IN our modern, technology-based democratic society,

Transcription

1 Environmental Science Literacy in Science Education, Biology & Chemistry Majors Mike Robinson David Crowther IN our modern, technology-based democratic society, all citizens, not only scientists and engineers, need to be science literate if they are expected to be responsible decision makers and voters on the many issues that require some knowledge and understanding of science. Among science educators the new National Science Education Standards (National Research Council 1996) seem to offer the best hope for addressing the need for science literacy in our students. The NSES were designed to guide the United States toward a scientifically literate society. According to the NSES, science literacy is important because an understanding of science provides personal fulfillment and excitement and Americans are confronted increasingly with questions in their lives that require scientific information and scientific ways of thinking for informed decision making. Furthermore, the NSES assert that the collective judgement of our people (Americans) will determine how we manage shared resources such as air, water and national forest (NRC 1996, p. 1). This last statement certainly implies the importance of environmental science literacy as a part of total science literacy. This paper addresses the importance of environmental science literacy as one part of total science literacy. The paper compares the responses of three groups of university students in a mid-sized western university on an environmental knowledge survey (Roper Starch Worldwide 1997). The knowledge addressed in this environmental knowledge survey is also addressed in more detail in books such as the 15 years of State of the World (Brown 1999), everyday resources such as newspapers and magazines, e.g. Natural History, and Bybee s 12 environmental threats/issues (Bybee 1987). Research Questions It was hypothesized that pre-service secondary general science teachers would be the most environ- Mike Robinson, Ph.D., is a Professor of Secondary Science Education at the University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557; robinson@equinox.unv.edu. David Crowther, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Elementary Science Education at the University of Nevada, Reno; crowther@unr.edu. mental science literate due to their generalized science background and more classes in environmental science. Based on an earlier paper (Robinson 1998) it was also expected that older students would be more science literate than younger students. This paper addresses the following research questions. Research Question 1: Are biology majors more environmental science literate than chemistry majors, pre-service science teachers, and a general population sample of 1,492 adults? Research Question 2: Are biology majors more environmental science literate than pre-service biology teachers? Research Question 3: Do classes in environmental science increase environmental science literacy? Method Using a posttest only control group design (Campbell & Stanley 1963), a convenience sample of 128 university students in three classes was used in the study. The three classes represent the following groups: Group 1, biology majors (N 30); Group 2, secondary science pre-service teachers (N 47); and Group 3, chemistry majors including majors in biochemistry and engineering (N 51). A national sample of 1,492 adults was used for the baseline mean on the survey, the control. The three university subgroups were given a 12-question environmental literacy survey designed by Roper Starch. Groups 1 and 3 completed the survey in class midway through the fall semester. Group 2 completed the survey the first day of fall and spring classes. None of the groups was given any instructions other than those printed at the top of the survey. Mean scores, two-tailed t- tests, and simple ANOVA were used to analyze the data. Subjects The 128 subjects (see Table 1) were biology, preservice science teachers, and chemistry majors in a mid-sized western university. A personal data sheet to determine major, gender, age and level in school was also given. An additional personal data question requested that students list any courses taken in environmental science or related areas. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE LITERACY IN SCIENCE 9

2 Table 1. Personal data of the four groups of subjects. N Male Female NR Ave Age So Jr Sr Grad NR Group Group Group Group 4 1, Totals 1, Group 1 was composed of biology majors with a specialization in ecology (N 15), conservation (N 8) and miscellaneous others in human, education and molecular biology as well as two students who did not respond to a strand in biology (N 7). The average age of the biology majors was 24.2 with a range of 21 to 42. Ten were males and 20 were females. Eight were juniors and 22 were seniors. Group 2 was a sample of pre-service science teachers (N 47) in three classes of secondary science methods. Eighteen of the students were biology majors, 10 were general science majors, 5 were health majors, 4 were chemistry majors, 4 were physical science majors, 2 were math majors, and 1 each were physical education, environmental science and social studies majors. The average age was 29.47, with a range of 22 to 53. Five students did not give their age. Twenty-four of the students were females, 20 were males, and 3 did not respond to gender. Seventeen students were seniors, 28 were graduates, and 2 did not respond (NR) to educational level. Group 3 was a physical chemistry class comprised of 34 biochemistry majors, 8 chemical and geological engineering majors, 7 chemistry majors and 1 each in physics and high school chemistry teaching. The average age for the students was 22.31, with a range of 18 to 36. Thirty-one students were males and 20 were females. Two of the students were sophomores, 29 were juniors, 14 were seniors, and 6 were graduates. Group 4 was comprised of 1,492 adults surveyed (interviewed) by random digit telephone dialing (Roper Starch Worldwide 1997) on the same 12- question environmental literacy survey used with Groups 1, 2 and 3. Of the subjects, 748 were female and 744 were male. The age ranges were as follows: 18 to 24, 153; 25 to 34, 313; 35 to 44, 338; 45 to 54, 287; 55 to 64, 175; and older than 65, 225. The educational levels, in rounded figures, were as follows: eighth grade or less, 2%; some high school, 6%; high school graduate, 34%; some college, 24%; college graduate, 24%; postgraduate work, 11%; and refused to answer, less than 1%. The Instrument The survey (see Figure 1) was first seen in the local newspaper. It had been given to 1,501 Americans Directions Answer the following 12 questions regarding environmental issues in the U.S. and most other parts of the world. Circle the letter of the right answer when choices are given. Otherwise, write the answer in the space provided. 1. There are many different kinds of animals and plants, and they live in many different types of environments. What word is used to describe this idea? A) multiplicity; B) biodiversity; C) evolution; D) ecosystem; E) don t know. 2. Which of the following is a renewable resource? A) oil; B) iron ore; C) trees; D) coal; E) don t know 3. Which of the following materials is considered hazardous waste? A) plastic packaging; B) glass; C) batteries; D) spoiled food; E) don t know 4. What is the most common source of pollution of streams, rivers and oceans? 5. Most electricity in the U.S. is generated from what source of power? 6. What is the primary environmental benefit of wetland areas? 7. The ozone in the Earth s upper atmosphere helps protect us from what? 8. How do we currently dispose of nuclear waste in the U.S.? 9. What is the largest source of carbon monoxide in the U.S.? 10. What is the most common reason that animal species become extinct? 11. What is the name of the primary federal agency that works to protect the environment? 12. If you have trash and garbage pickup, where does most household trash and garbage eventually end up once it leaves your home? Source: The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation/Roper Starch Survey on Environmental Attitudes and Knowledge (1997). Available on the Web at NEETF@NEETF.org Figure 1. Survey of science literacy. 10 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 63, NO. 1, JANUARY 2001

3 across the U.S. in 1997 as A Survey of Environmental Attitudes and Knowledge. The survey was designed by Roper Starch Worldwide and by the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF), which commissioned the poll. The original phone survey of the NEETF also included questions about environmental attitudes that were not included in this 12-question survey. Nine of the subjects in the national survey were not reported in the data because of incomplete answers. According to NEETF, two of three Americans flunked the 12-question test failing to correctly answer nine or more questions on topics ranging from endangered species to toxic waste. Kevin Coyle, President of the NEETF, the nonprofit group that commissioned the poll, was quoted as saying: We ve got a raging debate in Congress but most Americans don t really understand what s going on. If we don t understand the problems, how can we fix them? The national poll was conducted a little ahead of the Kyota Summit on Global Climate Change. Results Answers to Research Question 1: Are biology majors more environmental science literate than chemistry majors, pre-service science teachers, and a general population sample of 1,492 adults? (See Table 2.) The Table 2. Four group comparisons for means and significant ANOVA results. N M SD Group Group Group Group 4 1, ANOVA Table For Groups 1, 2 and 3 Source SS df MS F p Total Treatment Error Error term used for comparison 3.62 with 125 df Neuman-Keuls Multiple Comparison Difference P Q Critical Q (.05) Mean 2 Mean mean score of the biology majors (N 30) in Group 1 was The mean score for the pre-service secondary science teachers (N 47) in Group 2 was 8.23, and the mean score of the chemistry majors (N 51) in Group 3 was For Research Question 1, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE LITERACY IN SCIENCE 11

4 ANOVA did show a significant difference (p.05) among the three groups. The Neuman-Keuls Multiple Comparison indicated that Group 2 (the pre-service secondary science teachers) was significantly different from Group Three (the class of chemistry majors). Group two was not significantly different from Group 1, the biology majors, at the.05 level of significance. The mean for the national sample was When Groups 1, 2 and 3 were compared with the national sample (N 1,492), ANOVA showed no significance difference between the four groups at the.05 level of probability. Answer to Research Question 2: Are biology majors more environmental science literate than pre-service biology teachers? (See Table 3.) The results showed a mean of 7.76 for the biology majors (N 30) and a mean of 7.88 for the pre-service secondary biology teachers. An independent group s t-test showed no significance difference between group means at the.05 level of significance. Pre-service secondary general science majors were also compared with the biology majors and pre-service secondary biology teachers. The general science majors (N 11) had a mean of Again there was no significant difference among the three groups at the.05 level. Answer to Research Question 3: Do classes in environmental science increase environmental science literacy? (See Table 4.) The mean for Subgroup 1 (N 60), Table 3. Mean comparisons for biology majors and preservice teachers in biology and general science. Discipline N M SD Biology Biology (Pre-service) General Science Table 4. Independent group t-test comparisons for students who took classes in environmental science and students who did not. Subgroup N M SD T df p(two-tail) Env. Classes No Env. Classes the group that had one or more classes in environmental science, was 8.0. The mean for Subgroup 2 (N 51), the students who had not taken any classes in environmental science, was A two-tailed t-test for equal variance showed a significant difference between the two subgroups at the.004 level of probability. The total number of subjects did not sum to 128 because subjects who listed courses that could not be determined to be environmental science or not (N 17) were omitted from the analysis. Some additional comparisons were made using the personal data for gender and age (see Table 5). A two-tailed t-test for equal variance compared males (N 61) and females (N 64). Three subjects did not report gender. The group means for the males and females were 7.85 and There was no significance between the two means at the.05 level. A two-tailed t-test for equal variance also compared subjects under 25 (N 78) and 25 and over (N 46). Four subjects did not report their ages. The mean for the under 25 group was 7.25 and the mean for the 25 and over group was A two-tailed t-test for equal variance showed a difference between the two groups at the.022 level of probability. Discussion & Conclusions The results of Research Question 1 (see Table 2) indicate that pre-service science teachers are significantly Table 5. Comparisons of students by gender and age. Group N M SD T df p(two-tail) Female Male Under and Over THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 63, NO. 1, JANUARY 2001

5 more environmental science literate than a sample of chemistry majors but not significantly more science literate than a sample of biology majors. The mean scores for the biology majors (M 7.76) and preservice science teachers (M 8.23) exceeded those of a national sample (M 7.01) but the mean of the chemistry majors (M 6.90) was below that of the national sample. Because pre-service science teachers are science majors trained to teach secondary school science, are in general older, and are graduates or seniors in their last semester of college before student teaching, it would generally be predicted that they would be more science literate than the majors in biology and chemistry. It would also be expected that a sample of soon-to-be secondary science teachers would be more environmental science literate than a random sample of adult Americans. What was surprising was that the mean score for the chemistry majors was so low, even below that of the national sample. In the national sample, 34% of the subjects had at least some college and at least 24% had a college degree. Also, they were in general older than the sample of chemistry majors. Perhaps age is at least as important a factor for science literacy as higher education. Another consideration might be the large group of biochemistry majors (N 34); their mean score on the survey was 6.67 while the mean score of the other chemistry majors (N 17) was Both groups have a rigorous science program that only includes one life science course, introductory biology, for the biochemistry majors and no life science course for the straight chemistry and chemical engineering majors. All of the pre-service science teachers had taken at least two courses in introductory biology and all of the pre-service biology and general science teachers had taken at least one course in environmental science. One can question whether the biochemistry majors are so driven by the intensity of their program that they have little time to take courses that might promote environmental science literacy. To further speculate, they may also be a different breed of science student than has generally been seen in the past. The high salaries being offered by biotech firms are not the traditional motivation for students who study science. The results of Research Question 2 (see Table 3) indicate that pre-service biology teachers (M 7.88) and biology majors (M 7.76) are not significantly different in environmental science literacy. This might be expected since the pre-service biology teachers finish their majors in the biology department and take much of the same program required by biology majors. They were also polled before their secondary science teaching methods course started and had not yet been exposed to the many STS issues and problems that are addressed in the class. The fact that the pre-service general science teachers (M 8.90) had the highest mean of any of the subgroups may indicate that a generalized science education does more to prepare science literate students. These students are not as specialized in any one science (the major is 52 science credits including at least 16 credits in a single science discipline), but they had all taken at least one course in environmental science and many had taken two or more. Had the sample size (N 11) been larger, the ANOVA would probably have shown a significant difference among the three subgroups (see Table 3). The results of Research Question 3 (see Table 4) indicate that having had one or more environmental science classes does make students more science literate. Students in all three areas who had taken at least one class in environmental science scored significantly higher on the science literacy survey than students who had not taken a class. These data might offer support for making an environmental science class a requirement for all students in high school as well as a part of the university core in higher education. As university education becomes more and more like job training, the meaning of a liberal education may have to be revisited, especially if university graduates are to be science literate enough to make rational decisions (ones that often require knowledge of technology and environmental science) on issues that contemporary citizens face. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE LITERACY IN SCIENCE 13

6 Two additional comparisons of males and females and older and younger students (see Table 5) were made. No difference between males and females was expected, even though research indicates that females are more sensitive to environmental issues than males so one would expect them to take a greater interest in learning about them. In fact, the national poll indicated that males know more about environment issues than females. The mean for men was 7.8 and the mean for women was 6.2. These data were not included, but the report of the poll results stated them to be statistically significant at the.01 level (Roper Starch Worldwide 1997). It was a little surprising that older students were more knowledgeable than younger students, given the fact that younger students are more likely to have studied environmental issues/problems in K to 12 education. But, the data from the national poll also indicated that older adults (35 to 44 and 45 to 54) are the most knowledgeable (means of 7.6 and 7.8) of the environment. Young adults (18 to 24 and 25 to 34) who had been out of school less than 10 years scored near the bottom (means of 6.7 and 6.9). Adults over 65 scored lowest (mean of 5.5). Observations in the author s classes indicate that middle-aged adults are more likely to gain information from reading, which may be more in-depth. They are also not as dependent on TV for information as younger adults. Presumably they are also more apt to have families and positions of responsibility that would make them care about the future of our environment. Still, young people are more likely to have taken environmental science in high school or college and they are also the ones who will be most affected by a deteriorating environment. As a result, one would expect them to be very motivated to learn more about environmental problems. There are several down sides of this study, as well as the national poll, that should be discussed. First, knowledge of the environment seems rather dismal even among educated people. This is indicated by the means of all three groups but especially the chemistry group. On a national basis, the NEETF poll indicates how little the American public knows about environmental problems that can affect their lives and health, and leaves one wondering how solutions can be achieved with such a high level of ignorance. Only 33% knew that most electricity is from fossil fuels (most thought it is from hydropower) and only 40% could define biodiversity. Second, most people think they are environmentally literate even when they are not. In the national poll, over twothirds of the respondents said they knew a lot or a fair amount about the environment, and men were more likely than women to express this view. Third, most respondents thought that technology would bail us out of our environmental problems. In closing, a few comments are offered about the direction of biology and environmental science education. First, it cannot be assumed that students will become environmental science literate through better teachers and courses in the traditional sciences in K to 12 schools. If anything, this study indicates that young people are less environmentally science literate than older adults. Second, before behaviors that are detrimental to the environment can be changed, more awareness and knowledge of the issues/problems must occur in students and adults. Research by Braus (1995) indicates that a change in behavior must first be preceded by awareness of and more knowledge of the problem. Requiring at least one course in environmental science, or teaching introductory biology from an ecological approach in both high school and college, might make a much larger segment of society aware of and more knowledgeable about environmental issues and problems that affect all of us. It might also increase the prospect for changing personal behavior to insure sustainability of the natural environment we all depend on for life. Last, and not addressed in this paper, a better understanding of the connections and applications of science to society might help more people develop a more realistic understanding of political and economic agendas that can exacerbate environmental problems. References Braus, J. (1995). Environmental education. Bioscience, 44(9), Brown, L. (1999). State of the World. New York: W. W. Norton. Bybee, R. (1987). Teaching about science-technology-society. School Science and Mathematics, 87(4), Campbell, D. & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research. New York: Houghton Mifflin. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Robinson, M. (1998). Comparing environmental science literacy among education majors and a national sample. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 18(4), Roper Starch Worldwide. (1997). The National Report Card on Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior. Washington, DC: National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. 14 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 63, NO. 1, JANUARY 2001