Environmental Education Attitudes of Biology Students, Teachers, and Administrators

LANCE E. BEDWELL

ABSTRACT: This paper describes a study concerned with the ranking of five major goals of biology instruction by biology teachers, college preparatory biology students, non-college preparatory biology students, and public school admin- istrators in order to determine the relative emphasis each group believed should be given to a sociaVenvironmenta1 goal. The hypothesis of no difference in the ranking of instructional goals was retained and the ranking of the sociaVenvironmental goal by the four groups also did not differ significantly. The subjects in this study seemed to prefer the social/environmental goal in fourth place ahead of a career orientation to the teaching and learning of biology.

he development of ecologically sound attitudes T toward the environment has emerged in the literature of recent years as a viable and worthwhile educational goal. As a result, many studies have been conducted with the purpose of assessing the attainment of positive environmental attitudes by students at various educational levels (1,2,5). Of these, several have taken the approach of determining student attitudes toward selected environmental issues. This is an impor- tant concern, however, the issues are ephemeral; they tend to change over time. I t might be argued that an interest in learning about environmental issues in general would represent a more stable manifestation of a positive attitude. This is to say that if students feel that the study of environmental issues is an important educa- tional goal, it would indirectly indicate a positive atti- tude toward our environment.

A recent synthesis of efforts in the area of biology ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~

Lance Bedwell is associate professor in the School of Education, University of South Carolina, Coastal Cardina College. This article is based on a paper presented at the regional meeting of the National Science Teachers’ Association in Knoxville, Tennessee, on October 23, 1982.

education supports the contention that social/’en- vironmental issues must become the central focus of in- struction in biology (3). Students participating in such instruction would, of course, have a greater potential for developing ecologically sound attitudes toward our environment. In order to realize this potential, however, students, teachers and administrators must share this goal. There is some limited evidence that they do not. McTeer (4), in a study concerning social studies educators and students, concluded that “secondary school personnel have less concern for environmental issues than certain other groups, namely students and parents of students.” Is a similar conclusion possible in the area of biology education? If the answer to this question is yes, it would indicate that much needs to be done to develop those attitudes with present and future teachers of biology.

The present study is a modified replication of McTeer’s (4) earlier investigation. His study involved the ranking of objectives in social studies in order to assess environmental attitudes; this replication is con- cerned with the ranking of major goals of biology in- struction by biology teachers, college preparatory biology students, non-college preparatory bicllogy students, and public school administrators. It is as- sumed that the ranking of such goals provides an in- direct indication of attitudes toward the environment.

20

BEDWELL 21

The relative ranking of goals other than the social/envi- ronmental one was also of interest in the present study. Specifically, this study was designed to answer the following questions:

1. Do the four groups differ significantly in their ranking of five basic goals of biology instruction?

2. Are there significant differences in the relative ranking of a social/environmental goal by the four groups?

Procedure

After rephrasing the statement dealing with social issues to clearly reflect environmental concerns, the five goal statements identified by Hurd, et al. (3) were placed in random order on a brief survey form. Direc- tions were prepared indicating that respondents were to rank the goals in order of importance. This ranking was a forced choice with a rank.of 1 representing the goal considered the most important to the respondent and a rank of 5 identifying that which was of least impor- tance. The directions also emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers; opinion was all that was desired. The identified goals to be ranked were stated as follows (identifying letters were not included on the survey form):

A. Biology education should develop a fundamental understanding of biological systems.

B. Biology education should develop a fundamental understanding oft and ability to use, the methods of scientific investigation.

C. Biology education should in form students about careers in the biological sciences.

D. Biology education should prepare citizens to make responsible deciciions regarding science- related social issues such as environmental quality problems.

E. Biology education should contribute to an under- standing and furfillment of personal needs and thus contribute to the development of individuals.

Each high school principal (n = 6) and assistant prin- cipal (n = 11) in a large county school district in South Carolina was asked to complete a ranking of the goals and the results were collected by central office personnel of the district. The principals were also asked to provide completed surveys from each teacher in their school responsible for teaching biology (n = 11). In addition, thirty randomly chosen college preparatory biology students and thirty randomly chosen non-college preparatory biology students from one of the larger high schools (total enrollment = 1,700+) in the district completed the survey form.

Since the numbers of teachers, administrators, and students differed, average rankings of each of the five

goals were calculated for each of the four groups of in- dividuals. The hypothesis that the four groups would differ significantly in their rankings of the goals was tested, along with the hypothesis that there were signifi- cant differences among the goals. The Friedman Test was used to analyze the variance in this set of rank-order data.

Results

The average ranking of each of the five goals by the four groups of individuals responding to the survey is presented in Table 1.

In order to test the hypothesis that no significant dif- ferences were present in the rankings assigned by groups, the mean rankings in Table 1 were rank ordered by rows. This permits concentration on the differences between groups and ignores any differences between goals. Table 2 is a summary of the data in Table 1 rank ordered by rows.

Using the data in Table 2, the Friedman Test was computed to test the significance of the differences in ranks. The results of the test were not statistically significant at the .05 level (x' = 2.52, df = 3); thus, the null hypothesis of no difference in the rankings of in- structional goals by the four groups was retained.

Also of interest was the significance of the differences between the goals as ranked. If these differences were not significant, something may be wrong with the group results or the goals themselves. In order to complete this analysis, the data in Table 1 were assigned to appro- priate ranks by columns; this facilitates concentration on the differences between goals and de-emphasizes any difference between groups. Table 3 presents a summary of the rankings by columns.

The Friedman Test was also used to test the significapce of the differences in the ranks presented in Table 3. The results were statistically significant at the .05 level (x' = 10.6, df = 4). The null hypothesis of no differences between the goals as ranked was rejected thus indicating that the respondents were able to distinguish differences in the goals.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, which have some- what limited generalizability due to the nature of the subject selection process, research such as that con- ducted by McTeer (4) is not supported in the area of biology education. The four identified groups of indi- viduals did not differ significantly in their ranking of five biology instructional goals. Consequently, their rankings of individual goals such as the social/environ- mental goal also did not differ significantly. The Fried- man Test applied to the data in Table 3 did, however, indicate that the respondents perceived differences among the goals as expected.

22 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

TABLE 1. Mean Rankings of Biology Instructional Goals by Teachers, Administrators, and Biology Students (College Preparatory and Non-College Preparatory Programs)

College Preparatory

Goal Teachers Administrators Students

A 2.09 I .65 2.70 B 2.46 3.18 2.90 C 4.55 4.24 3.90 D 2.82 3.12 2.87 E 3.09 2.82 2.63

Non-College Preparatory

Students

2.83 3.03 3.27 3.30 2.57

TABLE 2. Rank Ordering of the Mean Rankings of Biology Instructional Goals Across the Four Groups

College Non-College Preparatory Preparatory

Goal Teachers Administrators Students Students

A 2 B 1 C 1 D 1 E 4

Sum of Ranks: 9 15 12 14

TABLE 3. Rank Ordering of the Mean Rankings of Biology Instructional Goals Across the Five Goals

College Non-College Sum

Goal Teachers Administrators Students Students Ranks Preparatory Preparatory of

A 1 I 2 2 6 B 2 4 4 3 13 C 5 5 5 4 19 D 3 3 3 5 14 E 4 2 1 1 8

Since the groups did not differ in their rankings, one may focus on the overall ranking of each of the goals. As identified in Table 3 under the last heading, indi- viduals in the four groups of the study seem to prefer the following ranking: (1) Goal A , (2) Goal E, (3) Goal B, (4) Goal D, and ( 5 ) Goal C. This places the goal deal- ing with social/environmental issues in fourth place ahead of a career orientation to the teaching of biology. Goals other than those dealing with social/environmen- tal issues are not, of course, unimportant; the five goals presented here are considered by many to be the five basic goals of biology instruction. Nonetheless, the sub- jects in this study are a considerable distance from sup- porting the contention that social/environmental issues must become a central focus of instruction in biology. The implication for those providing preservice and in- service biology education for teachers is that more em- phasis should be placed on the sociaVenvironmenta1

aspects of biology and perhaps less on the teaching of bi- ology content. Of course, additional research is needed to further clarify relationships among the goals as per- ceived by diverse school groups throughout the country.

REFERENCES

1. Blum. S., “Effect of an Environmental Science Curriculuin on Student’s Leisure Time Activities.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 18 (1981) no. 2: 145-155.

2. Hart, P. and McClaren, M., “Attitude of High School Student! Toward Environmentally Oriented Issues.” Science Education 61. (1978) no. 4: 497-508.

3. Hurd, P. Bybee, R., Kahle, J., and Yager, R., “Biology Education in Secondary Schools of the United States.” The American Biology Teacher 42 (1980) no.7: 388-410.

4. McTeer, J . , “Teenage-adult Differences in Concern for Envi. ronmental Problems.” The Journal of Environmental Education 9 (1978) no. 2: 20-23.

5. Strickland, A., and Staver, .I., “A Hoosier View of Ecobogical Attitudes and Knowledge.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 16 (1979) no. 3: 249-253.