Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education (대한지구과학교육학회지)

The Korean Society of Earth Science Education (대한지구과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Differences in Environmental Behavior Practice Experience according to the Level of Environmental Literacy Factors

환경소양 요인별 수준에 따른 환경행동 실천 경험의 차이

  • Received : 2023.03.30
  • Accepted : 2023.04.28
  • Published : 2023.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigates learners' environmental literacy, classifies the results by factors of environmental literacy, and then investigates the differences in the students' environmental behavior practice experiences according to the classification by factor. The study was conducted with 47 6th grade students from D elementary school located in P metropolitan city as the subject of final analysis, and environmental literacy questionnaires and environmental behavior practice experience questionnaires were used as the main data. As a result of the study, the learners were classified into three groups according to the factors of environmental literacy, and they were respectively named as the "High environmental literacy group", "low environmental literacy group", and "Low Function and Affectif group". A Word network was formed using the descriptions of environmental behavior practice experiences for each cluster, and a Degree Centrality Analysis was performed to visualize and then analyze. As a result of the analysis, "High environmental literacy group" was confirmed, 1) recognized the subjects of environmental action practice as individuals and families, 2) described his experience of environmental action practice in relation to all elements of environmental literacy, and had a relatively pessimistic view. "low environmental literacy group", and "Low Function and Affectif group" were confirmed 1) perceive the subject of environmental behavior practice as a relatively social problem, 2) the description of the experience of environmental behavior practice is relatively biased specific factors, and the "Low Function and Affectif group" is particularly focused on the knowledge element. And 3) it was confirmed that they were aware of climate change from a relatively optimistic perspective. Based on this conclusion, suggestions were made from the perspective of environmental education.

본 연구는 학습자들의 환경 소양을 조사하여 환경 소양의 요인별로 그 결과를 분류한 후, 요인별 분류에 따른 학생들의 환경행동 실천 경험에 대해 어떤 차이가 있는지를 알아보기 위한 연구이다. 연구의 실행은 P 광역시에 위치한 D 초등학교 6학년 학생 47명의 학생들을 최종 분석의 대상으로 진행되었으며, 환경소양 검사지와 환경행동 실천 경험에 관한 설문지를 주요 데이터로 사용하였다. 연구의 결과 학습자들은 환경소양 요인에 따라 세 군집으로 분류되었으며, 각각 고 환경소양군, 저 환경소양군, 저기능정서군으로 명명하였다. 각 군집별로 환경행동 실천 경험에 대한 기술 내용을 활용하여 언어 네트워크를 형성하고, 중심도 분석을 실시하여 시각화한 후 분석하였다. 분석한 결과 고환경소양군은 1) 환경행동 실천 주체를 개인과 가족으로 인식하고, 2) 환경행동 실천 경험을 환경소양의 모든 요소와 연관지어서 기술하였으며, 3) 기후변화에 대해 비교적 비관론적 관점으로 인식하는 것을 확인하였다. 저 환경소양군과 저기능정서군은 1)환경행동 실천 주체를 비교적 사회적 문제로 인식하고, 2) 환경행동 실천 경험에 대한 기술이 비교적 편향되어 있으며, 특히 저기능정서군은 지식 요소에 집중되어 있다. 그리고 3) 기후변화에 대해서는 비교적 낙관론적인 관점으로 인식하고 있는 것을 확인하였다. 이 같은 결론을 바탕으로 환경교육의 관점에서 시사점을 주는 제언을 하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김순식, 이용섭(2022). PBL 을 적용한 환경글쓰기 수업이 초등학생들의 기후소양 및 환경감수성에 미치는 효과. 대한지구과학교육학회지, 15(3), 345-353. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2022.15.3.345
  2. 김윤지(2021). SDGs 연계 교육에서 예비 지구과학 교사들의 탄소 소양. 대한지구과학교육학회지, 14(3), 292-301. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2021.14.3.292
  3. 문성채, 이영희, 손연아(2015). 과학적 소양을 바탕으로 해석한 환경소양 요소에 의한 중학교 '환경과 녹색성장' 교과서 분석. 환경교육, 28(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.17965/KJEE.2015.28.1.1
  4. 박치성, 정지원(2013). 텍스트 네트워크 분석-사회적 인식 네트워크. 정부학연구, 19(2), 73-108.
  5. 이상균(2017). 과학과 Eco-STEAM 수업이 초등학생들의 환경소양과 STEAM 태도에 미치는 효과. 대한지구과학교육학회지, 10(1), 62-75. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2017.10.1.62
  6. 정현희, 서우석(2008). 초등학생 환경 소양 측정 도구의 개발. 환경교육, 21(4), 79-93.
  7. 진옥화, 최돈형(2005). 환경 소양 개념의 변천과 환경소양 측정 연구. 환경교육, 18(2), 31-43.
  8. Al-Smadi, M. O., & Al-Zboon, E. K. (2015). The impact of environmental education on sustainable development: A case study from Jordan. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(5), 56-63.
  9. Bamberg, S., & Moser, 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
  10. Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., Ball, S., Bell, S., Bellamy, R., ... & Patterson, C. (2009). Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. The Lancet, 373(9676), 1693-1733. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60935-1
  11. DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). The impact of environmental education on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors: A review and synthesis of the literature. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 30-50.
  12. Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141-157.
  13. Grilli, G., & Curtis, J. (2021). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviours: A review of methods and approaches. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 135, 110039.
  14. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8.
  15. Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743
  16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). (2018). Global warming of 1.5℃. Cambridge University Press.
  17. Kaiser, F. G., Schultz, P. W., & Li, J. (2009). The challenge of energy efficiency: Personal moral values, institutional norms, and behavior. In R. Wustenhagen, M. Wolsink, & M. J. Burer (Eds.), Social learning towards a sustainable world (pp. 111-126). Greenleaf.
  18. Kamada, T., & Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters, 31(1), 7-15.
  19. Kim, K. H., & Lee, S. H. (2015). Environmental education in South Korea. In Encyclopedia of environmental education (pp. 365-369). Springer, Dordrecht.
  20. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
  21. Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Rosenthal, S. (2017). Climate change in the American mind: November 2016. Yale University and George Mason University.
  22. Milfont, T. L., Duckitt, J., & Cameron, L. D. (2010). A cross-cultural study of environmental motive concerns and their implications for pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 42(6), 747-776.
  23. NAAEE. (2004). Excellence in environmental education: Guidelines for learning (K-12). Washington, DC: Author.
  24. Ojala, M., & Bengtsson, H. (2019). Hope and worry in climate change communication-Insights from publics in four Nordic countries. Environmental Communication, 13(2), 183-197.
  25. Power, M. C., Kioumourtzoglou, M. A., Hart, J. E., Okereke, O. I., Laden, F., Weisskopf, M. G., & Bobb, J. F. (2020). The relation between past exposure to fine particulate air pollution and prevalent anxiety: Observational cohort study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 370, m3160.
  26. Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In P. Schmuck, & P. W. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61-78). Springer.
  27. Sterling, S. (2004). Environmental education and the development of eco-literacy. Journal of Environmental Education, 35(1), 11-22.
  28. UNESCO. (2016). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO.
  29. Wells, N. M., Lekies, K. S., & Maruyama, G. M. (2006). Benefits of nature: What we are learning about why people respond to nature. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(Suppl 1), S126-S139.
  30. World Wide Fund for Nature. (2022). Earth life report 2022.