Sociální pedagogika | Social Education

ISSN 1805-8825

E: editorsoced@fhs.utb.cz

W: http://www.soced.cz

Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the

Czech Republic

Silvie Svobodová

To cite this article: Svobodová, S. (2020). Environmental literacy of pupils and its

investigation in the Czech Republic. Sociální pedagogika/Social Education, 8(1),

88–104. https://doi.org/10.7441/soced.2020.08.01.04

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.7441/soced.2020.08.01.04

Published online: 15 April 2020

Download at www.soced.cz in multiple formats (PDF, MOBI, HTML, EPUB)

Share via email, FB, Twitter,  Google+, LinkedIn

CrossMark

Indexing: List of non-impact peer-reviewed journals published in the Czech Republic, ERIH

PLUS, ERA, EBSCO, CEJSH, DOAJ, SSRN, ProQuest, ROAD, SHERPA/RoMEO, CEEOL, OAJI, SIS,

Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, The Keepers Registry, Research Gate, Academia.edu, Academic

Resource Index, Google Scholar and provides DOI, Similarity Check and CrossMark (CrossRef).

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).

Copyright © 2020 by the author and publisher, TBU in Zlín.

Sociální pedagogika | Social Education

88

volume 8, issue 1, pp. 88–104, April 2020

https://doi.org/10.7441/soced.2020.08.01.04

ISSN 1805-8825

Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation

in the Czech Republic

Silvie Svobodová

Abstract: Environmental literacy is a concept consisting of

knowledge, attitudes, sensitivity and behaviour. In this text we

present a pilot study of a research tool focused on measuring the

environmental literacy of ISCED 2 pupils. Through the study we

measured the relationship between environmental literacy and

selected variables (gender, grade and leisure activities). The

target group consisted of pupils in the 6th to 9th grades of lower

secondary schools, and the total number of respondents was

467. The inner consistency (Cronbachś α) of all tool scales

(knowledge,

attitudes,

sensitivity,

behaviour)

reached

acceptable values in the range of .71–.79. Spearman’s

correlation showed a statistically significant relationship mainly

among the scales of attitudes, sensitivity and behaviour.

Significant correlation coefficient values ranged from < .44 to

.65 >. Significant differences appeared between boys and girls in

regard to attitudes, sensitivity and behaviour scales, where girls

reached higher scores. Girls showed more pro-environmental

attitudes, sensitivity and behaviour than boys. It was also found

that the pupils' environmental knowledge increases with age.

However, this does not apply to the scales of attitudes, sensitivity

and behaviour. There was a high correlation between

environmental literacy (excluding knowledge) and the leisure

activities of pupils (outdoor activities, ICT, hobbies and sport).

Contact

Leisure activities in combination with age can be considered

essential determinants of environmental literacy, e.g. they

Charles University

predict 33% of the variability in the sensitivity scale.

Faculty of Education

Magdalény Rettigové 4

Keywords: environmental literacy, pupils, ISCED 2, Czech

116 39 Prague 1

Republic

Environmentální gramotnost žáků a možnost

jejího zjišťování v ČR

Abstrakt: Environmentální gramotnost představuje koncept

Correspondence:

zahrnující environmentální znalosti, postoje, senzitivitu

silvie.svobodova@pedf.cuni.cz

a jednání. V rámci pilotního testování autorského výzkumného

nástroje zaměřeného na měření environmentální gramotnosti

Copyright © 2020 by the author

žáků 2. stupně ZŠ byla zjišťována také souvislost environmentální

and publisher, TBU in Zlín.

gramotnosti a proměnných (pohlaví, ročník a volnočasová

This work is licensed under the

aktivita). Studie byla realizována v České republice za účelem

Creative Commons Attribution

International License (CC BY).

ověření aplikovatelnosti nástroje v českém prostředí a jeho

následného použití v rámci většího výzkumu na rozšířeném

vzorku. Cílovou skupinu tvořili žáci 6. až 9. tříd ZŠ a odpovídajících

89

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

ročníků víceletého gymnázia. Celkový počet respondentů činil

467. Vnitřní konzistence (koeficient Cronbachova α) všech škál

nástroje (znalosti, postoje, senzitivita a jednání) dosahovala

přijatelných hodnot v rozpětí 0,71 – 0,79. Spearmanovy korelace

prokázaly statisticky významný vztah zejména mezi postoji,

senzitivitou a jednáním navzájem. Signifikantní hodnoty

korelačního koeficientu se pohybují v intervalu < 0,44; 0,65 >.

Ukázaly se významné rozdíly v postojích, senzitivitě i jednání

mezi chlapci a dívkami. Dívky dosahovaly vyšších hodnot,

vykazovaly proenvironmentálnější postoje, senzitivitu a jednání

oproti

chlapcům.

S

přibývajícím

ročníkem

narůstají

environmentální znalosti žáků. Pro postoje, senzitivitu a jednání

to však neplatí. Prokázala se vysoká souvislost mezi

environmentální gramotností vyjma znalostí a volnočasovými

aktivitami žáků (pobyt v přírodě, u ICT, zájmová aktivita a sport).

Volnočasové aktivity v kombinaci s ročníkem lze považovat

za zásadní determinanty environmentální gramotnosti,

např. variabilitu proměnné senzitivita predikují z 33 %.

Klíčová slova: environmentální gramotnost, žáci, ISCED 2,

Česká republika

1

Introduction

Environmental literacy is based mainly on the principles of environmental education (Wilke, 1995) and thus represents its fundamental goal (Roth, 1992). The definition of this construct has been modified several times since the 1960s, when the concept was first introduced to the general public (McBride,

Brewer, Berkowitz, & Borrrie, 2013). Interestingly, experts' approaches to the concept of environmental literacy vary and their definitions also differ in some respects. An example of this is that

Ballard and Pandya based their concept on knowledge (1990), whereas Lozzi, Laveaut and Marcinkowski (1990) and Marcinkowski (1991) added to knowledge several other important areas, such as skills, sensitivity, attitudes, values, responsible environmental behaviour and persuasion about

one’s own influence, including the realisation of personal responsibility.

The original concept of environmental education as a tool for shaping the necessary behavioural

patterns, suitable for achieving environmental consciousness, knowledge, stance and skills, consisted

in promoting common nature conservation goals (UNESCO, 1977). This concept, which represented

the mainstream, was later reworded several times, and the target levels of environmental education

were also defined (Hungerford, Peyton, & Wilke, 1980; Marcinkowski, 2005). The specific definition of the field in the USA came about through discussions between international institutions, academic

communities and non-governmental organizations in the social, cultural and political context of

individual regions, i.e. quite unevenly (Disinger, 2005).

The structure of environmental education was subject to verification by the professional community,

on the basis of which other key variables were identified. One of these was the concept of REB

(Responsible Environmental Behaviour), a model of environmentally responsible behaviour which

favours the development of environmental sensitivity and skills for analysing and engaging in

environmental issues, including beliefs about one’s own impact (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). This was followed by the concept of environmental education based on the instrumental approach in the 1990s.

The key objective of environmental education is to encourage pro-environmental behaviour as a

necessary disposition for dealing effectively with environmental problems.

90

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

An important outcome of the above approach can be seen in the guidelines of the North American

Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), which were based on a consensus among

environmental education experts along with the research that was conducted. Not only do they

represent the elaborated goals of environmental education, but they also recommend specific ways to

implement them into the education process (NAAEE, 2010). The guidelines arose mainly as a critique of environmental education from the early 1990s, which often had a manipulative character, and also

in an effort to extend its definition from mere “ecological knowledge” to affective and conative areas

(Sanera, 1998).

In the Czech environment, the development of environmental education was politically conditioned

and was implemented primarily within the framework of non-formal education, while theoretical

reflection on it happened only minimally. In the 1950s and 1970s, it is possible to identify some basics

of environmental education in nature conservation education and, later on, in education on the

protection and formation of the environment. In the 1980s, this was replaced by environmental

education aimed at the systematic integration into the educational system of issues connected to

nature protection in a broader context. In the 1990s, the theory of environmental education did not

exist in the Czech Republic, so there was not enough potential to reflect this concept further in

academia. The key role in the field of environmental education has been taken on by ecological

education centres, which emphasize primarily the natural science dimension, knowledge of nature,

understanding of environmental connections and acquisition of desirable behaviour patterns

(Činčera, 2007).

The qualitative shift and changes in the official conception of environmental education in the Czech

Republic since the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, the current conception of which

corresponds to generally accepted international approaches to the field, is evidence of a paradigmatic

shift over the last few years. The current state of affairs in the Czech Republic can be regarded as

relatively good, primarily due to the firm anchoring of environmental education in formal and non-

formal education, including within relevant documents (Činčera & Johnson, 2013).

In the official curriculum of the Czech Republic, environmental education takes the form of a cross-

curricular theme specifically integrated into the relevant educational areas in connection with the

School Educational Programme, which is based on the Framework Educational Programme

(MŠMT, 2017). However, its conception within the Framework Educational Programme (FEP) has been

criticized by both professionals (Činčera, 2009) and the educational community, leading to a modification of its concept and a reformulation of the Recommended Expected Outcomes (DOV) for

environmental education (Činčera, 2011). This has largely completed the paradigmatic transformation of the concept of environmental education in the Czech Republic (Činčera, 2013), which is largely inspired by the NAAEE guidelines and should be reflected in the planned revision of the Framework

Educational Programme (Činčera, 2017).

A certain revival of environmental education in the 1990s led to an increased interest in the concept

of environmental literacy. Roth (1992) treats it as a possible evaluation tool for environmental education. Its definition, widely accepted by experts, conceives environmental literacy as

multidimensional and made up of three levels (nominal, functional and operational) and four threads

(knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviour). Nominal environmental literacy represents the ability of

an individual to understand basic concepts in the context of the environment; functional represents

an understanding of the relationship between people and their environment; and, within the

operational level, a person is able to adopt his/her own opinion on environmental problems and

suggest effective solutions. Similarly, experts have identified and summarized the multidimensional

concept of environmental literacy into four dimensions (cognitive; affective; belief in one’s own

influence and personal responsibility; personal and group engagement in environmentally responsible

behaviour) (Hungerford et al., 1994).

91

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

The current concept of environmental literacy is based on the documents of the North American

Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), where it is defined as a central objective of

environmental education, comprehensively covering its overall objectives (NAAEE, 2010).

The definition is the result of environmental education experts having sought consensus for many

years (Hollweg et al., 2011). It is divided into several areas (environmental knowledge, sensitivity, attitudes towards and interest in the environment, acceptance of personal responsibility, beliefs about

one’s own influence, motivation including intention to act, related competences and environmentally

responsible behaviour) (Daniš, 2013). It reflects the relatively broad multidimensional delineation accepted by experts, which can be summarized as having three main dimensions: cognitive, affective

and conative. The basic structure of this concept of environmental literacy, which emphasizes primarily

skills, along with the development of pupils' competences for the evaluation of environmental

conflicts, is more or less identical to its current definition in the updated NAAEE guidelines

(NAAEE, 2019). Environmental literacy is divided into the skills of interviewing, analyzing and interpreting data and information about the outside world, understanding environmental processes

and systems, and understanding and dealing with environmental problems, as well as having personal

and civic responsibility.

However, there are some differences between the definition of environmental literacy according to

NAAEE (2010) and the characteristics of environmental education in the Czech educational documents Framework Educational Programme (Education Ministry, 2017) and Recommended Expected

Outcomes (Broukalová et al., 2012). Whereas in the NAAEE documents, the term environmental literacy appears explicitly and is perceived as a fundamental goal of environmental education, the

Czech concept of environmental education does not work with this term but rather defines its core

goal as the development of competences necessary for environmentally responsible behaviour.

Differences are also evident in the division into specific sub-areas (Daniš, 2013).

On a global scale, however, we encounter comprehensive environmental literacy studies only rarely

(McBeth & Volk, 2010; McBeth, Hungerford, Marcinkowski, Volk, & Cifranick, 2011; Nastoulas, Marini,

& Skanavis, 2017). This could be due to the small number of suitable diagnostic tools. On the other hand, there are a number of standardized tools for testing the affective dimension, which is given the

greatest attention (e.g. Bogner, Johnson, Buxner, & Felix, 2015; Grúňová, Sané, Čincera, Kroufek, &

Hejcmanová, 2018). Recently, there has also been an attempt to focus studies more often on environmentally responsible behaviour (e.g. Erdogan, Akbunar, Asik, Kaplan, & Kayir, 2012;

Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012; Kormos & Gifford, 2014; Svobodová, 2017).

Pupils in lower secondary education, i.e. ISCED level 2 (in the Czech Republic this corresponds to grades

6-9), form the target group of a lot of international and Czech research. Most studies focus on only one

of the dimensions or a combination of two (e.g. Andrews, Tressler, & Mintzes, 2008; Bragg, Wood,

Barton, & Pretty, 2013; Gul & Yesilyurt, 2011; Schovajsová, 2010; Svobodová, 2017; Svobodová, 2018a;

Vacínová & Matějček, 2013).

In the USA, as part of a national survey on environmental literacy (The National Environmental Literacy

Project), a Middle School Environmental Literacy Survey (MSELS) analytical tool was developed to test

a wide range of environmental literacy components on a large sample of respondents

(McBeth & Volk, 2010). It is a research tool that encompasses all three dimensions of environmental literacy and is suitable for students at ISCED level 2 and 3, i.e. lower-secondary-school pupils. It consists

of several subscales which determine, in addition to demographic variables ( I. About Yourself),

ecological knowledge ( II. Ecological Foundations), attitudes ( III. How You Think About the Environment), commitment to pro-environmental behaviour and declared behaviour ( IV. What You Do About the

Environment), environmental sensitivity ( V. You and Environmental Sensitivity, VI. How You Feel About

the Environment), and the skills needed to identify, analyze, and effectively address environmental

issues ( VII. Issue Identification, Issue Analysis and Action Planning) (McBeth, Hungerford,

Marcinkowski, Volk, & Meyers, 2008). The tool has been deployed several times and successfully standardized mainly in the American environment (McBeth & Volk, 2010; McBeth et al., 2011;

92

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

Stevenson, Peterson, Bondell, Mertig, & Moore, 2013; Stevenson, Carrier, & Peterson, 2014), but also in Greece (Nastoulas et al., 2017). In the Czech Republic, this tool has not yet been used in its entirety.

Only some subscales have been used, e.g. the scale for determining environmental or ecological

knowledge (Činčera, 2013; Schovajsová, 2010).

One of the most well-known instruments aimed principally at the affective dimension is 2-MEV

(2 Major Environmental Values), a two-dimensional scale that represents a two-factor model of one's

values and attitudes towards the environment. The biocentric factor Protection analyzes the degree of

motivation and willingness of an individual to behave in an environmentally responsible manner.

The anthropocentric factor Utilization identifies an individual's attitudes towards the environment for

the purpose of meeting human needs (Johnson & Manoli, 2008; 2011). The applicability of the tool was verified mainly within the framework of several years of research on a sample of 10,676

respondents (Bogner et al., 2015). It is also often applied as an evaluation tool for environmental education programmes (e.g. Činčera & Johnson, 2013; Liefländer & Bogner, 2014). In the Czech environment, for example, Kroufek, Janovec, and Chytrý (2015) and Svobodová (2017) used the tool for different age groups.

Both the above-mentioned research tools were verified by the author of the paper in the Czech

environment (Svobodová & Kroufek, 2018; Svobodová, 2018b). Based on the analysis of psychometric parameters, the validity and reliability of these tools, either their subscales, knowledge and sensitivity

(MSELS) or, in the case of 2-MEV, a whole scale ( attitudes), was included in the author's toolkit for

comprehensive assessment of the environmental literacy of lower-secondary-school pupils in the

Czech Republic.

The paper introduces the results of the pilot testing of the tool, especially the findings on the

relationships between gender, age, leisure activities and the individual dimensions of environmental

literacy. The following research questions were formulated:

RQ1: What is the reliability of the subscales of the research tool?

RQ2: What are the correlations between the subscales of the research tool?

RQ3: How strong is the relationship between the variables (gender, age, leisure activities) and

environmental literacy (knowledge, attitudes, sensitivity, behaviour)?

2

Methodology

Three lower secondary schools (two of them in medium-sized towns, one in a rural area) and a multi-

year grammar school took part in the study. They were schools from the Ústí nad Labem Region that

showed an interest in participating in the testing. The data were collected in autumn 2018. The

questionnaires were distributed in paper form to individual schools, either in-person or through an

informed contact person, and a school educator was familiarised with the procedures, requirements

and objectives of the research. The respondents, of which 239 were girls and 228 were boys, were

pupils in the 6th to 9th grades of lower secondary schools (N = 467). The proportion of respondents

from individual school grades, which does not differ significantly, is presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Overview of school grades involved

Grade

Percentage from the grade

6. grade

27%

7. grade

21%

8. grade

27%

9. grade

25%

93

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

The Ústí nad Labem Region is the region with the lowest educational level in the Czech Republic, and

a high proportion of the population do not complete secondary education (KÚ Ústeckého kraje, 2011).

Pupils in the 5th and 9th grades of primary and lower secondary schools in the region achieved the

second weakest result in scientific literacy in PISA 2015 in comparison with other regions

(Blažek & Příhodová, 2016). They also showed a similarly low level of knowledge compared to their peers (ČŠI, 2017).

It can therefore be assumed that the results for pupils included in the research may be lower precisely

because of their lower socio-cultural family background compared to a representative sample in the

whole Czech Republic. The findings thus cannot be clearly generalized to the whole population of ISCED

2 pupils in the Czech Republic.

The authorial research tool, the quantitative questionnaire, is based on the MSELS and 2-MEV standard

international instruments verified by the author (Appendix 1). It consists of five parts. The first part

asks about the pupils’ age, year, gender and leisure activities. The second part, the Environmental

Knowledge scale (Part B), is a knowledge-based test, a modified version of MSELS (16 items).

Basically, it is a test of "ecological knowledge", in which understanding of ecological concepts is

investigated. The third part, focused on Environmental Attitudes (Part C), consists of a two-dimensional

2-MEV tool (16 items). The scale continued to be treated as one-dimensional; the individual Protection

and Usage factors were not evaluated separately, and reverse scoring was also used. The fourth part,

the Environmental Sensitivity scale (Part D), was taken from MSELS (9 items). The scale mainly focuses

on feelings that respondents experience towards nature, motivation and expressions of interest in

spending time in the natural environment. The fifth part, the scale focused on Environmental

Negotiations (part E), consists of 9 authorial items.

The knowledge-based test (Environmental Knowledge Scale) corresponds in its content to the

obligatory Czech curriculum and respects the current curricular documents. It is consistent not only

with the themes of the educational area People and Nature and the field of study Natural Science

(Fundamentals of Ecology), but also with the cross-curricular theme Environmental Education

(Basic Conditions for Life) (MŠMT, 2017) and, furthermore, with the topics in Recommended Expected Outcomes for Environmental Education (e.g. Natural Connections) (Broukalová et al., 2012).

For the Environmental Knowledge scale, respondents always chose 1 correct answer out of 4 options.

For the remaining scales, they expressed the level of agreement with an assertion on the five-stage

Likert scale. Their responses were scored from 5 (positive) to 1 (negative). Some items were formulated

in a reverse way for analysis.

The obtained data were processed by standard statistical methods using Statistica 12 software

(Statsoft, 2018). Due to the relatively large sample of respondents (N = 467), mainly parametric methods were used. The reliability of the subscales was determined by calculating the Cronbach α

internal consistency coefficient. More detailed results regarding the validity and other psychometric

indicators of the instrument were published separately at the 13th Annual International Technology,

Education and Development Conference (INTED2019) (Svobodová & Chvál, 2019). Correlation analysis was used to identify the relationship between environmental literacy dimensions. Gender correlation

was determined using a two-sample t-test, dependence on age and leisure activities through

correlation analysis and, in the case of knowledge, using one-dimensional variance analysis (ANOVA);

outcomes between ages were compared, where knowledge represented a dependent variable

(6th, 7th, 8th and 9th grades). Multiple linear regressions were also applied to leisure activities.

The analyses included knowledge, attitudes, sensitivity and behaviour as dependent variables, with leisure activities, or gender and age as independent variables (AERA, APA & NCME, 2014).

94

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

3

Results

The internal consistency of the tool was tested for reliability by calculating Cronbach’s α coefficient,

which was acceptable in all cases (Tavakol & Denick, 2011). Table 2 gives an overview of the reliability of the tool’s subscales, including the original tool values on which the individual scales are based.

Environmental knowledge and sensitivity were taken from MSELS (McBeth et al., 2008),

and environmental attitudes from 2-MEV (Johnson & Manoli, 2008; 2011). Environmental behaviour is an authorial scale for which internal consistency has not yet been established.

Table 2

Reliability overview of tool scales including original values

Reliability

Original reliability

Variable

Cronbach’s α

Cronbach’s α

Knowledge

.71

.79

Attitudes

.78

.83

Sensitivity

.79

.76

Behaviour

.79

-

The correlation analysis showed a relatively close relationship between attitudes, sensitivity and

behaviour. The scales correlate positively with each other, with the correlation coefficient reaching

higher values. Contrary to this, for environmental knowledge, a more significant relationship was

observed only with attitudes. Table 3 shows the results of the correlation analysis.

Table 3

Overview of Spearman’s correlations between the scales of the tools

Variable

Knowledge

Attitudes

Sensitivity

Behaviour

Knowledge

.30

.01

.11

Attitudes

.30

.44

.65

Sensitivity

.01

.44

.63

Behaviour

.11

.65

.63

Note: Values in bold are significant (p < .01).

Characteristics of variables

For the knowledge scale, correctly answered items were scored with a value of 1, whereas on other

scales, where respondents chose responses on a five-stage Likert scale, they were scored from 5 points

(positive) to 1 point (negative). In Table 4, descriptive characteristics of each variable are presented.

Table 4

Descriptive statistics of variables

Variable

N

M

SD

min.

median

max.

Knowledge (16 items)

467

10.48

3.12

2.00

11.00

16.00

Attitudes (16 items)

467

3.57

.62

1.44

3.63

5.00

Sensitivity (9 items)

467

2.87

.72

1.00

2.78

4.89

Behaviour (9 items)

467

3.44

.74

1.00

3.44

5.00

Relationship of environmental literacy to gender

Gender was shown to be a statistically significant variable in relation to attitudes (p < .001), sensitivity

(p = .003) and behaviour (p < .001). In all three components of environmental literacy, girls achieved

higher values. Compared to boys, they had more pro-environmental attitudes, sensitivity and

behaviour. The results of the two-sample t-test for attitudes and behaviour are shown in Figure 1, 2.

95

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

Attitudes_mean

3,80

3,75

3,70

3,65

naem 3,60

_sed 3,55

tituAt

3,50

3,45

3,40

Figure 1 Relationship between declared environmental attitudes and gender

Mean

3,35

girls

boys

Mean±Std. Dev.

Mean±1,96*Std. Dev.

Gender

Behavior_mean

3,7

3,6

3,5

an

me_ 3,4

ior

haveB

3,3

3,2

Figure 2 Relationship between declared environmental behaviour and gender Mean

3,1

boys

girls

Mean±Std. Dev.

The connection of environmental literacy to age

Mean±1,96*Std. Dev.

Gender

First we used a single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) to find the relationship of individual scales

to age. The knowledge scale had a significant correlation with age (see Figure 3, p = .002). Based on

the results of the Tukey HSD test, a statistically significant difference was identified between grades

6 and 8 (p = .001) and grades 6 and 9 (p = .030). Figure 3 shows a direct correlation between the age

and the level of environmental knowledge, which increased from grade 6 to grade 8, then slightly

decreased. The situation described could be due, for example, to the inclusion and gradual discussion

96

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

of the topics concerned from the 6th to the 8th grade, while in the 9th grade they may forget about

them somewhat.

Current effect: F(3, 463)=4,9925, p=,00204

Decomposition of effective hypothesis

The vertical bars indicate the 0.95 confidence intervals

12,0

11,5

11,0

e

10,5

dg

lew

no 10,0

K

9,5

9,0

Figure 3 Relationship between environmental knowledge and school grade

8,5

For the other scales, ANOV 6

A and the graph

7

did not offer readily 8

interpretable resu 9

lts, so we chose the

Spearman correlation coefficient to look for possible connections. This proved to be statistically

School grade

significant. The Spearman correlation coefficients between the scales of the tools in question and the

age variable are always negative and almost identical, as shown in Table 5. In the higher school grades,

the attitudes, sensitivity, and behaviour values drop significantly.

Table 5

Overview of Spearman’s correlations between the scales of the tools and grade

Scales of the tools

Variable

Attitudes

Sensitivity

Behaviour

grade

-.16

-.16

-.15

Note: All values are significant (p < .01).

Relationship between environmental literacy and leisure activities

The relationship between scales of the tools and leisure activities (outdoor activities, ICT, hobbies,

sport) was also subjected to correlation analysis. A statistically significant relationship for leisure

activities was identified in attitudes (except sport), sensitivity and behaviour. In the case of ICT, there was a negative trend, unlike for the other activities. The strongest correlation was outdoor activities

with environmental sensitivity (see Table 6).

97

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

Table 6

Overview of Spearman’s correlations between scales of tools and leisure activities

Leisure activities

Variable

Outdoor activities

ICT

Hobbies

Sport

Knowledge

.07

-.02

.05

-.05

Attitudes

.22

-.23

.16

.03

Sensitivity

.45

-.21

.32

.28

Behaviour

.31

-.29

.16

.09

Note: Values in bold are significant (p < .01).

The results of multiple regression shown in Table 7 show the dependence of the attitudes, sensitivity

and behaviour variables on leisure activities. The values of the coefficient of determination R² indicate

that these leisure activities (outdoor activities, ICT, hobbies and sport) predict attitudes by 14%,

sensitivity by 30% and behaviour by 18%. The strongest positive relationship, or rather the highest

positive value of the regression coefficient was recorded for outdoor stays, for all three variables,

unlike ICT, where negative dependence is apparent. For sensitivity, a significant correlation was

identified for all four leisure activities.

Table 7

Results of regression analysis between scales of tools and leisure activities

Variable

Outdoor activities

ICT

Hobbies

Sport

Attitudes

.14

.239***

-.218***

.131*

-.092

Sensitivity

.30

.368***

-.150***

.193***

.107*

Behaviour

.18

.282***

-.244***

.091

-.028

Note: b* = regression coefficient; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

A multiple regression analysis performed between the variables attitudes, sensitivity and behaviour as explanatory variables, and leisure activities, gender, and age as explanatory variables, brought about

some interesting results. The values of determination for the coefficient R² increased for all three

dependent variables. The results in Tables 8 show that leisure activities in combination with gender

explain the variability of the variable attitudes by 15%, by 31% for sensitivity and by 19% for behaviour.

The results in Tables 9 show that leisure activities in combination with grade explain the variability of

the variable attitudes by 16%, by 33% for sensitivity and by 20% for behaviour. A significant relationship between all four leisure activities and age was found for attitudes.

Table 8

Results of regression analysis between scales of tools and leisure activities, including gender

Variable

Outdoor activities

ICT

Hobbies

Sport

Gender

Attitudes

.15

.230***

-.211***

.112*

-.075

-.079

Sensitivity

.31

.362***

-.145***

.181***

.118*

-.049

Behaviour

.19

.270***

-.235***

.067

-.006

-.103*

Note: b* = regression coefficient; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; code 1: girls, code 2: boys.

Table 9

Results of regression analysis between scales of the tools and leisure activities, including grade

Variable

Outdoor activities

ICT

Hobbies

Sport

Grade

Attitudes

.16

.240***

-.215***

.136**

-.110*

-.150***

Sensitivity

.33

.369***

-.147***

.198***

.088

-.166***

Behaviour

.20

.283***

-.241***

.096*

-.045

-.148***

Note: b* = regression coefficient; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

98

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

4

Discussion

The environmental literacy of ISCED 2 pupils was investigated by measuring their environmental

knowledge, attitudes, sensitivity and behaviour. Knowledge was operationalized with test tasks, and

attitudes and sensitivity with a questionnaire asking for their opinions; for behaviour, it was not about

the actual behaviour of the pupils but rather what they stated.

A comparison of the observed reliability of the subscales of the author’s tool with the reliability values

of the original scales (MSELS) and tools (2-MEV) did not reveal any significant differences. For the

Environmental Attitude scale, α = .78 does not differ significantly from the original value (2-MEV)

α = .83 (Johnson & Manoli, 2011), nor does it differ for the Environmental Sensitivity scale, α = .79

(MSELS: α = .76) (McBeth et al., 2008). A more significant difference was recorded for the Environmental Knowledge scale, α = .71, where the original value was α = .79 (McBeth et al., 2008).

When testing this modified MSELS scale in the Czech environment in other research, a significantly

lower value of α = .63 was measured (Činčera, 2013).

The relationship between the dimensions of environmental literacy was identified through correlation

analysis, with a statistically significant relationship manifested in particular between the affective and

conative dimensions. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was high: between attitudes and behaviour it

was .65, and between sensitivity and behaviour it was .63. Knowledge correlated only with attitudes,

where the value of the correlation coefficient was .30. Thus, people who hold a pro-environmental

attitude and show a high level of sensitivity can also be expected to act in an environmentally

responsible manner.

Several research studies have been devoted to the

The relationship between

relationship between the various dimensions of

the environmental literacy of

environmental literacy. The generally rejected and

traditional knowledge-attitude-behaviour theory (KAB)

Czech pupils at ISCED level 2

model (Ramsey & Rickson, 1976), which is based on a

and the variables (gender,

narrow linear relationship between knowledge, attitudes

grade and leisure activities)

and behaviour, is not widely supported in the literature

(Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Heimlich & Ardoin, 2008; Hines,

was identified as statistically

Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Hungerford & Volk, 1990;

significant. Outdoor

Marcinkowski, 1991). For example, Hungerford and Volk

activities predict especially

(1990) identified a statistically significant relationship

between the affective and the conative dimensions, but the

the environmental

effect of the cognitive dimension has not been

sensitivity.

demonstrated.

In the case of environmental attitudes, sensitivity and

behaviour, there was a significant relationship with gender, with girls scoring higher in all three scales.

The same findings with regard to the statistically significant relationship between the demographic

variable gender and the affective dimension of environmental literacy were reported by, for example,

Bílek and Schmutzerová (2010), Kubiatko (2014) and Kroufek, Janovec and Chytrý (2015). In contrast, Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich (2000), Ogunbode and Arnold (2012), Ogunbode (2013) and Nastoulas et al. (2017) did not find that gender had an effect. Many studies show that women have a more attentive attitude towards the environment than men (e.g. Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996; Godfrey, 2005;

Leach, 2007; Tindall, Davies, & Mauboules, 2003; Unger, 2008; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980; Zelezny &

Bailey, 2006).

The age variable proved to be a significant factor in all dimensions of environmental literacy.

Environmental knowledge increases significantly with age, while attitudes, sensitivity and behaviour

decline. Through the MSELS research tool, the older respondents in the National Environmental

Literacy Project in the United States also showed a broader range of knowledge, while their attitudes

99

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

and sensitivity were lower (McBeth & Volk, 2010; McBeth et al., 2011). Similar discoveries regarding the negative correlation of attitudes with age were made for Greek students (Nastoulas et al., 2017).

Bogner et al. (2015), who used the 2-MEV in their research, came to the same conclusions.

One of the key factors that may be responsible for this trend could be the change in respondents’

interests and other personality development processes during adolescence.

The tested leisure activities (outdoor activities, ICT, hobbies and sport) positively correlate with

attitudes, sensitivity and behaviour, but negatively with ICT. Outdoor activities proved to be the strongest predictor for attitudes, sensitivity and behaviour, especially in combination with gender or age. Geng, Xu, Ye, Zhou, and Zhou (2015), Pereira and Forster (2015) and Kroufek et al. (2016) also had findings consistent with the positive impact of regular outdoor activities on environmentally

responsible behaviour. Outdoor education is thus an effective means of implementing environmental

education (Činčera, 2015). Of the organizational forms of teaching, it would be appropriate to include regular fieldwork, inquiry-based teaching, excursions and various environmentally-oriented projects.

School gardens also offer significant potential in this respect.

5

Limitations of the study

The limitation of the presented research is mainly the method of respondent selection, as the

respondents were not randomly selected. The respondents were only from schools in the Ústí Region,

which does not represent a typical region of the Czech Republic, and therefore the results cannot be

generalized to the whole target group of lower-secondary pupils in the Czech Republic.

6

Conclusion

The text presents the partial results of the pilot research of the authorial analytical tool for the

comprehensive measurement of environmental literacy of lower-secondary-school pupils in the Czech

Republic, describing the connection of specific variables with individual dimensions: cognitive,

affective and conative. From the results of the analysis of the psychometric properties of the tool,

which were published separately and of which only the values of reliability of the scales are given in

this paper, the tool can be evaluated as applicable for the purpose. The value of the Cronbach α

coefficient ranged from .71–.79. These values can be considered sufficient (Tavakol & Denick, 2011).

The individual dimensions of environmental literacy correlate positively with each other. The cognitive

dimension has a negligible dependence, as opposed to the reasonably close relationship between the

affective and conative dimensions. In the case of gender, there was a significant relationship between

attitudes, sensitivity and behaviour, with girls always achieving higher values. Regarding age, the link

between this variable and all dimensions proved to be statistically significant. A direct proportion was

identified between age and knowledge, as opposed to attitudes, sensitivity, and behaviour, whose

values declined with age. Leisure activities in combination with gender or age, especially outdoor

activities, can be considered crucial factors in predicting the variables of environmental attitudes,

sensitivity and behaviour. Many other studies have also demonstrated the positive impact of regular

outdoor activities on environmental literacy.

While the results of the pilot study cannot be generalized due to the limited selection available, they

provide interesting findings, especially in the area of leisure activities and the impact of gender on the

environmental literacy of lower-secondary-school pupils. When developing educational programmes

within environmental education, developers should primarily include, alongside the gender aspect,

activities undertaken in the outdoors.

100

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

This article was created with full financial support from the grant project GA UK No. 50119. The text is

published with the support of the Czech Association of Educational Research and the Council of

Scientific Societies. It was presented at the ČAPV 2019 conference.

Reference

AERA, APA & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.:

American Educational Research Association.

Andrews, K. E., Tressler, K. D., & Mintzes, J. J. (2008). Assessing environmental understanding: an

application of the concept mapping strategy. Environmental Education Research, 14(5), 519–

536.

Ballard, M., & Pandya, M. (1990). Essential learnings in environmental education. Troy: NAAEE.

Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-

analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002

Bílek, M., & Schmutzerová, L. (2010). Jak hodnotili čeští patnáctiletí žáci základních škol a studenti

víceletých

gymnázií

environmentální

problémy.

Envigogika,

5(2),

1–13.

https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.54

Blažek, R., & Příhodova, S. (2016). Mezinárodní šetřeni PISA 2015. Národní zpráva. Přírodovědná

gramotnost.

Praha:

ČŠI.

Dostupné

z

https://www.csicr.cz/Csicr/media/Prilohy/PDF_el._publikace/Mezin%C3%A1rodn%C3%AD%20

%C5%A1et%C5%99en%C3%AD/NZ_PISA_2015.pdf

Bogner, F. X., Johnson, B., Buxner, S., & Felix, L. (2015). The 2-MEV model: Constancy of adolescent

environmental values within an 8 year time frame. Internatio-nal Journal of Science Education,

37(12), 1938–1952. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1058988

Bragg, R., Wood, C, Barton, J., & Pretty, J. (2013). Measuring connection to nature in children aged 8–

12: A robust methodology for the RSPB. Essex: University of Essex . Retrieved from

https://www.rspb.org.uk/globalassets/downloads/documents/positions/education/measuring

-connection-to-nature-in-children-aged-8---12---methodology.pdf

Broukalová, L., Broukal, V., Činčera, J., Daniš, P., Kažmierski, T., Kulich, J., Lupač, M., Medek, M., &

Novák, M. (2012). Cíle a indikátory pro environmentální vzdělávání, výchovu a osvětu v České

republice. Praha: MŽP ČR.

Činčera, J. (2007). Environmentální výchova: Od cílů k prostředkům. Brno: Paido.

Činčera, J. (2009). Analýza průřezového tématu Environmentální výchova v Rámcovém vzdělávacím

programu

pro

základní

vzdělávání.

Envigogika,

4(1),

1–27.

Dostupné

z

https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.33

Činčera, J. (2011). Doporučené očekávané výstupy pro environmentální výchovu. Envigogika, 6(2), 1–

17. https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.59

Činčera, J. (2013). Metodika pro hodnocení environmentální výchovy pro starší školní věk a střední

školy. Envigogika, 8(5), 1–63. https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.414

Činčera, J. (2015). Učení se ve skutečném světě: Kritická analýza. Envigogika, 10(3), 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.473

Činčera, J. (2017). Environmentální výchova jako průřezové téma: Podkladová studie. Praha: NÚV.

Činčera, J., & Johnson, B. (2013). Earthkeepers in the Czech Republic: Experience from the

implementation process of an earth education programme. Envigogika, 8(4), 1–14.

https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.397

101

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

ČŠI. (2017). Výběrové zjišťování výsledků žáků na úrovni 5. a 9. ročníků základních škol ve školním roce

2016/2017 – závěrečná zpráva. Dostupné z https://www.csicr.cz/getattachment/17f8e265-

b04f-4459-a106-3aecbf735ca0/Vyberove-zjistovani-vysledku-zaku-na-urovni-5-a-9-rocniku-ZS-

zaverecna-zprava.pdf

Daniš, P. (2013). Nové vymezení environmentální gramotnosti a návrh na její mezinárodní testování v

PISA 2015. Envigogika, 8(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.385

Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and

analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 302–339.

Disinger, J. F. (2005). Environmental Education’s Definitional Problem. In H. R. Hungerford, W. Bluhm,

T. L. Volk, & J. M.Ramsey, Essential Readings in Environmental Education (pp. 17–32).

Champaign: Stipes.

Erdogan, M., Akbunar, S., Asik, U. O., Kaplan, H., & Kayir, C. G. (2012). The effects of demographic

variables on students’ responsible environmental behaviors. Pocedia – Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 46, 3244–3248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.044

Geng, L., Xu, J., Ye, L., Zhou, W., & Zhou, K. (2015). Connections with Nature and Environmental

Behaviors. PloS One, 10(5), e0127247. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127247

Godfrey, P. (2005). Diane Wilson vs. Union Carbide: Ecofeminism and the elitist charge of

“essentialism.” Capitalism Nature Socialism, 16(4), 37–56.

Grúňová, M., Sané, M., Čincera, J., Kroufek, R., & Hejcmanová, P. (2018). Reliability of the new

environmental paradigm for analysing the environmental attitudes of Senegalese pupils in the

context of conservation education projects. Environmental Education Research, 25(2), 211–221.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1428942

Gul, S., & Yesilyurt, S. (2011). A study on primary and secondary school students’ misconceptions about

Greenhouse Effect (Erzurum Sampling). International Electronic Journal of Environmenal

Education, 1(3), 193–202.

Heimlich, J. E., & Ardoin, N. M. (2008). Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: a

literature

review.

Environmental

Education

Research,

14(3),

215–237.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802148881

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research and

responsible environmental behavior: A meta analysis. Journal of Environmental Education,

18(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482

Hollweg, K. S., Taylor, J. R., Bybee, R. W., Marcinkowski, T. J., McBeth, W. C., & Zoido, P. (2011).

Developing a framevork for assessing environmental literacy. Washington, D.C.: North American

Association for Environmental Education.

Hungerford, H. R. & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing Learner Behavior Through Environmental Education.

The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21.

Hungerford, H. R., Peyton, B. R., & Wilke, R. J. (1980). Goals for curriculum development in

environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 11(3), 42–47.

Hungerford, H. R., Volk, T., Wilke, R., Champeau, R., Marcikowski, T., May, T., Bluhm, W. & McKeown-

Ice, R. (1994). Environmental literacy framework. Environmental education literacy consorcium.

Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.

Johnson, B., & Manoli, C. C. (2008). Using Bogner and Wiseman’s model of ecological values to measure

the impact of an earth education programme on children’s environmental perceptions.

Environmental

Education

Research,

14(2),

115–127.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620801951673

102

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

Johnson, B., & Manoli, C. C. (2011). The 2-MEV scale in the US: A measure of children’s environmental

attitudes based on the theory of ecological attitude. Journal of Environmental Education, 42(2),

84–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2010.503716

Kormos, C. & Gifford, R. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A

meta-analytic

review.

Journal

of

Environmental

Psychology,

40,

359–371.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003

Kroufek, R., Chytrý, V., Janovec, J., & Brtnová Čepičková, I. (2016). Effect of leisure activities on

responsible environmental behaviour of pupils of primary school. Proceedings of the ICERI,

7451–7456. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2016.0703

Kroufek, R., Janovec, J., & Chytrý, V. (2015). Pre-service primary teachers and their attitudes towards

nature. In O. Fleischmann, R. Seebauer, H. Zoglowek, & M. Aleksandrovich (Eds.), The teaching

profession: New challneges - New identities (pp.129–137). Wien: Lit Verlag GmbH & Co.

KÚ Ústeckého kraje. (2011). Problémová analýza Ústeckého kraje. Dostupné z https://www.kr-

ustecky.cz/assets/File.ashx?id_org=450018&id_dokumenty=1666198

Kubiatko, M. (2014). The environmental literacy of lower secondary school pupils, high school and

college students. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering Technology, 2(1), 2–8.

https://doi.org/10.12974/2311-8741.2014.02.01.1

Leach, M. (2007). Earth mother myths and other ecofeminist fables: How a strategic notion rose and

fell. Development and Change, 38(1), 67–85.

Liefländer, A. K., & Bogner, F. X. (2014). The effects of children’s age and sex on acquiring pro-

environmental attitudes through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental

Education, 45(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2013.875511

Lozzi, L., Laveaut, D., & Marcinkowski, T. (1990). Assessment of learning outcomes in environmental

education. Paris: UNESCO.

Marcinkowski, T. (1991). The relationship between environmental literacy and responsible

environmental behavior in environmental education. In N. Maldague (Ed.), Methods and

techniques for evaluating environmental education. Paris: UNESCO.

Marcinkowski, T. (2005). Predictors of responsible environemental behavior. A review of three

disertation studies. In H. R. Hungerford, W. Bluhm, T. L. Volk, & J. M. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential

readings in environmental education (pp. 265–294). Champaign: Stipes.

McBeth, W., & Volk, T. L. (2010). The National Environmental Literacy Project: A baseline study of

middle grade students in the United States. The Journal of Environmental Education, 41(1), 55–

67.

McBeth, W., Hungerford, H., Marcinkowski, T., Volk, T. L., & Cifranick, K. (2011). The National

Environmental Literacy Assessment, phase two: Measuring the effectiveness of North American

Environmental Education Programs with respect to the parameters of environmental literacy.

Retrieved

from

https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/NELA_Phase_Two_Report_020711.pdf

McBeth, W., Hungerford, H., Marcinkowski, T., Volk, T. L., & Meyers, R. (2008). National Environmental

Literacy Assessment Project: Year 1, National baseline study of middle grades students final

research

report.

Retrieved

from

https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Final_NELA_minus_MSELS_8-12-

08_0.pdf

103

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

McBride, B. B., Brewer, C. A., Berkowitz, A. R., & Borrrie, W. T. (2013). Environmental literacy,

ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: What do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere, 4(5), 1–

20. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00075.1

MŠMT. (2017). Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání. Praha: MŠMT.

NAAEE. (2010). Excellence in environmental education: Guidelines for Learning (K-12). Washington,

D.C.: NAAEE.

NAAEE. (2019). K-12 Environmental education: Guidelines for excellence executive summary.

Washington: NAAEE.

Nastoulas, I., Marini, K., & Skanavis, C. (2017). Middle School Students Environmental Literacy

Assessment in Thessaloniki, Greece. Proceedings of the Health and Environment Conference,

198–209. Dubai: Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University.

Ogunbode, Ch. A., & Arnold, K. (2012). A study of environmental awareness and attitudes in Ibadan,

Nigeria. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 18(3), 669–684.

Ogunbode, Ch. A. (2013). The NEP Scale: Measuring ecological attitudes/worldviews in an African

context. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(6), 1477–1494.

Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-

Analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment & Behavior, 44(2), 257–299.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402673

Pereira, M., & Forster, P. (2015). The relationship between connectedness to nature, environmental

values and pro-environmental behaviours. Reinvention: and International Journal of

Undergraduate

Research,

8(2).

Retrieved

from

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/reinvention/archive/volume8issue2/pereira/

Ramsey, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1992). Environmental education in the K-12 curriculum:

Finding

a

niche.

The

Journal

of

Environmental

Education,

23(2),

35–45.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1992.9942794

Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution, and directions in the 1990s. Columbus:

ERIC Clearingouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.

Sanera, M. (1998). Environmental education: promise and perfomance. Canadian Journal of

Environmental Education, 3, 9–26.

Schovajsová, J. (2010). Současný stav environmentální výchovy na základních školách – vybrané

aspekty environmentální gramotnosti dětí mladšího školního věku (Disertační práce). Olomouc:

Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci.

Statsoft. (2018). Statistica 12. Dostupné z http://www.statsoft.cz/

Stevenson, K. T., Carrier, S. J., & Peterson, M. N. (2014). Evaluating strategies for inclusion of

environmental literacy in the elementary school classroom. Electronic Journal of Science

Education, 18(8), 1–17.

Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Bondell, H. D., Mertig, A. G., & Moore, S. E. (2013). Environmental,

institutional, and demographic predictors of environmental literacy among middle school

children. PLoS ONE, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059519

Svobodová, S. (2017). Vliv vybraných proměnných na environmentální gramotnost žáků 2. stupně

základní školy. Envigogika, 12(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.539

Svobodová, S. (2018a). Konativní dimenze environmentální gramotnosti českých a slovenských žáků 2.

stupně ZŠ. Envigogika, 13(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.578

104

Svobodová / Environmental literacy of pupils and its investigation in the Czech Republic

Svobodová, S. (2018b). Environmentální gramotnost žáků 2. stupně základní školy v České republice-

aplikovatelnost zahraničních výzkumných nástrojů. Proceedings of the XXVI. conference of the

Czech Association of Educational Research Transdisciplinarity in Educational Sciences, ČAPV and

FHS TBU in Zlín, 133–134.

Svobodová, S., & Chvál, M. (2019). The pilot verification of the Authoring Research Tool for the

comprehensive measurement of environmental literacy of ISCED level 2 pupils in the Czech

Republic. Proceedings of the 13th International Technology, Education and Development

Conference, 1947 – 1958. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2019.0553

Svobodová, S., & Kroufek, R. (2018). Možnosti využití škály MSELS pro testování environmentální

gramotnosti na základních školách v České republice. Scientia in educatione, 9(2), 80–101.

https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.1210

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical

Education, 2011(2), 53 – 55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Tindall, D. B., Davies, S., & Mauboules, C. (2003). Activism and conservation behavior in an

environmental movement: The contradictory effects of gender. Society and Natural Resources,

16(10), 909–932.

UNESCO. (1977). Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education – Final report. Retrieved

from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000032763.

Unger, N. C. (2008). The role of gender in environmental justice. Environmental Justice, 1(3), 115 – 120.

Vacínová, M., & Matějček, T. (2013). Intergenerational differences in personal relationship to nature.

Envigogika, 8(2), 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.384

Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of

hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(2), 181–197.

Wilke, R. (Ed.). (1995). Environmental Education Literacy/Needs Assessment Project: Assessing

environmental literacy of students and environmental education needs of teachers. Stevens

Point: University of Wisconsin.

Zelezny, L., & Bailey, M. (2006). A call for women to lead a different environmental movement.

Organization&Environment, 19(1), 103–109.

Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism:

Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457.

Silvie Svobodová is a PhD student at the Faculty of Education, Charles

University, where she study in the field of Biology Education at the

Department of Biology and Environmental Studies. In her dissertation

thesis she focuses on environmental literacy testing of pupils ISCED 2 in

the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Germany. Her main task is to

compile and verify the author's analytical tool. Furthermore, to create

a compact real idea of environmental literacy of pupils ISCED 2,

especially in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. In her professional life

she also actively participate in environmental education.

Appendix 1

Questionnaire

Dear pupil!

By carefully filling out this anonymous questionnaire, you can help me to find out what pupils of your

age know about nature and what they think about protecting nature and the environment.

The questionnaire contains a few parts. Read responsibly the instructions for each part. For each item,

choose just one answer that best describes your opinion, and circle the letter.

Thank you for your answers.

Silvie Svobodová (Charles University of Prague)

A. Demographic data

1. Age

a) twelve

b) thirteen

c) fourteen

d) fifteen and older

2. Class/Form

a) Class 6

b) Class 7

c) Class 8

d) Class 9

3. Gender:

a) boy

b) girl

4. You pass your free time:

staying in nature

a) usually

b) very often

c) often

d) sometimes

e) never

staying on ICT (PC, mobile phone, tablet, etc.)

a) usually

b) very often

c) often

d) sometimes

e) never

regular attendance at some hobby/interest club/lesson (art, dance lessons, etc.)

a) usually

b) very often

c) often

d) sometimes

e) never

playing sports

a) usually

b) very often

c) often

d) sometimes

e) never

B. Knowledge of nature

Circle only one, the best answer for each question.

5. Flowers with colorful petals and a sweet smell would most likely be pollinated by:

a) rain

b) wind

c) birds

d) insects

6. A small bird eats a butterfly that has been eating some nectar from a flower. Then the bird is

eaten by a hawk. This is an example of:

a) mutualism

b) a food chain

c) parasitism (parasitic behaviour)

d) survival of the fittest

7. Which of the following is a predator – prey relationship?

a) a flea and a dog

b) a seven-spot ladybird and an aphid

c) a caterpillar and a leaf

d) a deer and a grasshopper on a blade of grass

8. A fox dies. This creates a problem for:

a) a rabbit living in its territory (an area where the fox lives)

b) another fox whose territory is nearby

c) other predators living in its territory

d) fleas that were drinking the fox’s blood

9. Termites eat only wood; however, they cannot digest it. Tiny organisms that live in termitesśtomachs and intestines digest the wood. The relationship the tiny organisms and the termites have is:

a) helpful to one and has no effect on the other

b) helpful to one and harmful to the other

c) helpful to both of them

d) helpful to neither of them

10. A cat and a snake are hunting the same mouse. What is the relationship between the cat and

the snake?

a) One is using the other but not harming it

b) they are competing with each other

c) they are helping each other

d) one is trying to eat the other one

11. If there were no decomposers on Earth, what would happen?

a) many human diseases would disappear

b) living organisms would have more food

c) little would change

d) dead parts of plants and dead animals wouldn’t become part of the soil

12. A grassland turns into a desert. What will most likely happen to the animals that live in the

grassland?

a) their biodiversity and quantity will decrease

b) they will have more babies to survive

c) herbivores will adapt to another food

d) many of them will adapt to new conditions in the following generation

13. Some people started a program in a national forest to protect deer (e.g. stags, fallow deer).

They started killing wolves. Ten years later there were no wolves in the forest. For a few years

after the wolves were gone there were more deer than there had ever been. Then suddenly

there were almost no deer. The people who wanted to protect the deer didn’t know that:

a) deer only live to be a few years old

b) fires would kill so many deer

c) other animals would eat so much of the deer’s food

d) the deer would eat all of the food and many would starve

14. The original source of energy for almost all living things is:

a) the soil

b) water

c) the sun

d) plants

15. A dead bird is decomposing. What happens to the energy that was stored in the bird’s body?

a) nothing happens to it. Once the bird is dead, the energy is lost

b) the bird used up its energy when it was alive

c) it is destroyed by solar radiation

d) it will pass through the organisms that decompose the dead body

16. A rabbit eats some corn. The energy from the corn goes into the rabbit. The next day a fox eats

the rabbit. The fox gets very little of the energy that was in the corn. Why?

a) a fox cannot digest corn

b) the rabbit had already digested the corn

c) corn doesn’t have much energy

d) most of the corn’s energy was used by the rabbit

17. Most of the oxygen in the atmosphere comes from:

a) water

b) green plants

c) the soil

d) fungi

18. Which of the following would give humans the most food energy from 1,000 pounds of plants?

a) feed the plants to insects, feed the insects to fish, and then humans eat the fish

b) humans eat the plants

c) feed the plants to cattle, then humans eat the cattle

d) feed the plants to fish, then humans eat the fish

19. After living things die, they decompose. As a result of this process, nutrients are:

a) released back into the environment to be recycled

b) destroyed by the bacteria of decay

c) changed from nutrients to oxygen and water vapor

d) evaporated due to the heat produced during decomposition

20. Which of the following is a part of the water cycle?

a) erosion

b) ocean tides

c) evaporation

d) decomposition

21. A pollutant gets into an ecosystem and kills large numbers of insects. How might this affect the

ecosystem?

a) plants are not damaged so it doesn’t affect the ecosystem.

b) it damages part of the ecosystem so it may affect the whole ecosystem.

c) it kills only insects so the other animals in the ecosystem stay healthy.

d) most animals eat plants so it doesn’t affect the ecosystem much.

C. What you think of nature and the environment

The following items contain several statements. Please read the text carefully.

For each item, choose just one answer that best describes your opinion.

22. If I ever have extra money, I will give some to help protect nature.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

23. To save energy in the winter, I make sure the heat in my room is not on too high.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

24. I would like to sit by a pond and watch dragonflies.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

25. People have the right to change the environment (nature).

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

26. Building new roads is so important that trees should be cut down.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

27. I would help raise money to protect nature.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

28. I always turn off the light when I do not need it anymore.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

29. I like to go on trips to places like forests, away from cities.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

30. I like a grass lawn more than a place where flowers grow on their own.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

31. Because mosquitoes live in swamps, we should drain the swamps and use the land for farming.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

32. I try to tell others that nature is important.

a) strongly agree b) slightly agree c) neutral or undecided d) slightly disagree e) strongly

disagree

33. I try to save water by taking shorter showers or by turning off the water when I brush my

teeth.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

34. I like the quiet of nature.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

35. To feed people, nature must be cleared to grow food.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

36. People are supposed to rule over the rest of nature.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

37. Weeds should be killed because they take up space from plants we need.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral or undecided

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

D. Your nature and environmental sensitivity

We are going to ask you a few questions about the degree of your nature and environmental

sensitivity, which means the feelings you experience in relation to nature and the environment.

For each question, circle just one answer that best describes your feelings.

38. Please give your best estimate of the extent to which you are environmentally sensitive.

a) to a great extent

b) to a large extent

c) to a moderate extent

d) to a small extent

e) to no extent

39. Please give your best estimate of the extent to which your family is environmentally sensitive.

a) to a great extent

b) to a large extent

c) to a moderate extent

d) to a small extent

e) to no extent

40. To what extent do you take part in family vacations or outings in the outdoors?

a) to a great extent

b) to a large extent

c) to a moderate extent

d) to a small extent

e) to no extent

41. To what extent do you take part in activities such as going for walks, hiking, bicycling,

canoeing, or kayaking?

a) to a great extent

b) to a large extent

c) to a moderate extent

d) to a small extent

e) to no extent

42. To what extent do you take part in bird-watching or nature photography?

a) to a great extent

b) to a large extent

c) to a moderate extent

d) to a small extent

e) to no extent

43. To what extent do you go camping with youth groups and organizations (e.g. sports clubs,

Scouts, hobby clubs, etc.)?

a) to a great extent

b) to a large extent

c) to a moderate extent

d) to a small extent

e) to no extent

44. To what extent do you spend time in the out-of-doors alone – not as part of a class or youth

group?

a) to a great extent

b) to a large extent

c) to a moderate extent

d) to a small extent

e) to no extent

45. To what extent do you enjoy reading books or magazines about nature and the environment?

a) to a great extent

b) to a large extent

c) to a moderate extent

d) to a small extent

e) to no extent

46. To what extent do you enjoy watching television shows, videos, CDs, or DVDs about nature and

a) to a great extent

b) to a large extent

c) to a moderate extent

d) to a small extent

e) to no extent

47. To what extent do you have a teacher or youth leader who is a role model for environmental

sensitivity?

a) to a great extent

b) to a large extent

c) to a moderate extent

d) to a small extent

e) to no extent

E. What you personally do for nature and the environment

For each question, circle just one answer that best descibes what you do or would do for nature and

the environment.

48. If I had the opportunity, I would spend the night in the wilderness, meaning in the open air.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

49. If I have the opportunity, I like going into nature.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

50. If I have the opportunity, I like reading any publication or information source about the

environment.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

51. I would defend any mistreated animal.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

52. I am not interested in air pollution problems.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

53. If I had the opportunity, I would voluntarily take part in nature protection.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

54. If I had the opportunity, I would change my behaviour because of worries about the

environment.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

55. I would prefer a school trip to the wilderness to a school trip to a funfair.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

56. I also ask other people what I can do to reduce nature pollution.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

57. I sort the waste at home or at school.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

F. How you feel about nature and the environment

Circle just one answer that best describes the degree of your agreement.

58. I love nature and the environment.

a) strongly agree

b) slightly agree

c) neutral

d) slightly disagree

e) strongly disagree

Now you have completed the questionnaire and can put your pen down.

Thanks for your participation!

Table of Contents

(Wilke, 1995)

(Roth, 1992).

(1990),

(1990)

(1991)