Advertisement

DO SCHOOLS MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR STUDENTS’ ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND AWARENESS? EVIDENCE FROM PISA 2006

  • Liesje CoertjensEmail author
  • Jelle Boeve-de Pauw
  • Sven De Maeyer
  • Peter Van Petegem
Article

Abstract

The environmental agenda is gaining momentum as an international policy issue. This is reflected in an increase in environmental education research focussing on children’s awareness and attitudes toward the environment. In this study, we focused on this issue from a school effectiveness perspective and evaluated (a) which student characteristics predict environmental attitudes and awareness, (b) whether schools make a difference in their students’ environmental attitudes and awareness and (c) if school effects are different for students with varying levels of science ability. The cross-sectional Flemish data of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Programme for International Student Assessment 2006 (4,999 students in 156 schools) were re-analysed using a multivariate multilevel model to address these issues. Results show that gender, immigrant status, socioeconomic status and educational track are important in explaining students’ environmental attitudes and awareness. Furthermore, the results show that schools do matter; schools in which science is taught in a more hands-on manner are associated with higher student environmental awareness whilst environmental learning activities are associated with more pro-environmental attitudes amongst students. After controlling for student characteristics, these school effects do not differ between more science-literate children and their less or average science-literate peers.

Key words

constructivist teaching environmental attitudes environmental awareness PISA school effectiveness scientific literacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. O., Lin, H.-S., Treagust, D. F., Ross, S. P., & Yore, L. D. (2007). Using large-scale assessment datasets for research in science and mathematics education: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baviskar, S. N., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brody, M. (2005). Learning in nature. Environmental Education Research, 11, 603–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cough, A. (1999). Kids don’t like wearing the same jeans as their mums and dads: So whose ‘life’ should be in significant life experiences research? Environmental Education Research, 5(4), 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies, L. (1997). The rise of the school effectiveness movement. In J. White & M. Barber (Eds.), Perspectives on school effectiveness and school improvement (pp. 25–40). London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  6. De Maeyer, S., & Rymenans, R. (2004). Onderzoek naar kenmerken van effectieve scholen. Kritische factoren in een onderzoek naar schooleffectiviteit in het technisch en beroepssecundair onderwijs in Vlaanderen [Research on school effectiveness-enhancing factors. Critical factors in research on school-effectiveness for technical and vocational secondary education in Flanders]. Ghent, Belgium: Academia Press.Google Scholar
  7. DiEnno, C. M., & Hilton, S. C. (2005). High school students’ knowledge, attitudes, and levels of enjoyment of an environmental education unit on nonnative plants. Journal of Environmental Education, 37(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DiStefano, C., & Hess, B. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation: An empirical review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eagles, F. J., & Demare, R. (1999). Factors influencing children’s environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission Education, Audiovisual, and Culture Executive Office (2009). National summary sheets on education in Europe and ongoing changes. Brussels, Belgium: Flemish Community.Google Scholar
  11. Gibson, H. L., & Van Strat, G. A. (2001, March). A longitudinal study of the impact of constructivist instructional methods on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward teaching and learning mathematics and science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  12. Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2006). New learning environments and constructivism: The students’ perspective. Instructional Science, 34, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffith, J. (2002). Is quality/effectiveness an empirically demonstrable school attribute? Statistical aids for determining appropriate levels of analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13, 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hassan, R., Scholles, R., & Ash, N. (Eds.). (2005). Ecosystem conditions and human well-being: Current state and trends. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Hunter, L. M. (2000). A comparison of the environmental attitudes, concern, and behaviors of native-born and foreign-born U.S. Residents. Environment & Population, 21(6), 565–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B., & Bogner, F. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrument for adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 242–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klaczynski, P. A., & Reese, H. W. (1990). Educational trajectory and “action orientation”: Grade and track differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20(4), 441–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lester, B. T., Ma, L., Lee, O., & Lambert, J. (2006). Social activism in elementary science education: A science, technology, and society approach to teach global warming. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liang, L. L., & Gabel, D. L. (2005). Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to science instruction for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1143–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Littledyke, M. (2008). Science education for environmental awareness: Approaches to integrating cognitive and affective domains. Environmental Education Research, 14, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lomax, R. J. (2007). An introduction to statistical concepts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Maloney, M. P., & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Let’s hear it from the people. An objective scale for measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 28, 583–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miles, J., & Shelvin, M. (2001). Applying regression and correlation. A guide for students and researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow’s world (vol. 1: Analysis). Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  28. Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., & Tsaliki, E. (1998). Significant influences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in the UK, Slovenia, and Greece. Environmental Education Research, 4(4), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rasbach, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. J., & Goldstein, H. (2005). A user’s guide to MlWin. Version 2.0. [Computer software and manual]. Available from http://www.cmm.bristol.ac.uk/MLwiN/download/MLwiN-userman-09.pdf
  30. Reynolds, D., & Teddlie, C. (1999). The future agenda of studies into effectiveness of schools. In R. J. Bosker, B. P. M. Creemers, & S. Stringfield (Eds.), Enhancing educational excellence, equity and efficiency (pp. 223–251). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of environmental concern. The role of gender, knowledge and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22, 767–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scheerens, J. (1990). School effectiveness research and the development of process indicators of school functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford, England: Elsevier - Pergamon.Google Scholar
  34. Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(2), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Spelke, E. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60(9), 950–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimension of global environmental change. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social–psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thum, Y. M. (1997). Hierarchical linear models for multivariate outcomes. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 22(1), 77–108.Google Scholar
  40. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The Biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31–41). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wright, J. M. (2008). The comparative effects of constructivist versus traditional teaching methods on the environmental literacy of postsecondary nonscience majors. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(4), 324–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liesje Coertjens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jelle Boeve-de Pauw
    • 1
  • Sven De Maeyer
    • 1
  • Peter Van Petegem
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations