these Teachers spent 26-50 minutes per week on environmental education while less than half of this group attended sessions for skill improvement. Simplified interpretation of this data should be approached with care; the 26-50 category may represent a reported 5 to 10 minutes per day or one "class-period" per week, which would imply quite different approaches to the study of environmental matters. This particular group of TES Teachers, it would appear, attends workshops without a particularly high level of time commitment to environmental education. Of course the workshops and seminars may improve the quality of the instructional time. Advocates of holism in environmental education will probably be disappointed to see such a modest WORKSHOP ATTENDANCE--CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS, MINUTES IN SCHOOL PROGRAM BY WORKSHOP ATTENDANCE TABLE 29. 143 Number of WorkshOps Attended 0 1 2 3 h Minutes percent of total respondents row per week total 0 21.3 3.3 2.5 .8 27.9 1-10 h.1 .8 .8 5.7 11-25 9.0 2.5 11.5 26-50 14.8 9.0 1.6 .8 26.2 51-75 5.7 1.6 .8 .8 .8 9.8 76-100 2.5 1.6 .8 u.9 101-125 2.5 2-5 126-150 .8 .8 .8 2.5 151-250 2.5 2-5 251-HI .8 3.3 1.6 .8 6.6 total 63.1 23.0 8.2 4.9 .8 N=122 Chi square = #3.21; df = 36; significance = 0.19 Cramer's V-= 0.298 Kendall's tau 0 = 0.186; significance 0.002 Gamma = 0 . 327 Pearson's r = 0.248; significance 0.003; r2 = 0.061 144 proportion of the school week perceived as a part of environ- mental education activity. Is there any particular correlation between workshop attendance and school-time in environmental education? Apparently not much. None of the statistics stimulate much enthusiasm, the most useful of which are noted in Table 29. It would appear that holism is not stressed in the workshops attended or else is not acquired by these Teachers. However, as the time of attendance was not determined, many of the workshops available being scheduled late in the school year, it may be that these Teachers would show a higher time commitment or stronger holism perception the next year, or following the TES experience. Study through time would help resolve this point. 145 Environmental Education Practices Profile-- Professional Membership Figure 12 and Table 24 represent that less than one quarter of these 1978 TES Teachers belong to the professional association created and maintained to assist teachers in the conduct of environmental education. 0n the other hand, these same teachers belong to an average of two other professional organizations (mean 2.065; SD 1.08; 95% C.I., 9.3%; N=123). The Michigan Environmental Education Association (MEEA) sponsors workshOps and an annual conference. The MEEA also publishes a highly informative monthly newsletter to keep its members informed and provide access to environmental education instructional techniques and materials. Although the MEEA's membership campaign is not aggressive, individual members commonly and frequently solicit the membership of those who show interest in conducting environmental education programs. Those individuals who have been officers of the MEEA and active in its programs often have areas of special interest within the broad scope of environmental education. At the same time, these people often speak and publish as advocates of a holistic view. It would seem that such advocacy might influence MEEA members to think in more holistic terms than non-members. The summary contingency table analysis offered in Table 30 indicates little likelihood of such a correlation. TABLE 30. 146 MEEA MEMBERSHIP--SUMMARY CONTINGENCY ANALYSIS, CONTENT PERCEPTION BY MEEA MEMBERSHIP (N=123) Member Chi $2 phi sign Topic included % no % yes square Slg' Conservation 77 23 Ecology 77 23 .006 .94 .07 Nature study 78 22 1.297 .25 .17 neg. Outdoor education 78 22 .511 .47 .12 Biology 76 24 .078 .78 .06 Botany 79 21 .509 .48 .09 Geology 80 20 3.337 .07 .19 neg. Zoology 78 22 .001 .98 .02 Agriculture 80 20 .925 .34 .11 Geography 78 22 .006 .94 .03 Chemistry 78 22 .000 .99 .02 Economics 76 24 .011 .91 .03 Health science 76 24 .042 .84 .04 Nutrition 85 15 3.426 .06 .19 neg. Animal husbandry 77 23 .005 .95 .01 History 80 20 .290 .59 .07 Vocational education 78 22 .000 .99 .02 Family management 70 30 2.225 .14 .15 pos. Business 76 24 .003 .96 .02 Physics 77 23 .035 .85 .OO Sociology 83 17 1.144 .28 .12 neg. Physical education 72 28 .635 .43 .09 Political science 79 21 .008 .93 .03 Art 71 29 .977 .32 .11 Math 74 26 .134 .71 .05 Psychology 82 18 .355 .55 .08 Language 83 17 .311 .58 .07 Music 70 30 .305 .58 .08 df=1 147 In this data array, the topics chosen as included in the individual TES Teacher's perception of the scope of environmental education are related to the membership of that individual in the MEEA. Even where there seems to be some demonstration of the existence of a correlation, based on the chi-square values, the phi values are very weak. In fact, correlation, however weak, tends to be negative, implying that MEEA membership encourages a somewhat reduced view of environmental education as encompassing a wide range of subject areas. 148 Environmental Education Practices Profile—- Involve Students Out-of—School Involving students in out-of-school environmental education or environmental problem-solving activity was practiced by almost 57 percent of the responding Teachers. Not only did a majority of these TES Teachers involve their students in such activities, they tended to be involved more than once. Apparently such extracurricular involvement is found worth repeating, once tried. The distribution of frequency is shown in Figure 17. percent 0 20 40 60 80 100 UI-thN‘O more (N=111) Mean: 1.094 SD= 1.362 95% Clat .276,25.2 % Figure 17. Involved Students Out-of—School-— Number of Times Last Year 149 In evaluating the strength of this response, it should be kept in mind that the question posed was general in nature and could readily have been interpreted to include a wide variety of activities. There may also be some overlap with the preceding question about outdoor environmental learning experiences--the most likely would be to include class work off the school grounds. The intent of the second question was to be sure to encompass all activities of an essentially extracurricular nature so as not to exclude rather than to avoid inclusion. Scouts, 4-H and other school- age activities were expected to be included as well as any special functions such as community cleanup campaigns. The inclusion of off-the-school-grounds classwork does not diminish the value of the responses. The specification of students was intended to confine reSponses to the profession- al relationship of teacher-pupil. Does the involvement of students in out-of—school environmental activity have any relationship with personal tendencies to become involved with public projects in the community? Table 31 would lead one to conclude that these TES Teachers need not participate on an individual basis in order to get their students involved, but it would seem to help somewhat. Note that the "yes" responses of Table 31 do not correspond with specific projects and do not identify the project of student involvement. 150 TABLE 31. INVOLVED STUDENTS OUT-OF-SCHOOL-- CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS (N=119) Involved students, percent of total respondents Participation in Public Projects Total (self-scaled) NO Yes % None 16.0 14.3 30.3 Cleanup 12.6 10.1 22.7 Cleanup and Beautification 5'9 9'2 15‘1 Cleanup, Beautification and Environmental Protection 1'7 10'1 11'8 Beautification 2.5 5.9 8.4 Cleanup and Environmental Protection 1'7 4'2 5'9 Environmental Protection . . 4.2 4.2 Beautification and 1 7 1 7 Environmental Protection ' ' ° ' Total percent 40.3 59.7 Chi square = 14.45; df = 7; significance = 0.044 Cramer's V = 0.349 Kendall's tau 0 = 0.325; significance 0.0007 Pearson's r = 0.305; significance = 0.0004; r2 0.093 151 Environmental Education Practices Profile-- Consolidated Indgx It was judged both useful and desirable to consoli- date the several categories of information regarding TES Teacher practices in the conduct of environmental education (E.E.) into a single, arbitrary index. This index would allow convenient comparisons with other data and future group or individual measurements. The following formula for determination of the Index value was used. E.E. Practices Index = ((Minutes/60) + (Outdoor Learning) + (Number times Involved Students) + (Workshops x 2) + (MEEA Membership) + (Perceived Content/14)) l%% The maximum value sequence within the formula is: variable to 30, 1, 6, 10, 1, 2. The mean formula values for the 1978 TES Teachers are: 0.95, 0.44, 1.09, 1.87, 0.42 and 1.16. The maximum value of the index is dependent on the contact time for individual teachers and may reach as high as 143. For convenience, a value of 15 was assumed a probable average maximum for the hours spent per week in environmental educa- tion to achieve a mode-maximum of 100. The acceptance of this Index is an arbitrary matter. The amount of time spent conducting environmental education in the school program was considered of key import- ance in the structuring of an index. This value was convert- ed from minutes per week to hours per week as a part of the 152 weighting process. This decision may be argued by others as offering excessive diminution of value. It will be seen that the potential value of time is very high even with the conversion. Although a maximum value of 100 was desired for the index, if a holistic concept of environmental education was held by an individual teacher, the total teacher-pupil contact time might well be included in the environmental education time response. This would raise the maximum value of the index to a range of 114 to 143, based on the reported 25 to 30 hours total contact time. Although the use of an artificial system such as Z-scoring could be used, such a system precludes the ready use of intuitive interpretations and was rejected in favor of simpler interpretation potential. Outdoor environmental learning experiences may be of several kinds. The yes or no response might then vary, dependent upon individual perception. Carrying classroom experience out of the classroom or adding a new facet to environmental learning by use of an outdoor "classroom" was considered valuable. Weighting this element for the number of times such experiences were conducted might place undue emphasis on it and would assume quality experiences equated with quantity. The singular weighting was judged sufficient and in balance with the other index elements. At the same time, involving students in out-of—school environmental education or environmental problem-solving activities was judged of considerable importance. Quoting 153 from Michigan's Environmental Future, Environmental education is the basic process leading toward the deveIOpment 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. (Governor's Task Force, 1973, p. 14) In this context, it would be inconsistent not to rate out-of- school activities highly. This is a significant measure of the commitment of teachers to real-world problem-solving. Family considerations may restrict the individual teacher. Students, too, may have employment and activities subject to other schedules which reduce the opportunity for involvement. A high level of involvement thus becomes a measure of "motivation and commitment to work toward solutions to current and projected problems." The conduct of effective environmental education re- quires an unusual breadth of knowledge and, for the average teacher, is not a part of ordinary teacher-training. Such abilities and skills may be developed through use of the variety of workshops and seminars available during the school year and vacation periods. Many Specific techniques of special value may be acquired by means of these extra educa- tional opportunities. The teacher who wishes to keep up-to- date in a particular subject area continues to take advantage of learning opportunities in that field and, indeed, seeks them out. This should be equally true in environmental education. Because of its wide-ranging nature, with constant- ly changing information availability, it is probably even more 154 important than with the customary academic areas. This index gives workshops attended double value, increasing the index value importantly with increased frequency of attendance. Although membership in a professional association may be argued as of limited direct value to professional applica- tion of knowledge and skills, the Michigan Environmental Education Association serves as a clearing-house of applica- tion techniques and initiates many learning opportunities for the environmental educator. Membership in the MEEA has nothing to do with pay scales or fringe benefits, only the promotion of improved professional practices. Support of the MEEA through membership is a direct reflection of teacher commitment to excellence in the subject. Membership in the MEEA is, then, considered important to any value index of environmental education practices, although it should not be unduly weighted. "Environmental education is total and comprehensive in its scope; it is a part of all subject areas and should be included at all grade levels," says the Michigan Department of Education (1973. p- 5). Therefore it is important that a teacher's perception of the scope of environmental education be included in any index of environmental education practices. The Content Perception previously measured and described is a part of this index.) It is, however, given only modest weight. The measurement of practices should emphasize action rather than attitude. The application of some subjects to environmental education may have been somewhat obscure to 155 the responding teacher without experience in that field and thus might have been excluded from the list. Content per- ception was included in the index but reduced in value in order to emphasize the application, the behavior in the teaching process. In the process of index evaluation, it was deemed advisable to determine if the time Spent conducting environ- mental education exerted undue control on the index value or if, in fact, the time might serve in place of the Index. A bivariate correlation procedure relating the minutes per week with the Consolidated E.E. Practices Index produced a Pearson's product—moment correlation of —0.0315, an r2 of 0.001, a significance of 0.365 and a Standard Error of estimate of 10.545 (N=123). The time would appear to have no Special influence on the Index as a whole and would not, therefore, be an effective direct substitute for the Index. The scattergram produced from this procedure offered no intuitive correlation-tendency visually apparent. However, the conduct of outdoor environmental learn- ing experiences does Showatmodest correlation with the Index. A coefficient of 0.449, giving an r2 of 0.202 (significance 0.001, N=94), suggests that those Teachers who conduct out— door experiences may also score higher in the total Index value. This is not unexpected as such experiences may be reflected directly in other formula elements. The value of the correlation is sufficiently low that it appears to have no special influence on the Index. When tested with the time 156 spennt on environmental education, the correlation with curt- door‘learning was only 0.109 (significance 0.14, N=100). This indicates that the conduct of outdoor learning experi- ences does not have a direct influence on the time Spent in the classroom. In fact, some Teachers may believe that the outdoor experience is an effective substitute for classroom environmental education time. The Consolidated Environmental Education Practices Index (E.E. Practices Index) includes quantity measures, commitment indicators, breadth of application indicators and professional training practices. It is considered a sound indicator for comparative purposes within this survey. 157 Environmental Education Practices Profile—- Correlation with Attitude To determine if there was a correlation of signifi- cance between the attitudes and environmental education practices of these TES Teachers, a bivariate correlation procedure was performed using the previously devised Attitude Index and the E.E. Practices Index. Pearson's r correlations indicate little or no correlation between the two indexes used for the comparison, as Shown in Table 32. TABLE 32. E.E. PRACTICES vs ATTITUDES Pearson product—moment correlation (N=94) Pearson's r 0.162 E.E. Practices Index r2 0.026 with Attitude Index significance of r 0.060 Standard Error of estimate 11.041 Hypothesis 2 states: There is no significant rela- tionship between environmental education practices and environmental attitudes of the selected teacher pOpulation. The bivariate correlation procedure confirms this hypothesis. 158 Environmental Education Practices Profile—- "Urban" vs "Rural" A further attempt was made to distinguish between TES Teachers living in high population density areas and those living in areas of low population density. AS with the Attitudes and Personal Actions, urban was equated with city- suburb and rural with small town-country. Again, more precise delineations might have been drawn, but the general perceptions were considered adequate for this study and the distinctions in this area matched those used in analysis of attitudes. The data analysis for each environmental education practices portion is displayed in Table 33. It is interest- ing that in all of the categories but one, the "urban" Teachers scored higher than the "rural" Teachers. Note, however, that the variability is very high and that these groups do not necessarily depict a simple random sample. The low-density Teachers seem to Spend considerably more time on environmental education in their school programs than the high-density Teachers, at least as they perceive it. The t-test indicates that the difference is not Significant, but the Specific means are quite emphatic. Although the difference between groups is high compared to the difference within groups and thus is adequate to reject the null hypo- thesis of equality for this population, the variability is still sufficient that inference of the differences to a larger population should not be made. 159 p200HHHcmHm snm> u .m > psmoHHszHm Hoz u .m 2 pump . . . . H.HN mm.m 00.0H sm.mH H000 0H xmecH mmoHpomHm 000 000 A0 H mm m00 an H H.Hm 0H.0 mm.:H 00.0H H000 Hm .m.m 00H00HH00200 .m.z :00. mm.0 mHH 0H0. 00.H mumw mwmuw mmmnw mmmuw “WWW mm 0mm: H0080: . . . . . . . n.m: 00H.0 emn.0 000.0 H000 0H mmonmanoz .00 m 2 50m 0H H 0HH 000 H0 N H.Hs NAN.0 0S0.H H00.0 Hmmv Hm .20HH>:0 0:0HH< . . . . . . 0.0: 000.0 000.H 000.H Husv 0H H00000-H0-H00 . . . . . . . m.mm 00H.0 :0m.0 0mm.0 Hams 0H H00000-H0-000 m z NSH 0: H SHH 000 HH H 0.0H smH.0 550.0 H00.0 A000 Hm mpcm00pm 0>H0>sH . . . . . . . 5.0H mNH.0 H00.0 000.0 Hmmv 0H wzngmmH H000H00 m > 0H0 om m 00H :00 on H H.HH 000.0 000.0 u:0.0 Hmmv Hm Hoogom Hosesoo . . . . . . . 0.00 NH.~N 0H.0u 00.00 H000 0H amnwogm Hoosom R i He + Mmemdov .mHm 0 9 H0 0 0 mm c002 HHmcmn .H.o emm .H =z0H00 0.00 000.0 0.0H 000.0 000.00 000.00 00H 0000000302 0.00 000.0 0.0H 0H0.0 000.00 000.00 00H 000H00002 R made: 0 u so + Q m :00: z whom: zoos .H.o 0mm .00 mHmoame . . . . . 0.0H 00.0 00.00 H0.H0 A000 0H m mmo NH m mHH mom 0: H n.0H om.0 00.0w N0.Nm Amwv 0m mummmmmzmz . . . . . . 0.00 00.0 mmém H060 A03 09 0 z 000 00 0 0HH 0H0 H0 H H.00 00.0 00.00 00.H0 H000 Hm 002H00002 R 1 He + Mmewdov .0Hm 0 0 00 0 0 .000000 00 0002 pHmama .H.0 000 = uH¢mDm = m> : z ..Emg: IIM¢Q mmm mflSHB mmDmomNm mzmz .00 mHmoHoa . . - . . d.d sem.o amm.o Soo.m Ammc 6a dopooood mac co m oHH can mm H o.d mom.o omm.o mwm.m Ammv Hm noddeSoz . . 1 . . S.AH mmm.o mmo.H mNS.H Anny o9 nopans son no H HHH mm: mm H n.6H mmm.o mmm.o mma.H Aoov Hm odedmdz R 1 no + mommov e p we a m cm ado: pHdeon .H.o emm =Q¢mbm= m> :zHBUMhmO .m:.mgm moSHm> .wpo onom can oHMom manom \;Hom manom zPH>HPoonno onOm .Hno spHHHQmHHmm spH>Hpomeo spHHHanHmm omcsmmxm _spH>HpomHno .o>¢ vopsmsoo copsaeoo AhHso GOHPmeuowsH HapcoesopH>sm pomv mee mombom .om mflmmHme Ho.mom oo.omH os.m: ms.mw mm.mm mm.mm mm.m: mm.m: Asmuzv memgmdmsmz sm.mm mo.mm mH.mm mm.ooH o:.mm sm.os mm.mm Ha.Hm “Hmuzv mmsmmmHHoo ::.mmH 0H.mm sm.om Hm.mm :m.am oH.ms mH.om mm.m: Ammuzv empomHmm muoz 5H.mmH so.NHH sm.om mo.mm om.am mm.s: mm.mm :H.N: AmmHuzv soapmwmme om cams am cams am new: mm cams zOHpomHmm hop pom .sas owvmm and son .GHS QOHmH>oHoa adv non .CHE mpommgmzoz has Mom .GHS moCHwamz mm: oHoe 0H.~H mm.mH sm.nm Hm.om 8H.mH m:.:s Asmuzv mnmdmmmzmz ow.mH mH.:H mm.:m om.om Hm.m mm.mm HHmuzv moSWMoHHoo NH.mH m:.mH :H.mm Hs.mm os.m sm.ms Ammuzv empomHmm meoz . . . . . . . :OHPmHsmom mm mH Ha mH on :m om am Hm 0H so we HmmHuzv Haves am 2mm: am new: am new: qoapomHmm NousH NoczH GOHPo¢ woucH moowpomum .m.m Hmsomnom ouSPHPP¢ mmUHao¢mm .m.m 92¢ mZOHBU< .mmmDBHBB¢ Mm mHHmomm ZOHEDQommm BUHRmzoo .Nm mflm¢e 212 %below 96 above % None Selected 25 2O 1O ' 0 . 10 20 25 Attitude Index : [I E 1.2 Personal Action Index 5 :1: 4.0 Env.Ed. Practices Index E2: : -9.3 Magazine Use : :23 9.9 Newspaper Use CI": -9.8 Television Use II: -4.1 Radio Use ‘ -12.4 Colleagues Attitude Index ---.--Ti------ Personal Action Index -3. Env. Ed. Practices Index 3 3 Magazine Use [ Newspaper Use c -1 Television Use Radio Use I N J: ONCDmtkmN Newpapers ”'""”h'£f"“fl" Attitude Index _1_9 Personal Action Index -4,7 Env. Ed. Practices Index -9.7 Magazine Use 0.2 Newspaper Use 9.1 Television Use -11.0 Radio Use .0 Televison Attitude Index Personal Action Index Env. Ed.Practice Index Magazine Use Newspaper Use Television Use Radio Use 7. l 20. 10. 4. 13.5 J 20.1 Hmwm3> ...-.-—-.----------b--. Figure 28. Information Conflict Resolution Profile-- Percent Below or Above Mean. Each Selection Category 213 Colleagues choosers tend to have lower action scores and higher practices scores, watch more television, listen to less radio and spend less time with neWSpapers and magazines than the means for the total group. It seems that collea- gues choosers tend to be influenced by their colleagues toward more classroom environmental education activity, al- though not very strongly, and spend a lot of time with tele- vision while not making much use of the other media. Radio choosers were only two and are therefore not included in Figure 28 nor is any interpretation offered. fig response choosers tend to have higher action scores, lower practices scores and spend less time with radio, television and newspapers but more time with magazines. While it is an oversimplification from the data available, it appears that this subgroup tends to be made up of self- contained isolates. There are here some strong indications that those with a high-quantity and wide-ranging media consumption pattern are also inclined toward active roles. At the same time, those who consume only radio and newspapers in large amounts are not influenced to take active roles. High total media consumption rather than consumption from specific sources seems to have the most influence toward high activity levels. Perhaps those with the broader information base are also those more widely interested in the total world around them. 214 Hypothesis 3 states: There is no significant rela- tionship between media use patterns and environmental attitudes, personal environmental actions or environmental education practices of the selected population. The evidence gathered in this study supports acceptance of this null hypothesis. There is little to indicate probability of a Type II error. Hypothesis 4 states: The selected population shows no source preference in resolving conflicting environmental information received. Two aspects of the data offer tenta- tive support for this null hypothesis: 31 percent of the respondents selected none of the options offered; three of the options received nearly equal response, the fourth receiving negligible support. A larger sample is considered necessary for firm acceptance. CHAPTER XI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Education is the key to changing human attitudes, values and feelings, as well as behaviors . . . . (Michigan Department of Education, Nov., 1973, p. 1) 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. (Governor's Task Force, 1973, p. 14) The task of systematically educating the citizenry about the environment has become one of the assignments of teachers in Michigan schools. Teachers have a continuing opportunity to affect the attitudes and behaviors of young peOple who will become the active citizenry of the future. Yet little has been known heretofore about the attitudes and behaviors of those very teachers who are to transmit environ- mental information and serve as models for developing youngsters. This study adds to knowledge about this influential pOpulation. A total of 123 teachers attending the 1978 Teachers' Environmental School, a five-day, residential workshop program conducted by Michigan universities, was surveyed at the beginning of the workshop experience in order to measure characteristics along five dimensions. 215 216 The dimensions chosen were: 1. perception of the scope of environmental education-- degree of holistic perception; 2. attitudes toward environmental affairs--intensity of positive attitudes toward the environment; 3. personal environmental actions--extent of personal involvement in environmental improvement efforts: 4. professional environmental education activities-- degree of current involvement in environmental education with their pupils: and, 5. use of mass media information sources on a continuing basis—-assessment of media use which contributes to development of beliefs and attitudes. The first four dimensions are depicted in Figure 29 as an overall Environmental Attitude Profile of the teachers surveyed. percent 020406080100 Environmental Education 1 (ss) . Content Perception I (75) Attitudes Toward _ Environmental Affairs I (27) Personal . Environmental Actions (17) Professional Environmental Education Activities Figure 29. Summary Environmental Attitude Profile 217 Environmental Education Content Perception Presented with a list of 28 curriculum topics ranging from art to zoology, the average teacher in the groups surveyed indicated that 58 percent of the topics were a part of environmental education. With 13 percent of the teachers choosing to include all topics within the scope of environ- mental education, the remaining teachers averaged only 43 percent. Neither percentage represents a strong degree of holism. Despite the admonition of the Michigan state depart- ment of education that . . environmental education is total and comprehensive in its scope; it is part of all subject areas and should be included at all grade levels (Michigan Department of Education, 1973, pp. 4-5), these teachers do not support the official stance when sur- veyed. They may, of course, not have heard or read the state's position. Teachers better informed about the official state position or about environmental education may see a greater degree of holism in environmental education than the average of this population. The topic list offered was a condensation of the total range of subject titles included by state, national and international organizations in a holistic concept of environmental education. Additional workshop exposure might have influenced the responses to the question or the perceptions of the scope. However, changed response patterns at the conclusion of the Teachers' Environmental School 218 experience would not necessarily reflect retained changes in perceptions or indicate likely changes in teaching methods regarding environmental affairs. Attitudes Toward Environmental Affairs Consensus is that a favorable attitude is necessary to meeting the environmental education goal, as stated by Pettus (1976, p. 48), of bringing about "informed environ- mental policies for society which will be compatible with the maintenance of a suitable planetary environment." A distinct advantage of this kind of elusive goal statement is that people may advocate such policies and support them in conversation, and also the polling-booth, without having to overtly engage in whole-heartedly supportive behaviors on an individual basis. Teachers in this study showed a strongly favorable attitude toward environmental affairs (80%) when questioned about both issues and actions attitudes. When no action attitude was required, the attitude favorability toward the environment increased further (82%) with identification of specifically stated issues. Attitudes jumped even higher on the scale (92%) when no action attitudes were required and issues were not defined. These findings are in accord with expectations suggested by Weinstein's studies (1972) and reflect the "situational variability" of Schuman (1972) which dictates compromise positions when both issue values and action values are combined in a single attitude 219 statement. Attitudes may be expected to change over time, even in a population selected for its favorable disposition toward a subject. There is indication, however, that teachers enter- ing the Teachers' Environmental School change little. Despite the heterogeneity in other dimensions, there appears to be relative homogeneity in average attitude of attending teachers upon arrival. When 1978 teachers were compared with a similar group of 1965, a statistically significant difference was found: the 1978 teachers scored 2.46 points lower on the attitude measuring instrument than the 1965 teachers, a difference of 1.9 percent. This may be more a reflection of a word change than a real attitude change. The attitude measuring instrument was modified by replacing the word "conservation" with "environment," some- times necessitating minor rephrasing of the statement. This was done to bring the statement to a more current language use, considered especially important as conservation has lost its general connotation and is more specific in its meaning than it was in 1965. During both time periods, conservation was generally considered a "good thing" with positive values. Environment, on the other hand, has tended to create con- flicts and ambivalence, even in its ardent proponents. The score change may represent a greater degree of compromise or more ambivalence in the reSpondents' attitudes rather than a lessened favorability. 220 Both 1965 groups should be compared with the 1978 group for the additional perspective offered. The 1965 group without workshop experience was selected by workshop "attendees." It is reasonable to assume that those people would be likely candidates for workshop attendance and that their attitudes would tend toward consistency with those doing the selecting. The no-workshop 1965 group was only four percent behind the 1965 workshop group in attitude strength and 2.2 percent behind the 1978 group. Whatever the influences, a change of less than two percent between 1965 and 1978 is modest by any standard and indicates potential in this dimension for homogeneity among teacher groups when entering the Teachers' Environmental School. Attitude Congruence with Significant Others Whereas there appears to be some attitude consistency among teacher groups attending the TES and likely to attend, there is support here for Foerstel's findings (1976) that there is little probability of congruence with other groups. Foerstel found little problem-ranking consistency when comparing groups of students, teachers, parents and environmentalists although there was consistency within each group. Positing that there might be some congruence between groups if the attitudinal stance was more general than specific, this study offered a generalized comparison 221 of perceived differences. Although a more Specific inquiry comparing real groups would be of value in future studies of this point, a factor was sought here which might explain to some extent behaviors not in accord with attitudes. This comparison was in keeping with the Fields and Schuman study (1976-77) on attitude-behavior consistency testing the assumption that attitudes (expressed in surveys) are often not expressed in behaviors because individuals believe "significant others will be displeased." O'Gorman and Garry (1976-77) also support this conservative bias, the tendency to behave more conservatively than measured atti- tudes would suggest. Although O'Gorman and Garry refer to pluralistic ignorance, it would be more descriptive to call this attitude-behavior inconsistency "pluralistic avoidance." Although the teachers responded with a 92 percent strength, they saw their friends and families in agreement at only a 52-68 percent level, the latter value representing family members only. This not only points to a conservative bias in views of attitudes of others and thus in actual behaviors, but to two other factors as well. These teachers, with strong attitudes favoring environmental matters, do not appear to be especially influential within their families nor within their circle of friends and apparently do not choose their friends with environmental views as important bases for selection. With such modest influence upon their friends 222 and families, can these teachers be exPected to have a strong influence on their students? Personal Environmental Actions The statements comprising the attitude measure used in this study are value-laden and often combine cognitive, affective and behavioral elements. Such a composite measure is usually an unreliable predictor of overt behavior. To determine if this population, self-selected for interest in environmental matters, in fact expressed their declared attitudes through environmentally supportive behaviors, self- reported action histories were acquired. Four categories of personal involvement in environ- mental improvement efforts were included to reflect public and private actions in verbal and physical forms with and without direct social-system influence. Despite their strongly favorable environmental attitudes, these teachers do not appear to be particularly interested in taking personal action to affect the course of environmental events. 0f the entire group, 30 percent indicated they had not participated in any public, environmental-improvement projects. An additional 23 percent said they had partici- pated only in cleanup campaigns, an activity usually receiving high public approval. Thirty-seven percent did not regularly recycle paper, 223 bottles or cans, a more private action, not necessarily requiring public approval. Publicly verbal defense of their views about environ- mental matters was even less popular. Forty-eight percent indicated they had not eSpoused their attitudes about environmental affairs publicly. Two-thirds of these teachers had not attempted to influence public or corporate bodies on environmental events. Acknowledging that opportunity and recognition of opportunity may play important roles, these teachers do not seem to be inclined to take personal environmental action. There is indication that if there is opportunity (and recognition of that opportunity), public recognition and social approval, these teachers are apt to be participants. There must be, however, the further acknowledgement that these teachers have not necessarily been initiators of personal environmental action, certainly not the average teacher in the group surveyed. This does not bode well for their influence as models for students in their classrooms. Professional Environmental Education Activities Nearly three-fourths of the teachers attending the 1978 Teachers' Environmental School conducted some form of environmental education in their school program. The content was not determined, but the self—reported time allotment averaged about 12 minutes per day, three to four percent of teacher-student contact time. If environmental education is 224 total and comprehensive and part of all subject areas, as the state Department of Education claims, these teachers are apparently not aware of it. Perhaps this is due to a perceived low level of competency and consequent avoidance which might be remedied by TES attendance. Yet only 37 percent had made recent attempts to remedy low competency by environmental education workshop attendance. Even in this group, the majority of "workshoppers" (60%) spent less time on environmental education than the average teacher surveyed. The obvious conclusion here is that environmental education participation in classroom programs is more token than comprehensive with a decided lack of enthusiasm, at least prior to TES attendance. Outdoor learning experiences were popular with 75 percent of the teachers being involved. School sites and natural areas, perhaps the same within the individual's perception, were preferred. This is a logical expectation from the common tendency for environmental education to be identified with science or biology and the popularity of the "outdoor classroom" among elementary school teachers of science. Perhaps more promising for the total environment was the 57 percent involvement of teachers with their students in out—of—school environmental education and environmental problem-solving activity. It appears that activity out of the classroom is more 225 likely to be perceived as environmental education or is the preferred form. The 1976 Cummings study, supported by Bozardt's observations in 1975 and 1976, suggests that thoroughly prepared, pre-packaged materials would help increase environmental education in the classroom. It seems that teachers cannot be relied upon to conduct the compre- hensive environmental education recommended by the state without a great amount of direct assistance. Use of Mass Media Information Sources There is considerable discrepancy in the views of environmental communication authorities toward the effects of mass media on environmental attitudes. In spite of abundant evidence that there is no relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitudes, there is underlying agreement that information is the basis for beliefs which lead to both attitudes and behaviors. While this study does not resolve discrepancies, it does offer some additional clues for future research. Most of the teachers surveyed used all four of the media offered: radio, television, newspapers and magazines. The mixtures of practices and attitudes offer some insight into the information acquisition patterns of teachers. Although these teachers were fairly heavy consumers of electronic media, news broadcasts were not considered an especially important part of broadcast programming. Perhaps this was due, in part, to a low comparative-credibility 226 rating of electronic media reporters. Television's special and documentary programs on environmental matters were, however, highly regarded. Extensive and dramatic coverage appear to have strong influence on quality perceptions. Magazines showed a higher use-percent than the other media and reading patterns provided especially convenient subject matter breakdowns. As might have been expected for this group, those magazines directed toward natural history and generalized environmental interests were over 50 percent more popular than any other single category. But, this category received the lowest intensity of use. It may be concluded that these magazines are perused rather super- ficially, perhaps for their visual imagery rather than their verbal content, and have little but esthetic impact on attitude formation. Also, when intensity of use is determined, profes- sional journals directed toward teachers and intended to assist them in improving their performance ranked next to last, only slightly ahead of the "environmental interest" publications. In evaluating media, magazine writers were perceived as being the most objective and special interest periodicals were seen as especially up—to-date, accurate and thorough in their coverage of environmental affairs. For these teachers, "thoroughness" appears to be the essential element in evaluation of media transmitting envi- ronmental information. Other considerations seem to carry 227 little weight. I The mass media information sources achieving the highest value ranking in this survey were magazines and journals. The data indicate that these TES Teachers are rather dedicated readers, especially of the general interest magazines and those catering to special interests. The notable exception is the apparently superficial consumption of periodicals specializing in natural history or environ- mental subjects. Although no category of publication should be considered unimportant, environmental communicators would do well to note the strong influence of general interest periodicals, eSpecially those emphasizing news and news-type feature coverage. If there is any correlation between mass media consumption patterns and environmentally favorable activity, this survey suggests that it lies in total rather than Specific consumption. Of the teachers surveyed, those with high-quantity and wide-ranging media usage were more active, personally and professionally, than those employing smaller quantities or a narrower range. An inference which might be drawn is that those with a broad information base are more widely interested in the total world around them. The data accumulated here leads one to conclude that these teachers use mass media to gain a general perspective on the course of society, to reinforce their personal 228 interests and for entertainment, but do not use mass media directly to support their professional growth or add to environmental knowledge. Information Conflict Resolution When asked to indicate their preferred source for resolving conflicts in information received about environ- mental matters, the 1978 TES Teachers indicated no Special preference. With colleagues, neWSpapers, radio and tele- vision offered as immediately available sources, the interpersonal source, colleagues, ranked little higher than the mediated sources, newspapers and television, with radio far behind. Indeed, more than 30 percent declined to choose from the four selections. These teachers apparently rely heavily on knowledge already acquired, or less immediate and ubiquitous sources, when confronted with conflicting environmental information. It seems unlikely that they would simply allow the dissonances to persist. Perhaps the information is ignored or judged irrelevant to themselves. Perhaps the continuing flux in environmental infor- mation is sufficiently confusing that only the information which reinforces existing attitudes and beliefs, or serves a self—centered special interest, is selected for acquisition. 229 Environmental Attitude Profile Summary A profile of the entry attitudes of teachers attend- ing the 1978 Teachers' Environmental School may be briefly summarized. This attitude profile would not be of value without including personal and professional behaviors which are overt expressions of declared attitudes. Figure 30 offers a pictorial description of attitudes and the behavioral support for them. ATTITUDES ...................... person“ Attitudes ............... COfltOnt Pgrcopt ion Personal Actions Professional Activities ACTIONS Figure 30. Summary Profile: Attitudes. Actions. and Environmental Education Practices These teachers express a serious concern for the quality of the environment and Show attitudes strongly favorable to the environment. But, they do not support these views in personal actions favoring environmental improvement. Nor have they had strong influence on the attitudes of friends or family members. 230 The environmental education conducted by these teachers was minimal and their perception of the scope of environmental education was limited, certainly far from holistic or comprehensive. It would not be expected that these teachers would have much positive effect on the environmental attitudes of their students. Although their consumption of mass media was high, any information which would assist their professional growth or expansion of their environmental knowledge must have come from other sources. One must wonder if these teachers acquire any information on a continuing basis to keep up with changes in their profession or to keep their knowledge levels of subject matter current. Perhaps attendance at the Teachers' Environmental School is an effort to develop professionally and improve their abilities and performance in environmental education. Implications for Future Research This study has constructed a profile of an influen- tial population: teachers who have actively expressed interest in transmitting environmental information to develop- ing youngsters under the banner of environmental education. While in many ways the group studied seems to represent the larger population of which it is a part, in many more ways it only suggests a rude tendency. Both common sense and statistical procedures recommend enlarging the sample size before drawing more than tentative conclusions about most of 231 the characteristics. Too, studies over time, samples drawn year after year, might reveal some of the impacts of chang- ing events. Further, the consequences of attendance at the Teachers' Environmental School should be developed. In the words of Jane Renaud, TES faculty member from Wayne State University, Is this program worthwhile or are we Spinning our wheels, having no impact on the classroom, deceiving ourselves as to the value of what we are doing here? Does the TES "treatment" effect changes in attitudes, percep- tions, practices and actions? Any instructional program should, from time to time, be evaluated as to its effective- ness. There is now an approximate picture of these teachers upon entry into the program. A similar profile after departure would help evaluate the receptivity of the attend- ing teachers to the concepts and approaches of environmental education. Such a study would aid in modification and development of training programs to enhance teacher effect- iveness. There are less sweeping points of information which should be explored further. This study affirmed the assumption that the levelling effects of education and profession at least suppressed urban-rural differences based upon current residence. It would be well to determine if place of youthful residence affected attitudes and actions with differences perhaps surviving. 232 The attitude measuring instrument was updated in its language by substituting environment for conservation. Evidence collected here leads to the conclusion that the change did not severely affect the instrument. Another application of the modified instrument to a similar popula- tion would be appropriate before endorsing the revised instrument's reliability. Some additional exploration of teacher perception of the scope of environmental education and changes in per— ception which might have taken place as a result of TES experiences would offer some guidance to formulators of environmental education training programs. Change studies would also contribute to a determina- tion of the acceptability of environmental education as a central or as an ancillary instructional track. Considerable evidence is emerging to indicate that teachers would make use of pre-packaged environmental education materials if they were available. There is also indication that even enthusiastic teachers need and want direct assistance, even Specific direction, in conducting environmental education programs. It would be useful to investigate these approaches thoroughly to determine acceptability of such materials and specific assistance. Much more work needs to be done in the study of environmental communication with a variety of audiences. A body of knowledge is gradually deve10ping in this Specific field but it needs both expansion and synthesis. While some 233 environmental concepts and Specific issues may be treated as consumer products to be sold, the whole of environmental education, formal and informal, affects personal, societal and cultural value systems and is affected by them. Teachers and their student audiences seem to accept, with filtering, environmental education when it is based on biOphysical systems, but they have not yet accepted it when it impinges on social, economic or political systems, or when it is truly comprehensive. This study adds some details regarding a teacher audience, but further research needs to be narrowly focused, studying teachers, students and parents as interactive systems. The flow of environmental information through educational and media systems, to and from the citizenry, needs concentrated attention. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDE PROFILE QUESTIONNAIRE 9. 10. 11, 12, 13. APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDE PROFILE Questionnaire » Number 0 2 O U Environmental Education has been defined by different people in different ways. Please express YOUR opinion by indicating which of the topics below you consider an important part of environmental education. Put a check mark in front of your selections. l___agriculture ___history ___animal husbandry ___language ___art ___mathematics ___biology ___music ___botany ___nature study .___business ___nutrition ___chemistry ___outdoor education ___conservation .___physical education ___ecolory ___physics ___economics ___political science ___family management ___psycholomy ___geOgraphy ___sociology ___geology ___vocational education ___health science {___zoology For items 2 through 13, please indicate with a check mark whether YOU consider the topic NOT a problem, a SLIGHT problem, a MODERATE problem, or a SERIOUS problem. NOT a SLIGHT MODERATE SERIOUS problem problem problem problem Air pollution Water pollution Water and sewage treatment facilities Trash and garbage collection and disposal Land use conflicts Citizen participation in community decisions People willing to work for good of the community Community planning Community spirit and pride Energy cost Energy supply Unnecessary energy use 234 J) P b I: D SA A SA A SA A SA A 235 2 For each of the following statements, encircle the letter or letters which most closely represents YOUR idea concerning that statement. If, for example, you cannot Stron 1 Agree with a statement, then ask yourself if you can I ree. or you may choose to Disa ree or Strongly Disagree. Do not reSpond as you think you sfiouId, butTinsteEd according to how you feel personally. SA- Strongly Agree A- Agree u- Undecided D- Disagree SD- Strongly Disagree U D‘SQ 14, Progress in our country will be slowed if we use effective environmental protection measures. IIIlgfl; 15. Conservation seems foolish when our standard of living is constantly rising. U D‘SQ’ 16. Science will be able to find a substitute for natural resources when the original supply is exhausted. U D SD 17. The public schools of our nation do not spend enough time in environmental education. (11353; 18. Conservation of natural resources is so slow in its results that in a lifetime it can hardly benefit a person now alive. U D SD 19. Environmental education should be a very important area in the teaching of biology. U D SD 20. I consider environmental education to be a minor area in the education of the average citizen for everyday living. U D‘SE 21. Effective environmental protection practices endanger the personal liberty of a person. U D SD 22. Private business interests are responsible for many poor environmental practices. U D SD 23. The waste of our resources is an illustration of extreme selfishness and lack of consideration. U D‘SQ’ 24. The subject of environmental education Just doesn't interest me. IJIDSQ; 25. Environmentalists are too cautious and stand in the way of progress. 26. Environmentalists in general are alarmists. 27. Environmental education is important but you can't change human nature. c: c: t: u U) U) I: In U D SD 28. Poor environmental practices can weaken our position as a world power. SA SA A U 236 SA- Strongly Agree D SD use D SD 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3’4. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. “'3. “'5. A- Agree UI Undecided D- Disagree SD- Strongly Disagree Conservation of our forests is not necessary as we already have substitutes for wood. I am only concerned with our present standard of living. Future generations will be able to take care of their own. There is little 1 can do regarding the environment: I am only one person. Some businesses are against environmental protection measures because they feel the measures will restrict their activities. When natural resources are used up in one area we can always move on to other areas. If as students we take part in environmental conservation, it will have little value for us as we will not see the results of our labor while we are students. I would rather engage in social activities than spend some of my own time furthering the cause of the environment. If a person is not interested in environmental issues. he should not have to spend time learning about them. Since our forefathers did not practice environmental protection, I see no reason why we should. The great enemy of the environment is indifference on the part of the people. I feel that if we do not take effective environmental protection measures in our country, we may eventually decline as a major power. To practice environmental protection within the home is too time consuming. The study of environmental education in the field is generally more effective than studying it in the classroom. Prevention of waste within the home falls in the area of environmental protection. Millful waste is a crime against humanity. Human nature is such that we can never educate people to save for tomorrow. We are an extremely wasteful nation. 237 Li. In several of the following items you are asked for time estimates, In each instance. please try to estimate as closely as you can the average through several months. 46. Please list the periodicals, journals and magazines you read regularly. In the space after each name above, please indicate about how 47. many hours per month you Spend with each publication. 48. How many times a day do you: watch TV news listen to radio news 49. Please list the newspapers which you read regularly. Name of Newspaper and/or City of Publication 50. Which do YOU think does the best Job of obgective reporting about environmental issues? Mark number 1 for e 3 through number 4 for the poorest Job. magazine writer radio news reporter newspaper reporter TV news reporter 238 5 51. Please rate the following popular mass media for their credibility ONLY when they are relating information about the environment. Place an X in a space from £23 Credible to Very Credible which represents your opinion. Not Credible Very Credible National TV News ,_ A4 1 i 44 1 i 44 Local TV News . , _L, i J J ii, I TV Specials 1 1A_ 1 J i _1 1 1 TV Documentaries ,_ J 1 4‘ J __J 1* , Public Television , J a J i 1 i_ L_J National Radio News L_ J L. J , _L, _i 1 Local Radio sews . J. L J__ .4 J_ 1' J Radio Specials [7 , g4 t, .4, 1 J 1 52. About how many hours a day do you spend: watching television hours 0R .____minutes listening to radio ____hours on ____minutes reading newspapers ‘____hours 0R ____minutes reading magazines I____hours OR .____minutes 53. Are you acquainted with the Cooperative Extension Service? yes no If yes. Do you make use of the publications of the Cooperative Extension Service? yes no If yes: Do you use these publications in your classroom? yes no Do you use these publications to prepare for classroom activity? yes no Do you use these publications for your own needs? yes no How would you rate the credibility of the Cooperative Extension Service? Not Credible Very Credible l I J l l l J J 55. 239 6 if you were seeking the most up-to-date, accurate and thorough environmental information. how would you rank the following sources? Indicate I for lst choice, 2 for 2nd choice, and so on. You need not mark them all. general magazines (such as Time, Psychology Today, Woman's Dav) ___professional journals ___newspapers ‘___formal education classes colleagues Cooperative Extension Service bulletins special interest periodicals (such as Audubon. National Wildlife, etc.) When you hear or read conflicting information about environmental matters. which one of the following are you most likely to believe? (Choose only one or none.) radio newspaper colleagues television If you are presently a teacher, please continue to answer all questions. If you are not a teacher, please skip to question number 64, next page. 56.». 57. 58. 59. 60. 01. 62. 63. That grade or subject do you presently teach? What other grades or subjects have you taught recently. if any? Do you conduct outdoor environmental learning experiences for your classes? yes no If you answered yes to question 58, on what kinds of sites do you conduct these experiences? (hark all that apply.) urban rural parks school sites natural areas Have you involved your students in an out-of-school environmental education or environmental problem-solefig activity in the last year? yes no If yes, how many times? About how much time do you spend, on the average, each day or each week on environmental education? minutes per day OR minutes per week How much time would you estimate the AVERAGE teacher in YOUR SCHOOL spends on environmental education? minutes per day on minutes per week What would you estimate is the average amount of total classroom contact time for teachers in your school? hours per day on hours per week f l r4 I 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 7O. 71. 72. 73. 240 Are you a member of the EEEA? yes no what influenced you the most to attend the Teachers' Environmental School? discussion with colleagues newsletter notes administrative encouragement scholarship availability mailed notices meeting academic requirements other How long before you attended did you know about the Teachers‘ Environmental School? About how long before you attended did you decide you would like to attend? To how many civic groups do you belong? 0 1 2 3 more than 3 To how many professional organizations do you belong? 0 1 2 3 more than 3 Do you regularly recycle any of the following materials? Check if 'yes'. ' (___paper .___bottles ___cans or metal goods Have you pgrsonally taken part in any of the following? Check if TyesT. ____clean-up campaign ___beautification project ___environmental protection project Have you ever done any of the following? Check if 'yes'. attended city or town commission or council meetings regarding an 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 Did you feel that your actions affected the outcome? yes maybe no - commission or council meeting yes maybe no - environmental legislation maybe no - company or organization violation yes 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 830 8b, 85. 86. 87. 88. 241 8 Ecology and environment have become household words in recent years. How do YOU view the "environmental crisis" we hear so much about? __NOT a problem ___SLIGHT problem ___MODERATE problem ___SERIOUS problem Do your friends share your view? yes some of them no Do family members share your view? yes some of them no Have you ever defended your position publicly? yes no Have you attended any other seminars or workshops on environmental education in the last year? yes no If yes, about how many? What is your age group? under 19 19-3“ 35-“9 50-6“ 65 or above male female harried: yes no Are there children in your household? yes no To what ethnic group do you belong? American Indian Latin American Cther Black White What educational level have you completed? High School Bachelor's Ph.D. Associate Degree iaster's How long have you lived in your present community? 0-5 years 5-10 years more than 10 years Have you lived the greater part of your ADULT life in: city suburb small town country Did you live the greater part of your life as a CHILD or YOUTH in: city suburb small town country what is your vocation? Thank you for your participation. APPENDIX B CODEBOOK Environmental Attitude Profile - 1978 Variable Number 1 2 3 4-31 32-43 Card Col. Numbers 1-u 5 6 7-34 35-46 APPENDIX B CODEBOOK Environmental Attitude Profile - 1978 Card 1 Field width Description 4 Respondent number 1 Card number of case 1 Vocation (Ques 88) 1 = teacher, K-12 2 = TES staff 3 = DNR personnel 4 = nature center, h-H, naturalist, park & rec 5 = student 6 = post hi school instruct 7 = other 28 Perceived content (Ques 1) (1 ea.) 0 = not included 1 = included in env. ed. 12 Michigan Public Opinion Survey (1 ea.) 0 = NOT a problem 1 = SLIGHT problem 2 = MODERATE problem 3 = SERIOUS problem 242 Variable Number 44-75 243 Card 1 (cont'di Card Col. Field Numbers Width Description 47—78 32 George Data (Ques 1# thru 45) (1 ea.) 0 = FULL DISAGREEMENT with MOST FAVORABLE attitude PARTIAL DISAGREEMENT Undecided PARTIAL AGREEMENT FULL AGREEMENT See questionnaire sample for MOST FAVORABLE attitude (Appendix A) (2'me II II II II 244 Card 2 Variable Card Col. Field Number Numbers fllflifl Description 76 1-4 4 Respondent number 77 5 1 Card number of case (2) 78 6 1 Number of Prof. Journ. Biophysical read regularly 79 7—8 2 Total hours per month spent with publications in var 78 8O 9 1 Number of Prof. Journ. Meth. & Tech. read regularly 81 10-11 2 Total hours per month spent with publications in var 80 82 12 1 Number of Spec. Int. Nature. Environ. read regularly 83 13-14 2 Total hours per month spent with publications in var 82 84 15 1 Number of Spec. Int. Sports read regularly 85 16-17 2 Total hours per month Spent with publications in var 84 86 18 1 Number of Spec. Int. Sci. & Tech. read regularly 87 19-20 2 Total hours per month spent with publications in var 86 88 21 1 Number of Spec. Int. Other read regularly 89 22-23 2 Total hours per month spent with publications in var 88 9O 24 1 Number of Gen. Int. News read regularly 91 25-26 2 Total hours per month Spent with publications in var 9O 92 27 1 Number of Gen. Int. Feature read regularly Variable Number 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 Card Col. Numbers 28—29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 245 Card 2 (cont'di Field Width Description 2 Total hours per month spent with publications in var 92 1 Number of times per day watch TV news 0 1 2 3 WNE—‘O d'll II II II (D O 1 Number of times per day listen to radio news 0 \QNHO d’ll II II II 1 2 3 (D C 1 Detroit Free Press 0 = no 1 = yes 1 Detroit News 0 = no 1 = yes 1 Ann Arbor News 0 = no 1 = yes 1 State Journal 0 = no 1 = yes 1 Grand Rapids Press O = no 1 = yes 1 Other newspapers and Sunday ‘ only of a daily 0 = none 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 etc. 1 Total neWSpapers read 0 = none 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 etc. Variable Number 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 246 Card 2 (cont'dl Card Col. Field Numbers Width Description 39 1 blank 40 1 Objectivity rank, magazine writer 1 = 1 best 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 4 poorest 41 1 Objectivity rank, newspaper reporter same as var 104 42 1 Objectivity rank, radio news reporter same as var 104 43 1 Objectivity rank, TV news reporter same as var 104 44 1 Credibility, National TV News 1 = not credible to 7 = very credible 45 1 Credibility, Local TV News same as var 108 46 1 Credibility, TV Specials same as var 108 47 1 Credibility, TV Documentaries same as var 108 48 1 Credibility, Public Television same as var 108 49 1 Credibility, Nat'l Radio News same as var 108 50 1 Credibility, Local Radio News same as var 108 51 1 Credibility, Radio Specials same as var 108 Variable Number 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 247 Card 2 (cont'd) Card Col. Field Numbers Width Description 52-54 3 Minutes per day watching television 55-57 3 Minutes per day listening to radio 58-60 3 Minutes per day reading neWSpapers 61-63 3 Minutes per day reading magazines 64 1 Acquainted with Cooperative Extension Service 0 = no 1 = yes 65 1 Use publications of CBS 0 = no 1 = yes 66 1 Use in classroom 0 = no 1 = yes 67 1 Use for preparation 0 = no 1 = yes 68 1 Use for own needs 0 = no 1 = yes 69 1 Credibility, Coop. Ext. Serv. same as var 108 70 1 Source reliability rank, general magazines 1 = 1st choice to 7 = 7th choice 71 1 Source reliability rank, professional journals same as var 126 72 1 Source reliability rank, newspapers same as var 126 73 1 Source reliability rank, formal classes same as var 126 Variable Number 130 131 132 133 Card Col. Numbers 74 75 76 77 248 Card 2 icont'd) Field Width 1 Description Source reliability rank, colleagues same as var 126 Source reliability rank, CES bulletins same as var 126 Source reliability rank, special interest periodicals same as var 126 Conflict resolution none selected radio colleagues neWSpapers television more than one selected \n-l—‘wmr—to Variable Number 134 135 136 137 138 139-143 144 145 146 147 Card Col. Numbers 1-4 5 6 9-13 14 15 16-18 19—21 249 Card 3 Field Width Description 4 Respondent number 1 Card number of case (3) 1 Present grade or subject 1 = K-3 2 = 4-6 3 = Middle or Jr. High 4 = High School 5 = College 6 = Phys Ed. 7 = Music, Art, Library, Administration, etc. 8 = Outdoor Ed. spec., multiple grades 9 = non-formal ed., special subject area 0 = post high school, Spec. subject area 1 Prior grades or subjects same as var 136 1 Conduct outdoor environmental learning experiences 0 = no 1 = yes 5 Where conduct var 138 (1 ea.) 0 = not marked 1 = marked 1 Involved students out-of- school 0 = no 1 = yes 1 Number of times var 144 O = none 1 = 1 to 5 = 6 = more than 5 3 Minutes er week on Env. Ed. (Ques 61 3 Min. per week on E.E., others (Ques 62) 250 Card 3 icont'd) Variable Card Col. Field Number Numbers Width Description 148 22-23 2 Classroom contact time in hours per week 149 24 1 Member of MEEA O = no 1 = yes 150-156 25-31 7 Attendance influence (1 ea.) 0 = not marked 1 = marked 157 32 1 Length of prior knowledge 1 = 0-3 months 2 = 4-6 months 3 = 7-9 months 4 = 10-12 months 5 = 1-2 years 6 = more than 2 years 158 33 1 Decision on prior knowledge same as var 157 159 34 1 Civic group memberships O = O 1 = 1 2 = 2 3: 4 = more than 3 160 35 1 Professional organization memberships same as var 159 161 36 1 Recycle = none marked paper bottles cans or metal goods paper and bottles paper and cans bottles and cans all three VOxkn-{I'le-‘o n "I!" HIIH 251 Card 3 (cont'di Variable Card Col. Field Number Numbers Width Description 162 37 1 Projects 0 = none marked 1 = clean-up campaign 2 = beautification project 3 = protection project 4 = clean-up & beautify 5 = clean-up & protect 6 = beautify & protect 7 = all three 163-165 38-40 3 Influence action (1 ea.) 0 = no 1 = yes 166-168 41-43 3 Influence effect perception (1 ea.) 0 = no 1=Iwflm 2 = yes 169 44 1 Environmental crisis 0 = NOT a problem 1 = SLIGHT problem 2 = MODERATE problem 3 = SERIOUS problem 170 45 1 Friends share view 0 = no 1 = some of them 2 = yes 171 46 1 Family share View 0 = no 1 = some of them 2 = yes 172 47 1 Public defense 0 = no 1 = yes 173 48 1 WorkshOps attended 0 = O 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 etc. 252 Card 3 (cont'd) Variable Card Col. Field Number Numbers Width Description 174 49 1 Age group O = under 19 1 = 19—34 2 = 35-49 3 = 50-64 4 = 65 or above 175 50 1 Sex 1 = male 2 = female 176 51 1 Married 0 = no 1 = yes 177 52 1 Children 0 = no 1 = yes 178 53 1 Ethnic group 1 = American Indian 2 = Black 3 = Latin American 4 = White 5 = Other 179 54 1 Educational level 1 = High School 2 = Associate Degree 3 = Bachelor's 4 = Master's 5 = Ph.D. 180 55 1 Present community 1 = 0-5 years 2 = 5-10 years 3 = more than 10 years 181 56 1 Adult community 1 = city 2 = suburb 3 = small town 4 = country 5 = more than one of above 182 57 1 Child community 1 = city 2 = suburb 3 = small town 4 = country 5 = more than one of above Variable Number 183 184 253 Card 3 (cont'd) Card Col. Field . Numbers Width Description 58 1 TES year 0 = 1978 entry 59 1 TES University session MSU EMU WSU CMU (2'me APPENDIX C A Review of the 1965 George Study as it is Relevant to the Current Thesis APPENDIX C A Review of the 1965 George Study as it is Relevant to the Current Thesis "A Comparative Analysis of Conservation Attitudes in Situations Where Conservation Education Is a Part of the Educational Experience" Robert W. George modified and administered a conserva- tion attitude survey in 1965 which was reported in his Ph.D. dissertation of 1966. His research served as the foundation for this 1978 attitude survey. In his research, George reviewed the prior work upon which his study was based.* Quaintance, in 1940, pointed out, in George's words, "the importance of attitudes and the social implications involved in effective conservation education. He cited 'testing for attitudes' as needed research." Sherman's multiple choice questionnaire of 1950 surveyed opinions and attitudes as well as knowledge possess- ed by elementary school teachers in training. The population studied resembled that of Peyton in 1976. Sherman’s work was cited by George as "one of the first studies directed to the effect of the 'teacher factor' upon student knowledge." * References cited by George are listed in this appendix and do not appear in the thesis List of References. 254 255 Masters (1953) studied "teacher improvement in conser- vation education as a result of attending a conservation summer camp" in Illinois. This conservation education experience was similar to that of the Michigan program now called the Teachers' Environmental School. George concluded that these earlier studies were not applicable to his work although they did tentatively explore conservation attitudes. One of the early investigations which supported the need for the dual nature of the current study was that of Capps in 1939. He recognized that future studies of conser- vation education should include the effects of mass media specifying newspapers, magazines, radio and movies. The first work which made a substantial contribution to the George study was that of Wievel in 1947. Wievel constructed a new, Likert-scale type, attitude measure when he was unable to find a suitable pre-existing one. The Lively and Preiss investigation, published in 1957, explored the attitudes of conservation teachers and the programs of larger colleges and universities, pointing to the influence of attitudes on teaching of conservation. Several of the Lively and Preiss conclusions, valid at the time, no longer fit the published attitudes, concepts or practices of professional environmental educators, yet many others are as significant in 1978 as they were in 1957. The discrepancies are, in some instances, an outgrowth of the change from the conservation concept and its wise—use 256 principles to the more comprehensive environmental concept which encompasses preservationist attitudes and compromises with economics, sociology and politics. Recognition of this disparity prompted the wording changes from 'conservation' in the George study to 'environment' in the current thesis and its data collection instrument. George traced the literature on conservation attitudes and their measurement, drawing on the work and summary by Remmers (1954). The work of Laug (1960) was then cited as "a ground-breaking project in conservation attitudes." Although Laug's project dealt with college freshmen and sophomores in a biology class, it did establish a usable attitude measure and that changes in attitudes occurred as a result of conservation training. Laug confirmed the validity and reliability of his measuring instrument using statistical procedures. The 1965 investigation by Whiteman was a near-replica- tion of the Laug study using a similar population. Whiteman refined the Laug test to accommodate computer analysis. Whiteman's work did much to establish the Laug instrument and the Likert-scale reSponse format as a sound procedure for measuring and analysing conservation attitudes and attitude changes. George noted that in spite of this sound work, "there is, however, a need to reach more varied age groups and educational levels." All three, Laug, Whiteman and George, acknowledged the work of Wievel as basic to their further development of 257 attitude measurement and analysis. George pointed out (p. 33) some of the problems inherent in combining attitude and knowledge questions in the same measuring device. He went on to thoroughly explore the previous test instruments, revising the testing tool to make it "adaptable to a wider range of ages and educational backgrounds" (p. 34). George was fortunate to be teaching college classes in environmental conservation education. He was able to incorporate input from his students to further develop, refine and verify the previous questionnaires, benefitting both directly and indirectly his students and the students of other environ— mental educators. One of George's considerations in instrument modifica- tion was to "intensify the statement or concept.” There was little problem, then, with immanent ambiguity of the state- ments and identification of attitude could be more clearly made by the respondents, both results desirable. Intensify- ing also reduced tendency to dissonance prompted by the statements. This intensification not only clarified and "eased interpretation" but affected the score distribution. Intensification resulted in a tendency to cluster scores in the upper portion of the range. Although intensification may in some instances make it easier for the respondent to answer as he thinks he should, it probably avoids or reduces more problems than it causes when it is performed with the care and thoroughness which George applied. The clustering caused by intensifying the statements 258 does make it more difficult to evaluate the scores of both individuals and groups. Changes in attitude scores may appear as small values when in fact the changes are fairly important. These small-value changes may then require rather large populations, sample or total, for statistical procedures to determine that a change is statistically significant. Differences within groups may also appear as diSproportionately large when evaluating between-group differences. Reliance on statistical evaluation should be strongly tempered by intuitive as well as deductive inter- pretation of the data collected. Further work with this instrument will help to determine the reliability of small— value changes, especially if a solid data base may be used as a base-line reference. George's effort to measure varied age groups and educa- tional levels was successful in itself and in establishing the soundness of his test instrument. He measured high school students, as had Wievel, college students, as had Laug and Whiteman, and adults. He used before-and-after and control testing to measure the effects of conservation education programs. The high school group experienced a 4-H conservation camp. The college group experienced a conservation oriented college course. The adults experienced a summer conservation workshop for teachers and leaders, the then-current equivalent of today's Teachers' Environmental School. As a result, George's preliminary study determined 259 (pp. 48-9) that his questionnaire was compatible with his needs and the prior work of Laug and Whiteman. He also determined that his questionnaire was valid for assessing changes resulting from the experiences each group underwent. His statement that "the consistent correlation between experience and total scores as well as part scores reflected the validity of the measuring device" (p. 113) is particular- ly relevant to the current thesis. George's work analyzed a variety of influencing factors among all groups concluding, in so doing, that the attitude measuring instrument was both a valid and a reliable device suitable for high school, college and adult groups. The provision should be made that only high-interest groups have so far been studied and Should therefore be the only groups for whom this measuring instrument may be considered sound at this time. This researcher agrees that, from the evidence presented by George, his attitude measuring instrument is both valid and reliable for high school through adult groups having expressed interest in conservation and environmental matters. APPENDIX D GEORGE DATA COMPARISON APPENDIX D GEORGE DATA COMPARISON In order to test for significance in the mean differ- ences between the 1978 group data and the 1965 group data, Student's t was the statistic chosen. AS the published George data was properly concerned with the overall test instrument rather than its parts, variances for the several sections were not included. Therefore, a reasonable procedure for comparison was devised and t-test calculations were then performed. The George data scores for Part A and Part B were assumed to add directly as is the apparent case with the 1978 data. They were also assumed to have standard deviations directly proportional to that for the complete instrument. Thus: mean A score + mean B score = A + B std. dev. mean Total score Total std. dev. Comparing the results with Similar treatment of the 1978 data indicated that this was not unreasonable and would be apt to produce values nearly equal to or somewhat less than the real values. In order to accommodate the possibility that 1965 variances might in fact approach those of 1978, a second set 260 261 of computations was performed assuming variance equality. For the two groups of teachers, this treatment Should then provide a reasonable range for probability comparison. As the 1965 DNR group produced a variance close to that of 1978, and both sets of calculations resulted in quite large t values, it is reasonable to assume at least fair validity of the method for indicator purposes. The following formulas were used in the calculations of t values, computer processed. (n -1) 2 + (n -1) 2 78 s 65 s pooled variance s2 = 78 65— (n78‘1) + (1165-1) - 2 _ 2 2 sample mean diff. Sa — (s /n78 + s /n65) (X - 7C ) t value ta = 788- 65 d Significances were determined by reference to the tables found in Biometrika Tables for Statisticians, E.S. Pearson and H.O. Hartley, eds., Vol. 1, 1956. APPENDIX E PERCEIVED CONTENT TITLE SOURCES APPENDIX E PERCEIVED CONTENT TITLE SOURCES Environmental Education Guidelines, Michigan Department of Education, 1973. Fundamentals of Environmental Education, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1976. Toward. an Action Plan: A Report on the Tbilisi Conference on Environmental Education, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1978. Michigan's Environmental Future, Governor's Environmental Education Task Force, (Michigan), 1973. School District of the City of Royal Oak, Royal Oak, Mich. School District of the City of Ferndale, Ferndale, Mich. Ovid-Elsie School District, Elsie, Mich. Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills, Mich. Mid-Michigan Community College, Gladwin, Mich. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich. 262 APPENDIX F PERIODICAL CATEGORIZATION SYSTEM APPENDIX F PERIODICAL CATEGORIZATION SYSTEM Upon completion of the first two entry-profile surveys, a summary of the "periodicals, journals and magazines you read regularly" was compiled to indicate the scope of titles which might be encountered in the survey. This summary was also to provide guidance in selection of a useful system for categorization and data-analysis coding. The 56 respondents included in this preliminary data scan listed 113 different titles. From this list, eight categories were chosen to represent the range of periodical- reading interests of the reSpondents. For the purposes of the analyses anticipated, the groupings chosen were consider- ed to have the greatest potential utility, permitting meaningful variations of data-collapse techniques, yet remaining sufficiently distinct and subdivided to allow useful correlations -- without being cumbersome. The titles included in each category by all respondents are listed in Appendix G. Professional Journals was selected as a major division with two subdivisions. Professional journal was defined as a periodical addressed in its content and its included 263 264 advertising to those who are practicing professionals in a particular specialty, discipline or subject field. Although individuals who are not practicing professionals might be subscribers and regular readers, the scope and depth of content would have the greatest appeal to those who are paid for their interest in the topics presented. Two subdivisions were drawn to satisfy the specialized needs anticipated for this study. One was based on the content having emphasis on the biophysical sciences; the other included those publications with content emphasizing applications technology and methodology. The placement of a particular periodical in one or the other of these subdivi- sions tended, in some instances, to be subjective and one might be hard pressed to defend a choice for an occasional title. The first criterion was the content, the second was the apparent advertising audience. These two were usually quite clear. A third criterion was employed if there was still question as to placement: a subjective appraisal of the probable interest of the reader -- increased knowledge of the biophysical environment itself or increased knowledge of methods or techniques for utilization of biophysical resources by the human culture. In the end, this latter distinction is an important indication of the orientation of the audience and was considered a potential correlation item. Four subdivisions of "Special Interest Magazines" were selected. The first included those periodicals with primary 265 emphasis on the environment in general or the broad field of natural history. Some of these titles might well be considered in the same utility class as professional journals and indeed are often so used. However, a distinction was made based upon style of presentation. A periodical written for consumption by a general audience and requiring little or no specialized academic training for understanding of its content was classified as Special Interest rather than Professional. Those with an apparent point-of—view toward the topics presented rather than emphasizing the more detach- ed and dispassionate recitations of findings usually consider- ed more characteristic of "professional" journals were placed in the Special Interest category. The second subdivision followed the same considerations as with professional journals: those magazines with primary emphasis on science and technology, again drawing distinc- tions between "professional" and "Special interest" based on "scientific" versus "popular" styles of presentation. An important question arose at this point as to the proper classification of magazines aimed at farmers. Several of these might well be categorized as professional journals emphasizing resource utilization. AS a consequence of this question, a further refinement of categorization was adopted. The vocation of the respondent was used to determine whether a title was professional or Special interest. Thus, if the respondent was a farmer by vocation, a farm magazine would be listed as a professional journal. If the respondent was 266 a teacher by vocation, a farm magazine would be listed as a special interest periodical emphasizing technology. This same delineation was then applied to all periodicals and all respondents. The third subdivision of Special Interest magazines included those titles emphasizing outdoor activities and sports. Some of these might be considered resource utilization and thus appropriate for the Methods or Science and Technology divisions. However, When in question, the distinctions were based on vocation versus hobby utility. Hunting and fishing magazines would then be considered Special Interest with Outdoor Activity Emphasis unless the respondent was a professional hunter or fisherman and, because such activities are today essentially hobbies rather than potential or ancillary employment, Technology Emphasis appeared to be somewhat less appropriate than Outdoor Activity. The fourth Special Interest category included all others where readership would reflect a special subject interest rather than the more generalized interests encompassed by the next two categories. Again, some titles might appear to be approPriate to the methods or science and technology classes and in these cases placement in the Other category was based on a subjective judgment related to the breadth and depth of content presentation and the nature of the advertising in the magazine. The last two subdivisions distinguish two types of 267 General Interest magazines: News Emphasis and Features Emphasis. To be classified as a news magazine, a periodical must be distributed at least weekly. It must also cover a wide range of topics and appeal to a variety of interests. General Interest Magazines with Features Emphasis may have a recognizable focus, but cover a broad range of interests and treat topics with some depth. Although specific articles or even issues may be timely in nature, the distinction between news magazines and features magazines is readily made for this study on the basis of frequency and lead-time of publication. APPENDIX G PERIODICAL TITLES ASSIGNED TO CATEGORIES APPENDIX C PERIODICAL TITLES ASSIGNED TO CATEGORIES Professional Journals with Biophysical Emphasis Transactions of American Fisheries Society Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada Science American Scientist Revue de ecologie et biologie du sol Transactions of American Microscopical Society Journal of Sedimentary Petrology Amer. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin Environmental Education Report American Forestry Journal Naturalist Design and the Environment Professional Journals with Methods or Technological Emphasis American Dental Assistants Journal AVA Journal MEEA Newsletter MEA (Journal)/(News) NEA Journal Teacher Learning Instructor Oil and Gas News Journal of Forestry Science Teacher Science and Children Biology Teacher (American Biology Teacher) Museum News World Oil Journal of Oil and Gas Doane Report School Library Journal Education Journal Nat'l Council of Teachers of English - Elem. Journal Journal of Chemical Education (cont'd) 268 269 Prof. Journ. Meth. & Tech. (cont'd) National Biology Teacher Michigan Science Teacher's Review Metropolitan Detroit Science Teacher's Review Today's Education Teacher's Voice Early Years Exceptional Child Amer. Psych. Assoc. Monitor Diagnostique Teacher Education Resource Recovery Mining Engineering Assoc. of Engineering Geologists Journal Canadian Mining Skillings Mining Review American Congress of Surveying and Mapping American Journal of Nursing Michigan School Board Journal Michigan Elementary Principals Magazine ASPO Planning American Institute of Planners Journal Park and Recreation Magazine Mathematics Teacher Arithmetic Teacher Research in Mathematics Archaeology Horticulture American Nurseryman Read Earth Science Chemistry Landscape Architecture Quarterly Progressive Architecture NEA Reporter Steelmeaders Newsletter School Shop Forest Science Journal of Agricultural Economics Forestry Chronicles American Logger Grade Teacher Reading Teacher Today's Child Journal Extension Journal Forest Magazine 270 Special Interest Magazines with Generalized Natural History or Environmental Emphasis National Geographic Michigan Natural Resources Magazine National and International Wildlife National Geographic World Women's Nat'l Farm and Garden Newsletter Audubon Michigan Botanist Field Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Rhodora Ranger Rick Environmental Defense Fund Cousteau Society Not Man Apart (Friends of the Earth) Explorer Natural History Forest -- American Mother Earth News Ecology newspaper, Grand Valley State College The Living Wilderness Sierra Club Magazine Environment Environmental News Astronomy Special Interest Magazines with Science and Technology Emphasis Popular Science Popular Mechanics Mechanix Illustrated Scientific American Science Digest Journal of American Orchid Society Horticulture Science News Farm Journal Michigan Farmer Michigan Farm Bureau newspaper Hoard's Dairyman Successful Farming Science Illustrated 271 Special Interest Magazines with Outdoor Activities and Sports Emphasis Michigan Out-Of—Doors Sports Afield Field and Stream Runners World Sports Illustrated Cruising Magazine Sail American Rifleman Outdoor Life American Hunter Wilderness Camping Outside Northwoods Call Mariah Eddies, Pools and Riffles Montana Outdoors Pilot Backpacking Horseman Horse and Rider Bowhunter Backpacker National 4-H Magazine 272 Special Interest Magazines with Other Emphases Gourmet Phi Delta Kappan Popular Photography Organic Farm and Gardening Hot Rod Magazine Flower and Garden Dogs Girl Scout Leader Decorating and Craft Ideas Americana NAWCC Bulletin (clocks) The Catholic Agitator Apartment Life Glamour Early American Life Organic Gardening Sojourners National Catholic Reporter A.D. (Presbyterian Church) Misc. Church Periodicals Christian Reader Rider Car and Driver Variety Stereo Review Prevention Watchtower Awake Christian Science Journal and Sentinel Modern Photography Home Handyman Plants Alive Kappa Delta Pi Outdoor Gardening Bon Appetit Guideposts Beer Can Collectors of America Newsletter Credit Union Moving On 273 General Interest Magazines with News Emphasis New Times Time Newsweek U.S. News and World Report People Atlas World News Review Ebony Kiplinger Letter General Interest Magazines with Features Emphasis Topics Good Housekeeping Sphere Michigan Alumnus AAA Motor News (Michigan Living) Esquire Better Homes and Gardens Woman's Day Family Circle New Republic New Yorker Reader's Digest Atlantic Monthly Consumers Report Psychology Today Southern Living Ms. House and Garden Harper's Aware Redbook Ladies Home Journal McCall's Fortune Saturday Review New Woman Cosmopolitan Rolling Stone Playboy Penthouse Money Monthly Detroit Jet Vogue The American Home Ideals LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Atkin, Charles K. "Anticipated Communication and Mass Media Information-Seeking." Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (1972): 188-99. Babbie, Earl R. Survey_Research Methods. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing, 1973. Backstrom, Charles H. and Hursh, Gerald D. Survey Research. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern Univ. Press, 1963. Barker, R. Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Stud in the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1968. Baum, Andrew: Singer, Jerome E.: and Valins, Stuart. Advances in Environmental Psychology: Volume 1, The Urban Environment. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates, 1978. Bettinghaus, Erwin. College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Lecture, 14 Nov 1977. Binder, Arnold; Stokols, Daniel: and Catalano, Ralph. "Social Ecology: An Emerging Multidiscipline." Journal of Environmental Education 7 (Winter 1975): 2, 32-43. Bishop, George F. "The Effect of Education on Ideological Consistency." ublic Opinion Quarterly. 40 (1976): 337-48 - Born, Ted and Clark, Edward. "Environmentalize Your Teaching: A Teachers Workshop Model.” Journal of Outdoor Education. 11 (1977): 2, 11-14. Bozardt, D.A. Professor of Science Education, College of Education, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan. Series of interviews, 1975 and 1976. Calcote, William Jennings. "Teacher Perceptions of Environ- mental Education Concepts in Programs of Biological Science Instruction in Secondary Schools." Ph.D. dissertation. Auburn University, 1976. 274 275 Capps, Forest Olin. "A Survey of the Conservation Information Possessed by Pupils in Missouri High Schools." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Missouri, 1939. Carter, Richard F. "Communication and Affective Relations." Journalism Quarterly. 42 (Spring 1965): 203-12. Chaffee, Steven H. and McLeod, Jack M. "Sensitization in Panel Design: A Coorientational Experiment." Journalism Quarterly. 45 (1968): 661-69. Childress, Ronald B. "Public School Environmental Education Curricula: A National Profile." Journal of Environ- mental Education. 9 (Spring 1978): 3, 2-11. Connell, R.W. "Political Socialization in the American Family: The Evidence Re-Examined." Public Opinion Quarterly. 36 (1972): 323-33. Coombs, Clyde H. and Coombs, Lolagene C. "'Don't Know': Item Ambiguity or Respondent Uncertainty?" Public Opinion Quarterly. 40 (1976-7): 497-514. Cummings, Stanley Lincoln, Jr. "Environmental Education: A Market Survey." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Calif., 19-23 April 1976. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 124415, 1976. Davison, W. Phillips; Boylan, James; and Yu, Frederick T.C. Mangedia Systems and Effects. New York: Praeger, 197 - Dick, Ronald E.; McKee, David T.; and Wagar, J. Alan. "A Summary and Annotated Bibliography of Communications Principles." Journal of Environmental Education. 5 (Summer 197E7: 4, 8-13. Feather, N.T. "Cognitive Dissonance, Sensitivity and Evaluation." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 66 (1963): 2, 157463. Fields, James M. and Schuman, Howard. "Public Beliefs About the Beliefs of the Public." Public Opinion Quarterly. 40 (1976-7): 427-48. Foerstel, Dietrich Klaus Erhard. "An Analysis of the Congruence Among Students, Parents, Teachers and Environmentalists as Related to their Perception of and Solutions to Environmental Problems." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Tennessee, 1976. 276 Friedman, Lucy N.; Gold, Alice R.: and Christie, Richard. "Dissecting the Generation Gap: Intergenerational and Intrafamilial Similarities and Differences." Public Opinion Quagterly. 36 (1972): 334-46. Gallagher, J.J. "Some Definitions." Science and Math Teaching Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 10 Nov 1977. (Typewritten.) George, Robert W. "A Comparative Analysis of Conservation Attitudes in Situations Where Conservation Education is a Part of the Educational Experience." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University, 1966. George, Robert W. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Series of interviews, 1977-9. Governor's Environmental Education Task Force. Michigan's Environmental Future, 2nd ed. Lansing, Michigan: Office of the Governor, 1973. Gross, Steven Jay and Niman, C. Michael. "Attitude-Behavior Consistency: A Review." Public Opinion Quarterly. 39 (1975): 358-68- Guilford, J.P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology apd Education. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1950. Harvey, Gary Dale. "Environmental Education: A Delineation of Substantive Structure." Ph.D. dissertation. Southern Illinois University, 1976. Hess, Robert D. and Torney, Judith V. The Development of Political Attitudes in Children. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books edition, 1968. Hounshell, Paul B. and Liggett, Larry. "Environmental Education One Year Later." Journal of Environmental Education. 8 (Fall 1976): 1, 32-5. Howie, Thomas R. "Indoor or Outdoor Environmental Education?" Journaé of Environmental Education. 6 (Winter 1974): 2, 32" o Huck, Schuyler W.; Cormier, William H.; and Bounds, William G., Jr. Reading Statistics and Research. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. Hungerford, Harold R. "Myths of Environmental Education." Journaé of Environmental Education. 7 (Winter 1975): 2’ 21- o 277 Hungerford, Harold R.: Peyton, R. Ben; and Wilke, Richard J. "A Framework for BB Curriculum Planning and Develop- ment." East Lansing, Michigan: draft report by the Authors, Michigan State University, 1978. (Xerocopy.) Jinks, Jerry L. "A Total Curricular Approach to Environ- mental Education." Journal of Environmental Education. 7 (Winter 1975): 2, 11-20. Jones, Virginia A. "A Comparative Study of Environmental Education Competencies of Third Grade Students and Their Teachers." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University, 1976. Kelman, H.C. "Compliance, Identification and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change." Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2 (1958): 51-60. Kimball, Wm. J.: Thullen, Manfred: Kirk, Alan R.; and Doozan, Christopher J. Community Needs and Prioritigs as Revealed byythe Michigan Public Opinion Survey. East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Resource Development and Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, 1977. Krebs, Charles J. In a review of Small Mammal Ecolo appearing in Science. 203 (2 Jan 1979 : 350-51. Kupchella, Charles E. and Levy, Gary F. "Basic Principles in the Education of Environmentalists." Journal of Environmental Education. 6 (Spring 1975): 3, 3. Larsen, James A. "Science, Communications, Society." Journal of Environmental Education. 5 (Fall 1973): 1, 21-2. Leftridge, Leonard Alan. "Rural and Urban Secondary Student Perceptions of Environmental Issues: Relevance to Environmental Education Curriculum Development." Ph.D. dissertation. Kansas State University, 1977. McInniS, Noel. You Are An Environment. Evanston, 111.: Center for Curriculum Design. 1972. McNelly, John T. "Mass Media and Information Redistribution." Journal of Environmental Education. 5 (Fall 1973): 1, 31-36. M.E.E.R.C., Michigan Environmental Education Referent Committee (a permanent committee of the Michigan Department of Education): from interviews with R.W.George, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1978. 278 Michigan Department of Education. Environmental Educatipp_ Guidelines. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education, November 1973. Miller, Richard L. "Mere Exposure, Psychological Reactance and Attitude Change." Public Opinion Quarterly. 40 (1976): 229-33. MPOS, same as Kimball, et al., 1977. Mumpower, Jeryl Lynn. "Linking Environmental Models with Models of Human Judgment: An Example of a New Role for the Psychologist in Social Policy Making." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Colorado at Boulder, 1976. Murch, A.W. "Public Concern for Environmental Pollution." Public Opinion Quarterly. 35 (1971): 102-9. Nie, Norman H.; Hull, C. Hadlai: Jenkins, Jean G.: Steinbrenner, Karin: and Bent, Dale H. SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1975. O'Gorman, Hubert J. and Garry, Stephen L. "Pluralistic Ignorance -- A Replication and Extension." Public Opinion Quarterly. 40 (1976-77): 449-58. Pettus, Alvin. "Environmental Education and Environmental Attitudes." Journal of Environmental Education. 8 (Fall 19767: 1, 48-51. Peyton, Robert Ben. "An Assessment of Teachers' Abilities to Identify, Teach and Implement Environmental Action Skills." Ph.D. dissertation. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1977. Ritz, William C. "Involving Teachers in Environmental Education." Journal of Environmental Education. 8 (Spring 1977): 3, 40-47. Rosenberg, M.J. and Hovland, C.I. "Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Components of Attitudes." In Attitude Opganization and Change. Edited by Rosenberg, Hovland, McGuire, Abelson and Brehm. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1960. Schoenfeld, Clay. "Environmental Mass Communications: Problems and Promises." Journal of Environmental Education. 6 (Spring 1975?: 3, 20-6. . "National Environmental Education Perspective." Journal of Environmental Education. 7 (Winter 1975,a): 2’ 9-10. 279 . "The Changing Role of Mass Communication in Environmental Education." Journal of Environmental Education. 8 (Spring 1977): 3, 60-4. Schramm, Wilbur. "The Nature of an Audience." In Thg Process and Effects of Mass Communication, pp. 193-5. Edited by Wilbur Schramm and Donald F. Roberts. Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1977. Schuman, Howard. "Attitudes vs Actions Versus Attitudes vs Attitudes." Public Opinion Quarterly. 36 (1972): 347-54- Sellers, Leonard and Jones, David W., Jr. "Environment and the Mass Media." Journal of Environmental Education. 5 (Fall 1973): 1. 51-7- Shannon, Claude and Weaver, Warren. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1949. Stamm, K.R. and Bowes, J.E., II. "Communication During an Environmental Decision." Journal of Environmental Education. 3 (Spring 1972) Stamm, K.R. and Ross, J.E. "Rationality of Opinion on a Controversy in Conservation." Journalism Quarterly. 43 (Winter 1966): 762-65. Stamm, Keith R. "Environment and Communication." In Current Perspectives in Mass Communication Research, pp. 265-94. Edited by F. Gerald Kline and Phillip J. Tichenor. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1972. Stapp, William B., et al. "The Concept of Environmental Education." In Outlines of Environmental Education, pp. 53-4. Edited by Clay Schoenfeld. Madison, Wisc.: Dembar Educational Research Services, Inc., 1971. State of Michigan Legislature. 3 June 1971. Senate Concurrent Resolution Number 69. Lansing, Michigan. Steininger, Marion and Voegtlin, Kathleen. "Attitudinal Bases of Recycling." Journal of Social Psychology. 100 (1976): 155-6. Swan, J.A. "Response to Air Pollution: A Study of Attitudes and Coping Strategies of High School Youths." Environment and Behavior. September 1970: 127-52. 280 Swan, Malcolm. "Forerunners of Environmental Education." In What Makes Education Environmental? Edited by Noel McInnis and Don Albrecht. Louisville, Ky.: Data Courier, Inc. and Environmental Educators, Inc., 1975. Tanner, R. Thomas. "Conceptual and Instructional Issues in Environmental Education Today.“ Journal of Environ- mental Education. 5 (Summer 1974): 4, 48-53. Teachers' Environmental School. Descriptive brochure. Lansing, Michigan: Department of Natural Resources and MEEA, 1978. Tichenor, P.J. and Bowers, J.K. "Environment and Public Opinion." Journal of Environmental Education. 2 (Summer 1971): 4, 38-43. United States Congress, 9lst. October 1970. Environmental Education Act, Public Law 91-516. Washington, D.C. Vlasin, Raymond D. Professor of Resource Development, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Lecture and interview, 19 Jan 1978. Weinstein, Alan G. "Predicting Behavior from Attitudes." Public Opinion Quarterly. 36 (1972): 355-60. Wilbur, Henry M. "Views of Behavior." A review of Behavioral Ecology. An Evolutionary Approach, by J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies, Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer, 1978. Science. 205 (24 Aug 1979): 781. Wileman, Joseph Lawrence. "The Extent and Nature of Affective and Cognitive Changes in Teachers and Students as the Result of Participation in an Environmental Education Program." Ph.D. dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1976. Williams, Frederick.’ Reasonipg With Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Wint, Dennis Michael. "Characteristics of Elementary Teach— ers Implementing an Environmental Curriculum." Ph.D. dissertation. Case Western Reserve University, 1977. Witt, William. "Communication Concepts for Science and Environmental Communications." Journal of Environ- mental Education. 5 (Fall 1973): 1, 58-62. "11111111111“