 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 19, Issue 2, Article 13(Dec., 2018) |
Students' global environmental views
The students' global environmental views were neutral prior to conducting STSE education as indicated by their NEP average score for PP (3.14) and PV (3.12) classes being close to 3 (Table 1). Although they demonstrated environmental-centered views on eight items (NEP 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14) with scores >3, other items (NEP 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 15) received an average score of <3 indicating that the students still held human-centered views.
Table 1 shows that STSE education significantly enhanced NEP scores (P = 0.01) from human-centered to environment-centered views with total mean scores over 3: PV (3.87) and PP (3.72). In addition, the mean score on the 13 items of PV and 11 items of PP was significantly higher after STSE learning. The PV approach was more effective than PP. The total mean score and mean of nearly all items (except NEP 5) with PV were higher than PP (Table 1). However, the same was not true for items 6 and 14 because the average score for these two items remained far below 3 despite their engagement in STSE education.
Table 1. Comparison of average score and significance relationship toward the NEP items between power point and participatory video classes, before and after STSE Education
NEP items
Mean score of PP (n= 35)
Mean score of PV class (n= 33)
Sig. [c]
Pre
Post
Sig.
[b]Pre
Post
Sig.
[b]1. The human population growth is approaching the limit of the Earth can support
2.66
4.43
***
2.55
4.79
***
NS
2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. [a]
2.91
4.00
***
2.94
4.15
***
NS
3. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
3.91
3.94
NS
3.76
4.15
**
***
4. Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the Earth unlivable. [a]
2.51
3.83
***
2.64
4.00
***
NS
5. Humans are seriously abusing the environment.
2.66
4.00
***
2.79
3.91
***
NS
6. The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. [a]
1.69
1.69
NS
1.64
1.67
NS
NS
7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
3.80
4.00
**
3.64
4.21
***
**
8. The nature is NOT disturbed with development and industries.[a]
3.74
4.00
**
3.67
4.36
***
**
9. Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature.
3.74
3.89
NS
3.70
4.00
***
NS
10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. [a]
3.57
3.89
*
3.58
4.00
**
NS
11. The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.
3.51
4.00
***
3.52
4.21
***
NS
12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. [a]
3.77
4.20
**
3.70
4.21
**
NS
13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
2.83
4.00
***
2.79
4.00
***
NS
14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. [a]
2.06
2.00
NS
2.15
2.06
NS
NS
15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe
3.69
4.00
***
3.76
4.39
***
*
Total
3.14
3.72
***
3.12
3.87
***
**
[a]Items are reverse coded; *, **, ***, NS, significant at P=0,001, 0,01, 0.05 or nonsignificant using a Wilcoxon test[b] and a Man Whittney-U test[c]; the italic statements indicated NEP items were paraphrased or modified; Pre=before, Post=after STSE Education.
The students' views on item 6 were extremely low with an average score obtained for both classes being much lower than 3 (PP = 1.69; PV = 1.64). This result in line with the findings of previous studies (Dunlap et al., 2000; Petegem & Blieckp, 2006; Surata, 2017). According to Rideout et al. (2005) and Petegem & Blieck (2006), this is likely because students misinterpreted the item. However, Surata (2017, p. 334) found that students understood item 6 but that the students "still have a weak perception of the environmental issues that limit human growth and development." This was supported by students' feedback during the interviews in which most of them tended to explain that the Earth is rich in natural resources. For example, Diah (female) said, "The Earth provides a diverse range of natural resources for living organisms, but we must know how to use them, thus we must learn more from nature." Another student, Ita (female), explained more specifically, "Many medical plants can be found if we use nature." Meanwhile, Ivan (male) gave his opinion on the availability of food, " Our place is rich with natural resources in the form of plantations, livestock, and agriculture. Food security itself will be realized if humans know how to utilize various natural resources." According to Utami (female), " There is a lack of capability in processing natural resources because not all natural resources can be utilized." This remark was in line with the argument provided by her classmate who said,
"In reality, the earth is rich with natural resources. However, not everyone can know and use it properly. Many people take advantage of existing natural resources and do not want to develop and look for other natural resources." (Chandra, female)
Several students suggested using natural resources wisely such as Tri (male), "The earth has been created with an abundance of natural resources; hence, humans who have the mind must be smart in using it." This view was supported by Yuli (female), "God created nature for humans to meet their needs; therefore, human beings should be able to think smartly and utilize nature with good and positive intentions without damaging nature." In addition, Arya (male) said,
"Nature has provided all the necessities of human life; therefore, humans can cultivate and utilize the resources of nature and will certainly be very grateful to nature. Thus, they are expected to continue preserving nature."
Our finding showed that STSE education via PP or PV approaches cannot change students' perspectives from human-centered to environmental-centered on the statement of "the earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them (NEP 6)." This was demonstrated by their argument, which tends to argue that natural resources are not limited but humans need to have enough knowledge and skill to use them wisely.
Students' opinions for NEP 14 can be classified into two major reasons. First, their opinions are human-centered as demonstrated by the comment, "All human needs are provided by nature, and thus we must learn how to use it efficiently." This opinion is similar to another student's, "Many needs must be met by humans, and thus people will indirectly learn about nature and resources to meet their needs." One student's statement was a human-centered view:
"By gathering knowledge of natural science as much as possible, humans will understand how to use or consume products from the natural world. The knowledge is then classified according to the concept in biology that facilitates the categorization of which plants are suitable or feasible to eat so it will not confuse humans in the future." (Ivan, male)
Holistic views were also seen: While students agree with the item statement, they also mentioned the importance of learning to use nature wisely. This was expressed by argumentative statements such as, "Humans must learn about nature in order for it to be useful for human life and not to damage nature itself"; "Humans should learn about nature so they can cultivate nature as well as possible and not harm it"; and "Humans and nature are closely connected. Humans can't escape from nature and vice versa." The importance of learning how to use natural resource sustainably was highlighted by the arguments, "Humans should learn from nature because it has given examples of how to help each other and how to keep the environment"; "When nature is destroyed, humans and animals cannot meet their needs such as eating"; and
" Humans must necessarily study nature. By understanding the state of nature, people will know what can or cannot be done to maintain the balance of nature. In studying nature, humans are expected not to perform selfish actions towards nature."
Table 1 shows tbothat h PV and PP approaches are unable to change students' views from human- to environmental-centered on NEP 14 (Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it). The average score after learning was far below three (PV=2.06 and PP=2.00). Although the interviews showed that several of students were equipped with a holistic perspective, most of them agree with the item statement. Hence, their views are still human-centered.
Students' views of the local environment
Table 2 shows that the impact of STSE education toward LEP was seemingly similar to NEP. Statistical analysis showed that both of these approaches significantly increased students' pro-environmental views toward LEP (P = 0.05). This indicates that STSE education has also enhanced the local views of students from a human-centered to an environment-centered view—especially on items with an average score >3. The students using PV (3.89) achieved higher scores on the LEP than the PP class (3.78). Only two items on the PV (LEP 9 and 15) were significantly higher than on the PP across the four NEP sections (see Table 1). Interestingly, student scales on the LEP were higher than on NEP items as demonstrated by a total mean score of PP (NEP=3.72; LEP=3.78) and PV (NEP=3.87; LEP=3.89). This is probably because students were more likely to change their ecological perspective by using local cases rather than the global environment.
Table 2. Comparing the average score and significance relationship toward the LEP items between power point and participatory video classes, before and after STSE Education
Local Environmental Paradigm (LEP) Items
Power point class (n= 35)
Participatory video class (n= 33)
Sig.
[c]
Pre
Post
Sig.
[b]
Pre
Post
Sig.
[b]
1. The human population growth in the Bali Island is approaching the limit of the subak can support.
3.14
4.37
***
3.03
4.67
***
NS
2. Humans have the right to modify the subak to suit their needs.[a]
3.11
4.00
***
3.09
4.18
***
NS
3. When humans interfere with subak it produces disastrous.
3.23
3.91
***
3.30
4.00
***
NS
4. With human ingenuity, we guarantee subak will survive.[a]
2.91
4.00
***
2.82
3.94
***
NS
5. Humans are seriously abusing the subak.
2.51
3.86
***
2.64
3.97
***
NS
6. The subak has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.[a]
1.69
1.69
NS
1.76
1.61
NS
NS
7. Rice, hyacinth, frogs, mice and other living things have as much right as humans to exist in the subak.
3.80
4.43
***
3.76
4.64
***
NS
8. The subak is NOT disturbed by tourism development.[a]
3.60
3.83
***
3.58
4.00
***
NS
9. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature in managing the subak.
3.80
3.91
NS
3.61
4.00
***
*
10. The crisis of subak has been greatly exaggerated.[a]
3.43
3.89
***
3.63
4.00
***
NS
11. The subaks have very limited land and resources.
2.77
4.23
***
2.70
4.22
***
NS
12. Humans can control all condition of the subak.[a]
3.49
4.09
***
3.63
4.27
***
NS
13. The balance of subak is very delicate and easily upset.
3.29
4.09
***
3.21
4.15
***
NS
14. Humans will eventually learn the subak to be able to use it.[a]
1.77
2.20
***
1.82
2.00
NS
NS
15. If development and tourism in Bali continues on its present course, the subaks will soon be extinct.
3.00
4.09
***
2.88
4.55
***
*
Total average
3.04
3.78
***
2.99
3.89
***
***
[a] Items are reverse coded; *, **, ***, NS, significant at P=0,05, 0,01, 0.001 or nonsignificant using a Wilcoxon test[b] and a Man Whittney-U test[c]; Pre=before, Post=after STSE Education.
All of LEP item statements were modified from the NEP scale (Dunlap et al., 2000, Surata, 2017).
As seen on the NEP items, PP and PV approaches had little impact on enhancing students' environmental views on LEP 6 (The subak has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them) and LEP 14 (Humans will eventually learn the subak to be able to use it). Students' comments on both items were similar. For example, toward LEP 6 they thought that the subak has many natural resources as reflected by the argument, "There are a lot of natural resources available in the subak, but a lack of knowledge about it makes people understand less about the benefits of the resources in the subak." Other students further supported this view, "Because all food comes from the subak," and, "If we learn about the subak more widely, then it will be useful for human beings because the subak can provide rice, corn, chili, and soybean." Meanwhile, several students argued for the importance of learning about the subak and using its sustainability. This was explained by Ivan (male), "Like other natural resources, the subak is an important part of agriculture that is rich in a variety of resources if we know how to use it". His friend argued, "Indeed, the subak saves various natural resources that can be utilized but it should be utilized wisely," (Yohan, male). However, Yuli (female) added, "The subak will be meaningless if people cannot learn to use it wisely." Another student commented,<>
"The subak has a variety of natural resources that are needed by humans such as food, fresh water, fertile soil, and others. However, if humans cannot use the subak well, then the natural resources will not be seen or used by humans." (Tini, female)
The students' arguments on LEP 14 could be classified into three categories. First, ego-centrism was identified as a category and was clearly explained by Tri (male), "The subak is created by humans, and therefore we must learn it." Stefani (female) added, "Basically, humans do something if there are benefits. In addition, humans can develop the subak so that further value can be added to it such as using it as a tourist resort." These opinions are similar to a comment from Ivan (male), "The subak provides a diversity of resources. Humans have various needs for life, and they seek way to meet those needs include using the subak."
Second, students' opinions could be classified as holistic-centrism in that learning about the subak is not only for human needs but also preserves the subak and nature. Arya (male) stated, "Humans should learn more about the subak and its benefits to preserve the subak and to sustain human life by processing the products from the subak." Further, Yuli (female) commented, "As a cultural heritage site, the subak has many benefits, and studying the subak can benefit farmers and nature itself."
Third, two students' opinions belonged to eco-centrism because their comments addressed the conservation of the subak as well as nature itself. Tini (female) stated, "Humans must learn about the subak because by understanding it, humans will know things that can or cannot be done to maintain the balance of the subak…and not to perform selfish actions against the subak." Meanwhile, Yohan (male) added, "Despite the rapid development of this era, we should not forget the subak as the original culture of Bali that has been supporting our lives so far." In brief, neither PV nor PP approaches changed students' environmental views from ego-centered into eco-centered. In reality, the natural resources of the subak are limited—humans should not only learn about the subak for their own needs as detailed in LEP 6 and 14.
