 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 7 (Dec., 2014) |
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the participants
Variables
f
%
Gender
Male
220
53.3
Female
193
46.7
Type of high school
Anatolian
201
48.7
General
87
21.1
Science
125
30.3
Grade level
9
72
17.4
10
246
59.6
11
79
19.1
12
16
3.9
Age
15
87
21.1
16
224
54.2
17
83
20.1
18
19
4.6
Mother’s education level
Elementary
105
25.4
Secondary
44
10.7
High
136
32.9
University
120
29.1
Graduate
8
1.9
Father’s education level
Elementary
31
7.5
Secondary
28
6.8
High
146
35.4
University
199
48.2
Graduate
9
2.2
Do you eat healthily?
Yes
269
65.1
No
144
34.9
Do you exercise regularly?
Yes
178
43.1
No
235
56.9
Do you smoke?
Yes
30
7.3
No
383
92.7
Total
413
100
The frequency and percentage distributions of the individual characteristics of 413 high school students in the towns Tepebasi and Odunpazari in Eskisehir in the 2010-2011 academic years are shown in Table 1. With percentages of 53.3 % male and 46.7 % female students among 413 high school students, they can be said to be equal in terms of gender. It is observed that a large majority of the participants go to Anatolian high schools and are in 10th grade. The education levels of participants’ parents are high school and above. Of the high school students, 65.1 % of the 413 declared they eat healthily, 56.9 % stated they do not exercise regularly, and 92.7 % stated they do not smoke. The ages of the participants were 15, 16 and 17, ages that could be defined as mid-adolescence for Turkish students. This period coincides with high school years and is largely occupied by growth and socialisation phases. Running away from home or school due to rage against authority, smoking and alcohol use, delinquency, psychosexual disorders and suicide attempts are the most commonly observed problems encountered in this period. However, it was a positive result that the participants do not smoke and regard alcohol and drugs as having high or very high levels of risk.
Table 2. Participants’ levels of environmental risk perception
Environmental factors
Not at all
Not very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Stress
16
3.9
35
8.5
131
31.7
128
31.0
103
24.9
Mobile phone
34
8.2
85
20.6
136
32.9
93
22.5
65
15.7
Smoking
99
24.0
17
4.1
37
9.0
97
23.5
163
60.5
Passive smoking
45
10.9
60
14.5
71
17.2
114
27.6
123
29.8
Global warming
18
4.4
42
10.2
98
23.7
104
25.2
151
36.6
HIV
87
21.1
40
9.7
85
20.6
80
19.4
121
29.3
Sedentary lifestyle
52
12.6
52
12.6
102
24.7
112
27.1
95
23.0
Nuclear wastes
38
9.2
47
11.4
72
17.4
100
24.2
156
37.8
Traffic accidents
35
8.5
55
13.3
91
22.0
141
34.1
90
21.8
Alcohol
84
20.3
55
13.3
69
16.7
99
24.0
106
25.7
Drugs
94
22.8
23
5.6
45
10.9
77
18.6
174
42.1
Battery and accumulator
60
14.5
89
21.5
157
38
78
18.9
29
7.0
Eating unhealthily
27
6.5
89
21.5
139
33.7
106
25.7
52
12.6
Soil pollution
32
7.7
67
16.2
113
27.4
124
30.0
77
18.6
Air pollution
17
4.1
31
7.5
103
24.9
156
37.8
106
25.7
Water pollution
17
4.1
48
11.6
94
22.8
135
32.7
119
28.8
Noise pollution
22
5.3
73
17.7
129
31.2
114
27.6
75
18.2
Waste
25
6.1
58
14
127
30.8
135
32.7
68
16.5
Cognitive diseases
24
5.8
47
11.4
97
23.5
130
31.5
115
27.8
Food additives
24
5.8
49
11.9
83
20.1
135
32.7
122
29.5
(Sedentary lifestyle: lifestyle of people with no or irregular physical activity)
According to Table 2, environmental risk factors that the students regard as having very high risk levels are smoking, passive smoking, global warming, HIV, nuclear waste, alcohol use and drugs. The starting age of smoking and passive smoking and using alcohol and drugs, which are very high-level risks, is in the high school years, and 92.7 % of the high school students in Eskisehir do not smoke; thus, the participants can be said to be conscious in terms of environmental risks.
Students perceive environmental factors such as sedentary lifestyle, traffic accidents, soil, air and water pollution, waste, contagion, and food additives as high-level risk factors. Although it is a gratifying result that the students who spend most of the day in front of a computer are aware of this danger, it is also an indicator that developing technology makes the life of an individual difficult while providing convenience. When Beyhun et al (2007) examined the risk perception levels of senior class students of a medical school, who concluded that air pollution, traffic accidents and passive smoking are regarded as very high-level risk factors.
At the same time, stress, mobile phones, batteries and accumulators, unhealthy eating and noise pollution are perceived as medium-level risk factors. However, all the factors mentioned here threaten all people in the world today. Although it is better for the students to regard these factors as mid-level risk factors rather than thinking they are not risk factors, the city they live in has an effect on this situation. Eskisehir, the population of which is approximately 700,000, is an agricultural and industrial city located near the middle of Turkey. Compared to other, bigger industrial cities such as Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, Eskisehir have a smaller population, less noise and less industry and its negative effects.
The frequency and percentages of participants’ answers to the statements related to the assessment of environmental awareness levels are presented in Table 3. When analysing the environmental awareness levels of high school students, it is observed that they believe that environmental education will help solve environmental problems, and there is a need to include environmental education and applied activities about environmental education in curricula. As a result of their study, Tokat and Mutlu (2004) concluded that high school students think lectures and applications about the environment should be increased. Topics and subjects about the environment take place in biology and geography classes in Turkey. It is observed that there are no classes about environmental education in the current high school curriculum. With the aim of having students acquire effective environmental awareness, there is a need to add a class about the environment to high school curricula. It is observed that the participants do not read additional books beyond textbooks to obtain knowledge and information about the environment. They share their knowledge about the environment with their friends, watch related programs on television and follow relevant broadcasts from the radio, and they want to voluntarily participate in environmental activities and be a member of institutions that carry out these activities. Tokat and Mutlu (2004) also concluded in their research that high school students feel that they and their civic and governmental institutions are responsible in addressing the challenges of environmental problems. Altunoglu and Atav (2009) obtained similar results in their study, noting that focusing more on environmental problems in written and visual media and extending Internet usage can contribute to environmental awareness shifts.
Table 3. Participants’ levels of environmental awareness
Item
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
1
62
15.0
142
34.4
104
25.2
78
18.9
27
6.5
2
41
9.9
66
16.0
86
20.8
135
32.7
85
20.6
3
45
10.9
56
13.6
102
24.7
151
36.6
59
14.3
4
104
25.2
148
35.8
79
19.1
45
10.9
37
9.0
5
40
9.7
90
21.8
136
32.9
111
26.9
36
8.7
6
25
6.1
56
13.6
120
29.1
153
37.0
59
14.3
7
124
30.0
193
46.7
51
12.3
28
6.8
17
4.1
8
74
17.9
101
24.5
132
32.0
78
18.9
28
6.8
9
97
23.5
142
34.4
82
19.9
61
14.8
31
7.5
10
114
27.6
138
33.4
70
16.9
58
14.0
33
8.0
11
136
32.9
148
35.8
72
17.4
39
9.4
18
4.4
12
121
29.3
151
36.6
58
14.0
48
11.6
35
8.5
13
23
5.6
39
9.4
72
17.4
167
40.4
111
26.9
14
22
5.3
28
6.8
48
11.6
150
36.3
165
40
15
76
18.4
67
16.2
103
24.9
95
23.0
72
17.4
16
31
7.5
47
11.4
125
30.3
139
33.7
71
17.2
17
25
6.1
24
5.8
34
8.2
165
40.0
164
39.7
18
28
6.8
21
5.1
41
9.9
118
28.6
205
49.6
19
52
12.6
122
29.5
107
25.9
88
21.3
43
10.4
20
28
6.8
22
5.3
61
14.8
140
33.9
162
39.2
21
31
7.5
85
20.6
144
34.9
114
27.6
39
9.4
22
46
11.1
80
19.4
114
27.6
139
33.7
34
8.2
23
50
12.1
88
21.3
106
25.7
130
31.5
39
9.4
24
102
24.7
110
26.6
103
24.9
67
16.2
31
7.5
25
31
7.5
75
18.2
111
26.9
136
32.9
60
14.5
26
155
37.5
144
34.9
46
11.1
41
9.9
27
6.5
27
33
8.0
20
4.8
36
8.7
86
20.8
238
57.6
28
80
19.4
77
18.6
118
28.6
91
22.0
47
11.4
29
114
27.6
150
36.3
96
23.2
8.2
8.2
19
4.6
30
31
7.5
29
7.0
109
26.4
140
33.9
104
25.2
Participants stated that they were ambivalent in the item that said that the government and regulations have recently worked to get environmental pollution under control. The reason for this response might that students do not closely follow government policies about the topic or they are hesitant to support the environmental policies of the government.
Although students declared that they would be happy if people recycled used bottles, tin cans and paper and that they would prefer environmentally friendly products even if they were expensive, they were ambivalent on the item regarding being careful about buying a product that can be recycled, and they did not agree on the item regarding going door to door to teach people about recycling. These answers are self-contradictory. These two different views can be interpreted as the fact that students regard recycling as an important issue for protecting the environment, but they do not personally do something for recycling. This result is also significant in the sense that knowing or being aware of something does not necessarily mean that it should be practised.
Participants specified that people should adapt to nature instead of changing it in the way that suits them, and in this way, the balance of nature will not be spoilt. Solving environmental problems is primarily possible by changing the values and attitudes of people; people today have moral tasks and responsibilities they owe to people in the future, and it is more important to have a healthy life in a naturally protected environment than to lead a high-quality life. The fact that they were ambivalent in the item regarding working without pay for a liveable environment, if necessary, can be interpreted as their material worries about future. This conclusion verifies the result mentioned above. Individuals are sensitive about protecting the environment; however, in regard to practising it on an individual basis, the views could change.
Information about the differentiation of participants’ environmental risk perception levels according to individual traits is given in Tables 4 and 5. The Mann-Whitney U Test has been used in bivariate comparisons, and the Kruskal-Wallis Test has been applied for multivariate comparisons.
Table 4. Information about the differentiation of participants’ environmental risk perception levels according to individual traits (Mann-Whitney U Test)
n
Mean rank
Sum of ranks
M-Whitney U
Z
p
Gender
Male
193
230.43
44473.00
16708.000
-3.737
.000
Female
220
186.45
41018.00
As seen in Table 4, the students’ environmental risk perception levels of differ according to gender and school type, and males have higher levels of environmental risk perception than females. This difference could be related to the structure of the society: Turkish society has a more patriarchal family structure. The ultimate decision makers are men, particularly regarding the home and the matters outside the family. Women are primarily responsible for the home, children and the matters inside the family. The matter of environment is of particular concern for every individual in society; nevertheless, it may be a result of this patriarchal precept that men feel they are more responsible for the environment than women are. This could be the basic reason why different practices exist in different societies. A study that Sam et al (2010) conducted on undergraduate students revealed that female students have higher environmental risk perceptions than male students. In the comparison made by Slimak and Dietz (2006), no differences in terms of gender were found. It may be thought that the results obtained from this study and the two studies mentioned above support the comments about societal precepts. There is a significant difference between the students’ perceptions based on their school types. Environmental risk awareness is significantly higher in Anatolian high schools and in science high schools than in general high schools. This difference may stem from both the curricula of Anatolian and science high schools and the academic and mental characteristics of the students attending these types of schools. The contents of the curricula used in Anatolian and science high schools are different from general high schools and are intensive in science and mathematics. Furthermore, the Turkey-wide selection of the students for these two types of high schools is carried out through an exam that aims to assess the academic and cognitive knowledge and skills. According to the score of this exam, students primarily prefer science or Anatolian high schools. The students attending general high schools have not been placed in any science or Anatolian high schools. A significant difference is not observed between high school students’ level of environmental risk perception and their class, their age, and the education level of mother and father. Because eating unhealthily, having a sedentary lifestyle and smoking have been found among environmental factors such as eating healthily, exercising regularly and smoking, the differentiated results of these individual traits have not been examined.
Table 5. Information about the differentiation of participants’ environmental risk perception levels according to individual characteristics (Kruskal-Wallis Test)
n
Mean rank
df
X2
p
Differentiation results
Type of high school
Anatolian
201
218.48
2
15.361
.000
General-Anatolian*
General-Science*
General
87
162.46
Science
125
219.54
Grade level
9
72
215.97
3
.838
.840
10
246
207.26
---------
11
79
200.85
12
16
193.00
Age
15
87
218.50
3
1.617
.656
16
224
205.44
17
83
204.53
----------
18
19
183.53
Mother’s education level
Elementary
105
205.43
4
2.286
.683
Secondary
44
226.24
High
136
211.40
---------
University
120
197.56
Graduate
8
188.69
Father’s education level
Elementary
31
173.68
4
5.225
.265
Secondary
28
234.32
High
146
215.26
---------
University
199
203.53
Graduate
9
179.67
Information about the differentiation of participants’ environmental awareness levels according to individual traits are shown in Tables 6 and 7. The Mann-Whitney U Test has been used once again in bivariate comparisons, and the Kruskal-Wallis test has been applied in multivariate comparisons. It is observed that the students’ environmental awareness levels differ in the items related to eating healthily, smoking and school type. According to the average values of eating healthily and smoking in the Mann-Whitney test, there is a significant difference in favour of eating healthily and not smoking. A significant difference is observed regarding environmental risk perceptions according to school type; however, which school type creates a difference in favour of itself cannot be explained with these statistical results. According to this finding, it could be stated that the students who eat healthily and do not smoke have a higher level of environmental awareness than students who eat unhealthily and smoke. A significant difference is observed between the school type and the levels of environmental awareness. Analyses show that there is a significant difference, in the Anatolian high schools’ favour, between Anatolian and science high schools and, in the general high schools’ favour, between general and science high schools. It may be thought that this difference stems from the reasons stated above. There is a significant difference between the levels of high school students’ environmental awareness and gender, regular exercising, class, age, and the levels of mother’s and father’s education.
Table 6. Information about the differentiation of participants’ environmental awareness levels according to individual characteristics (Mann-Whitney U Test)
n
Mean rank
Sum of ranks
M-Whitney U
Z
p
Gender
Male
193
218.77
42222.00
18958.500
-1.878
.060
Female
220
196.68
43268.00
Eating healthily
Yes
269
216.57
58527.00
16794.000
-2.228
.026
No
144
189.13
27234.00
Regular exercising
Yes
178
220.03
39165.00
18596.000
-1.932
.053
No
235
197.13
46326.00
Smoking
Yes
30
159.83
4795.50
4330.000
-2.249
.025
No
383
210.69
80696.00
Table 7. Information about the differentiation of participants’ environmental awareness levels according to individual characteristics (Kruskal-Wallis Test)
n
Mean rank
df
X2
P
Differentiation results
Type of high school
Anatolian
201
221.55
2
14.952
.001
Science- Anatolian*
Science- General*
General
87
222.87
Science
125
172.56
Grade level
9
72
200.07
3
1.979
.577
-------
10
246
213.67
11
79
195.07
12
16
194.50
Age
15
87
206.36
3
2.544
.467
-------
16
224
214.27
17
83
191.20
18
19
193.21
Mother’s education level
Elementary
105
222.06
4
5.843
.211
-------
Secondary
44
187.28
High
136
213.37
University
120
197.65
Graduate
8
149.75
Father’s education level
Elementary
31
188.92
4
4.843
.304
--------
Secondary
28
206.61
High
146
222.79
University
199
199.97
Graduate
9
169.67
