Content uploaded by Thomas Marcinkowski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas Marcinkowski on Feb 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Akdeniz Universitesi]
On: 26 November 2011, At: 06:44
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Environmental Education Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20
Development and validation of
Children’s Responsible Environmental
Behavior Scale
Mehmet Erdogan
a
, Ahmet Ok
b
& Thomas Joseph Marcinkowski
c
a
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education,
Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
b
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education,
Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
c
Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Florida
Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
Available online: 25 Nov 2011
To cite this article: Mehmet Erdogan, Ahmet Ok & Thomas Joseph Marcinkowski (2011):
Development and validation of Children’s Responsible Environmental Behavior Scale, Environmental
Education Research, DOI:10.1080/13504622.2011.627421
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.627421
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Development and validation of Children’s Responsible
Environmental Behavior Scale
Mehmet Erdogan
a
*, Ahmet Ok
b
and Thomas Joseph Marcinkowski
c
a
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Akdeniz University, Antalya,
Turkey;
b
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara, Turkey;
c
Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Florida
Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
(Received 6 May 2011; final version received 19 September 2011)
Though environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) has been a focus of many
studies in the field of environmental education, very few scales have been devel-
oped to assess children’s ERB. In this regard, this article focuses on the devel-
opment and validation of Children’s Responsible Environmental Behavior Scale
(CREBS) and also reports the psychometric properties of this scale. The items
in the CREBS were developed initially from the responses to four open-ended
items by 229 fourth and fifth grade students. This initial form was pilot tested
with 673 fourth and fifth graders and then subjected to exploratory factor analy-
sis. Later, the revised version of the scale was administrated to 2412 fifth grad-
ers, and those results were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis and
reliability analysis. CREBS consists of 23 items measured using a seven-point
Likert-type scale, which have been organized into four sub-scales: political
action (six items, a = .92); eco-management (six items, a = .70); consumer and
economic action (five items, a = .70); and Individual and Public Persuasion (six
items, a = .80). Study results indicate that CREBS can be used for exploring the
extent to which elementary school students in Turkey demonstrate four types of
behavior to help prevent and resolve environmental problems and issues.
Keywords: behavior; children; scale
Introduction
Many have debated the purpose of the education, and more specifically of envi-
ronmental education (EE); influencing individuals’ behavior vs. changing behavior
(Heimlich and Ardoin 2008). One of the initial attempts to define the purposes of
EE was done within the First Intergovernmental Conference on EE in Tbilisi,
Georgia in 1977. In the conference, the governments agreed that one of the goals
of EE is to ‘create new patterns of behavior of individuals, groups, and society as
a whole towards the environment’ (26) (UNESCO 1978). The Tbilisi category of
EE objectives most closely related to this goal focused on ‘Participation – to pro-
vide social groups and individuals with an opportunity to be actively involved at
all levels in working toward resolution of environmental problems ’ (UNESCO
1978, 27). Considering the Tbilisi Declaration, Chawla and Cushing (2007) inter-
*Corresponding author. Email: merdogan@akdeniz.edu.tr
Environmental Education Research
2011, 1–34, iFirst Article
ISSN 1350-4622 print/ISSN 1469-5871 online
Ó 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.627421
http://www.tandfonline.com
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
preted the ultimate goal of EE as one’s active engagement in resolution of envi-
ronmental problems. In line with the efforts dedicated to develop the area of EE
in Tbilisi, as proposed and accepted by many scholars (i.e. Drs Hungerford, Volk,
Marcinkowski, McBeth, Simmons, Peyton), the ultimate goal of EE is to foster
participation in ERB (Hungerford and Peyton 1977) and to develop environmen-
tally responsible and active citizens (Childress and Wert 1976; Culen 2001; Hung-
erford, Peyton, and Wilke 1980; Leeming et al. 1993; Roth 1970, 1992; Stapp
et al. 1969). In line with conference recommendations that ‘the Tbilisi goals and
objectives be further clarified for use by teachers and youth leaders’ (e.g. Gustaf-
son 1983, 112; Stapp 1978, 71), Hungerford, Peyton, and Wilke (1980) developed
a set of Goals for Curriculum Development in Environmental Education, which
consisted of four goal levels and associated sub-goals. The last of these goal lev-
els focused on developing the skills necessary for taking positive environmental
action needed to achieve and maintain the stability between quality of life and
the quality of the environment. Based upon the objectives proposed in Tbilisi
Conference, Hungerford and Volk (1990, 9) defined environmentally responsible
citizens as the ones who have:
(1) an awareness and sensitivity to the total environment and its allied problems [and/
or issues], (2) a basic understanding of the environment and its allied problems [and/
or issues], (3) feeling of concern for the environment and motivation for actively par-
ticipating in environmental improvement and protection, (4) skills for identifying and
solving environmental problems [and/or issues], and (5) active involvement at all lev-
els in working toward resolution of environmental problems [and/or issues].
ERB includes acquired or learned behaviors (actions), and does not operate in an
isolated environment (Sia, Hungerford, and Tomera 1985/1986). Most consider
ERB to be a component of Environmental Literacy (EL) (e.g. Erdogan 2009; Hsu
1997; Lee et al. 2003; McBeth 2006; Negev et al. 2006). Early definitions of EE
(Stapp et al. 1969), categories of EE objectives from Tbilisi (UNESCO 1978), sub-
stantial review of general EE frameworks and models (Harvey 1977), analysis of
more specific EE program frameworks (Simmons 1995), and a meta-analysis of
research on ERB (Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera 1986/1987; Osbaldiston 2004)
all revealed that ERB is one of five clusters of learning outcome within the frame-
work of EL: (Cognitive) (1) Knowledge and (2) Skills; (Affective) (3) Affective
Dispositions and (4) Determinants of Behavior; (Psychomotor or Conative) (5)
Environmentally Responsible Behavior. As one of the components of EL, Simmons
(1995) defined ERB as to ‘include active and considered participation aimed at
solving problems and resolving issues. Categories of environmentally responsible
actions are persuasion, economic and consumer action, eco-management, political
action and legal action’ (Volk and McBeth 1997, 8–9).
ERB has been classified into different categories and/or components in the exist-
ing literature. Hungerford and Peyton (1977, as cited in Smith-Sebasto 1992) pro-
posed five categories or modes of environmental action: eco-management,
consumerism, legal action, persuasion, and political action. Ramsey, Hungerford,
and Tomera (1981) added one more category; i.e. interaction, to the earlier categori-
zation and identified six categories of ERB.
Later, Champeau (1982, as cited in Hsu 1997) modified one of aforementioned
categories; consumerism to economic action. His definition of economic action
2 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
referred to actions with regard to response to and economic threat, consumptions
habits, and monetary contribution. Most recently, these categories and descriptions
were slightly modified (Hsu 1997; McBeth and Volk 1997; Simmons 1995; Wilke
1995). The category of ‘interaction’ is removed from these categories. Initial and
more recent categorization of ERB is summarized in Table 1.
Since 1995, many scholars have accepted and used these five categories of ERB
(Hsu 1997): eco-management/physical action, consumer/economic action, persua-
sion, political action, and legal action.
Correlates and predictors of ERB
Even though developing ERB has long been recognized as the ultimate goal of EE,
limited attention had been given to research on ERB prior to 1990 (e.g. Kolmuss
and Agyeman 2002; Sia, Hungerford, and Tomera 1985/1986). For example, during
this period, Linke (1981) claimed that knowledge on the factors that contribute to
participation in ERB was very limited, particularly in EE. However, since then, sub-
stantial effort has been given to the development and review of theories, frame-
works, and models of ERB, although much of this attention has been in the social
and behavioral sciences rather than in EE (e.g. Darnton 2008; Jackson 2005; Vining
and Ebreo 2002). While there had been several narrative reviews of early theory
and research on ERB (e.g. Cook and Berrenberg 1981; Lipsey 1977), the first quan-
titative meta-analysis of studies that investigated correlates of ERB was undertaken
by Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera (1986/1987). Later meta-analyses of the ERB
literature extended Hines’ work within EE (e.g. Zelezny 1999) and well beyond it
(e.g. Bamberg and Moser 2007).
Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera (1986/1987) analyzed a substantial portion of
available ERB research from the social sciences, applied behavior analysis, and EE
to explore possible correlates of ERB. From their results, they proposed a model
that contained major correlates of ERB, which included personality variables, cog-
nitive variables, and situational variables. Further, their model presented four
groups of variables that appeared to affect ERB. Similarly, Hornik et al. (1995)
meta-analyzed research studies investigating merely consumer recycling. They also
suggested four groups of variables which contribute to ERB. These groups are
intrinsic incentives, extrinsic incentives, internal facilitator, and external facilitator.
In summary, previous meta-analysis studies (Bamberg and Moser 2007; Dwyer
et al. 1993; Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera 1986/1987; Hornik et al. 1995;
Osbaldiston 2004; Zelezny 1999) and empirical studies (Barr 2007; Cottrell and
Graefe 1997; Hsu 1997; Manzo and Weinstein 1990; McKenzie-Mohr et al. 1995)
and models proposed (Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera 1986/1987; Hungerford and
Volk 1990; Sivek and Hungerford 1989/1990) revealed four main categories of
variables that serve as correlates and predictors of ERB. These categories of
variables are: (1) personality factors (e.g. perception of moral responsibility,
environmental concern, environmental sensitivity, locus of control, environmental
attitudes, environmental responsibility and verbal commitment, values); (2) cogni-
tive factors (knowledge and skills); (3) demographic factors (e.g. age, gender,
income, residence, parent education level, and so on); and (4) external factors (e.g.
external or situational influences, pressure groups, opportunities to choose different
action, and so on).
Environmental Education Research 3
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 1. Comparison of initial and recent categorization of ERB.
Initial categorization of ERB Recent categorization of ERB
(Hungerford and Peyton 1977; Ramsey, Hungerford, and Tomera 1981) (Hsu 1997; McBeth and Volk 1997; Simmons 1995; Wilke 1995)
Persuasion: A verbal effort to motivate someone to take positive
environmental action as a function of modified values, (e.g. letter
writing, debate)
Persuasion: It refers to those environmental actions in which individuals or
groups appeal to others help prevent or resolve environmental issues
Eco-management: Any physical action aimed at maintaining or improving
natural systems (e.g. reforestation, urban landscaping)
Eco-management: It is also called as physical action. It refers to those
environmental actions in which people work directly with the natural world
to help prevent or resolve environmental issues
Consumerism: An economic threat aimed at modification in business or
industry (e.g. boycotting and discriminating the use of goods)
Consumer/economic action: It refers to those environmental actions in
which people use monetary support or financial pressure to help prevent or
resolve environmental issues
Political action: An effort aimed at persuading an electorate, legislators,
or government agencies to conform to the values held by the person or
persons who initiated the action (e.g. lobbying, voting)
Political action: It refers to those environmental actions in which people
use political means to help prevent or resolve environmental issues
Legal action: Any legal/judicial action aimed at some aspect of
environmental law enforcement or, a legal restraint preceding some
environmental behavior perceived as undesirable (e.g. injunctions)
Legal action: It refers to those environmental actions in which people use
support or enforce existing laws which are designed to help prevent or
resolve environmental issues
Interaction: Any combination of two or more of the above components
4 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Research on ERB measures and a need for new measure
Assessing an individual’s behaviors toward the environment can be complicated
and difficult (Heimlich and Ardoin 2008; Hsu 1997). A review of 128 research
studies on environmental behavior revealed that self-reported measures (i.e. inter-
views and pencil-and-paper measures) were most commonly used to assess ERB
(Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera 1986/1987). The other measures relatively less
used were, for example, rating scale and observation sheet. In the field of EE
research, even though students’ ERB was measured in several studies and projects
(e.g. Evans et al. 2007; Shin et al. 2005), a very small number of studies were
found to be reported on the development of instruments to measure ERB. These
instruments were designed for use with secondary school students (Kuhlmeier, van
der Bergh, and Langerweij, 1999; Marcinkowski and Rehrig 1995), college students
(Smith-Sebasto 1992), and adults (e.g. Kaiser and Wilson 2000). Leeming and his
colleagues (1993) conducted a review of 34 interventional studies on environmental
education undertaken between 1974 and 1991 and realized that psychometric prop-
erties of the instruments used in many of these studies were not clearly reported.
They emphasized the importance of careful development of a scale for measuring
EE outcomes. Not long after this, they developed the Children’s Environmental
Attitude and Knowledge Scale (CHEAKS), which included one of the few measures
of ERB for elementary students apparent in the literature (Leeming, Bracken, and
Dwyer 1995).
A content analysis of 53 EE research studies undertaken between 1997 and
2007 in Turkey revealed a very limited number of studies focusing on ERB. On the
one hand, no study reported an attempt to develop an ERB scale for elementary
school students (Erdoğan, Marcinkowski, and Ok 2009). On the other hand, the
instruments used in other studies were mostly paper–pencil measures (i.e. question-
naire). Erten (2002) developed a questionnaire to assess sixth, seventh, and eighth
graders’ responsible behavior toward the environment. However, he did not report
its psychometric properties (i.e. factor analysis, reliability). Alp (2005) reported 6th,
8th, and 10th grade students’ ERB using CHEAKS instrument developed by Lee-
ming, Bracken, and Dwyer (1995). In the several additional studies, Erentay and
Erdogan (2006), Erdogan and Erentay (2007), and Erdogan et al. (2010) reported
fifth to eighth grade students’ behaviors for protecting endangered species and
threatened environments through the use of both open-ended and Likert-type items.
Özdemir (2010) assessed sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students’ behavior change
as a result of nature-based EE program through the use of ‘Behavior Observation
Form’ with three alternatives, insufficient, moderate, and sufficient. His direct obser-
vation of students in out-of-school pre-planned activities (e.g. site visit to treatment
plant, forest walk) revealed various behaviors related to environmental protection,
warning and persuading others, and adequate consumption.
Although CHEAKS developed by Leeming, Bracken, and Dwyer (1995) is one
of the globally used instruments to assess students’ pro-environmental attitudes and
behavior, it has some limitations when considering the characteristics of sample and
construct of ERB in the present study. First, CHEAKS does include items on eco-
management, consumer action and persuasion, but does not the other categories of
ERB. Second, CHEAKS was mainly developed in the USA and considered the con-
text of the USA. Even if this instrument has been used in other countries for years,
several changes and adaptation have been done within the instrument before
Environmental Education Research 5
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
administration since some items do not reflect that culture and context where the
instrument is used. These reasons provide the evidence that the Leeming, Bracken,
and Dwyer measure was not sufficient for use in Turkey to measure elementary
school students’ various types of ERB (eco-management, consumer action, persua-
sion and political action), and thus a need emerged to develop a new instrument. It
is clear from the review of EE research in Turkey and recent EE literature that a
need emerged for the development of a scale to assess elementary school students’
responsible behavior toward the environment, and more specifically, one that would
be appropriate for use in Turkey. In this regard, this study aims to report the devel-
opment and validation of Children’s Responsible Environmental Behavior Scale
(CREBS) for elementary school students, and to assess psychometric characteristics
of scores from the CERBS. It is believed that this new instrument will be a useful
measure for the researcher aiming to assess elementary school students’ responsible
behavior toward the environment.
Method
Sample
In this study, three different samples were used to develop and validate CREBS.
Sample 1 was used for building an item pool. Sample 2 was used for pilot study
and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Sample 3 was used for the main study; con-
firming the factor structure that was observed in exploratory factor analysis.
Sample 1
The first sample consisted of fourth and fifth grade elementary school students aged
10–11. They were administered four open-ended items to get their responses related
to the sub-components of ERB. Location (rural–urban) and type of school (public–
private) were considered while including the students into Sample 1. This sample
was invited from two public and two private elementary schools. A total of 229 ele-
mentary school students within these schools (112 females, 117 males) volunteered
to take part in this initial step. Of the students, 101 (44%) were from fourth grade
and 128 (56%) were from fifth grade.
Sample 2
The second sample consisted of 673 fourth and fifth grade elementary school stu-
dents (329 females, 339 males and 5 were missing data to sex item) from 28 class-
rooms (322 fourth graders and 351 fifth graders) in 9 different elementary schools.
This sample was administered in the initial version of CREBS built from the
responses of the first sample. The responses gathered from Sample 2 were used for
EFA.
Sample 3
The third sample consisted of 2412 fifth grade students (1207 females, 1185 males,
and 20 were missing data to sex item) from 78 schools in 26 provinces grouped by
the State Planning Organization. Of the whole sample, 1891 students (78.4%) were
6 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
from public schools and 521 students (21.6%) were from private schools. Among
those in public schools; 1059 (43.5%) were from urban areas and 832 (34.5%) were
from rural areas. The sample was administrated in the revised version of CREBS to
validate and confirm the factor structure emerging from EFA. Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) using AMOS was employed to confirm the initial structure. Demo-
graphic distribution of these three samples is presented in Table 2.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation process of CREBS included five main steps. The first three of
these steps resemble the procedures used by Marcinkowski and Rehrig (1995) to
develop a measure of ERB for use with secondary students in the USA. The spe-
cific actions which were taken for each step are presented below.
Step 1. Review of literature
The first step in instrument development was to reveal the constructs underlying
ERB. In this step, review of research on EE and ERB was undertaken to examine
the possible dimensions of ERB. Even if different types of ERB structure were
reported (Ramsey, Hungerford, and Tomera 1981), many of the scholars agreed on
five main constructs underlying ERB: eco-management, consumer/economic action,
persuasion, political action, and legal action (Erdogan, Kostova, and Marcinkowski
2009; Hsu 1997; McBeth and Volk 1997; Simmons 1995; Wilke 1995). Since CRE-
BS was developed for the elementary school students who are not in the age level
of being actively involved in law enforcement or other forms of legal action, the
fifth construct of ERB, legal action was not considered as possible construct for this
age group of students. Thus, based upon the review of literature and researchers’
experiences in the field of EE, four dimensions were proposed related to the four
constructs: (1) eco-management/physical action; (2) consumer/economic action; (3)
persuasion; and (4) political action.
Step 2. Generating an item pool
Having decided on four dimensions, four open-ended items were developed each
corresponding to one of the four dimensions of ERB (eco-management/physical
Table 2. Demographic distribution of Samples 1, 2, and 3 with regard to sex and grade.
Variables
Sample 1
(n = 229)
Sample 2
(n = 673)
Sample 3
(n = 2412)
f % f % f %
Sex
Female 112 48.9 329 48.9 1207 50
Male 117 51.1 339 50.4 1185 49.1
Missing –– 5 0.7 20 0.9
Grade
Students in fourth grade 101 44.1 322 47.8 ––
Students in fifth grade 128 55.9 351 52.2 2412 100
Environmental Education Research 7
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
action, consumer/economic action, persuasion, and political action) for the purpose
of constructing the item pool. The four open-ended items for which responses were
considered for the item pool are given below.
These open-ended items were examined by two elementary school science and
technology teachers and one curriculum development specialist. They checked the
items with regard to their understandability and appropriateness to the aim of the
study and students’ development level. In these items, a total of 229 students in
Sample 1 were asked to indicate what types of behaviors they demonstrated and/or
planned to demonstrate to help prevent and resolve environmental problems and
issues within last two years. The students provided more responses to first item
compared to the other items. Most of the students gave at least five responses to
the first item. However, their responses to the last item were relatively limited. Stu-
dents’ responses were recorded into the separate sheet comprising more than 300
Q1. Eco-management (Physical or Direct Conservation Action) refers to environmen-
tal actions in which individuals involve (work) directly in natural world to help pre-
vent and resolve environmental problems and issues (e.g. cleaning up litter, recycling,
planting trees).
Please write up to five Eco-management Actions that you, on your own or with others,
have been engaged in within the last two years and/or have plans to engage in.
Q2. Consumer Action and Economic Action refers to environmental actions in which
individuals use monetary support or financial pressure to help prevent and resolve
environmental problems and issues (e.g. buying things in boxes/bottles that are recy-
clable, buying locally grown foods).
Please write up to five Consumer Actions or Economic Actions that you, on your own
or with others, have been engaged in within the last two years and/or have plans to
engage in.
Q3. Interpersonal and Public Persuasion refers to environmental actions in which
individuals or groups encourage and appeal to others to help prevent and resolve envi-
ronmental problems and issues (e.g. encouraging families/relatives to recycle, present-
ing the results and recommendations of your environmental research/projects to
others).
Please write up to five acts of Interpersonal or Public Persuasion that you, on your
own or with others, have been engaged in within the last two years and/or have plans
to engage in.
Q4. Governmental and Political Action refers to environmental actions in which indi-
viduals use governmental and political means to help prevent and resolve environmen-
tal problems and issues (e.g. meeting and talking with national and/or local
government officials about environmental protection).
Please write up to five Governmental or Political Actions that you, on your own or
with others, have been engaged in within the last two years and/or have plans to
engage in.
8 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
different behaviors associated with protection of the environment and prevention of
environmental problems. These behaviors were grouped under each dimension and
later coded and then themed. In this phase, it was interested in identifying behaviors
within the sample, and thus individual student responses were not scored. The most
frequent themes were considered as the essential pieces of the item pool. The most
frequently given responses of 229 students were considered to create behavioral
items for the scale. The initial draft of CREBS consisting of 28 items was generated
on a seven-point scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘more than five.’ Ten items were
about eco-management action, six items about economic and consumer action, six
items about individual and public persuasion, and six items about political action.
Step 3. Obtaining expert opinion for content validity
In order to assure content and face validity of the instrument, a review panel of 17
experts from different areas of specialization (science education, environmental edu-
cation, science and technology course teachers, book writers, curriculum specialists)
was invited to assess the items’ content, matching of the items to corresponding
dimension, understandability and clarity of the items, and provide suggestions on
the above-mentioned areas. It was believed that including panel members from vari-
ous areas would provide rich and in-depth feedback. For this purpose, these panel
members were sent a questionnaire ‘External Validity Panel Evaluation Question-
naire’ developed by researchers to assess CREBS. This questionnaire consisted of
three main sections. The first section solicited demographic information from each
panel member. The second section consisted of five YES–NO items, to be sup-
ported by an accompanying written explanation. The first three of these questions
checked for gender bias or discrimination in relation to cultural, ethnic, social and
regional differences in the whole instrument. The fourth item was prepared to check
for the appropriateness of items to fourth and fifth grade elementary students’ age
level. The last item asked about the practicality of CREBS.
The third section included 18 items measured on a fi ve-point scale ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. The purpose of this section was to assess
whether items within the instrument were valid items to asses corresponding sub-
dimensions of CREBS. Along with the ‘External Validity Panel Evaluation
Questionnaire,’ panel members were sent four handouts: material on the theoretical
background on ERB, a guide sheet on how to assess CREBS, items and related
dimensions, and the first draft of CREBS.
In addition to the above-mentioned assessment process, two of the panel mem-
bers were asked to check the appropriateness of items to students’ age level (mea-
surement and evaluation expert), and understandability, clarity, relevance, and
length of items (Turkish Language expert).
Step 4. Pilot testing
A permission request letter was sent to the Educational Research and Development
Directorate (EARGED) of the Ministry of Turkish National Education (MoNE) in
order to obtain permission to pilot test CREBS in the public and private elementary
schools in Ankara, the capital city of Turkey. After receiving the needed permission
from EARGED, CREBS was administered to students in one private and seven
public elementary schools selected on the basis of location (urban, suburban) and
Environmental Education Research 9
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
socioeconomic status. One fourth and one fifth grade classroom from each school
were selected. Thus, the pilot test of the instrument involved 673 students (329
females, 339 males, 5 did not indicate their sex). Of these students, 322 were from
fourth grade (in 13 classes) and 351 were from fifth grades (in 15 classes). The
data-set obtained in this step was subjected to EFA, to check the factor structure of
CREBS.
Step 5. Validating the factor structure
The CREBS instrument was administered as part of a nationwide survey of 2412
fifth grade students in Turkey (Erdoğan 2009). A SPSS data-set was established
based on the responses of these students on CREBS, and later converted to AMOS
program for CFA. The purpose of this CFA was to compare these results to the fac-
tor structure/constructs emerging from the EFA in an attempt to validate the factor
structure and CREBS. The factor structure observed in previous step was matched
with the factor structure in this step.
Data analysis
The data analysis process involved four steps: (1) constructing a table based on
open-ended responses of Sample 1 data; (2) identifying the factor structure underly-
ing CREBS through making use of EFA with Sample 2 data; (3) cross-validating
the initial factor structure through the use of CFA with Sample 3 data; and (4) cal-
culating reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) for each dimension.
Results
Constructing a pool of items based on the open-ended responses of Sample 1
Students in Sample 1 generated more than 2300 responses to the four open-ended
items. Prior to the content analysis of the responses, two tables were created to bet-
ter present and portray the students’ responses. In the first table (raw data), the
responses were grouped according to the school type and grade. This table is a
combination of the responses falling into each theoretical dimension of ERB. In the
second table, refined responses were presented in frequency (see Table 3). For con-
structing this table, the responses were firstly coded, and then common codes were
brought together to result in more broad themes. The codes which were not grouped
into any themes were named as ‘others.’ As presented in Table 3, 14 themes were
found to be associated with physical action dimension; 10 to be associated with
consumer and economic type of ERB; 23 to be associated with persuasion type of
ERB; and 9 to be associated with political type of ERB. The themes with the most
frequent responses within the overall sample were selected for inclusion in the item
pool, primarily because the purpose of this instrument was to generate a general
portrait of student participation in ERB (i.e. infrequent themes were not selected
because the purpose of the CREBS was not to use items or scores to discriminate
between students on the basis of their level self-reported ERB). The reason for this
was to ensure that the behaviors selected into the themes were within the ‘behav-
ioral repertoire’ of most students of this age. Of the total number of 56 themes, 28
10 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
themes were selected as possible items in the instrument. Upon selection, they were
transformed into a sentence format.
A list of items was then sent to 17 experts to assure content and face validity.
No experts indicated any gender, cultural, ethnic, social, and regional bias in the
items. They further reported that the items in the initial instrument were appropriate
for fifth graders in terms of understandability and readability, and also a valid mea-
sure of ERB. Some of them suggested changing wordings in some of the items, but
not excluding any items. Prior to administrating the instrument to Sample 1,
required changes (e.g. wording) were done based on the experts’ comments.
Identifying the factor structure of CREBS with Sample 2
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to examine the factor structure
underlying the initial from of CREBS with 28 items. Prior to EFA, the data were
cleaned by considering the following analysis: normality of each variable (skewness
and kurtosis); outliers; and missing cases. The normality of each variable (item)
was ensured with the accepted level (±3.29) of skewness and kurtosis values (Hair
et al. 2006). Then, missing data analysis was run to protect the data-set and mini-
mize loss of cases. This statistical procedure, a form of imputation, permits to
replace the missing value with mean if each variable has at least 5% missing value
(Tabacknick and Fidell 2001), and at least 10% missing value when the sample size
is relatively high (Hair et al. 2006). It was observed that each of the cases had
missing value, but <5% of the given responses. Thus, each missing value was
replaced with mean. After that, outlier analysis was performed with the data includ-
ing 673 cases. Univariate outlier(s) was examined by use of scatter plot and multi-
variate outlier(s) was examined by use of Mahalanobis distance (Tabacknick and
Fidell 2001). Three multivariate outliers and 17 univariate outliers were detected
and deleted from the data-set.
Construct validity is basically used to determine whether an instrument measures
the hypothetical psychological construct (non-observable traits such as intelligence,
attitude, and anxiety) to be tested (Fraenkel and Wallen 2006; Gay, Mills, and Air-
asian 2006). In order to examine the construct validity and factor structure, 28 items
of CREBS were subjected to EFA using Principle Component Analysis (PCA)
method. A Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy test, which mea-
sures whether distribution of values is adequate for performing factor analysis,
yielded .910 which was well above acceptable levels (Field 2005) and therefore
acceptable. This meant that factor analysis could be performed adequately with this
sample. Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which measures multivariate normality and tests
whether the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, had a significant value
[w
2
(325) = 325, p < .0001], which meant that the normality assumption was met.
As a result of EFA five factors emerged with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 (Hair
et al. 2006). However, the scree plot revealed four sharp descents and the remained
plot started to level off. Then, EFA was run again for the rotation for four factors by
use of PCA. An oblique rotation (direct oblimin) with Kaiser Normalization was
used, since it was believed that the factors are correlated. These results revealed four
factors behind the scale. The four factors accounted for 53.56% of the total variance
in the participants’ responses. The eigenvalue of first factor was 7.272 (accounted
for 27.97%), of second factor was 4.155 (accounted for 15.98%), of third factor was
1.373 (accounted for 5.28%), and of fourth factor was 1.123 (accounted for 4.32%).
Environmental Education Research 11
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
The factor loading and communality values of each item are given in Table 3.
Factor loading values less than .30 (Stevens 2002) were suppressed and dropped
from this analysis. Thus, the items represented as DAVA10 and DAVB5 were
excluded, and not considered for further analysis. These two items are not included
in Table 4.
The factors were interpreted by considering their size of the factor loading, and
then named according to conceptual framework used in the recent EE and EL litera-
ture (Lee et al. 2003; McBeth 2006; McBeth et al. 2007; Negev et al. 2006; Volk
and McBeth 1997) and according to the responses of 229 students who were asked
to respond to a four-item open-ended behavior questionnaire. As it is observed in
Table 4, factor 1 included seven items, all of which loaded only on this factor. This
factor was named as ‘Political Action (POLITICAL).’ Factor 2 included six items.
However, even though one of the items (DAVA1) loaded both on factor 2 and fac-
tor 3, this item was included under factor 2 due to its higher loading on the factor
2 and the conceptual framework present in the literature. Similarly, based on the
same resources (literature and students’ responses) and the content of the items, this
factor was named as ‘Eco-Management (PHYSICAL).’ Factor 3 included five items,
each of which loaded only on this factor. These all items are regarded as individu-
als’ actions of consumption and effective use of individuals’ own money. Thus, this
factor was named as ‘Consumer and Economic Action (ECONOMICAL).’ Factor 4
included eight items, each of which loaded only on this factor. These items are
regarded not only as public but also as individual persuasion. Thus, this factor was
named as ‘Individual and Public Persuasion (PERSUASION).’
CFA: cross-validating initial factor structure with Sample 3
In order to confirm the factor structure that emerged in the EFA using data
from Sample 2, a CFA was performed using data from Sample 3 using the sta-
tistical package of analysis of moment structures (AMOS.18) (Byrne 2010). A
set of criteria was computed to determine whether the proposed model fit the
data. The multiple goodness-of-fit tests/indexes used in CFA were: Normed Fit
Index (NFI); Comparative Fit Index (CFI); and Root Mean Square Error
Approximation (RMSEA). NFI is a normed fit index that has shown a tendency
to consider fit index in large sample. NFI ranges between 0 and 1. CFI
assesses the change in fit between the hypothesized model and the indepen-
dence model (Byrne 2010). The independence model compared with hypothe-
sized model assumes that the variables in the model are unrelated. The CFI
indicates the total co-variation in the model and ranges between 0 and 1. The
values of NFI and CFI greater than .90 indicate a good fit to the data.
RMSEA is based on the analysis of residuals (Kelloway 1998). The expected
value for a good model data fit is possible when RMSEA index value is below
.08 (Kline 2011). The value of RMSEA shows sensitivity to degree of freedom
and complexity of the proposed model.
CFA using AMOS.18 was first undertaken to determine the fit between the
hypothesized model with 26 items and the data. Three indexes of NFI, CFI, and
RMSEA were considered to assess this fitness. However, even if RMSEA index
indicated acceptable fit value (RMSEA= .065), other measures in first CFA did not
result in satisfactory fit indexes (NFI = .873, CFI = .883), indicating a questionable
fit of the model to the data. This result pointed out the need for some modification
12 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 3. Frequency of fourth and fifth graders’ responses to four open-ended questions.
Possible dimensions of the instrument
Public School Private School
Fourth grade
(n = 78)
Fifth grade
(n = 73)
Fourth grade
(n = 23)
Fifth grade
(n = 55)
(1) Behaviors related to eco-management/physical action
(1.1) Proper dispose of trash
a
39 37 9 25
(1.2) Use of garbage bins
a
20 6 22 13
(1.3) Clean-up and hygiene
a
27 53 28 47
(1.4) Avoiding air pollution 1 2 – 1
(1.5) Recycling (i.e. papers, battery, cans)
a
37 57 11 57
(1.6) Re-using old materials
a
23 2 – 1
(1.7) Planting (i.e. tree, flower, vegetable)
a
44 33 25 56
(1.8) Protecting plants
a
34 10 11 11
(1.9.) Protecting animals
a
26 36 11 15
(1.10) Involving in club studies 3 46 1 5
(1.11) Working in projects 26 27 1 11
(1.12) Water saving
a
22 21 3 19
(1.13) Electricity saving
a
31 20 4 16
(1.14) Paper saving 4 3 7 2
(1.15) Others 5 1 2 2
(2) Behaviors related to consumer and economic action
(2.1) Donating to NGOs
a
22 27 8 23
(2.2) Donating to school
b
47 411
(2.3) Donating to aid organizations
b
22 816
(2.4) Purchasing recyclable products
a
17 25 3 16
(2.5) Purchasing products from bazaar
a
18 9 6 21
(2.6) Purchasing organic food
a
14 11 2 11
(2.7) Purchasing fresh and healthy foods 4 8 – 9
(2.8) Purchasing carton-packaged products 13 1 ––
(2.9) Purchasing certified products
a
511 ––
Environmental Education Research 13
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 3. (Continued).
Possible dimensions of the instrument
Public School Private School
Fourth grade
(n = 78)
Fifth grade
(n = 73)
Fourth grade
(n = 23)
Fifth grade
(n = 55)
(2.10) Controlling expiry dates of products 3 9 ––
(2.11) Others 8 15 10 9
(3) Behaviors related to persuasion
(3.1) Sharing information through talking
a
30 33 8 29
(3.2) Sharing information through visualizing
a
46 57 23 29
(3.2) Persuading for recycling
a
18 19 7 19
(3.3) Persuading for protecting animals and plants
a
11 12 5 12
(3.4) Persuading for saving 1 1 1 2
(3.5) Persuading for environmentally friendly purchasing 3 ––1
(3.6) Persuading for waste management – 1 – 2
(3.7) Persuading for environmental protection and hygiene – 614
(3.8) Warning for recycling – 1 ––
(3.9) Warning for protecting animals and plants
a
12 14 19 19
(3.10) Warning for saving 1 3 – 1
(3.11) Warning those who throw their garbage out
a
23 41 8 17
(3.12) Warning for environmental protection and hygiene 8 8 – 10
(3.13) Organizing campaigns ––27
(3.14) Others 5 3 – 6
(4) Behaviors related to political action
(4.1) Writing petition and letter
a
22 – 6
(4.2) Talking with officials for solving environmental problems
a
19 11 8
(4.3) Talking with officials for improving the environmental beauty
a
11 30 1 13
(4.4) Talking with officials on the decisions to be taken to protect the
environment
a
16 21 – 2
(4.5) Protesting – 12–
(4.6) Cooperating with officials in the projects
b
11 6 – 9
14 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 3. (Continued).
Possible dimensions of the instrument
Public School Private School
Fourth grade
(n = 78)
Fifth grade
(n = 73)
Fourth grade
(n = 23)
Fifth grade
(n = 55)
(4.7) Cooperating with NGOs
b
47 – 3
(4.8) Talking with officials to develop societal consciousness
a
24 16 1 4
(4.9) Complaining 1 2 – 1
(4.10) Others 2 1 – 4
Note: The items with no asterisk were not considered for the item pool due to their low frequency.
a
The items considered for the item pool.
b
The items considered for the item pool, but these items were combined into a single item (2.2– 2.3 and 4.6– 4.7)
Environmental Education Research 15
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 4. Factor loadings and communalities of CREBS items.
Items
Factor loadings
Communality
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
DAVD4 .872 .738
DAVD5 .864 .752
DAVD3 .814 .659
DAVD2 .814 .644
DAVD6 .782 .697
DAVD1 .754 .650
DAVC6 .490 .497
DAVA2 .745 .590
DAVA9 .705 .564
DAVA1 .607 .321 .550
DAVA7 .591 .384
DAVA3 .563 .402
DAVA8 .319 .262
DAVB4 .725 .579
DAVB6 .724 .588
DAVB3 .628 .483
DAVC4 .477 .510
DAVA5 .367 .321
DAVB2 .771 .569
DAVC2 .623 .539
DAVB1 .621 .562
DAVC3 .619 .566
DAVC1 .609 .540
DAVC5 .560 .584
DAVA6 .509 .296
DAVA4 .388 .397
16 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
in specification to find the best fitting model for the data from Sample 3. The output
of CFA showed that suggested regression paths (modification indexes) of three pairs
of items (DAVA3–DAVA4, DAVB1–DAVB2, and DAVC5–DAVC6) were exten-
sively high. The nature and the content of the items were assessed and observed to
be overlapping to some degree, then one of the items in each pair was excluded
(DAVA4, DAVB2, and DAVC6) from the second CFA based upon the theoretical
structure of ERB (Erdogan, Kostova, and Marcinkowski 2009; Erdogan, Marcin-
kowski, and Ok 2009; Hsu 1997; McBeth and Volk 1997; Simmons 1995; Wilke
1995). The items of DAVA3–DAVA4 measured students’ participation in recycling.
The items of DAVB1–DAVB2 measured students’ participation in protection of the
environment through monetary support and donation to NGOs and societal organi-
zations. The items of DAVC5–DAVC6 measured students’ participation in preparing
posters and documents to make public aware of environmental issues and problems.
Since CREBS aims to portray young students’ involvement in environmental pro-
tection and the students in Sample 2 tended to cite DAVA3, DAVB1, and DAVC5
more frequently than their above-mentioned pairs, we tended/decided to include
these three items into CREBS. Thus, CFA with 23 items was run again to identify
the model that represented the best fit to these data (n = 2410). This second CFA
revealed that four factors emerged and confirmed the structure. It was a good fit for
data from Sample 3, with the fit indexes of NFI = .90 CFI = .91 and RMSEA= .06.
All path coefficients were found to be significant at p < .01 indicating a significant
contribution of each item to the related factor. As Figure 1 illustrates, four dimen-
sions of CREBS were allowed to correlate to each other.
Calculating reliability coefficient(s) for CREBS using Cronbach’s Alpha
Reliability refers to consistency of the scores (Fraenkel and Wallen 2006; Murphy
and Davidshofer 2005) and is expressed numerically, as a reliability coefficient.
There are several types of evidences for reliability, each for a different kind of con-
sistency (Gay, Mills, and Airasian 2006). Internal consistency refers to the consis-
tency among responses to items when there is only one version of an instrument
and only on administration of it. Thus, this was used for testing the reliability of
the data collection instrument in this study. Considering results of the second CFA
(Figure 1), reliability analysis for each factor was performed through the use of
SPSS 11.5 version. Each analysis yielded satisfactory results. Cronbach’s alpha reli-
ability coefficient (a)offirst factor with six items (political action) was found to be
.92, reliability (a) of second factor with six items (physical action/eco-management)
was found to be .70, reliability (a) of third factor with five items (consumer and
economic action) was found to be .70, and reliability (a) of fourth factor with six
items (individual and public persuasion) was found to be .80. Item total correlation
score of all items in each reliability analysis revealed satisfactory results, which are
higher than .30 (Field 2005).
Final version of CREBS
The full list of the items both in Turkish and in English is provided in Table 5. The
Turkish version of the instrument was translated into English in cooperation with a
bilingual translator who is highly fluent in both English and Turkish.
Environmental Education Research 17
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Figure 1. Standardized coefficients for the four-factors model for CREBS based on CFA
through AMOS. All coefficients are significant at p < .001. NFI = .90, CFI = .91,
RMSEA= .06; POLITIC: political action, PHYSICAL: physical action/eco-management,
ECONOMIC: economical action and PERSUASION: individual and public persuasion.
18 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 5. English and Turkish version of ‘Children’s Responsible Environmental Behavior Scale’.
CREBS
Çocukların Çevreye Yönelik Sorumlu
DavranıŞları Ölçeği
Never
(Hiç)
Once
(1 kere)
Twice
(2 kere)
Three
times
(3 kere)
Four
times
(4 kere)
Five
times
(5 kere)
More than five
times (5’den
daha fazla)
Political action
(DAVD1) 1. I planned to communicate
with government officials (i.e.
president, minister of environment
and forest, and governor) regarding
the importance of environment and
environmental protection. (i.e.
preparing mail and email)
() () () () () () ()
(DAVD1) 1. Çevre korumanın önemi ve
çevre koruma ile ilgili konularda,
devlet yetkilileri (örn. baŞbakan,
çevre ve orman bakanı ve vali) ile
iletiŞim kurmak için planlar yaptım.
(örn. mektup hazırlamak, e-mail
hazırlamak)
(DAVD2) 2. I visited mayor and
encouraged him / her to take
environmental protection measures
() () () () () () ()
(DAVD2) 2. Çevre koruma önlemleri
almaları için belediye baŞkanını
ziyaret ettim ve bu konuda onu
teŞvik ettim.
(DAVD3) 3. I visited district chief and
encouraged him / her to take
environmental protection measures
() () () () () () ()
Environmental Education Research 19
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 5. (Continued).
CREBS
Çocukların Çevreye Yönelik Sorumlu
DavranıŞları Ölçeği
Never
(Hiç)
Once
(1 kere)
Twice
(2 kere)
Three
times
(3 kere)
Four
times
(4 kere)
Five
times
(5 kere)
More than five
times (5’den
daha fazla)
(DAVD3) 3. Çevre koruma önlemleri
almaları için mahalle muhtarını
ziyaret ettim ve bu konuda onu
teŞvik ettim.
(DAVD4) 4. I talked to government
officials in order to enforce
environmental laws or punish people
who violate these laws
() () () () () () ()
(DAVD4) 4. Kurallara ve yasalara
uymayarak çevreye zarar veren
kiŞilere ceza vermesi için yerel devlet
yetkilileri ile konuŞtum.
(DAVD5) 5. I encouraged government
officials to create a newspaper, a
magazine, and public bulletin boards
in order to increase public support for
environmental protection
() () () () () () ()
(DAVD5) 5. Halk ın çevre duyarlılığını
ve çevreyi korumaya yönelik
desteğini arttırmak için, çevre ile
ilgili gazete, dergi ve sokak panoları
hazırlamaları konusunda devlet
yetkililerini teŞvik ettim.
20 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 5. (Continued).
CREBS
Çocukların Çevreye Yönelik Sorumlu
DavranıŞları Ölçeği
Never
(Hiç)
Once
(1 kere)
Twice
(2 kere)
Three
times
(3 kere)
Four
times
(4 kere)
Five
times
(5 kere)
More than five
times (5’den
daha fazla)
(DAVD6) 6. I cooperated with
government officials and NGOs
representatives to prepare
environmental protection projects and
implement these projects.
() () () () () () ()
(DAVD6) 6. Devlet yetkilileri ve sivil
toplum kuruluŞlarının temsilcileri ile
çevre koruma projeleri hazırlamak ve
bu projeleri uygulamak için ortak
çalıŞtım
Physical action / eco-management
(DAVA1) 7. I properly disposed of and
avoided improper disposal of trash/
garbage in schools, home, picnic
areas, parks, and streets.
() () () () () () ()
(DAVA1) 7. Okuldayken, evdeyken,
piknikteyken, parktakyen ve
sokaktayken çöplerimi uygun bir
Şekilde çöp tenekesine attım.
(DAVA2) 8. I picked up litter, trash,
and garbage in schools, picnic areas,
parks, and street and threw them in
garbage bins.
() () () () () () ()
(DAVA2) 8. Okulda, piknikte, parkta ve
sokakta yerlere atılan çöpleri toplayıp
çöp tenekesine attım.
Environmental Education Research 21
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 5. (Continued).
CREBS
Çocukların Çevreye Yönelik Sorumlu
DavranıŞları Ölçeği
Never
(Hiç)
Once
(1 kere)
Twice
(2 kere)
Three
times
(3 kere)
Four
times
(4 kere)
Five
times
(5 kere)
More than five
times (5’den
daha fazla)
(DAVA3) 9. I threw materials such as
paper, glass, plastic, cans, aluminum,
and batteries into recycling bins
() () () () () () ()
(DAVA3) 9. Kağıt, cam, plastik, kutu,
aliminyum ve pil gibi atıkları geri
dönüŞüm kutusuna attım
(DAVA7) 10. I took steps to protect
plants (i.e. watering the trees and
flowers, warning the ones who harm
and step on the plants)
() () () () () () ()
(DAVA7) 10. Bitkileri korumak için
önlemler aldım (örn. kurumaması için
ağaç ve çiçekleri suladım, bitkilere
zarar veren ve ezenleri uyardım)
(DAVA8) 11. I took steps to protect
animals, i.e. dogs, cats, and birds,
living in the streets (i.e. creating
house, feeding, protecting them from
the hazards)
() () () () () () ()
(DAVA8) 11. Sokaklarda yaŞayan kedi,
kopek ve kuŞ gibi hayvanları
korumak için önlemler aldım (örn.
onlara yuva yaptım, onlara yiyecek
verdim, onları zararlardan korudum)
22 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 5. (Continued).
CREBS
Çocukların Çevreye Yönelik Sorumlu
DavranıŞları Ölçeği
Never
(Hiç)
Once
(1 kere)
Twice
(2 kere)
Three
times
(3 kere)
Four
times
(4 kere)
Five
times
(5 kere)
More than five
times (5’den
daha fazla)
(DAVA9) 12. I took steps to conserve
water (e.g. turning off the fountains
not in use, using little water while
brushing my teeth, bathing, and
washing hands)
() () () () () () ()
(DAVA9) 12. Su tasarrufu yapmak için
önlemler aldım (örn. kullanılmayan
çeŞmeleri kapattım, banyo yaparken,
el yıkarken ve diŞ fırçalarken aŞırı su
kullanmadım)
B. Consumer and economic action
(DAVB3) 13. I purchased products
which are recyclable and which are
made from recycled materials (e.g. I
purchased the products on which
there is a recycling sign)
() () () () () () ()
(DAVB3) 13. Geri dönüŞtürülebilen
veya geri dönüŞüm maddelerinden
yapılmıŞ ürünlerden satın aldım (örn.
üzerinde geri dönüŞüm iŞareti olan
ürünlerden satın aldım)
(DAVB4) 14. I purchased products
which were guaranteed / certified and
tested by Turkish Standards Institute
(TSE) and Ministry of Village Affairs
and Forestry
() () () () () () ()
Environmental Education Research 23
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 5. (Continued).
CREBS
Çocukların Çevreye Yönelik Sorumlu
DavranıŞları Ölçeği
Never
(Hiç)
Once
(1 kere)
Twice
(2 kere)
Three
times
(3 kere)
Four
times
(4 kere)
Five
times
(5 kere)
More than five
times (5’den
daha fazla)
(DAVB4) 14. Türk Standartları
Enstitüsü (TSE) ve Tarım ve Köy
İŞleri Bakanlığı tarafından onaylanan
ve test edilen ürünlerden satın aldım.
(DAVB6) 15. I purchased fresh, healthy,
organic/ecological products only after
checking the expiration date
() () () () () () ()
(DAVB6) 15. Taze, sağlıklı, son
kullanma tarihi geçmemiŞ ve organic
/ ekolojik ürünler satın aldım.
(DAVC4) 16. I warned my family, my
friends, and other people not to use
water and electricity if not necessary
() () () () () () ()
(DAVC4) 16. Su ve elektriği gereksiz
yere kullanmamaları için ailemi,
arkadaŞlarımı ve diğer insanları
uyardım
(DAVA5) 17. I gave old books, dress,
toys, and other things, which are not
used, to people and institutions in
need.
() () () () () () ()
(DAVA5) 17. Eski ve kullanmadığım
kitap, giysi, oyuncak ve diğer
eŞyaları gereksinimi olan kiŞive
kuruluŞlara verdim.
24 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 5. (Continued).
CREBS
Çocukların Çevreye Yönelik Sorumlu
DavranıŞları Ölçeği
Never
(Hiç)
Once
(1 kere)
Twice
(2 kere)
Three
times
(3 kere)
Four
times
(4 kere)
Five
times
(5 kere)
More than five
times (5’den
daha fazla)
C. Individual and public persuasion
(DAVC1) 18. I talked with my family
about what measures to be taken to
protect and not harm the environment
() () () () () () ()
(DAVC1) 18. Çevrenin korunması ve
çevreye zarar vermemek için ne
yapacakları konusunda ailem ile
konuŞtum
(DAVC2) 19. I talked with my friends
about what measures to be taken to
protect and not harm the environment
() () () () () () ()
(DAVC2) 19. Çevrenin korunması ve
çevreye zarar vermemek için ne
yapacakları konusunda arkadaŞlarım
ile konuŞtum
(DAVC3) 20. I talked with other people
about what measures to be taken to
protect and not harm the environment
() () () () () () ()
(DAVC3) 20. Çevrenin korunması ve
çevreye zarar vermemek için ne
yapacakları konusunda diğer insanlar
ile konuŞtum
(DAV6A) 21. I planted and grew trees,
flowers, vegetables, and other types
of plants in order to embellish the
environment.
() () () () () () ()
Environmental Education Research 25
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Table 5. (Continued).
CREBS
Çocukların Çevreye Yönelik Sorumlu
DavranıŞları Ölçeği
Never
(Hiç)
Once
(1 kere)
Twice
(2 kere)
Three
times
(3 kere)
Four
times
(4 kere)
Five
times
(5 kere)
More than five
times (5’den
daha fazla)
(DAV6A) 21. Çevrenin güzelleŞmesi
için ağaç, çiçek, sebze ve diğer tür
bitkilerden diktim ve yetiŞtirdim.
(DAVB1) 22. I donated money to
national and local Non-Governmental
Organizations (i.e. TEMA, DHKD)
working on protecting and
beautifying the environment
() () () () () () ()
(DAVB1) 22. Çevrenin korunması ve
güzelleŞmesi için çalıŞan ulusal ve
yerel sivil toplum kuruluŞlarına (örn.
TEMA, DHKD) para yardımında
bulundum
(DAVC5) 23. I prepared posters,
pictures, and writings about
protecting environment in order to
hang on the bulletin boards at school
and on the streets.
() () () () () () ()
(DAVC5) 23. Okuldaki ve sokaktaki
ilan panolarına asmak için çevrenin
korunması ile ilgili poster, resim ve
yazılar hazırladım.
26 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Discussion
The CREBS consisted of four dimensions and was developed as a result of five-step
instrument development processes: (1) an extensive review of research on ERB; (2)
generation of items pool; (3) a review of panel experts on various fields to provide
content and face validity; (4) a pilot study with 673 fourth and fifth graders to
reveal initial factor structure; and (5) a validation study with 2412 fifth graders to
confirm the four-factor model and to ensure reliability evidences. The Confirmatory
Factor analytic model showed that all path coefficients (see Figure 1) were high
and significant at p < .05, representing a meaningful contribution of each item to the
corresponding scale. Having conducted two confirmatory factor analyses, the four-
factor model was found to show a good fit with acceptable fit indexes (NFI = .90,
CFI = .91, and RMSEA = .06.). CFA provide an evidence for the construct validity
of CREBS with the sample of elementary school students. Separate reliability analy-
sis for each factor revealed Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reliability scores fell within
the acceptable limit (.70) (Georgy and Mallery 2001). Thus, undertaking the above
steps and CFA, the CREBS was found to consist of four factors underlying 23
items, all of which were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale. The first fac-
tor, political action (POLITIC), refers to environmental actions in which individuals
use governmental and political means, and also persuade government agencies to
take action to help prevent and resolve environmental problems and issues. The sec-
ond factor, physical action or eco-management (PHYSICAL), refers to environmen-
tal actions in which individuals involve (work) directly in natural world to help
prevent and resolve environmental problems and issues. Also, this action requires
maintaining, restoring, and/or improving the natural systems. The third factor, con-
sumer and economic action (ECONOMIC), refers to environmental actions in which
individuals use monetary support or financial pressure to help prevent and resolve
environmental problems and issues. The fourth factor, individual and public persua-
sion (PERSUASION), refers to environmental actions in which individuals or
groups encourage and appeal to others to help prevent and resolve environmental
problems and issues. Also, this action involves a verbal effort in an attempt to
encourage and/or motivate someone or group of people to take desired environmen-
tal action.
Having good psychometric properties, this measure of environmentally responsi-
ble behaviors for elementary school students can be used in the further research to
assess students’ physical, political, economical, and persuasive types of behaviors
to help prevent and resolve environmental problems and issues. It is observed that
CREBS could serve better for assessing students’ ERB who were enrolled in both
first cycle (fourth to fifth grades) and second cycle (sixth to eighth grades) of ele-
mentary education and learners of equivalent ages in Turkey. The students in both
cycles could demonstrate similar behaviors, but very minor changes should be done
in CREBS to be administrated to those enrolled in second cycle. It might also be
used for older students (9th to 12th grades) and university students, but some major
modification in the items may be required because older students have a greater
potential to be involved in legal action which is not considered for the elementary
school samples involved in this study (e.g. each individual 18 years of age or older
is eligible to vote). Furthermore, CREBS should also be first administrated to differ-
ent regions that share similar cultural and environmental conditions like Balkans,
Mediterranean, and later expanded to other cultures to explore and extend its
Environmental Education Research 27
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
external validity and therefore its international usability. CREBS might be used and
slightly adapted for use in the countries with similar culture and educational system.
But, enhancing its utility within diverse population and culture can only be assured
through continued efforts to refine and revise the items in CREBS. Social context
(e.g. beliefs systems, religion, culture, and policy) where the instrument will be
used should also be examined critically and reflected into the items.
Furthermore, the total score to be obtained from each sub-scale should be inter-
preted cautiously. For example, the behaviors (e.g. recycling, throwing trash into a
bin) related to eco-management or physical action could be performed several times
even in a day, but this may not be valid for the behaviors related to political action.
Such behaviors related to working with NGOs, communicating with government
officials are rarely performed by children, but most likely by adults. Thus, even if
the raw score obtained from each item is numerically equal, the numerical results
obtained from each item in different sub-scales should be interpreted carefully.
CREBS did not include items for all behaviors written in by students in Step 2,
and more generally, did not include all possible behaviors that had been or could be
taken by students of this age and developmental level. CREBS included only the
most common behaviors written in by students. Thus, CREBS serves as a measure
of ‘typical’ behaviors undertaken by youth of this age, but not ‘all’ such behaviors.
It is impotant to indicate that developing CREBS especially for Turkish elemen-
tary students is necessary for several reasons. First, the most frequent responses
(self-reported behaviors) of 229 fourth and fifth Turkish students in the pre-pilot
study to four open-ended questions which were included in CREBS were not fully
observed in other measures (e.g. CHEAKS). Second, the constructs of ERB to be
measured through CREBS do not fit well into the items in other measures. For
example, even though CHEAKS (Leeming, Bracken, and Dwyer 1995) does mea-
sure students’ pro-environmental behaviors related to eco-management, consumer
action, and persuasion, it does not measure students’ behaviors related to the other
categories of ERB.
Limitation of the study
All responses on the CREBS were self-reported. The validity of self-reported
behavioral data has been questioned by numerous researchers, so this is recognized
as a limitation of this study. However, in very few reviews of research on environ-
mentally responsible behavior has the problem of self-reporting been analyzed care-
fully (e.g. Zelezny 1999). In nearly all instances in which blind reviewers were
used to check on or to corroborate students’ self-reported behavior (e.g. Asch and
Shore 1975; Horsley 1977; Ramsey, Hungerford, and Tomera 1981; Winett et al.
1978), the study sample was relatively small (under 200) and limited to a relatively
small geographic area (one school or community). Using blind raters/reviewers to
observe the participants’ behaviors could be mostly feasible with the small group,
but not for a large group. The authors are unaware of any attempt that uses blind
reviewers to check on self-reported behavior in large-scale national surveys such as
the present study. The inclusion of 673 students in the pilot study and 2412 stu-
dents in the full study from a large number of schools and communities made this
nearly impossible. One of the few practical means available to researchers in studies
such as these is the use of negatively worded items (e.g. I did not ...), and the
removal of cases from the study data-set that clearly indicate signs of response bias
28 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
(e.g. McBeth et al 2011, 2008). Because CREBS did not include negatively worded
items, this could not be used as a means to detect and remove cases that showed
evidence of response bias. Thus, the absence any means to check on bias or invalid-
ity in self-reported behavior serves as a limitation of this study.
Individual student responses were not scored during Step 2, and no attempt had
been made to compare such an overall ERB score for each individual student to
their ERB score based on only behaviors that reflected items included in the
CREBS.
Implications for environmental and science education
The topic of environment is one of the main dimensions of current fourth to
eighth grade science and technology education curricula in Turkey (Milli Eğitim
Bakanlığı [MEB] 2005). Due to the fact that there is no separate EE course within
the elementary and the secondary school curriculum, the goals of EE are mostly
integrated into the science and technology course, and least integrated into the
social studies and life sciences course in elementary school level. Through making
use of CREBS, elementary school teachers can assess their students’ various types
of behavior and use the results, along with other sources of information (e.g. stu-
dent, parent, and community interest), to determine if there is a need to focus
more on environmental problems and issues. Accordingly, they can make modifi-
cations and add extra-curricular activities, (e.g. field trips, water monitoring, bird
watching, recycling, and collecting old materials) to their own instructional plans
so as to better prepare students for, stimulate them to participate in, model for
them, or immerse them in ERB.
The extent to which CREBS would serve as a valid measure of ERB either
among youngsters of other ages in Turkey or among fourth and fifth graders in
neighboring countries with similar environmental and cultural conditions or among
any other population is not known because no attempt has been made to gather data
needed to determine this. Therefore, it is recommended that studies be conducted to
determine which section of the CREBS, if any, can be used in a valid way with
populations other than fourth and fifth graders in Turkey. Furthermore, CREBS was
developed using the sets of procedures which is a valid measure for fourth and fifth
graders in Turkey. It is recommended to other researchers to follow similar sets of
procedures to develop similar measures for age- and culture-specific populations in
other countries.
In future instrument development studies of this kind (other age groups, other
countries), the researcher could be involved in such effort to include the type of
analysis of open-ended responses described in the limitation section (comparing an
overall ERB score for each individual student to their ERB score based on only
behaviors that reflected items included in the instrument) as a part of Step 2 proce-
dures, and to use the findings from such an analysis appropriately.
Ecology-based nature education programs during summer breaks have been
widely implemented for several years for elementary school students in Turkey (see
www.tubitak.gov.tr). These programs aim at developing students’ environmentally
responsible behavior as well as environmental awareness. As a result, CREBS may
be an effective tool to assess students’ development of ERB as a short-term or
long-term outcome of these programs.
Environmental Education Research 29
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Factors associated with ERB have been substantially investigated over the past
few decades. However, most of these studies focused upon students’ general ERB
scores and therefore examined the effects of selected factors on general ERB. In this
regard, with the four factors developed in this study, CREBS will now allow and
encourage the researchers to explore the relationship between selected factors and
each of these four dimensions of ERB. This may deepen the research studies with
regard to which dimension(s) of environmental behavior (i.e. political, physical, eco-
nomic, and persuasion) is/are more strongly associated with specific demographic,
educational, cognitive, and affective variables. For example, along with demographic
information items, CREBS also can be used to explore the association of selected
demographic characteristics of students (e.g. gender, age, parent education level) to
various types of responsible behavior regarding the protection of environment.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the help of EARGED which provided the financial support
to carry out part of data collection of this research study.
Notes on contributors
Mehmet Erdogan is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at
Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. He is running courses on research methods in
education, educational statistics, and curriculum & instruction. His main research areas are
predictors of responsible environmental behavior, environmental literacy, test construction
and curriculum development, analysis and evaluation.
Ahmet Ok is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at Middle
East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. He runs courses on comparative teacher
education, curriculum evaluation and foundations of curriculum development. His main
research interests are teacher education and curriculum development.
Thomas Joseph Marcinkowski is an associate professor in the Department of Science and
Math Education, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida, USA. He is running
courses on historical foundations of environmental education, and methods on ecology and
environmental sciences. His main interests are service learning, environmental literacy and
predictors of responsible environmental behavior.
References
Alp, E. 2005. A study on students’ environmental knowledge and attitudes: The effects of
grade level and gender. Master diss., Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Asch, J., and B.M. Shore. 1975. Conservation behavior as the outcome of environmental
education. The Journal of Environmental Education 6, no. 4: 25–33.
Bamberg, S., and G. Moser. 2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: A
new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 27, no. 1: 14–25.
Barr, S. 2007. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A UK case study
of household waste management. Environment and Behavior 39, no. 4: 435–73.
Byrne, B.M. 2010. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications
and programming. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Chawla, L., and D.F. Cushing. 2007. Education for strategic environmental behavior. Envi-
ronmental Education Research 13: 437–52.
Childress, R.B., and J. Wert. 1976. Challenges for environmental education planners. The
Journal of Environmental Education 7, no. 4: 2–6.
Cook, S.W., and J.L. Berrenberg. 1981. Approaches to encouraging conservation behavior:
A review and conceptual framework. Journal of Social Issues 37, no. 2: 73–107.
30 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Cottrell, S.P., and A.R. Graefe. 1997. Testing a conceptual framework of responsible envi-
ronmental behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education 29, no. 1: 17–27.
Culen, G.R. 2001. The status of environmental education with respect to the goal of respon-
sible citizenship behavior. In Essential Readings in Environmental Education, ed. H.R.
Hungerford, W.J. Bluhm, T.L. Volk, and J.M. Ramsey, 37–45. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Darnton, A. 2008. Reference report: An overview of behaviour change models and their uses
(GSR Behavior Change Knowledge Review). Westminster: Centre for Sustainable Devel-
opment, University of Westminster.
Dwyer, W.O., F.C. Leeming, M.K. Cobern, B.E. Porter, and J.M. Jackson. 1993. Critical
review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment: Research since 1980.
Environment and Behavior 25: 275–321.
Erdogan, M. 2009. Fifth grade students’ environmental literacy and the factors affecting stu-
dents’ environmentally responsible behaviors. PhD diss., Middle East Technical Univer-
sity, Ankara.
Erdogan, M., and N. Erentay. 2007. Children’s perceptions on endangered species and threa-
tened environments: Results from unique and universal project. In Development, diversity
and inclusion in science education, ed. M.F. Costa, B.V. Dorrío, and R. Reis, 141–8.
University of Azores, Ponta Delgada: The Hands on Science Network.
Erdogan, M., N. Erentay, B. Aydogan, M. Çelik, Ü. Çınar, D. Balaban, S. Şahin, M. Barss,
A. Nechita, and K. Sampath. 2010. Expanding the horizons through field trips:
Developing global action plan for saving endangered species and threatened environ-
ments. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Hands-on Science, ed.
M. Kalogiannakis, D. Stavrou and P. Michaelidis, 398–403. University of Crete, Ret-
hymno-Crete: The Hands-on Science Network.
Erdogan, M., Z. Kostova, and T. Marcinkowski. 2009. Components of environmental liter-
acy in elementary science education curriculum in Bulgaria and Turkey. Eurasia Journal
of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 5, no. 1: 15–26.
Erdogan, M., T. Marcinkowski, and A. Ok. 2009. Content analysis of selected features of K
– 8 environmental education research studies in Turkey, 1997–2007. Environmental Edu-
cation Research 15, no. 5: 525–48.
Erentay, N., and M. Erdogan. 2006. Initial findings of ‘UNIQUE and UNIVERSAL’ project.
In Science education and sustainable development, ed. M.F. Costa and B.V. Dorrío,
390–8. University of Minho, Braga: The Hands on Science Network.
Erten, S. 2002. Investigating students’ environmentally responsible behavior in the second
cycle of elementary school (6th, 7th and 8th grade). [In Turkish] V. Ulusal Fen ve Mate-
matik Eğitimi Kongresi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara. http://www.fedu.metu.
edu.tr/ufbmek-5/b_kitabi/b_kitabi.htm (accessed June 10, 2006).
Evans, G.W., B. Juen, V. Corral-Verdugo, J.A. Corraliza, and F.G. Kaiser. 2007. Children’s
cross-cultural environmental attitudes and self-reported behaviors.
Children, Youth and
Environments 17, no. 4: 128–43.
Field, A. 2005. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
Fraenkel, J.R., and N.E. Wallen. 2006. How to design and evaluate research in education.
6th ed. Boston, MA: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Gay, L.R., G.E. Mills, and P. Airasian. 2006. Educational research: Competencies for analy-
sis and applications. 8th ed. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Georgy, D., and P. Mallery. 2001. SPSS for windows, step by step: A simple guide and refer-
ence. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gustafson, J., ed. 1983. The first national congress on environmental education futures: Pol-
icies and practices. Columbus, OH: ERIC Science, Mathematics, and Environmental
Education Clearinghouse.
Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B. Babin, R. Anderson, and R. Tatham. 2006. Multivariate data anal-
ysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harvey, G. 1977. A conceptualization of environmental education. In A report on the North
American regional seminar on environmental education, ed. J. Aldrich, A. Balckburn,
and G. Abel, 66–77. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.
Heimlich, J.E., and N.M. Ardoin. 2008. Understanding behavior to understand behavior
change: A literature review. Environmental Education Research 14, no. 3: 215–37.
Environmental Education Research 31
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Hines, J., H. Hungerford, and A. Tomera. 1986/1987. Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental
Education 18, no. 2: 1–8.
Hornik, J., J. Cherian, M. Madansky, and C. Narayana. 1995. Determinants of recycling
behavior: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Socio-Economics 24, no. 1: 105–27.
Horsley, A.D. 1977. The effects of social learning on attitudes and behavior toward environ-
mental conservation. Environment and Behavior 9: 349–84.
Hsu, S.J. 1997. An assessment of environmental literacy and analysis of predictors of
responsible environmental behavior held by secondary teachers in Hualien country of
Taiwan. PhD diss., (Ohio State University) (UMI Number: 9731641).
Hungerford, H.R., & Peyton, R.B. 1977. A paradigm of environmental action. (ERIC Docu-
mentation Service ED137116).
Hungerford, H.R., R.B. Peyton, and R.J. Wilke. 1980. Goals for curriculum development in
environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education 11, no. 3: 42–7.
Hungerford, H.R., and T.L. Volk. 1990. Changing learner behavior through environmental
education. The Journal of Environmental Education 21, no. 3: 8–22.
Jackson, T. 2005. Motivating sustainable consumption: A review of evidence on consumer
behavior and behavior change. Guildford: Sustainable Development Research Network.
Kaiser, F.G., and M. Wilson. 2000. Assessing people’s general ecological behavior: A cross-
cultural measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30, no. 2: 952–78.
Kelloway, E.K. 1998. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kline, R.B. 2011. Principles and practices of structural equating modeling. New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
Kolmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research
8, no. 3: 239–60.
Kuhlmeier, H., H. van der Bergh, and N. Langerweij. 1999. Environmental knowledge, atti-
tudes, and behavior in Dutch secondary education. The Journal of Environmental Educa-
tion 30, no. 2: 4–14.
Lee, M., K. Kang, D. Shin, H. Zew, E. Lee, K. Noh, S. Choi, and J. Park. 2003. An assess-
ment of Korean students’ environmental literacy and an analysis of predictors of respon-
sible environmental behavior; Final report. (Korea Research Foundation Grant
#BS1055). Seoul: Dankook University.
Leeming, F.C., B.A. Bracken, and W.O. Dwyer. 1995. Children’s environmental attitude and
knowledge scale: Construction and validation. Journal of Environmental Education 26,
no. 3: 22–33.
Leeming, F.C., W.O. Dwyer, B.E. Porter, and M.K. Cobern. 1993. Outcome research in
environmental education: A critical review. The Journal of Environmental Education 24,
no. 4: 8–21.
Linke, R.D. 1981. Achievement and aspirations in Australian EE. The Journal of Environ-
mental Education 12, no. 2: 20–3.
Lipsey, M. 1977. Personal antecedents and consequences of ecologically responsible behavior:
A review. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 7, no. 4: 70–1, (Ms. No. 1521).
Manzo, L.C., and M.D. Weinstein. 1987. Behavioral commitment to environmental protec-
tion: A study of active and non-active members of sierra club. Environment and Behav-
ior 19: 673–94.
Marcinkowski, T., & Rehrig, L. 1995. The secondary school report: A final report on the
development, pilot testing, validation, and field testing of the secondary school environ-
mental literacy assessment instrument. In Environmental education literacy/needs assess-
ment project: Assessing environmental literacy of students and environmental education
needs of teachers; Final report for 1993–1995 (Report to NCEET/University of Michigan
under US EPA Grant #NT901935–01-2), ed. R. Wilke. 30–76. Stevens Point, WI: Uni-
versity of Wisconsin – Stevens Point.
McBeth, W. 1997. An historical description of the development of an instrument to assess the
environmental literacy of middle school students. PhD diss., Illinois University at Carbon-
dale. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (36), 2143-A. (UMI No. DA9738060).
32 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
McBeth, W. 2006. National environmental literacy assessment of middle school students in
the US (A Special Project Award to the North American Association for Environmental
Education [Award no NAO6SEC4690009] by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, US Department Commerce). Washington, DC: NAAEE.
McBeth, W., Hungerford, H., Marcinkowski, T., Volk, T., and Meyers, R. 2008. National
environmental literacy assessment project: Year 1, National baseline study of middle
grades students. Final report. (Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and North American Association for
Environmental Education under Grant #NA06SEC4690009). Carbondale, IL: CISDE.
http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/NAEE_Report/ Final_NELA%20minus%20MSELS_8–12-08.
pdf (accessed October 3, 2008).
McBeth, W., Hungerford, H., Marcinkowski, T., Volk, and Cifranick, K. 2011. National
environmental literacy assessment, phase two: Measuring the effectiveness of North
American environmental education programs with respect to the parameters of environ-
mental literacy. Final research report. (Report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and North American Association for Environmental Education under
Grant #NA08SEC4690026). Carbondale, IL: CISDE.
McBeth, W., T. Volk, R. Meyers, T. Marcinkowski, H. Hungerford, and D. Simmons. 2007.
A national environmental literacy assessment. A paper presented at 34th North American
Association for Environmental Education Annual Conference and Research Symposium,
November 14–17, 2007, in Virginia Beach, VA, USA.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., L.S. Nemiroff, L. Beers, and S. Desmarais. 1995. Determinants of
responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues 51, no. 4: 139–56.
Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). 2005. İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi; 4–5. sınıflar öğretim
programı [Elementary school science and technology course: 4th –5th grades curriculum].
Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
Murphy, K.R., and C.O. Davidshofer. 2005. Psychological testing: Principles and applica-
tions. 6th ed. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Negev, M., G. Sagy, A. Tal, A. Salzberg, and Y. Garb. Mapping environmental literacy in
Israel. A paper resented at 35th Annual NAAEE Conference: Building Environmental
Education in Society, 2006, in St Paul, MN, USA.
Osbaldiston, R. 2004. Meta-analysis of the responsible environmental behavior literature.
PhD diss., University of Missouri-Columbia (UMI Number: 3144447).
Ramsey, J., H.R. Hungerford, and N.A. Tomera. 1981. The effects of environmental action
and environmental case study instruction on the overt environmental behavior of eighth-
grade students. The Journal of Environmental Education 13, no. 1: 24–9.
Roth, C.E. 1992. Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s.
(ERIC Reproduction service No. ED348 235).
Roth, R.E. 1970. Fundamental concept for environmental management education (K-16).
Environmental Education 1, no. 3: 65–74.
Shin, D., H. Chu, E. Lee, H. Ko, M. Lee, K. Kang, B. Min, and J. Park. 2005. An assess-
ment of Korean students’ environmental literacy. Journal of Korean Earth Science Soci-
ety 26, no. 4: 358–64.
Sia, A.P., H.R. Hungerford, and A.N. Tomera. 1985/1986. Selected predictors of responsible
environmental behaviors: An analysis. Journal of Environmental Education 17, no. 2:
31
–40.
Simmons, D. 1995. Working paper # 2: Developing a framework for national environmental
education standards. In Papers on the development of environmental education stan-
dards,53–58. Troy, OH: NAAEE.
Sivek, D.J., and H. Hungerford. 1989. Predictors of responsible behavior in members of
three Wisconsin conservation organizations. The Journal of Environmental Education 21,
no. 2: 35–40.
Smith-Sebasto, N.J. 1992. The revised perceived environmental control measure: A review
and analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education 23, no. 2: 24–33.
Stapp, W.B., et al. 1969. The concept of environmental education. The Journal of Environ-
mental Education 1, no. 1: 30–1.
Environmental Education Research 33
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011
Stapp, W., ed. 1978. From ought to action in environmental education: A report of the
national leadership conference on environmental education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Sci-
ence, Mathematics, and Environmental Education Clearinghouse.
Stevens, J. 2002. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence-Erlbaum.
Tabacknick, B., and L. Fidell. 2001. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 1978. Inter-
governmental conference on environmental education. Final report. 14–26 October,
UNESCO and UNEP: Tbilisi (USSR).
Vining, J., and A. Ebreo. 2002. Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on
conservation behavior. In Handbook of environmental psychology, ed. R.B. Bechtel and
A. Churchman, 541–58. New York, NY: Wiley.
Volk, T. and McBeth, W. 1997. Environmental literacy in the Unites States: What should be
... What is ... Getting from here to there. A report funded by the US Environmental
Protection Agency and submitted to the Environmental Education and Training Partner-
ship, NAAEE. Washington, DC: US EPA.
Wilke, R. 1995. Literacy model development and framework. In Environmental education
literacy/needs assessment project: Assessing environmental literacy of students and envi-
ronmental education needs of teachers. Final report for 1993–1995 (Report to NCEET/
University of Michigan under US EPA Grant NT901935–01-2), ed. R. Wilke. 5–6.
Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point.
Winett, R.A., J.H. Kagel, R.C. Battalio, and R.C. Winkler. 1978. Effects of monetary
rebates, feedback and information on residential electricity conservation. Journal of
Applied Psychology 63: 73–80.
Zelezny, L. 1999. Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: A
meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education 31, no. 1: 5–14.
Özdemir, O. 2010. The effects of nature-based environmental education on environmental
perception and behavior of primary school students. [In Turkish] Pamukkale Üniversitesi,
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 27: 125–38.
34 M. Erdogan et al.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 06:44 26 November 2011